BREAKING: St Albans vote
Feb 16th, 2008 by Peter
St Alban’s (Ottawa) vote is over - 77 to join ANIC. 1 against. 1 abstention.
More when I have it.
Kate here. I am a parishioner at St. Alban’s, and I was at the meeting today. We prayed, we talked, we prayed some more, and then we voted. It was a closed vestry, so I don’t feel comfortable saying much more than that, except that the atmosphere of the meeting was that of a family making a difficult decision together. I feel very blessed to call St. Alban’s my home.
I can relate, at least a little, to Simeon tonight (Luke 2:25) . I think Kate might understand.
Personally I cannot express the relief that we in Brandon don’t have to persue that option. But all those who have stood up have our prayers. You are not alone in this. As more and more refuse to accept the ACoC path it will be difficult if not impossible for the Primate and Bishops to challange all those voices.
Ottawa Sun story: http://www.ottawasun.com/News/OttawaAndRegion/2008/02/17/4853868-sun.html
Wow. A pretty fair article. The reason Fr. Alex and his congregation didn’t try to keep their buildings was that they didn’t have consensus about the decision to realign.
Kate, I noticed this from the Ottawa Sun article:
The church is funded by the congregation and owned by Sinclair and two parishioners.
The priest and two parishioners own the church? In my admittedly limited experience in the intricacies of Anglican polity, I’ve never heard of such an arrangement before. The diocese would have no claim to St Alban’s property and therefore there will be no court fight. True?
Scott, I don’t know if St Albans was established as an Anglo-Catholic Church way back when but most such places in Eastern Ontario were set up that the rector and the two wardens actually were the owners according to the deeds and still do so now. Dioceses going after departing churches with their own deeds and the money to fight in court will have a battle on their hands. I guess the Tractarians didn’t trust bishops eitherT
We were established as an Oxford Movement church - which I *think* was both high church and evangelical. The first rector’s main purpose was to establish a church that had no pew rents. I don’t know if the fact that we were Oxford movement has anything to do with the way the deed is written (the building is owned by the rector and wardens), but I do know that our parish was established before the diocese of Ottawa was. I hope and pray there will be no court fight.
“The church is funded by the congregation and owned by Sinclair and two parishioners.”
That’s a fairly awkward sentence to divine anything from, I think, Scott.
Kate: If St. Alban’s voluntarily joined the ACC, much in the same way that San Joaquin did ExCUSA, then that may very well be a good case. Though, I’m not sure what the liberal Canadian judicial system would do with it.
As I said before, we are now in the land of precedent, which is why I argued for staying and fighting rather than leaving. The first ‘big ones’ to leave for legitimate oversight in Canada - recognized by the majority of the Anglican Communion - will be the trend-setters for the rest.
It is a very important time..
M
obit:
“Dioceses going after departing churches with their own deeds and the money to fight in court will have a battle on their hands. I guess the Tractarians didn’t trust bishops either.”
Well, sort of. The Tractarian movement in - for example - South Africa, which first found root under the auspices of Bishop Robert Gray (Cape Town), wished to remain in communion with the Church of England. Though many of the Tractarians left for Rome (Newman, for example), a great many stayed and established the movement as a strong voice within the CofE.
+Gray’s stipulation was that the Church in South Africa ought to maintain communion with the CofE, but be freed of the ‘bonds and fetters of the Reformation.’
This brought on court action from the Privy Council, in which one particularly good piece of property - Bishopscourt - was lost by the Church of England, so the courts ruled.
In the end, of course, they found a way to work together, but maintain their respective independence.
So, it wasn’t necessarily that they didn’t trust their bishop, but that they wanted to maintain enough independence to act unencumbered, but not so much that they left the Communion.
I’m by no means a church historian, but I expect you’ll find the case was similar to that in the diocese of Ottawa.
I know, and it is a very difficult time. First I think, what do we do with Paul’s exhortations not to take our problems to the secular courts? Then I remember Jesus saying that we should settle with our adversaries on the way to court, which implies that it is ok to go to court if you try to settle on the way. I just don’t know what the right thing to do is. (Lest anybody think I am speaking for St. Alban’s, let me be clear. I am not. I am only one parishioner).
The parish of St. Alban’s is older than the country of Canada. I’ve looked quite carefully through the formal documents of the ACoC, and they are in a real mess. Going to court with those would not have the ACoC in a good starting position. Add in the standing legal precendent that the former Bishop of Ottawa claimed that the Diocese does not employ priests, and you’ve got a legal situation that favours St. Alban’s, imo. (IANAL!)
