Interesting observations:
The Diocese says that it wishes to conduct services for a certain number of parishioners who left the parish before the votes because they were not comfortable with the direction the incumbents were going, and who wish to return to their ancestral church, to which they are highly attached, now that it is under Diocesan control. I find that implausible...
As a rule, where a church organization is formed for the purpose of promoting certain defined doctrines of religion, the church property which it acquires is impressed with a trust to carry out that purpose, and a majority cannot divert the property to inconsistent uses against the protest of a minority however small: see e.g. Anderson v. Gislason (1920), 53 DLR 491 (Man. CA).
The defendants have a serious argument that the plaintiffs and the Anglican Church of Canada are diverting the property from the purposes of Anglicanism. It appears from the material filed by the defendants, including an affidavit from the renowned Anglican theologian J.I. Packer, that a substantial majority of the world-wide Anglican communion, including the province of the Southern Cone, is in agreement with the defendants on the relevant questions of doctrine...BEFORE: J.A. Ramsay J.
COUNSEL: Mr J. Page and Mr G. Aggus for plaintiffs
Mr Peter Jervis and Mr S. Martin for defendants
Synod of the Diocese of Niagara v. Bales, 2008 CanLII 7750, full text found here.
So, the courts have stated that the Anglican church has a responsibility to uphold, well, the doctrine of the Anglican church?
Posted by: alex | March 06, 2008 at 03:50 PM
Has Christendom come full circle?
Posted by: joseph | March 06, 2008 at 04:16 PM