Diocese of Los Angeles Press Release on the Court Ruling

Posted by Kendall Harmon

"This has been a long ordeal for the Diocese and its faithful members, but we now have clear judicial recognition that parish property is dedicated forever for the mission and ministry of the Episcopal Church," said the bishop. "While individuals are always free to leave the Episcopal Church and worship however they please, they do not have the right to take parish property with them. We welcome with open arms all persons who desire to be part of the Episcopal ministry, including those persons who chose to leave the Church in 2004."

John R. Shiner, Chancellor for the Diocese and its attorney in the litigation, called the ruling a "decisive decision" for the Episcopal Church. Shiner, a partner of Holme Roberts & Owen, LLP, noted, "Yesterday's decision contains the most thorough analysis yet of church property law in California, and should dispel any notion that local congregations of a hierarchical church may leave the larger church and take property with them."

Read it all.

Filed under: * Anglican - EpiscopalEpiscopal Church (TEC)TEC ConflictsTEC Conflicts: Los Angeles* Culture-WatchLaw & Legal Issues

Posted June 27, 2007 at 7:25 am [Printer Friendly] [Print w/ comments]

1. RalphM wrote:

‘Taint over till it’s over….
If TEC prevails in the courts, it seems to me that the message to all Christians in the US will be:  Never give money to support a building fund in any heirarchical church.  One would never know when that church will be hijacked, a rule passed and their property stolen.

Maybe that’s a reason why the growth in the community churches is strong.

June 27, 9:37 am | [comment link]
2. RoyIII wrote:

A “decisive decision” - nowhere but California.

June 27, 9:49 am | [comment link]
3. Doug Martin wrote:

As one “on the other side of the issue”, one firmly committed to The Episcopal Church, I have exactly the opposite feeling.  I would not give to support capital funding of a church which I thought might be contemplating a move away from The Episcopal Church.  I give in the expectation that my money WILL be held in trust by and for the use of that Church and no other.  I would be, as I believe many past generations of contributors would be, profoundly annoyed if my donations were subverted to serve some other renegade mission.

June 27, 9:50 am | [comment link]
4. Pilgrim wrote:

You know, when I write that check it goes to God, it’s gone.  To tie your tithe to a building is idolatry and we are getting the demo, right now, aren’t we.

June 27, 10:03 am | [comment link]
5. RalphM wrote:

TEC is not the church of past generations of contributors. 
TEC is dying.  The “renegade missions” are growing.  Ever wonder why? 
I had to leave because I felt that the commitment to Jesus Christ was far more inportant than the commitment to TEC.  I also have children and, with God’s blessing, someday grandchildren.  I want to lead by example.  Membership in TEC is not the example I want to show.

June 27, 10:04 am | [comment link]
6. Jeff in VA wrote:

...we now have clear judicial recognition that parish property is dedicated forever for the mission and ministry of the Episcopal Church…

And, of course, the trial court opinion and decisions by other circuit courts are “clear judicial recognitions” of precisely the opposite.  Perhaps the CA Supreme Court (or, less likely, SCOTUS) will provide a clear and final interpretation.

June 27, 10:05 am | [comment link]
7. Rolling Eyes wrote:

So, did the Diocese make a statement about what they’ll do with all the empty buildings?

June 27, 10:50 am | [comment link]
8. RoyIII wrote:

I still cannot understand why the exiting congregations do not just walk away.  In my view that is the scriptural approach, and the exiting groups do tout scripture.  Shake off the dust and start over.  I think that to fight over the real estate is an inconsistency.

June 27, 11:01 am | [comment link]
9. Pilgrim wrote:

It is tough for both sides in this dogfight.  But I do think God is watching.  Taking notes, maybe?

June 27, 11:07 am | [comment link]
10. Br_er Rabbit wrote:

#8: Should one then move the ashes of his/her loved ones to a new columbarium? Should another give up visiting the rose garden where the ashes were buried?

June 27, 11:08 am | [comment link]
11. Pilgrim wrote:

Like I said, there are REALLY tough issues here.  Kind of like the things Jesus told his disciples about the choices they were going to have to make.  God seems to be taking us right down to the nitty gritty on this one.

June 27, 11:16 am | [comment link]
12. Jeff in VA wrote:

RoyIII (#8), at least a few possible explanations for the alternative to your position are here and here over at StandFirm.  Br_er Rabbit (#10) adds another.

It’s definitely a tough call, but as I said over there, I think there are good reasons on both sides that make it a lot less clear that either is absolutely right, or the only scripturally acceptable path.

