NationStates Jolt Archive

California's Supreme Court has held that the U.S. Episcopal Church retains ownership of church buildings and property in three So Cal parishes that left in protest of the ordination of gay ministers. I am sure we can have a rousing debate about the technicalities of this decision. :p:wink:

(I know this is a small victory against homophobia, but it is a victory!)

Calif. court sides with US church over property (http://news.lp.findlaw.com/ap/other/1110/01-05-2009/20090105112005_15.html)

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - The state's high court has prohibited three Southern California parishes who left the U.S. Episcopal Church over its ordination of gay ministers from retaining ownership of their church buildings and property.

In a unanimous decision, the California Supreme Court ruled that the property belongs to the Episcopal Church because the parishes agreed to abide by the mother church's rules, which include specific language about property ownership.

St. James Church in Newport Beach, All Saints Church in Long Beach and St. David's Church in North Hollywood pulled out of the 2.1 million-member national Episcopal Church in 2004 and sought to retain property ownership.

Since 2003, four dioceses and dozens of individual churches have split, setting off bitter legal feuds over division of property.

38-page PDF of the opinion in the Episcopal Church Cases 1/5/09 SC (http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S155094.PDF)

The key holding:

[W]hen defendants disaffiliated from the Episcopal Church, the local church property reverted to the general church. As stated in one of the out-of-state cases involving the same Episcopal Church, “[t]he individual defendants are free to disassociate themselves from [the parish and the Episcopal Church] and to affiliate themselves with another religious denomination. No court can interfere with or control such an exercise of conscience. The problem lies in defendants’ efforts to take the church property with them. This they may not do.” (Protestant Episc. Church, etc. v. Graves, supra, 417 A.2d at p. 25.)

It is a small victory, but Ill take it, considering it will make the homophobes howl with impotent rage.

lol

A small victory is still a victory.

A small victory is still a victory.

the day organized religion is abolished will be the true day of victory for the world.

the day organized religion is abolished will be the true day of victory for the world.
:fluffle:

the day organized religion is abolished will be the true day of victory for the world.

if by "abolished" you mean "ended voluntarily by humankind," sure.

Otherwise, not so much so.

This just is the courts creating more rights out of thin air for the pro-gay agenda.

Damn liberal activist judges.

Consequences for actions. You buck the group decision, you don't get to keep all the group's stuff. Boo-fucking-hoo. Let them go open their homophobic shrines in a cheap stripmall storefront like other politicized god-hucksters.

if by "abolished" you mean "ended voluntarily by humankind," sure.

Otherwise, not so much so.
Thanks. I'd much rather have seen the word "abandoned" than "abolished."

Thanks. I'd much rather have seen the word "abandoned" than "abolished."

When it ends (how it ends, doesn't matter to me) will be my happiest day.

We're not in the Episcopal church anymore -- but we're keeping the buildings you own and funded!


Didn't these guys ever hear of one of those... what was it, Ten Commandments?

Thou shalt not steal?

We're not in the Episcopal church anymore -- but we're keeping the buildings you own and funded!


Didn't these guys ever hear of one of those... what was it, Ten Commandments?

Thou shalt not steal?

separation of church and state?

I've heard there's a church in Topeka, Kansas they could go to.

When you consider it they have right to leave the Church, its just that they have no legal right to bring property from the Church with them. If they had ruled otherwise they might have caused a barrel of rabid cats to break open.

separation of church and state?

.... has nothing to do with what Kat said!!! :eek:

It does, however, speak to what is wrong with your use and defense of the word "abolished." :wink:

separation of church and state?
Um, no, not talking about the legal system recovering the property for the rightful owners -- I mean the parishes that thought they could keep the property that rightfully belongs to the Episcopal Church. Because, see, Christians are supposed to actually pay attention to that tenet about not stealing...

Um, no, not talking about the legal system recovering the property for the rightful owners -- I mean the parishes that thought they could keep the property that rightfully belongs to the Episcopal Church. Because, see, Christians are supposed to actually pay attention to that tenet about not stealing...

Ah I see, I was confused by your earlier statement.

