Comments on: Trial of ANiC parishes v Diocese of New Westminster – 8 June 09 – Day 8

By: Ellie M.

Ellie M. — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 16:05:37 +0000

Arguments #8, 9 and 12 are probably the strongest.

Very well argued indeed. I can’t even imagine what they would need to add to this, but I look forward to the rest of their remarks.

By: Sam

Sam — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 22:53:01 +0000

Thanks for the updates Cheryl. Really appreciated.

By: Chris Hawley

Chris Hawley — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 19:15:56 +0000

Thanks for this very cogent overview of the argument, Cheryl. Your daily write-ups are excellent; I couldn’t have done it better myself.

Until I attended the trial, I had completely forgotten that Bishop Ingham had twice promised not to act unilaterally — once before his election, and once after. Can it be said that his promises (which he later broke) at least passively imply the type of trust scheme the parishes are alleging? After all, the only reason a Bishop would say that Bishops do not have the right to act unilaterally despite their own views would be to preserve the catholic nature of the Church.

It’s interesting to note how the essence of the division is increasingly gurgling to the surface. An expert witness takes the stand and says the Solemn Declaration is “very important” to the identity of Anglicans. An Anglican priest later takes the same stand and says he’s barely even heard of it. One Bishop takes the stand and says that Bishops are supposed to guard the unity of the church. Another Bishop takes the same stand and says that Bishops are supposed to be a prophetic voice in the church.

Primate A wants the communique to reflect the departure from Christian teaching and tradition; Primate B wants to make sure they get in a line about autonomy…

By: Gordon Arthur

Gordon Arthur — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 16:46:36 +0000

It would probably cause bankruptcy.

The diocese can’t afford to pay the running costs of all the parishes, and would probably face stiff resistance from the parishes if it tried to increase the assessments to cover its costs.

It would also have to approve all maintenance to the buildings. It doesn’t have the staff to do this, and can’t afford to employ them. Maintenance would therefore likely grind to a halt.

Finally, the First Nations affected by the Residential Schools settlement in the Cariboo might well apply for a judicial review of that decision, and that in turn might lead to the sale of Churches there to pay the balance of the settlement.

I don’t suppose New Westminster has taken any of this into account.

By: Kate

Kate — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 16:37:15 +0000

Imagine the chaos that would cause…

By: Don't Panic

Don't Panic — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 14:46:56 +0000

Many in my churches have asked me what the significance of this case is to us. I replied, “if in fact the diocese is the trustee, then we ought to send all our books and deeds and contracts and insurance and maintenance issues to them. They can now handle all matters. There is no need for a local corporation bearing the temporal responsibilities and legal weight of running a parish if they are not in fact the trustees.”

Most of my four church corporations would happily step down and forward all business to the diocese.

By: AMPisAnglican

AMPisAnglican — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 13:52:25 +0000

I found point #8 of particular interest. That under one situation the buildings and lands of the Parishes are not the property of the Diocese, but now under a different situation they are!?!? This is like having your cake and eating it too. Either the buildings and lands are not the property of the Diocese or they are, no matter what the situation. What will be the response from the Diocese to this point?