There’s a difficulty in cases like this one, and we’ve seen it up here in Canada, too.
In these parts, Anglicans have seen each other in court over control of property in a diocese. And in this case, part of that property is worth millions, being located in one of the very high end areas of Vancouver.
The difficulty arises for all parties concerned, including the courts. Diocese and parishes approach the courts offering considerations pertinent to matters of ecclesiastical practice, along with other considerations. But the court is only concerned with contractual concerns between and among corporate entities. Here, it was clear that the court saw 2 corporations in its decision, and applied contract law and precedent. Things like canons only provided context, not the basis for judgement. Needless to say, the appeal is under way.
Out of curiosity, I wondered if the same thing theoretically might happen in the Catholic Archdiocese. Not a chance! The Archdiocese owns everything. The parishes are separate corporate entities owned by the Archdiocese, and will, no doubt, not likely have their trustees argue with the Archdiocese. Each parish has the same structure for its 3trustees: The Archbishop, the Vicar General, and the Parish Priest (who, of course, the Archbishop can replace).
Commentators have recently suggested that there is, in progress, a clash between 2 views of the “Anglican way.” One is that it is rather heirarchical, the other that it is parish based (in broad, general terms). That difference in viewpoint is, it seems, helping things end up before courts. Interestingly, in the US, and many other national Anglican churches, there is no sovereign to influence things, as in England, where perhaps even today a “we are not amused” could carry a certain amount of weight among the participants.
Blessings,
Gerry