Ah I see, I was confused by your earlier statement.
*nod* I figured.

;) And this support of the legal system and tsking at the parishes from a Christian, who'da thunk it?

That's why I'm glad I'm a member of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod (LCMS)... Each Church is its own separate entity, but it's still part of the synod as a whole... In other words, the Church body owns the building, not the synod.

It generally means some Churches are poorer than others, but it allows the Church to easily leave the synod in the event of heresy.

That's why I'm glad I'm a member of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod (LCMS)... Each Church is its own separate entity, but it's still part of the synod as a whole... In other words, the Church body owns the building, not the synod.

It generally means some Churches are poorer than others, but it allows the Church to easily leave the synod in the event of heresy.

But couldn't the Synod still say "Ok, the congregation doesn't have to be a part of the Synod, but we keep the buildings"?

But couldn't the Synod still say "Ok, the congregation doesn't have to be a part of the Synod, but we keep the buildings"?

Nope! As I said, the Synod doesn't own the building... The Congregation itself does... They can sell it, they can leave the synod and keep it, they can do whatever the hell they want with it. The church, if found to be committing heresies, could be removed from the synod, but the Church building is the property of the congregation until they give the deed to someone else.

Each Church is a self-contained entity... So in other words, separate in ownership and administration but united in doctrine.

http://www.firedavewannstedt.com/Lost_In_Space_robot_body_1_2_2004.jpg

Warning! Warning! Danger Will Robinson Danger!! Outraged Lord of the Rings Alliteration Imminent!!

-----

But seriously, aside from certain NSGers howling about The Will of the People being subverted in the same state Props 8 and 22 passed, this is a refreshing change of pace in the gay rights struggle.

I've heard there's a church in Topeka, Kansas they could go to.

A whole bunch of churches in Kansas, judging by the highway signs...

In any event, this amuses me. I respect the Episcopalian church. More churches in the U.S. ought to follow their example of embracing 21st century tolerance.

http://www.firedavewannstedt.com/Lost_In_Space_robot_body_1_2_2004.jpg

Warning! Warning! Danger Will Robinson Danger!! Outraged Lord of the Rings Alliteration Imminent!!LMAO! :D

I haven't seen that in forever.

A whole bunch of churches in Kansas, judging by the highway signs...

In any event, this amuses me. I respect the Episcopalian church. More churches in the U.S. ought to follow their example of embracing 21st century tolerance.

But don'tcha know that treating people with respect and tolerance is ebil! Why we should follow God's word and stone everyone who isn't like us!

That reminds me, I have some daughters I need to sell into slavery, for God of course!

When it ends (how it ends, doesn't matter to me) will be my happiest day.

Oh yes, because banning religions is a perfectly viable option in a free society.:rolleyes:

So the means wouldn't matter to you, even if the means was the execution of everyone who exercised their right to freedom of speech to express religious beliefs?

California's Supreme Court has held that the U.S. Episcopal Church retains ownership of church buildings and property in three So Cal parishes that left in protest of the ordination of gay ministers. I am sure we can have a rousing debate about the technicalities of this decision.
The technicalities? Watch whose name is on the deed to your buildings!


(I know this is a small victory against homophobia, but it is a victory!) It only has to do with contract and property law.

Now, if they left the Westboro Baptist Church...

Thankfully, I live in Ohio!!

But don'tcha know that treating people with respect and tolerance is ebil! Why we should follow God's word and stone everyone who isn't like us!

That reminds me, I have some daughters I need to sell into slavery, for God of course!

Uh... Wil? You're wearing clothing of mixed fabric. Shouldn't you also take care of that sin first? :wink:

they can start holding services in someone's basement just like any other start-up group does. when they collect up enough money to buy their own building, im sure they will be quite specific about who owns it.

do episcopal congregations hire their own ministers or are they assigned by the church hierarchy?

Here in Virginia, the locals won the right to keep the church property.

It all depends on the deed - who has their name on the property.

Here in Virginia, the locals won the right to keep the church property.

It all depends on the deed - who has their name on the property.

