"Breakaway" churches and property

This story, "Ruling for Breakaway Parish," raises some important questions about church autonomy and church-state separation.  According to the story:

An effort by the six-county Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles to claim ownership of buildings and other property of a conservative breakaway congregation in Newport Beach was tentatively rejected Thursday by an Orange County Superior Court judge.

St. James Church was one of three former Episcopal parishes to bolt from the diocese and national Episcopal Church one year ago over differences in church teaching and the national church's controversial decision to ordain an openly gay priest in a committed relationship with another man as bishop of New Hampshire.

The diocese sued St. James and two other breakaway parishes for the property after they severed ties and placed themselves under the jurisdiction of a conservative Anglican bishop in Uganda.

Now, I'm willing to assume that I would likely agree more often on things Christianity-related with the "conservative" breakaway parishes than with the leaders of the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles.  And, it appears from this account that the parish, not the Diocese, has long "held title" to the property in question.  Still, it strikes me that the judge in this case might not have taken seriously enough the importance of staying out of intra-church theological debates.

The judge also said the parish had made a prima facie case that it had been sued by the diocese after it had publicly disagreed with the national church's views on homosexuality and other issues by issuing press releases and severing its ties with the diocese.

"Such acts arise out of and are in furtherance of the defendants' exercise of the right to speak on a matter of 'public interest,' " Velasquez wrote. "How churches in America are reacting to the different viewpoints on homosexuality is currently a topic of much public significance."

This aspect of the case seems to take us well beyond the usual realm of intra-church, property-related disputes.  It does not strike me as at all appropriate for a court to be considering, and attaching legal consequences to, the public-interest value of the views and positions expressed by partisans in intra-church disputes.

Rick