TEC Files in Supreme Court Pawley’s Island Appeal, South Carolina Episcopal Diocese Does Not

Posted by Kendall Harmon

From A.S. Haley:

...[TEC] has filed a brief in support of the dissident parishioners who seek review by the Supreme Court of last September's decision by the Supreme Court of South Carolina. The brief was filed on March 15, which was the last possible day for filing. (A response to the brief by All Saints Parish, Waccamaw, as well as by any other parties in the case, is due by April 23.)

The brief itself is minimal, and makes just a one-paragraph argument. Citing the decisions from California, New York, Pennsylvania and North Carolina that have upheld the trust declared by the Dennis Canon, as well as some earlier decisions from other jurisdictions applying the theory of implied trusts (now disused, as I covered in this post), and even some of the decisions from lower courts which are currently on appeal, ECUSA's three attorneys (David Booth Beers, Mary Kostel and Heather Anderson -- who has left Goodwin Procter and is on her own) argue simply that those decisions were right and South Carolina's was contrary to them, and hence wrong. The Statute of Frauds, which predates the Dennis Canon by more than 300 years, is not mentioned once, and there is zero analysis of the rationale given by the South Carolina Supreme Court for its decision.

In short, the brief serves as a mere placeholder for ECUSA, to keep its options open in the unlikely event that four justices of the Supreme Court vote to grant review. The lack of any serious argument is a signal that ECUSA's attorneys understand perfectly well that the chances of that happening are minimal.


Filed under: * Culture-Watch • Law & Legal Issues • * South Carolina

7 Comments
Posted March 18, 2010 at 6:01 am [Printer Friendly] [Print w/ comments]



1. Creighton+ wrote:

Mr. Haley does a superb job of spelling it all out and where it is head.  Sadly, I am convinced he is correct.

March 18, 10:10 am | [comment link]
2. Gator wrote:

Michael hints at Haley’s prediction:

[Bishop Lawrence’s failure to join in the suit] will be added to the growing dossier of evidence to be submitted by Chancellor Beers to the Title IV Review Committee in the near future, as grounds for first the inhibition and then the deposition of Bishop Lawrence without a trial, for alleged “abandonment of the Communion of this Church.”

I can almost write: Surely the PB won’t cross that bridge. And I can almost write: If she does, surely that is “a bridge too far.” But nothing can be beyond imagination at this point.

The Haley writes:

Bishop Lawrence’s failure to attend the upcoming meeting of the House of Bishops that starts in Texas at the end of this week will of course be regarded as yet another such piece of evidence.

Is it true that he is not attending? The meeting begins tomorrow. If he doesn’t go will the thin line of reasserter bishops have his back? I’m not hopeful.

March 18, 10:27 am | [comment link]
3. CanaAnglican wrote:

Is there any chance that DioSC will file a brief by the 23 April deadline in support of the majority of the congregation who walked away?

March 18, 11:57 am | [comment link]
4. Fr. Dow Sanderson wrote:

I have found much of Mr. Haley’s analysis helpful as it has come out in several “installments” over the last few weeks… but it is very helpful for all to know that Bishop Lawrence IS attending the HOB meeting.  There has never been any doubt as to that.  And bless him, it begins on his birthday!  Pray for him and this diocese.

March 18, 12:57 pm | [comment link]
5. dwstroudmd wrote:

Hmmm, I have heard that the PB is like the Pope and hath no jurisdiction in the Diocese of South Carolina which was one of the nine originators of General Convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the USA (later EcUSA, then TEc, now the Political Action Committee of the “Episcopal Organization”) and did not cede the Diocese to the national voluntary organization.  But, hey, what’s history?  Apparently, bunk (with apologies to Henry Ford).

March 18, 5:23 pm | [comment link]
6. SC blu cat lady wrote:

CanaAnglican, I doubt that the Diocese would file on behalf of the majority congregation as they are not part of the diocese any more. They left us so why would the diocese file on their behalf? 

Read the resolutions that will be discussed at convention next Friday for the most recent thoughts on lawsuits. That resolution states much more eloquently than i can reasons why the diocese should not be involved in such lawsuits. I expect that resolution will pass with a large majority.  The resolutions can be found at the diocese’s web site or at another post here.

March 18, 7:41 pm | [comment link]
7. Bull Street wrote:

+Mark Lawrence

Bishop—On this first day of the HOB many people outside your diocese are joining many inside it to pray for you.

Signed: Bull Street
P.S. Bull Street is the name of a major and famous downtown street in the capitol of your state. It runs very near the diocese house of Upper SC. It was also the street address of the state mental hospital.

[Edited slightly by Elf]

March 19, 12:28 pm | [comment link]
Registered members must log in to comment.



Next entry (above): LA Times: Health bill picking up key votes

Previous entry (below): RNS--Catholic Workers in D.C. must vow not to break church `principles or tenets'

Return to blog homepage

Return to Mobile view (headlines)