St Hilda’s (Oakville). St George’s (Lowville) and Church of the Good Shepherd (St Catharine’s) have been ordered to share the buildings with the diocese.
More when we have it.
Kate here – St. Hilda’s website has more information here.
St. Alban’s parish council had a pot luck supper tonight; Fr. Charlie of St. George’s and Bishop Don Harvey were there. We were all with Fr. Charlie when he got the news, and we all prayed for him.
ANiC News release:
Below is the news release. But first a Word related to the decision of the Eternal Court.
“We are hard pressed on every side, but not crushed; perplexed, but not in despair; persecuted, but not abandoned; struck down, but not destroyed …because we know that the one who raised the Lord Jesus from the dead will also raise us with Jesus and present us with you in his presence. All this is for your benefit, so that the grace that is reaching more and more people may cause thanksgiving to overflow to the glory of God. Therefore we do not lose heart. Though outwardly we are wasting away, yet inwardly we are being renewed day by day. For our light and momentary troubles are achieving for us an eternal glory that far outweighs them all. So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen. For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal.” 2 Corinthians 4: 8, 14-18
Parishioners disappointed by court decision
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: 5 May 2008
A judge in the Ontario Superior Court in Hamilton, Madam Justice Milanetti, has ordered three southern Ontario Anglican Network in Canada (ANiC) parishes to share their building facilities with a diocese of the Anglican Church of Canada pending the resolution of a trial over who is legally entitled to exclusive possession.
Representatives of the parishes of St George’s (Lowville), St Hilda’s (Oakville) and Church of the Good Shepherd (St Catharines) had argued that sharing the church building created untenable conditions for parishioners. They are now considering their options.
“We are saddened and deeply disappointed that the judge ruled in favour of a sharing arrangement,” said the Ven Charlie Masters, rector of St George’s Lowville. “We attempted this arrangement on February 24th and found it to be terribly difficult. Our parishioners were deeply distressed by the damaging effect the arrangement had on the life and ministry of our congregations. The congregations have experienced much hostility from members of the diocese, particularly since our votes, and they go to church on Sundays for healing and restoration, not to be confronted by conflict and hostility. We are also deeply concerned about the disruption to the community ministries and mission work and those who have benefited from these ministries. We will be consulting with our leadership and congregations to determine the best way forward in light of this decision.”
In all three instances, the Diocese maintains highly suitable alternative sites within the immediate vicinity of the contested parish buildings. With 98 churches in the diocese, there is no need for the diocese to use the facilities of the three congregations, especially when they have actually been closing churches and have other under-utilized buildings.
The experience of the past two months since the parish votes, has demonstrated how little need there is for the diocese to offer services in the three parish buildings. The few former St George’s parishioners who wished to attend diocesan services have an excellent option just five minutes away in St John’s Nassagaweya, a church building with facilities for 80+, but average Sunday attendance of less than 20. No parishioners attended the few attempts of competing diocesan services for St. Hilda’s. No competing diocesan services were attempted for Church of the Good Shepherd.
The three congregations have traditionally held two or more services each Sunday morning to accommodate their growing congregations. At least one service per week for each congregation would have to be cancelled as a result of the ordered sharing arrangement while the diocese has few or no people to provide a service for.
“It is impossible to accommodate the diocese in the building without creating significant disruption,” says Cheryl Chang, a director and newly appointed Chancellor of ANiC. “We are looking at the reasons for judgment carefully to assess whether it would be appropriate to appeal at this time.”
Members of the Anglican Network in Canada are committed to remaining faithful to Holy Scripture and established Anglican doctrine and to ensuring that orthodox Canadian Anglicans are able to remain in full communion with their Anglican brothers and sisters around the world. Since it launched its ecclesial structure last November under the jurisdiction of the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone, ANiC has received two bishops – Donald Harvey and Malcolm Harding – and 15 parishes.