Yeah, i don't know what they're all getting on about gay rights, it has nothing to do with that (hopefully, or else the supreme court is definitely in the wrong), and everything to do with property rights.

Indeed. State laws seem to vary on this. Virginia, for instance, recognizes that denominations may undergo "division".

Virginia Division Statute, Virginia Code § 57-9, recognizes the right of congregations to keep their property when separating from a divided denomination or diocese.

If the members of a particular parish or church location decide to undergo "division" from a parent organization, in Virginia they get to keep the property.

We're not in the Episcopal church anymore -- but we're keeping the buildings you own and funded!

Bold mine. Did they? Did the larger church fund the buildings, or were they purchased and maintained by the local congregation?

This doesn't seem to have been a factor in the court decision, but I think the argument could be made that the property actually should go with them if they are the ones who paid for it.

The technicalities? Watch whose name is on the deed to your buildings!

^This is always a good idea, church or not.

hehe

I've heard there's a church in Topeka, Kansas they could go to.
Actually, they've joined the church of Nigerian bishop Akinola, who is rather more extreme than Phelps (Phelps' people haven't actually killed anybody).

Cat-Tribe: I did hear something to make me feel better about what's likely to happen. I'm vacationing in North Carolina, and on the drive down heard a lot of talk radio, Neil Boortz lying about the Franken/Coleman recount and calling Obama the "President-select" like his election was as dubious as Dubya's, and Rush saying Obama is bound to reintroduce the draft, and then: Gary Bauer and Tony Perkins trying to frighten us about how Obama is bound to push the "gay agenda" hard, passing hate crimes and nondiscrimination laws and suchlike terrible things, and appointing judges who will rule for same-sex marriage. Why, they said, Ruth Bader Ginsburg already has a same-sex marriage opinion written up and just wants the chance to publish it as the majority opinion before she can retire happy. So, if those numbskulls are still worried, I should feel easier.

Rush saying Obama is bound to reintroduce the draft



Off topic, but thats an all new hilariously stupid low, even for Rush.

Cat-Tribe: I did hear something to make me feel better about what's likely to happen. I'm vacationing in North Carolina, and on the drive down heard a lot of talk radio, Neil Boortz lying about the Franken/Coleman recount and calling Obama the "President-select" like his election was as dubious as Dubya's, and Rush saying Obama is bound to reintroduce the draft, and then: Gary Bauer and Tony Perkins trying to frighten us about how Obama is bound to push the "gay agenda" hard, passing hate crimes and nondiscrimination laws and suchlike terrible things, and appointing judges who will rule for same-sex marriage. Why, they said, Ruth Bader Ginsburg already has a same-sex marriage opinion written up and just wants the chance to publish it as the majority opinion before she can retire happy. So, if those numbskulls are still worried, I should feel easier.

Ah, talk radio....

They're so much fun!

The technicalities? Watch whose name is on the deed to your buildings!

It only has to do with contract and property law.

Now, if they left the Westboro Baptist Church...

1. I actually don't want to get into the technicalities of the decision, but the name on the deeds was the local parish. The court explains:

St. James Parish holds record title to the property in question. That is the
fact that defendants rely on most heavily in claiming ownership. On the other
hand, from the beginning of its existence, St. James Parish promised to be bound
by the constitution and canons of the Episcopal Church. Such commitment is
found in the original application to the higher church authorities to organize as a
parish and in the articles of incorporation. Canon I.7.4, adopted in 1979, provides
that property held by a local parish “is held in trust” for the general church and the
diocese in which the local church is located. The same canon states that the trust
does not limit the authority of the parish over the property “so long as the
particular Parish . . . remains a part of, and subject to, this Church and its
Constitution and Canons.” Other canons adopted long before St. James Parish
existed also contained substantial restrictions on the local use of church property.
The question before us is, which prevails — the fact that St. James Parish
holds record title to the property, or the facts that it is bound by the constitution
and canons of the Episcopal Church and the canons impress a trust in favor of the
general church?

The court obviously concluded the latter prevails.