June 27, 11:22 am | [comment link]
13. Sarah1 wrote:

RE: “I would be, as I believe many past generations of contributors would be, profoundly annoyed if my donations were subverted to serve some other renegade mission.”

But the donations of the “many past generations of contributors” have  been “subverted to serve some other renegade mission”—and yes, I am certain they would be majorly profoundly irritated over that subversion.

June 27, 11:43 am | [comment link]
14. Enda wrote:

#3 Doug, What is a renegade mission?

June 27, 11:48 am | [comment link]
15. Don Armstrong wrote:

I think their litigator missed the point—it was ruling that asked the lower court to determine that the church was in fact hierarchical and if it had filed the proper assertions to establish that it has dominion over the property—-this is not a decisive victory—it is an assignment to go back and certify that the diocese does has a proper claim, and gives the ways to distinguish that fact—and if Bruno hasn’t done his homework (which he never did in seminary) the departing parishes get to keep their property. This isn’t over—just clearer…

June 27, 12:00 pm | [comment link]
16. Jeff in VA wrote:

Fr. Armstrong (#15), I respectfully disagree.  Although the case is being sent back to the trial court for “further proceedings consistent with this opinion,” the Court of Appeals has in essence stated that as long as there’s a trust clause in the general church’s constitution, under its interpretation of California statute and caselaw, the general church wins.

Any relief will have to come on further appeal.

June 27, 12:15 pm | [comment link]
17. Mike L wrote:

I certainly hope Don is right. Because my parish took steps back in the 70’s to distance ourselves property wise from the diocese. It utterly astounds me that one can form a corporation to hold the proprety you and only you have paid to purchase and maintain and then another corporation can pass a rule saying your property is now theirs.

June 27, 12:19 pm | [comment link]
18. Vintner wrote:

I wonder what effect, if any, this decision is going to have with those parishes that were looking at telling their dioceses they were leaving on October 1?  Are they entertaining second thoughts?

June 27, 12:22 pm | [comment link]
19. RalphM wrote:

#8 RoyIII,
For many of the churches in the DoVA suits, it’s not a matter of buying a few acres down the road and starting over.  In some areas, walking away from buildings is “only” an issue of money and memories. However, here in northern VA, being a suburb of DC, suitable land is very difficult to find and prohibitively expensive.  We have to compete with office construction and subdivisions.  To be able to start over, we would have to move many miles away.  Traveling long distances on Sunday morning is usually not a problem, but full participation in the life of the parish would be impacted. 
That’s why many of us have chosen to defend ourselves.

June 27, 12:25 pm | [comment link]
20. Cennydd wrote:

The Diocese of Los Angeles has not won, and this will go to the CA Supreme Court.

June 27, 12:51 pm | [comment link]
21. RoyIII wrote:

Were I running the parish, I’d move out, rent suitable space and preach the gospel.  God will provide.  I know that’s true because I have seen that happen in my life and the lives of others.  My favorite church in Dallas does not spend money on buildings on purpose - it sends money to preachers and divinity students in and from Liberia, many studying at Dallas Theological Seminary. On the other hand, if you have to have a building, a building campaign, especially with this history, is energizing.  #10, Br’er Rabbit: (1) I’d move the ashes, and (2) I’d still visit the site where other ashes are buried.  I would let TEC have the barns and take the sheep with me; we are in the sheep business not the barn business.

June 27, 1:00 pm | [comment link]
22. Vintner wrote:

Cennydd, I’d suggest that the matter be summarized by “The final decision has not been made.”  The reason is, after the last court episode, the parishes in question and their supporters were certainly saying, “We won!  We won!”  In truth, as long as the issue is about property and money, as long as both sides continue to sue each other ad nauesum, there are no winners.  But I daresay, as a follow up to what I wrote in #18, if this ruling stands or if there is even a possibility of it standing, not only will parishes think twice before announcing this fall that they are leaving, my hunch is that some in your own diocese will want to hit the pause button as well.  For if the courts rule in favor of TEC, the orthodox parishes and dioceses will have a precedent set and that would not bode well.

June 27, 1:10 pm | [comment link]
23. Rolling Eyes wrote:

Doug: “I would be, as I believe many past generations of contributors would be, profoundly annoyed if my donations were subverted to serve some other renegade mission.”

Like abandoning the teaching of the Church for social activism?  Don’t get much more “renegade” than TEC.

