The complaint argues that the bishop exceeded his authority when he declared St. James a mission church and transferred its property to the Trustees of the Estate. The complaint relies on a NYS Supreme Court decision, the NYS Religious Corporation Law (RCO), and the church canon.
Before jumping to far ahead, it’s important to point out the difference between a parish and a mission. A parish is a religious corporation with a corporate charter issued by the state.
Most parishes are led by a vestry, but in some cases it could be a board of trustees. Under law, the vestry of every
“…Protestant Episcopal Church and each diocese are authorized to administer the temporalities and property, real and personal, belonging to the corporation, for the support and maintenance of the corporation and, provided it is in accordance with the discipline, rules and usages of the Protestant Episcopal Church and with the provisions of law relating thereto…”.
The vestry’s authority over temporal affairs is limited by state law and the canons of the diocese and national church. For example, a vestry may need diocesan approval to sell property and church property is held in trust for the national church. Regardless, members of the congregation take an active role in the governance and stewardship of their churches.
In the Long Island diocese, a mission church or an “aided parish” are controlled by the diocese. The diocese defines a mission as “an unincorporated church, chapel, preaching station or congregation meeting regularly in a particular location and having a regular body of members.”
An aided parish is something unique. The diocese defines it as “an incorporated or unincorporated church, having a regular congregation, which receives support from the Diocese or is unable to meet its financial obligations, which has applied for such status to seek aid, or an unincorporated church, which has applied for such status, with or without the expectation of subsidy.”
Aided parishes are led by a priest-in-charge appointed by the bishop. A mission or aided parish may have a bishop’s committee composed of lay leaders; however, they serve in an advisory capacity and at the pleasure of the priest-in-charge. The priest-in-charge, through the bishop, has authority over the spiritual and temporal affairs of the church. This is an important point. When a parish elects to become an aided parish they surrender their authority to the priest-in-charge.
The complaint argues the bishop wrongfully seized control of the St. James’ governance and property.
First, under the Diocesan Canons, the Parish must take an affirmative action by electing to become an aided parish. The complaint claims (a) the vestry did not petition the bishop to become an aided parish; (b) the vestry did not vote to transfer its property to the Trustees of the Estate; (c) vestry members and officers did not voluntarily resign their positions. Some vestry members claim, the bishop with his canon of the ordinary informed the church it was now a mission and it had been since 2004. (See compliant for specifics).
Second, the complaint claims no where could it be found that the Religious Corporation Law gives the bishop the authority “to reach into a religious corporation to scramble its governance and seize its real and personal property. The State, not the Diocese, gives the church its corporate powers. It is State law that determines how a religious corporation is formed, governed, dissolved, and its real and personal property transferred. No one at St. James’ took the steps to dissolve the church’s corporate charter or transfer the church’s real and personal property.”
Third, in 2004 a group seized control of St. James and attempted to break away from The Episcopal Church. The break away group and the diocese engaged in a 3-year long legal battle.
In 2008, the NYS Supreme Court (Queens County) issued its opinion. The Diocese prevailed on its counterclaim that the property was held in trust for The Episcopal Church. However, it lost on its fourth counterclaim that St. James’ had forfeited its real and personal property to the Diocese, specifically the Trustees of the Estate.
The court ruled the:
“Defendants Diocese and Trustees’ request for summary judgment on their fourth counterclaim to take possession and manage St. James’ real and personal property, pursuant to the provisions of Religious Corporations Law § 16 is denied, and this counterclaim is dismissed. Religious Corporations Law §16 only authorizes incorporated governing bodies to declare a church or parish over which it has ecclesiastical control extinct. Although the Diocese may declare St. James’ parish to be extinct pursuant to its Diocesan Canons, the provisions of Religious Corporations Law § 16 are inapplicable as it is undisputed that the Diocese is an unincorporated association and not an incorporated governing body.”
The court held the Diocese did not have the authority to declare a church extinct. In addition, the Court ruled the Diocese could not seize St. James’ property because the property and the church were shielded by its corporate charter. In addition, the Diocese lacked the required legal form to act. In other words, the Court rebuked the Diocese for trying to pierce the church’s corporate charter through a back door