2. I know full well this has next to nothing to do with gay rights. It does have to do with First Amendment law and property law. The reason I said it was a small victory against the homophobes is because these parishes left the Episcopal Church over the ordination of gay ministers. So there is some sense of justice and some sense of schadenfreude in seeing these homophobes lose what they considered their churches and property.

Cat-Tribe: I did hear something to make me feel better about what's likely to happen. I'm vacationing in North Carolina, and on the drive down heard a lot of talk radio, Neil Boortz lying about the Franken/Coleman recount and calling Obama the "President-select" like his election was as dubious as Dubya's, and Rush saying Obama is bound to reintroduce the draft, and then: Gary Bauer and Tony Perkins trying to frighten us about how Obama is bound to push the "gay agenda" hard, passing hate crimes and nondiscrimination laws and suchlike terrible things, and appointing judges who will rule for same-sex marriage. Why, they said, Ruth Bader Ginsburg already has a same-sex marriage opinion written up and just wants the chance to publish it as the majority opinion before she can retire happy. So, if those numbskulls are still worried, I should feel easier.

That's the spirit! Good to hear! :D

1. I actually don't want to get into the technicalities of the decision, but the name on the deeds was the local parish. The court explains:

St. James Parish holds record title to the property in question. That is the
fact that defendants rely on most heavily in claiming ownership. On the other
hand, from the beginning of its existence, St. James Parish promised to be bound
by the constitution and canons of the Episcopal Church. Such commitment is
found in the original application to the higher church authorities to organize as a
parish and in the articles of incorporation. Canon I.7.4, adopted in 1979, provides
that property held by a local parish “is held in trust” for the general church and the
diocese in which the local church is located. The same canon states that the trust
does not limit the authority of the parish over the property “so long as the
particular Parish . . . remains a part of, and subject to, this Church and its
Constitution and Canons.” Other canons adopted long before St. James Parish
existed also contained substantial restrictions on the local use of church property.
The question before us is, which prevails — the fact that St. James Parish
holds record title to the property, or the facts that it is bound by the constitution
and canons of the Episcopal Church and the canons impress a trust in favor of the
general church?

The court obviously concluded the latter prevails.

2. I know full well this has next to nothing to do with gay rights. It does have to do with First Amendment law and property law. The reason I said it was a small victory against the homophobes is because these parishes left the Episcopal Church over the ordination of gay ministers. So there is some sense of justice and some sense of schadenfreude in seeing these homophobes lose what they considered their churches and property.

Then I guess you're upset that Virginia law is going to support the congregations who left. We have longstanding laws about how religious groups divide, and what happens to the property.

Fairfax County and the State of Virginia are backing the congregants, because the law is solidly on their side, and not on the side of the Episcopal Church.

1. I actually don't want to get into the technicalities of the decision, but the name on the deeds was the local parish. The court explains:

St. James Parish holds record title to the property in question. That is the
fact that defendants rely on most heavily in claiming ownership. On the other
hand, from the beginning of its existence, St. James Parish promised to be bound
by the constitution and canons of the Episcopal Church. Such commitment is
found in the original application to the higher church authorities to organize as a
parish and in the articles of incorporation. Canon I.7.4, adopted in 1979, provides
that property held by a local parish “is held in trust” for the general church and the
diocese in which the local church is located. The same canon states that the trust
does not limit the authority of the parish over the property “so long as the
particular Parish . . . remains a part of, and subject to, this Church and its
Constitution and Canons.” Other canons adopted long before St. James Parish
existed also contained substantial restrictions on the local use of church property.
The question before us is, which prevails — the fact that St. James Parish
holds record title to the property, or the facts that it is bound by the constitution
and canons of the Episcopal Church and the canons impress a trust in favor of the
general church?

The court obviously concluded the latter prevails.

So the court is essentially....enforcing the rules of a religion?

So the court is essentially....enforcing the rules of a religion?

Not quite.