June 27, 1:44 pm | [comment link]
24. Don Armstrong wrote:

The real question is if TEC can afford all these empty buildings. I know here in Colorado neither the diocese nor our little breakaway group can afford the cost of owning and operating our physical plant, let alone do they have the vision or resources to produce the appropriate program and ministry from this place.

As Ephraim Radner said to the Episcopal Remnant the past Sunday afternoon in Colorado Springs, the issue in the church is a matter of conversion, and that requires a gospel—and at this point we are hearing no gospel nor are we seeing any evidence of conversion—-and both of these are necessary to have any properties become anything other than night clubs or be leased to other denominations as is the history here in Colorado once the diocese wins possession of a church.

It is that precedent, properties won in court because they are held in trust and then sold for other purposes, that makes these law suits necessary—to protect the property held in trust for the gospel, which it is pretty clear won’t be the final usage if TEC wins these property fights, is the reason why we feel called to make our case.

The simple thing to do would be to just leave and start up elsewhere, but that would be poor stewardship…

June 27, 1:45 pm | [comment link]
25. Chris wrote:

Canon David Anderson has an interesting perspective on this on the HoB/D list serve.  Unfortunately can’t post it w/o his permission…..

June 27, 2:16 pm | [comment link]
26. Vintner wrote:

Ah, but could TEC not sell these empty buildings to other churches and thus use the proceeds to build a smaller buildings to house the remnant?

June 27, 3:15 pm | [comment link]
27. Dave B wrote:

I think TEC is cutting off it’s nose to spite of it’s face.  Creating turmoil does not produce the peace of Christ.  As Rob III said in #21 we should be in the sheep business. TEC should have a policy for Churchs that want to leave so it can be done in good order.  A decernment process, an abitration process and a property valuation and negotiation process leading to binding agreements.  Why not be adults and Christians about this.  The only ones that will gain from this are lawyers.

June 27, 3:37 pm | [comment link]
28. William Witt wrote:

we should be in the sheep business.

TEC thinks it is in the sheep business, specifically, fleecing the flock.

June 27, 3:44 pm | [comment link]
29. Brian from T19 wrote:

It is that precedent, properties won in court because they are held in trust and then sold for other purposes, that makes these law suits necessary—to protect the property held in trust for the gospel, which it is pretty clear won’t be the final usage if TEC wins these property fights, is the reason why we feel called to make our case.

The simple thing to do would be to just leave and start up elsewhere, but that would be poor stewardship…

It is ridiculous to assert that either side is doing this for anything other than property/money.  If it is about the gospel and stewardship then the statement “I know here in Colorado neither the diocese nor our little breakaway group can afford the cost of owning and operating our physical plant” shows that you can not afford the property and are throwing more money into legal proceedings.  This means you have far less for stewardship and the gospel.

June 27, 4:07 pm | [comment link]
30. Deja Vu wrote:

#28 William Witt
Excellent joke!
I remember when I first realized the stragetic plan was to get the money from the conservatives to support a progressive agenda.
In business consulting they used to call it “milking the cash cows” to fund new products.
I realized that I didn’t want to be a cash cow to support the roll-out of these particular new products: open communion, social gospel/liberation theology, same sex blessing ceremonies, gay bishops.
Have no doubt that they will happily sell buildings to fund the marketing of their new products.

June 27, 4:20 pm | [comment link]
31. Vintner wrote:

Amen, #29!

June 27, 4:27 pm | [comment link]
32. RalphM wrote:

“as long as both sides continue to sue each other”  ?????
Defending oneself against a suit is different from initiating one.  The only suit brought against a diocese of TEC that comes to mind is one brought by a priest in the Connecticut situation (as I remember)where a priest sued his bishop for the bishop’s outrageous persecution and slander.

I can, with certainty, tell you that none of the 11 churches being persecuted by the diocese of VA have initiated any suits.

June 27, 4:56 pm | [comment link]
33. Don Armstrong wrote:


I think judging the hearts of those who are defending their properties is a little beyond your pay grade.

Although our diocese has investments to liquidate ($800,000 to date they have spent) to come after us, doesn’t mean they have the money to run a parish whose own budget is larger than that of the diocese, nor does it mean we don’t have the resources to stand up to them for the long haul—because we do and will…

Truth is that in the diocese of Colorado they are leasing closed churches to other groups, rumor is that they have sold another—certainly they are not filling them with souls heading toward salvation in the Anglican tradition.

