is here, from whence comes this:
Update on the courts
Perhaps it is fitting that the season of Lent should see the beginning of another round of court confrontations. For your prayer support, this is what is on the horizon:March 11 – Three ANiC parishes in Ontario – St George’s (Lowville), Church of the Good Shepherd (St Catharine’s) and St Hilda’s (Oakville) – are in court in Hamilton. The judge will consider awarding costs for the earlier hearing where the diocese was granted shared use of the church buildings and ordered to share expenses. The diocese wants the parishes to pay the diocese’s (excessive) legal fees, despite the fact the time slot the judge awarded them forced the congregations to find (and pay for) alternative Sunday worship space, and they (the diocese) have failed to contribute to the church facilities’ expenses for the past year.
April 6 – St Aidan’s (Windsor) will appear in court in London (Ontario). This hearing will determine whether a duplicate “action” filed by the diocese in London should be “stayed” (ordered to cease) so that the prior action filed by ANiC in Windsor (where the church is located) can proceed without the duplication, distraction and unnecessary, added expense of a second action on the same issues. In January, the parish had made a generous offer to the diocese to settle the matter outside of court, but were turned down flat with no explanation and no counter offer. The diocese made it clear they wanted litigation.
May 25 – A three week hearing begins in Vancouver involving St John’s (Shaughnessy), Church of the Good Shepherd (Vancouver), St Matthias and St Luke’s (Vancouver), and St Matthews (Abbotsford). This is the first court hearing to look at the “big trust case” – essentially the ownership issue. The question to be answered is “for whom are the church properties held in trust – the parish or the diocese?” Court cases up to this point have been dealing with questions related to the use of the buildings during the interim, until the “big trust case” is determined.
Re: St Aidan’s, Windsor – I would mention that before the diocese could make a counter-offer, St Aidan’s initiated a law suit; the diocese did not initiate anything except a request to discuss if this could be resolved outside of court. St Aidan’s made it clear THEY wanted litigation.
James,
The ANiC Newsletter states:
You seem to think the opposite is the case; can you substantiate your opinion?
David,
What would you want to see?
The source of your information would be a good start.
Kate
Sure, I’ll give that; and the source of your information comes from where?
James [#5],
The information in the ANiC newsletter comes from the person responsible for communications at ANiC and is reviewed by ANiC’s legal team. It is reliable.
Thank you David. My information comes from the person responsible for communications for the Diocese and is reviewed by the diocese’s legal team. It is reliable.
Unfortunately we can each say essentially the same regarding the source of our information and come out with opposite opinions.
What is undeniable is that the St Aidian’s initiated the litigation.
James [#7],
There is a difference. We are discussing a tangible document released by ANiC that is making assertions which are contrary to your claim.
You have not referenced a diocesan document to back up your opinion.
David,
The point I wish to make is that the diocese did not initiate litigation. St Aidan’s did. The issue of who ‘wanted litigation’ is a moot point.
James, [#9],
In your last comment you say:
The issue of who ‘wanted litigation’ is a moot point.
In your first, you say:
St Aidan’s made it clear THEY wanted litigation.
The facts are still:
ANiC did file an action against the diocese, but only because they were left little choice.
David,
The ANiC did not file an action against the diocese – St Aidan’s wardens did. I don’t understand why you say they had little choice. They have maintained use of the building. The diocese has not threatened them. Their choice could have been to simply continue to keep the status quo and await a response / counter offer from the diocese. To say they had little choice is hardly an accurate statement of the situation.
James [#11],
This is the comment from the bishop:
Sounds like a threat to me.
“inviting them to leave” is a threat ? You folks are too sad. Goodbye.
If there is someone who is actually a parishioner of St. Aiden’s,Windsor (better yet, one of the wardens) reading this, I would appreciate your perspective on James’ view of events.
James,
I can confirm that an offer was made to the diocese of Huron and that they returned the deposit cheque and made no counter offer. If the diocese is prepared to make an offer, I can also affirm that St. Aidan’s was and continues to be open to a counter offer.