Here's where we get into the technicalities that I wasn't really meaning to debate. Perhaps this quote will help:

In this case, a local church has disaffiliated itself from a larger, general
church with which it had been affiliated. Both the local church and the general
church claim ownership of the local church building and the property on which the
building stands. The parties have asked the courts of this state to resolve this
dispute. When secular courts are asked to resolve an internal church dispute over
property ownership, obvious dangers exist that the courts will become
impermissibly entangled with religion. Nevertheless, when called on to do so,
secular courts must resolve such disputes. We granted review primarily to decide
how the secular courts of this state should resolve disputes over church property.
State courts must not decide questions of religious doctrine; those are for
the church to resolve. Accordingly, if resolution of the property dispute involves a
doctrinal dispute, the court must defer to the position of the highest ecclesiastical
authority that has decided the doctrinal point. But to the extent the court can
resolve the property dispute without reference to church doctrine, it should use
what the United States Supreme Court has called the “neutral principles of law”
approach. (Jones v. Wolf (1979) 443 U.S. 595, 597.) The court should consider
sources such as the deeds to the property in dispute, the local church’s articles of
incorporation, the general church’s constitution, canons, and rules, and relevant
statutes, including statutes specifically concerning religious property, such as
Corporations Code section 9142.

Applying the neutral principles of law approach, we conclude that the
general church, not the local church, owns the property in question. Although the
deeds to the property have long been in the name of the local church, that church
agreed from the beginning of its existence to be part of the greater church and to
be bound by its governing documents. These governing documents make clear
that church property is held in trust for the general church and may be controlled
by the local church only so long as that local church remains a part of the general
church. When it disaffiliated from the general church, the local church did not
have the right to take the church property with it.

Then I guess you're upset that Virginia law is going to support the congregations who left. We have longstanding laws about how religious groups divide, and what happens to the property.

Fairfax County and the State of Virginia are backing the congregants, because the law is solidly on their side, and not on the side of the Episcopal Church.

I have no idea what the applicable Virginia law is, but have no real objection to it either way. As I said, I take some small delight in the homophobes losing.

Although logically I should feel some dismay when the homophobes win, I don't really care -- so long as the law is fairly applied. If they really do own the property, so be it.

I have no idea what the applicable Virginia law is, but have no real objection to it either way. As I said, I take some small delight in the homophobes losing.

Although logically I should feel some dismay when the homophobes win, I don't really care -- so long as the law is fairly applied. If they really do own the property, so be it.

Virginia Division Statute, Virginia Code § 57-9, recognizes the right of congregations to keep their property when separating from a divided denomination or diocese.

If the members of a particular parish or church location decide to undergo "division" from a parent organization, in Virginia they get to keep the property.

Virginia Division Statute, Virginia Code § 57-9, recognizes the right of congregations to keep their property when separating from a divided denomination or diocese.

If the members of a particular parish or church location decide to undergo "division" from a parent organization, in Virginia they get to keep the property.

That is what the statute says, but (from limited Googling) my understanding is that local trial court just recently applied it to the Virginia parishes, but the Virginia Diocese plans to appeal -- arguing in part that the statute is unconstitutional.

A curious bit of law is involved, but I didn't really expect to get into it and still don't plan to do so.

Not quite.

Here's where we get into the technicalities that I wasn't really meaning to debate. Perhaps this quote will help:

In this case, a local church has disaffiliated itself from a larger, general
church with which it had been affiliated. Both the local church and the general
church claim ownership of the local church building and the property on which the
building stands. The parties have asked the courts of this state to resolve this
dispute. When secular courts are asked to resolve an internal church dispute over
property ownership, obvious dangers exist that the courts will become
impermissibly entangled with religion. Nevertheless, when called on to do so,
secular courts must resolve such disputes. We granted review primarily to decide
how the secular courts of this state should resolve disputes over church property.
State courts must not decide questions of religious doctrine; those are for
the church to resolve. Accordingly, if resolution of the property dispute involves a
doctrinal dispute, the court must defer to the position of the highest ecclesiastical
authority that has decided the doctrinal point. But to the extent the court can
resolve the property dispute without reference to church doctrine, it should use
what the United States Supreme Court has called the “neutral principles of law”
approach. (Jones v. Wolf (1979) 443 U.S. 595, 597.) The court should consider
sources such as the deeds to the property in dispute, the local church’s articles of
incorporation, the general church’s constitution, canons, and rules, and relevant
statutes, including statutes specifically concerning religious property, such as
Corporations Code section 9142.