So, those of us who have been inheritors of beautiful worship spaces, and who have the resources to maintain them as such, have a stewardship burden placed upon us to rescue these properties from fire sale bin and preserve them for the purposes for which those who built them and added to them intended.

Having been the rector of Grace Church in Colorado Springs for 20 years—I can attest to the fact that we have indeed maintained the parish for its intended purpose, paid the bills, improved the property, and developed a significant ministry from this place—and we are confident that we will even expand even on that good work in the years to come.

Our parish ministry, the John Jay Institute, has just purchased a lovely 26 bed room Victorian bed and breakfast one block from the church to house students coming this fall for a semester of study in Religion and Public Policy. We just raised the money for the purchase a new center for an orphanage in Tanzania—I’d say we are not in anyway lacking for vision and that God is blessing us with resources, and adding day by day to our numbers those who are being saved.

Nothing wrong here…

June 27, 5:13 pm | [comment link]
34. Vintner wrote:

RalphM, I can’t speak for VA.  But in CT, it was much more than one priest suing his bishop.  There were six churches suing the bishop.  Thus the fact remains, there were / are lawsuits on both sides being launched.

June 27, 5:22 pm | [comment link]
35. Vintner wrote:

RalphM, I also cannot help but notice and therefore point out that you justify the lawsuit in CT but obviously do not justify the diocese’s lawsuits against the churches in VA.  Likewise, the liberal factions justify going after the churches in VA and elsewhere, but denounced the CT 6 lawsuits against the bishop.

It seems to me that the justification for a lawsuit are in the eyes and wallets of the beholders.

June 27, 5:33 pm | [comment link]
36. RalphM wrote:

I am being sued.  I am not suing anyone. 
My clergy are being sued.  They are not suing anyone.
A bully in a mitre (KJS)and a bully in a suit (DBB) are trying to take the lunch money of the smaller kids on the playground.  If someone wants to take a swing at the bullies, I will not be aghast.

June 27, 6:18 pm | [comment link]
37. Vintner wrote:

RalphM, I am sympathetic.  However, the VA churches are not completely without fault in this matter as they could not help but know, unless they were totally naive, that TEC was going to come after them should they decide to take the property.  In this sense, it could be said that when the VA kids in the school yard said that they were the rightful owners of the school yard, they were, in fact, daring the bullies to hit them.  And thus when they did get hit, they complained that they were being bullied.

The “bullies” would not have sued you if you hadn’t declared the school yard your own and so, as far as the argument about property is concerned, it can be argued that they didn’t start the fight about the property.  And now the teachers and principal get to decide who gets to use the school yard and who is expelled.  OK, I think that about exhausts the metaphor….

In all honesty, I can’t see any way other than the courts to decide the matter since both sides believe that they are in the right.  There is no room for compromise.

June 27, 6:36 pm | [comment link]
38. RalphM wrote:

Not sure whether you are familiar with the DoV situation details, but the churches who have left and the DoV were negotiating (in good faith from both sides) to leave the diocese and seek an equitable solution which was assumed to include some compensation to the diocese.  These negotiations were based on a protocol developed by a committee appointed by ++Lee and to which ++Lee gave at least verbal encouragement. 
These negotiations came to an abrupt halt when KJS was enthroned and turned DBB loose.  Unfortunately ++Lee was perhaps too tired to stand up for a way forward that could have avoided this mess and would have honored a scripturally based admonition.

In the case of my own church, the Diocese never invested any of its own money, and several of the founding members are still here.  In the case of Truro and The Falls Church, they predate the diocese and have financed many of the daughter churches in the diocese.  Hopefully the VA courts will see the ludicrous nature of the claims by the DoV and TEC.  (We paid for our own lunches).

I agree that there is no compromise and that the courts will decide, and I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree about the rest.

June 27, 7:23 pm | [comment link]
39. Anonymous Layperson wrote:

Brian, I believe you misunderstood Fr. Armstrong.  By “our little breakaway group” he was referring to the smaller and non-viable group of TEC loyalists who want the property.  The group that has the church now is plenty capable of managing the property.

June 27, 7:26 pm | [comment link]
40. Candice Hall wrote:

Reflections on Grace:
Grace CANA which claims to have the resources to stand up to the diocese for the long run, posted this notice on its Website last week, “Please make a donation to help us establish new legal precedent and overturn the Colorado Mott [sic] decision that is used as the basis for differing [sic] to hierarchical structures.” So Grace CANA acknowledges that diocesan governance is hierarchical?