Henry, I thought I’d seen all the internet acronyms, but I have no idea what IANAL means…. Help, Please?
–Kate the confused
Hi Kate:
Well, I think you’re barking up the right tree.
St. Alban’s or Shaughnessy would by no means endorse taking the diocese to court. If the diocese elects to take the *parishes* to court, that is an entirely different matter - and not simply splitting hairs, either.
Yes, the parishes ought to do everything in their power and within the bounds of their consciences and faith to avoid a court case. Unfortunately, it seems inevitable, though.
M
IANAL = I am not a lawyer.
That’s right, I am not a lawyer. OTOH, the ownership situation may be extremely complicated. On Ship of Fools, a remark was made “there was an Act of the Provincial Parliament in the 1980s that specifically assigns all buildings and property to the diocese. ” I can’t find that act in a simple search. I came close in the “Conveyancing and Law of Property Act” (R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER C.34)
which references the The Clergy Endowments (Canada) Act, 1791. That’s also known as the “Constitutional Act, 1791″ - note that is in fact 18th C, not a typo for 1971.
Well, we have a lawyer. I’m sure he’s looking into it. We are not about our building anyway. If we lose it, we lose it. Treasures on earth do not compare to treasures in heaven.
Kate:
You’re entirely correct.
But, what has to be balanced - precariously, at that - is the cost of a legal battle as opposed to the cost of breaking ground on new parishes across Canada.
That doesn’t, of course, take into account the precedent that emptying the parish would make.
Idealism is great (I really do mean that). But, at the end of the day, someone has to pay the bills.
Ultimately, someone has to decide which scenario most reflects good Christian stewardship.
M
Henry,
That’s very helpful.
I realize that you’re not a lawyer, but I’m curious if anyone - yourself included - could tell us how provincial legislation is applied to federally incorporated entities. Also, whether individual duly convened synods exist as part of the federal entity (for lack of a better term - read: legal parlance) of General Synod as well as incorporated bodies in their own right, at the provincial level. (Sorry, it’s late)
Forgive me if this sounds rather… well… stupid, but after all, IANAL.
M
Michael (#17), I don’t know what the right answer is with respect to legal battles that could ensue over property - I think that much spiritual wisdom, discernment, and prayer will be needed. I can, however, offer the perspective of someone who, due to career moves, has “church shopped” many times (15+). Looking back, if my wife and I had visited a church and discovered that every spare penny was going towards a legal fight to keep the church building, we probably would have moved on without trying to discover who was right and who was wrong. The whole idea of a lawsuit, and tithe/offering monies going to line the pockets of lawyers, would have immediately turned us off. On the other hand, on several occasions we did not hesitate to become part of church plants that did not have their own building and used rented facilities. I think it is also important to keep in mind new converts and how they might see things. I can’t speak for other churches, but I know that the people of St Alban’s have a heart for the gospel and a desire to see growth through conversion. Much prayer will be needed.
“I think it is also important to keep in mind new converts and how they might see things.”
I’m not sure what you mean by this. Can you unravel that a bit?
M
If the Diocese of Ottawa has any sense, they’ll offer a $1/year rent. The last thing they need is a big heritage building without a parish in it. (The D. of Ottawa has something like 20,000 pew spaces within 10 km of St. Alban’s, and is lucky to fill 10% of those on a Sunday morning.)
Hey Henry, maybe you should write to the bishop!
Michael (#20), y’all are funnin’ me, right? If you had just become a believer, and were excited about growing in your new found faith, would you want to become part of Christian community engaged in a significant (and possibly costly) law suit?
Warren:
If the parishioners are growing and vibrant, I don’t think it would much matter to me. As a new believer, I’d want a place to grow in the love and knowledge of God, with or without a law suit.
In the end, I might be impressed at their resolve in standing up for the Gospel. As a new believer, I would find it encouraging that others took their faith so seriously.
M
Then again, I’ve been around for a while. Maybe I’m just spouting horse-hockey.
ISN’T A LITTLE LEVITY OVERDUE HERE IN THE WORLD OF ANGLICAN MACHIAVELLIANISM?
Please view:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MwJAGCOFDg
Didn’t the problem start when a trendy ABC decided to replace the crucifix with the tambourine?
That You Tube video seems to be getting as many visits as some Diocesan web sites. It’s almost as funny too. The comments on this blog, however, often put a smile on my face.
Oh my gosh, that’s funny! Was that supposed to be George Carey??