Applying the neutral principles of law approach, we conclude that the
general church, not the local church, owns the property in question. Although the
deeds to the property have long been in the name of the local church, that church
agreed from the beginning of its existence to be part of the greater church and to
be bound by its governing documents. These governing documents make clear
that church property is held in trust for the general church and may be controlled
by the local church only so long as that local church remains a part of the general
church. When it disaffiliated from the general church, the local church did not
have the right to take the church property with it.

Are the governing documents of a church not part of its doctrine? It sounds to me like they are looking at the doctrine of the church (although they would still be following the rules anyways - by going with the doctrine of the higher authority), but they're trying to get around it because the particular doctrine in question has to do with property, rather than more abstract theology.

Meanwhile, if church rules are to be seen as contractual agreements, I would argue that this may be an unconscionable contract unless the larger church can show that it provided substantial material support in purchasing and maintaining the property. At the very least, the Episcopal church should probably have to provide compensation to those losing their property.

That is what the statute says, but (from limited Googling) my understanding is that local trial court just recently applied it to the Virginia parishes, but the Virginia Diocese plans to appeal -- arguing in part that the statute is unconstitutional.

A curious bit of law is involved, but I didn't really expect to get into it and still don't plan to do so.

I'm really going to have to look this up in more depth when I have time. The idea that it is somehow unconstitutional to protect the property rights of those who bought and paid for given property seems.....backwards.

That is what the statute says, but (from limited Googling) my understanding is that local trial court just recently applied it to the Virginia parishes, but the Virginia Diocese plans to appeal -- arguing in part that the statute is unconstitutional.

A curious bit of law is involved, but I didn't really expect to get into it and still don't plan to do so.

The state and the county are backing the local congregants. I don't believe the Diocese stands a chance.

Are the governing documents of a church not part of its doctrine? It sounds to me like they are looking at the doctrine of the church (although they would still be following the rules anyways - by going with the doctrine of the higher authority), but they're trying to get around it because the particular doctrine in question has to do with property, rather than more abstract theology.

Meanwhile, if church rules are to be seen as contractual agreements, I would argue that this may be an unconscionable contract unless the larger church can show that it provided substantial material support in purchasing and maintaining the property. At the very least, the Episcopal church should probably have to provide compensation to those losing their property.

I'm really going to have to look this up in more depth when I have time. The idea that it is somehow unconstitutional to protect the property rights of those who bought and paid for given property seems.....backwards.

OK, what I meant as a fairly light-hearted exercise in "take that" has delved into the details of complex issues. :(

1. As to the property issue, I suggest you read the actual opinion of the California Supreme Court (http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S155094.PDF) (pdf), as it will clarify this matter better and more thoroughly than I can.

2. As to the constitutional issue re the Virginia case, here (http://www.thediocese.net/News_services/Property/supplemental_constitutional_brief.pdf) (pdf) and here (http://www.thediocese.net/News_services/Property/Supplemental_Brief_TEC.pdf) (pdf) are briefs alleging the Virginia law is unconstitutional and here is the trial court opinion deciding otherwise (http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/offsite/?pg=http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/courts/cases/in_re_multi-circuit_episcopal_church_litigation/PDFs/Constitutionality_57-9_062708.pdf) (pdf). I will fully admit to having not studied any of these documents in detail, and I don't know which side I think has it right.

3. Both your comments beg the question of whose property it is. As it is not the property of the local parish or parishoners, they are not entitled to compensation, nor is it backwards to hold the property belongs to its rightful owner.

4. The Church documents in question are the incorporation documents of the individual churches in question which in turn assimilate the relevant canons of the Episcopal Church. The parishes were created, raised money, built churches, ect., under the auspices of the Episcopal Church and expressly held parish property "in trust" for the Episcopal Church. All the California Supreme Court is really saying is that under the governing rules pursuant to which the parishes were formed, the property belonged to the Episcopal Church and not the parishes.