Grace CANA, which claims alone to have the resources to maintain the Tejon St. property, encumbered the buildings with an arguably ultra-vires loan in the amount of $2.5 million, while other downtown Colorado Springs churches built to equal and greater standards after the pledges were made to cover the entire cost of brick and mortar.

Grace CANA did not purchase an orphanage in Mayoni, Tanzania; the Building for Mission campaign was administered by in The Manyoni Orphans Sponsorship Trust USA [MOSTRUST USA] an independent 501(c)3 nonprofit corporation funded by individual donors from Grace Episcopal, Grace/CANA and outside of Grace. MOSTRUST was founded by two members of the “Episcopal remnant” at the invitation of Bishop Alpha Mohamed—a seminary classmate of the Bishop of Los Angeles.

The John Jay Institute, offspring of the Witherspoon Fellowship of the Family Research Council and new owner of a defunct bed and breakfast, is a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation that incorporated in North Carolina in 2005 before moving to Colorado in May 2006 and registering as a foreign corporate entity. Although the Institute and the vestry of Grace Church were asked to produce the J.J. Institute’s IRS Form 990 at the annual Grace Parish meeting in January 2007, the request was refused because the John Jay Institute was not a parish ministry like the Anglican Communion Institute, the St. Stephen’s Classical Academy and the International Grace Foundation (also a 501 (c) 3). Unlike The Family Research Council and 1.5 million other non-profit organizations, the John Jay Institute has chosen not to file its Form 990 with GuideStar, the on-line guide to philanthropy.

June 27, 9:24 pm | [comment link]
41. godfrey wrote:

Thank you, Candice, for the precision of your response.  It must be tmystifying to anyone not on the ground in Colorado Springs and/or credulous about the content of this blog why a preponderance of parish and community leaders people the pilgrim Grace rather than Don Armstrong’s GraceCANA.  The answer has to do with the difference between heat and light.  Light is Christ’s, and we know where fire comes from.  Thoughtful readers appreciate your shedding the former and hold those scorched by the latter in their prayers.

June 27, 10:27 pm | [comment link]
42. The_Elves wrote:

Y’all this IS a thread (in case you’d forgotten) about the Los Angeles litigation.  We’re not going to disallow discussion of some of the other ECUSA litigation.  There’s a lot out there, and sometimes a comparison of cases and state laws is very instructive.

But do not turn this into a pro or anti Grace Colorado Springs / Don Armstrong thread.  This is NOT about Colorado.  We’ll delete future comments that are not dealing with litigation issues.

June 27, 10:30 pm | [comment link]
43. Connecticutian wrote:

In clarification of Smuggs’ comments regarding CT:

It is true that the CT6 were plaintiffs in a federal suit against the diocese, but it must be understood that it was a *response* to the bishop’s use of “self help” common law remedies.  In other words, “he started it” (yes, I know how unhelpful that argument is) but did it with armed guards and intimidation rather than a court order.

Also, while property was a substantial focus of the suit, the most important aspect was the 1st Amendment issue of a state explicitly granting the church undue statutory recognition.  A federal judge disagreed with the constitutional question, however.  There may soon be some news about the appeal in that case.

June 28, 12:38 am | [comment link]
44. Connecticutian wrote:

I wish I could edit my posts!  I said “armed guards” as rhetorical exaggeration, but the context of the rest of my post doesn’t reflect that.  I apologize, I really have no idea whether the guards were armed!  I’ve got to cut back on the wisecracks…

June 28, 12:41 am | [comment link]
45. carol wrote:

I told my new priest in an Anglican Church that from now on any gifts like I have given in TEC ( large cross over the altar, stations of the cross, pascal candel, etc) will be given on loan in the future.  I am not going to take the chance of being burned twice. sick

June 28, 4:51 am | [comment link]
46. Tom Roberts wrote:

Just make sure you recognize the tax consequences of loans rather than gifts, whatever the moral issues might be…

June 28, 7:51 am | [comment link]
47. Juandeveras wrote:

I just read it. It will be overturned.

June 28, 8:17 am | [comment link]
48. Vintner wrote:

I agree w/Connecticutian, the whole question of “Who started it” is very unhelpful in these cases.  Just as an example, as he correctly states, the CT 6 were the plaintiffs who “started it” with “it” being the legal process in the courts; the bishop of CT, in the minds of the CT 6 “started it” by using force to take over a church; in the minds of the review committee, the bishop was not brought to task for breaking canon law regarding consulting the vestry before bringing on an interim priest because of circumstances regarding that vestry not being upfront about their priest leaving on a terminal sabbatical so, in those terms, the vestry of that church “started it”; the church presumably did what it did because of the bishop’s approval of and participation in Robinson’s consecration so, again, the bishop “started it”; General Convention ratified Robinson’s election so they “started it”; NH was the diocese that elected Robinson so they “started it”; they had a nominating committee which nominated him so they “started it”...and on and on and on.