UPDATE: The Diocese of Niagara is, understandably, happy:
Spokesperson for the Diocese, Archdeacon Michael D. Patterson, stated: “We are obviously very pleased with the decision, Madame Justice Milanetti accepted our proposal for sharing and joint administration as a logical interim solution. We feel that we were completely justified in resorting to the courts after negotiations failed. We can now provide ministry for loyal members of the Diocese and move forward to safeguard the physical heritage of the Churches, which were built by and have served generations of Anglicans.”
Members of the Diocese indicated that they are still anxious to pursue constructive dialogue with those in the Church who have taken a different view throughout this matter. Said Patterson, “There has always been room for a range of views within the Church. We seek unity, not uniformity. We wish to ensure dialogue continues in the hopes that the resolution of this matter will be acceptable to all.”
Patterson further addressed the issue of ministering to all those in the affected parishes, “We will continue to minister to the whole faith community, to ensure that no one is abandoned, even those who may have taken a different view throughout this matter (heh – ed). This should be the most important goal for all of us.”
Full text of the resolution can be found here.
Thank you Bill (in Ottawa) for your sensitive response to Kate’s question in #49.
That’s fine. However, I read #47 as saying that Diane feels she can’t worship at St. George’s under Fr. Charlie Masters, and my question was, why? A secondary question for Diane is, if you do feel called to remain in the ACoC, why insist on doing it in St. George’s Lowville?
Sensitivity on both sides is most definitely called for here. Diane, Kate’s questions are legitimate and need answering. You say that you “long to return” to your parish church. This very strongly implies that you are somehow being prevented, whereas Rev. Masters has been clear that all are welcome there and always have been.
The diocese has been using some very ill-advised and overblown rhetoric regarding this situation, implying that dissident parishioners have been shut out of their own church. This is, quite simply, a lie. Language such as this is not helpful in the current crisis: it is like fuel to a fire. So I must, with respect, join with Kate in asking you: why do you feel you can’t worship in a place where you are in fact welcome?
Kate (and Ellie): Quite frankly, I had decided to refrain from further comment. I felt certain that you would have discerned that I am one of those parishioners who has decided prayerfully to stay within the Anglican Church of Canada and to support the Federation voice within the church. I don’t want to leave the Anglican Church of Canada.
Ellie’s message (#53) has made it necessary for me to clear up a misconception regarding our welcome/acceptance back at St. George’s. No one from the Diocese has ever intimated or even hinted that I or any of the others would not be welcome at St. George’s. Anyone who says anything to the contrary is telling an outright lie. (Ellie: None of us in the group who have decided to remain within the A.C.ofC. have ever been led to believe this by anyone from the Diocese.) Many of our friends are worshiping at St. George’s and they would readily welcome us. However, it is my personal conviction that I am being called to stay within the Anglican Church of Canada and the Diocese of Niagara and Reverend Masters has felt called to leave the A.C.ofC. and as you know, the services that have been held at St. George’s are under the authority of the ANIC and the Southern Cone – - so there you have it.
Kate asks why we would insist on worshiping at St. George’s Lowville – - I presume that she wonders why we don’t just go away? It’s just like this – - how can we ever tell those in our group, those who have worshipped faithfully at St. George’s for 80+ years (three generations), that they need to find another place to call their church home? Is this the kind of heartache that they need to experience in their ripening years? We are all suffering hurt but I don’t want it for these dear people.
54 Diane
What a terrible circumstance we find ourselves in as faithful Canadian Anglicans. My heart goes out to you.
In the midst of all of this, I’d like to keep in front of us that it was Bishop Ingham and his supporters’ machinations to sideline scripture and tradition in our church that has brought us here.
May God’s grace flow out over His people with Peace and Healing.
I believe that Ellie may be talking about some of the press releases the diocese has sent out that may have implied that people have been shutout of the church (e.g. http://www.niagara.anglican.ca/NewBulletins/worshipinlowville.cfm), not that the diocese has been telling you the same thing Diane.
For some of us outside the immediate situation, all we get to see is the press releases, which are let’s say somewhat one-sided – to be charitable!
By the way, this is the Essentials blog, not just ANiC. Federation perspectives on the current situation are more than welcome.