5. The possible constitutional problems with the Virginia law are complex and set out fully in the briefs I linked, but I'll try to crudely summarize: if the internal rules of the church say the property belongs to the Episcopal Church, a statute that says the property can be awarded to someone else violates the seperation of Church and State. The state has no business interfering with the agreements made within the church (which is different from neutrally enforcing those agreements).

5. The possible constitutional problems with the Virginia law are complex and set out fully in the briefs I linked, but I'll try to crudely summarize: if the internal rules of the church say the property belongs to the Episcopal Church, a statute that says the property can be awarded to someone else violates the seperation of Church and State. The state has no business interfering with the agreements made within the church (which is different from neutrally enforcing those agreements).

The following is a question, seeks to make no point, is serious, and will probably reveal me as judicially uninformed, but I have to ask.

Would the State's restraint from interfering with agreements within the Church prevent the State from ever holding those agreements to be unenforceable?

If I'm understanding correctly, the local church is saying that its agreement with the central church regarding property is invalid, perhaps in the face of some local property laws for organizational dissolution. If there were some reason to think that the church agreement was unenforceable (if it represented some sort of right one has under the law that cannot be signed away), does the Church's status as a Church make it different?

If a 13 year old seminary student, as a minor, signed an agreement with the Church, would it be contractually binding if it were of a nature that would, outside religious practice, not be enforceable?

The following is a question, seeks to make no point, is serious, and will probably reveal me as judicially uninformed, but I have to ask.

Would the State's restraint from interfering with agreements within the Church prevent the State from ever holding those agreements to be unenforceable?

If I'm understanding correctly, the local church is saying that its agreement with the central church regarding property is invalid, perhaps in the face of some local property laws for organizational dissolution. If there were some reason to think that the church agreement was unenforceable (if it represented some sort of right one has under the law that cannot be signed away), does the Church's status as a Church make it different?

If a 13 year old seminary student, as a minor, signed an agreement with the Church, would it be contractually binding if it were of a nature that would, outside religious practice, not be enforceable?

The first amendment requires, for the most part, that when it comes to things like that, the church is treated like any other organization when it comes to enforcing the law.

In other words, the mere fact that one (or both, or more) of the parties involved is a church, doesn't make contract law suddenly invalid. It's still a legal "person", and as such, is still bound to the normal rules of contracts and agency.

The first amendment requires, for the most part, that when it comes to things like that, the church is treated like any other organization when it comes to enforcing the law.

In other words, the mere fact that one (or both, or more) of the parties involved is a church, doesn't make contract law suddenly invalid. It's still a legal "person", and as such, is still bound to the normal rules of contracts and agency.

So, if the local congregants agreed to give up their property if they left mother church, that could still be enforceable, unless some statute makes it not.

OK, what I meant as a fairly light-hearted exercise in "take that" has delved into the details of complex issues. :(

<3

This is NSG! You can't expect things to stay as you intended in the OP. =)

I agree with the "take that" principle, but I am also a bit bothered by the legal implications of the decision (a problem which, admittedly, might not exist if I better understood the legal principles being used).

Hopefully, I'll end up having the time to look into it further, but thanks for the info!

If a 13 year old seminary student, as a minor, signed an agreement with the Church, would it be contractually binding if it were of a nature that would, outside religious practice, not be enforceable?The principle of "neutrality" means that it makes no difference that the context is religious. Would the age of the minor void the contract in any other context? Then it should void the contract in this instance also.

The closest I ever came to seeing this kind of case was one about the sale of a Masonic Temple, with disputes among the various "lodges" sharing this fine old (~1840) piece of "masonry" about who had the right to decide when it was time to let someone else take over the maintenance of this landmark and how to apply the proceeds to acquiring a new meeting place. I got to rummage around some deliciously antique 19th-century charters to determine who was "originally" in the right, but that mattered little: the court gave great deference to internal decisions by the Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania because all the lodges had oaths of fealty to it.