Reflecting upon lawsuits, whether in CA or in CT or in VA or wherever, Jesus encouraged us to resolve our arguments before we get to the judge.  He did not say not to go to the judge.  In these cases, since both sides are bound and determined that they are right, the lawsuits are a necessary evil.  But they are necessary.

June 28, 11:16 am | [comment link]
49. Suwatchalapin wrote:

Dear Elves
I do not understand your position of allowing Don Armstrong to post just about any statement he wants about Grace Episcopal,  while anyone who dare to clarify them gets a slap. Please explain.

June 28, 12:36 pm | [comment link]
50. The_Elves wrote:

#49, I have not read anything on this thread since last night when I left a warning that ALL comments about Colorado would be deleted here.  Did you see that warning?  #42.

Please know, we have edited Don Armstrong a number of times, though not recently (i.e. on the new blog) to my knowledge, and we certainly have edited his supporters.

We do not take kindly to our warning here being ignored.  Our e-mail address is posted all over the blog.  .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
Write us off-blog. 

PEOPLE THIS IS A THREAD ABOUT THE LOS ANGELES LITIGATION.  PLEASE RESPECT THAT.  As we stated above, pertinent comments about VA or CT or other ECUSA property litigation are allowed.  But pro or anti Don Armstrong remarks on this thread will get you put on the elves “bad” list in a hurry.

June 28, 12:45 pm | [comment link]
51. Chris wrote:

elves, if you could somehow verify with Don Armstrong that he is (or isn’t) the same person who is Rector of Grace CANA, it would be helpful.

Chris, going to assume your comment crossed with our second warning below.  They’re very close in terms of the timestamp. 

I’ve asked Kendall to indeed double check.  Don Armstrong has been a regular commenter here on T19 for years.  But I haven’t verified that the person commenting on this thread as Don Armstrong is indeed he.  I think so, but we will double check.  Now truly, we ask all to stop commenting on Colorado here. 

Once (If) I have any further information about the validity of Don Armstrong’s comments, I’ll post that as an update to this comment.

June 28, 12:48 pm | [comment link]
52. carol wrote:

Thanks Tom,
But I didn’t do it for tax purposes in the first place.  It is just so hard to give memorials in memory of friends and family who would be horrified now at what is going on in the church.  Just wish I could have taken them with me.

I am also in a church which has worked a deal with the Bishop to keep our property, however that bishop is retiring and a new one will soon be in… who knows.

June 28, 5:42 pm | [comment link]
53. Don Armstrong wrote:

I am indeed the Don Armstrong who has been the Rector of Grace Church & St. Stepehn’s for the past 20 years and remain firmly in that position with plans for a long and happy futrue running this vital parish and being involved in all its various ministries.

The LA decision is interesting to all of us who are in the midst of the property issues, it strikes at the heart of the legal questions around the church vs. state basis for making property decisions—we should all be interested in its outcome.

More than that we need to reflect a certain generosity with one another so that our witness in the midst of struggle is not diminished, but rather gives the world an alternative to the ways of anger and bitterness.

We will be judged finally, not in the courts, but by our Lord—and we need to think seriously about how that is going for us.

Thanks Fr. Armstrong for verifying your identity.  It’s appreciated.  And yes this comment has a special elfen dispensation since it is in response to a request from the elves for confirmation of identity.  We were not concerned about impersonation, but it’s good to have verification that public figures posting under their names are who they claim to be.  We take that seriously.

June 28, 7:05 pm | [comment link]
54. Juandeveras wrote:

I note that the Susan Russell/Integrity website is gleefully announcing yet a second “victory” of Bruno et al over another rascally “breakaway” parish in LA. I think God’s in charge, Susan, and He will make the final call.

July 4, 9:30 pm | [comment link]
Registered members must log in to comment.

Next entry (above): The Full Text of the Court Ruling in the Diocese of Los Angeles Property Lawsuit

Previous entry (below): A LA Times Article on Yesterday’s Court Ruling on the Episcopal Church Fight in Los Angeles

Return to blog homepage

Return to Mobile view (headlines)