ANiC parishes have continued to make offers of mediation, arbitration and negotiation over litigation. Bishop Don wrote an open letter to the House of Bishops on April 11, 2008, asking the Primate and House of Bishops to sit down with us and negotiate. The Primate’s response was that we had to deal with individual dioceses. We have continued to propose alternative dispute resolution to every diocese involved in property disputes. Without exception, every diocese has refused to even consider any negotiation or ADR. If that isn’t clear to you that they intend to litigate or use other hostile means to remove the congregations from the church buildings (remember, Bishop Cowan went into St. Mary’s Metchosin on a Friday evening to change the locks and install a security system – without notice to the parish or clergy; other bishops have gone to the banks to have accounts frozen – despite the fact the current parishioners gave those funds for their parish expenses and ministry), then I am afraid that no one will be able to persuade you otherwise.
It has been made clear to our parishes and our leadership, in many ways, that the dioceses only wish to litigate these matters if we refuse to simply hand over all our assets and buildings to them. We regret that this is their preferred approach, but we feel we must defend our clergy and congregations’ right to use the buildings for their ministry, ministry which is consistent with historic and current global Christianity and Anglicanism. We haven’t changed, we haven’t moved – the ACoC and its dioceses have.
These parishes are continuing their ministry and worship as before, but the dioceses are trying to force us out into the street to take over buildings they don’t need (every diocese has excess capacity in their other church buildings). We need those buildings to continue our ministry and service to the communities where these parishes have been established for many years. The dioceses could have left our congregations alone while the Communion addresses the deeply profound theological divide, but they choose to take hostile action to remove us before that can be resolved. We are simply seeking to remain in those churches and continue our ministry while that resolution is being worked out. Unfortunately, the only option to preserve the status quo has been the court process – or walk away and give up ministries and outreach, and the money and assets that were given for those purposes.
We thank God for his daily provision which has allowed us to preserve and protect the interest of our clergy and congregations thus far and pray that His will be done, and that we remain joyful no matter how it turns out. Yes, we may end up having to leave the buildings at the end of the court case, but that is a small price to pay for standing up for our faith and refusing to deny the infallible Word of God. It is a smaller price than many Christians around the world have to pay for their faith, particularly in the global south. I think we need to remember the example of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego – “If we are thrown into the blazing furnace, the God we serve is able to save us from it, and he will rescue us from your hand, O king. But even if he does not, we want you to know, O king, that we will not serve your gods or worship the image of gold you have set up.” (Dan 3: 17-18)
–Edited to change the reference to Bishop Don’s letter to the House of Bishops into a working link. Admin.
On a lighter note — the next time that Marilyn writes a newsletter and ANiC’s legal team reviews it, they should remember that for locals, the word “Catharines” in “St. Catharines” serves the same function as the Biblical word “shibboleth”. Whenerever someone spells it “Catherines”, or “Catharine’s” with an apostrophe as in the Newsletter, we know the writer is a foreigner and must be put to the sword.
Dear ANIC members,
I appreciate this opportunity to be able to be in conversation. Malcolm Harding’s picture was removed from the cathedral after he visited the bishop of Brandon & threatened to send his personnal lawyer after him if he did not change the wording under his picture by the time he returned from a trip.
This past primate’s meeting certainly confirmed it’s rightful wording. Recognizing Malcolm as an Anglican, but one involved in cross border intervention which received a strong, powerful vote to cease.
I am certain Malcolm’s picture will again appear when all directions of the primates’ meeting are met. I think it is a shame the picture had to be removed. But at least , no controversy about wording any more . Check out St. Paul’s Bloor Street statement of “What We Believe”, online. There is a way forward together. I truly believe this.
Lent is here.
Peace Through Prayer In Christ,
Bernadette
Bernadette,
I think you probably meant to say this in another thread where Bishop Don Harvey says about this issue: “The Rt Rev” had been removed from the inscription under his picture. When some people protested, his picture was removed altogether.
I find your suggestion that Bishop Malcolm threatened anyone with anything extremely difficult to believe.
Bernadette, what you say is frankly, slanderous. Please cease and desist.
Moderators: Perhaps Bernadette’s comment (#17) and the subsequent responses should be moved to the appropriate thread, for the sake of coherence and clarity? (I had a “whazzat??” moment when I read the first comment after the Bishop Harvey document… )
A photo of the picture (before being removed) is here. My spies are getting a picture of what replaced it. I wonder if Jim took it down himself or coerced Robin Walker to do the dirty deed. I’m appalled but not surprised at the overall silence in the Cathedral. A few speak out but the rest just don’t care.
And Bernadette, this from the Chancellor of the Anglican Church of Canada, Ronald Stevenson.
Jim just can’t invent Canons if he wants to.