[Magdalen] Proposed Property Settlement in Episcopal LitigationTurned Down

[Lynn Ronkainen]

Martin>> O I wish we had "Government owned" churches. Let me rephrase due to 
my lack of knowledge...


IF a CofE church receives an endowment, who administers it and who does it 
rightfully belong to?

We have heard many stories here in the pub about the CofE E churches being 
compelled to marry/bury as part of their connection to the 'state', how far 
does that oversight go in regard to what is the individual church's 
possession, and what is not?

I was of the understanding that the Church of England is under the purview 
of the government of the UK. If so,  how is it that the churches are not 
considered government owned? Just because a government owns something does 
not mean it pays complete upkeep etc for it. The US Episcopal churches also 
do not 'own' their own churches either, but are rather part of the Church 
Corporation, an entity that encompasses all of the Episcopal churches under 
the purview of the Presiding Bishop. The growing misunderstanding of this 
'contract' is obviously a large part of the current troubles here when a 
church wants to 'take the property'.

Lynn

website: www.ichthysdesigns.com

When I stand before God at the end of my life I would hope that I have not a 
single bit of talent left and could say, "I used everything You gave me." 
attributed to Erma Bombeck

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Zephonites--- via Magdalen" <magdalen at herberthouse.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2015 1:05 PM
To: <magdalen at herberthouse.org>
Cc: <Zephonites at aol.com>
Subject: Re: [Magdalen] Proposed Property Settlement in Episcopal 
LitigationTurned Down

> Lynn
>
> O I wish we had "Government owned" churches. Would you not agree  Roger?
>
> I would love to give all five of my medieval buildings to the Government
> (Mit Handkuss).
>
> And I am sure there are other C of E clergy that would echo my  sentiment.
>
> I think you will find however that the way clergy are paid would make  a
> much better moral case for the C of E (who own the buildings legally 
> anyway)
> hanging on to them.
>
> Unlike in the USA, clergy in England do not have to negotiate their salary
> as I believe you do in the USA.
>
> Yes C of E parishes pay a quota (which is voluntary) to the Diocese but
> certainly in rural parishes this rarely covers the costs of the clergy.
> Pparish  clergy are generally all paid by the Church Commissioners and 
> then they
> are in  turn paid by the Diocese. If a parish defaults on payment the 
> Church
> Commissioners still pay the clergy of that parish.
>
> This is the great blessing in having the living.
>
> So morally the C of E should be entitled to the building, in rural
> communities at least  as they have usually made financial input into the 
> running
> of the church often for a long time. Obcviously the big town Evangelical
> Churches like STAG in Cambridge and HTB in London are the exception.
>
> Blessings
> Martin
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -
>
> In a message dated 16/06/2015 16:31:55 GMT Daylight Time,
> houstonklr at gmail.com writes:
>
> Martin>(after all I guess SC raised the money for the trust  funds in the
>> first  place and not the national church)
>
> How  does the Anglican CofE view endowments to their government owned
> churches  Martin?
>
> Lynn
>
> website: www.ichthysdesigns.com
>
> When I stand  before God at the end of my life I would hope that I have 
> not
> a
> single bit  of talent left and could say, "I used everything You gave me."
> attributed  to Erma  Bombeck
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> From:  "Ginga Wilder" <gingawilder at gmail.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2015  5:41 AM
> To: <magdalen at herberthouse.org>
> Subject: Re: [Magdalen]  Proposed Property Settlement in Episcopal
> Litigation
> Turned  Down
>
>> Martin,
>> Mark Lawrence's breakaway church has not made  a response.  To my
> knowledge
>> the proposal remains on the table.  As far as motives, reasons, thinking
> of
>> the Lawrence leadership, I  cannot speak for them.  You may read their
>> response and Canon Jim  Lewis' comments on their webpage.
>>
>>  http://www.diosc.com/sys/index.php
>>
>> Ginga
>>
>> On  Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 12:17 AM, Zephonites--- via Magdalen <
>>  magdalen at herberthouse.org> wrote:
>>
>>>  Ginga
>>>
>>> Totally agree. I used to be head oft eh Group  Patent Dept at Reckitt 
>>> and
>>> Colman and I would always tell  management that the only winners in such
> a
>>> situation are the  external lawyers.
>>>
>>> However all is not lost - the  parties are talking and this may be an
>>> opening gambit from both  sides. This is often the way settlements go
>>>
>>> You might  find that SC will relinguish the name if the trust funds go
>>>  with
>>> them (after all I guess SC raised the money for the trust  funds in the
>>> first  place and not the national  church)
>>>
>>> Blessings
>>>  Martin
>>>
>>>
>>> In a message dated 16/06/2015  01:05:36 GMT Daylight Time,
>>> gingawilder at gmail.com  writes:
>>>
>>> You  know, I 'knew' the breakaways would  turn this down.  And, here I
>>> am,
>>> feeling  crestfallen.  How silly of me.  It would have been SO  GOOD to
> be
>>> rid of the fruitless litigation.    SIGH.
>>>
>>> Ginga
>>>
>>>
>