Thank you # 55 for reminding us of the source of this problem in the Anglican Church in Canada.
Diane, it is easy to see that you have a pastoral calling to care for older members who value the institution they grew up in. May you be blessed in this. However, this calling should not be used to grow animosity between you and your fellow believers back at St. George’s. They have a calling too. As Paul encouraged the Philippians (1:27), your St. George’s brothers and sisters are contending for the Gospel, the very faith you ascribe to, and they are presently suffering for it. Please, Diane, comfort these family members who are standing up publicly for the Gospel, along with your older friends!
Dianne:
Bless You!
I have, at times, more likely than less, been very blunt on this blog, especially with those who support the liberal/revisionist side of the conversations.
I am not being blunt with you….what is happening at St. George’s Lowville is indeed happening across this Country. I left the ACoC because of the cold and arrogant approach to Essentials and the Network in the Diocese of Eastern Nfld. and Labrador. My rector went on “sick leave”, and as soon as he was out of the parish ‘loop’, dissenters within the parish teamed up with the liberal/revisionist/fear mongering crowd and had him turfed from the parish which has now become the recipient of one of the liberal/revisionist types as their Parish Priest….
I say all of the foregoing to lead up to your situation.
In the parish that I left, I also left behind some wonderful Brothers and Sisters in Christ, who, for one reason or another have decided to stay in their ‘home’ parish. They are in my prayers and part of that prayer is that by staying for what I am sure are all good reasons in their thinking, I pray that they will not become diluted and weakened by the force that they are allowing themselves to be surrounded with.
So, having said all that, I pray also for you Dianne that you also will not become diluted by the smooth slight of hand and slight of mouth teaching that comes forth from those who have chosen not to serve the Holy Scriptures and the true teachings of our Lord and our God. I pray that you will have placed around you, a hedge of protection and that The Lord will shelter you under His wing at all times and protect you from the evil one. Please be on guard for the attacks that will come your way under the guise of ‘niceness’.
In Christian Love, Gerry
Jim Muirhead (#55) said it all when he commenced by writing, “What a terrible circumstance we find ourselves in as faithful Canadian Anglicans.” It is so easy for any and all of us to be hurt these days by newspaper releases, articles and even comments made on blogs. We will continue to pray for each other and to walk and talk carefully. We have caused pain for each other but God knows what our real intentions have been.
Thanks to all for the kind words and understanding.
No, Diane, I didn’t mean “just go away”. Federation is part of Essentials, after all. I just don’t think that calling the Anglican Church of Canada back to the gospel can best be served by participating in the power play over buildings that the diocese seems to be engaging in. St. John’s is part of the same parish as St. George’s, and is five minutes away. It too, from my understanding, is a beautiful old building. Why not fulfill your calling from there, instead of St. Georges? There was an older man from St. Alban’s, a retired priest, who felt called to stay in the ACoC, but he didn’t insist that services be held just for him. The parish is the people, not the building, after all. As long as you and your friends are together, what does it matter where you worship? That seems to be how the parish of St. Hilda’s, Southern Cone, is looking at it, anyway.
Diane has a valid point to be made, although I’m not sure it has been specifically stated. The Essentials perspective coming across here is that the diocese is exerting property rights, that the diocese wants to control the buildings for themselves, why should the members of the congregation leave when they have paid for and maintained the building for years. The people love this place and want to stay. The opposite condition can also be argued. The vote at St George’s was not unanimous, why should the people who choose to stay with the ACoC be required to leave the property that they too have helped pay for, maintain and love? Unless they make this sharing of the property work one group of parishioners or another will be forced out.
A little perspective here: When the congregation of St. George’s, Lowville voted on whether or not to seek alternate episcopal oversight from the Southern Cone, the results were as follows:
Yes: 128
No: 3
Abstained: 1
So, where exactly is this “alternate” congregation coming from?
Diane (#59. 54), can I refer you to Psalm 1:1? I am concerned that while you do have a real ministry to your senior friends, you are arming and supporting the apostate organization whose prime focus is money and power, not ministry nor the gospel.
What really perplexes me are your senior friends: I find that most canadian anglicans fall into four fairly exclusive camps: those that strongly support a conservative form of anglicanism, those that strongly support a liberal form of anglicanism, those that support their local, familiar church (this I believe is the largest group) and a few (mostly clergy) that support the anglican church structure. It is rare to find people in two camps (support local church and church structure).
My prayer is that you (and all of us) will be used by the Lord for His Glory and not by those preach another gospel (Ga 1:6-10).
I wonder if any of the lawyers who have commented could provide a basic outline of how the “constructive trust” argument referred to in the judgement would work. I know that “constructive trust” refers to a situation where a court makes a ruling about ownership of property that isn’t addressed in a contract. I am aware that it occurs often in Family Law — where a common-law spouse for example is awarded part ownership of a house even though it is in the name of the other partner — but am not sure how it would apply in the situation of a church.
64 Richard
I hope that Toral and maybe Bill in Ottawa who are our “legal” commenters will jump in.
Please remnember that this is a preliminary ruling. My understanding from the press report from the National Legal team is the the second ruling is so diametrically opposed to the first -when they are both supposed to be based on the same fact set and law, that there are grounds for an appeal.
On another thread Bill posted exerpts from his old law books regarding irreparable harm. The Essentials position has been that in the face of huge majoity votes in the three parishes, removing the property from them for an undefined theoretical congregation espoused by the diocese would create a high degree of harm on the parishes. As a layman, I don’t believe that that arguement was adequately addressed in the ruling.(pg 13) In fact the ruling shows concern for “the viability of the larger organization” – the diocese (at pg 15 [61])
Because there is a whole series of issues going back to 1863 and each subsequent change in the ownership of each of the parishes, the next stage will be very intense. Constructive trust will only be one part of that exchange.
In times of interpersonal struggle (for example, separation or divorce, and this is very much like either), it is almost universally considered that encouragement to dialogue and tolerance leads to better resolution, not only of any assets, but for any children or others who unwittingly find themselves part of the battle.
With this in mind, I support the sharing of the facilities with an encouragement of continued dialogue, and I was thrilled to visit from outside the diocese the Church of the Good Shepherd this morning, to find, alas, I could attend only the diocesan service there, and not the ANiC service. So, from the one side I heard, it appears that continued dialogue is being sought from only the diocese, and not from the separating congregation. Can both sides show tolerance for the other? I feel greatly for the parishioners I met this morning who felt very mixed feelings of former parishioners who were treating them as outcasts in their own parish. I pray for dialogue.
66 Dale
To use your marriage analogy, what would you recommend to a a friend who entered a mariage much in love with her spouse only to find over time that the relationship had become immoral and abusive? Would you then expect your friend to stay in that relationship and risk the children and her own health?
I do not speak for the Network, but it is clear that we view the leadership of ACoC as having abandoned two thousand years of gospel teaching and tradition in pursuit of a new social humanist direction. This is not just a small group in Canada saying this, it is the overwhelming majority of the Worldwide Anglican Communion. In fact, both the ACoC and TEC have been called to repent of their heresy through the LAST Lambeth Conference. You probably have not heard this because the means of internal communicatiuon of the ACoC is well “managed” and the secular press had not been following the emergent schism until recently. This has left a great many faithful Anglicans in the pews wondering what the heck is going on.
The ACoC would love to dialogue ad infinitim because they have no intention of changing their minds or direction. A survey of the Blogs shows that there is a strong move to shake the dust of the ACoC off ANiC’s hem and get on with their ministry.
Dale (#66), I suppose it is possible that sharing of facilities could be the right answer under certain circumstances. I’m mostly an outsider here and won’t attempt to offer any solutions. Drawing from your analogy, though, I don’t think it is “almost universally considered” that sharing the family home following a divorce is the best long-term solution for anyone involved. Ideally, both parties to a divorce would go their own way feeling they have been treated justly. Realistically, however, justice may have been best served when both parties feel they have been unjustly treated. My prayer is that God’s will be done.