Claims the Dennis Canon failed to pass both Houses of the 1979 General Convention are unfounded.

While the minutes of the House of Deputies and other important papers from the 1979 General Convention have not survived, sufficient documentary evidence exists in the Archives of the Episcopal Church to cast doubt on published claims that the Dennis Canon was overlooked and not brought to a vote in the final hours of the 1979 General Convention.

However, the paper trail that would support a conclusive determination that the Dennis Canon did pass the House of Deputies on the 10th legislative day is incomplete, keeping open the door for further litigation.

Assertions and opinions about the legal sufficiency of Title I.7.4 (as the Dennis Canon is presently numbered) have circulated within traditionalist circles for three decades. The issue has taken on a heightened importance this past year with the blizzard of diocese/parish litigation, and threatened lawsuits by the national church offices against dioceses and bishops for "breach of fiduciary" duties in connection with the property canon.

The possibility that the canonical basis for the national church's legal offensive was flawed has stirred conservative imaginations, and has been discussed unofficially in a number of gatherings, including last month's Anglican Communion Network meeting in Fort Worth.

The latest round of controversy began June 5, 2005 with an article published on the internet journal Virtue Online (www.virtueonline.org). Citing a letter to a Virginia newspaper from the Rev. Lawrence W. Thompson, vicar of St. Matthias Anglican Church in Dothan, Ala., an independent congregation formerly affiliated with the United Episcopal Church of North America, Virtue Online suggested that the canon did not properly pass convention.

"There is a large amount of church legislation that passes through a logjam on the last day and night of the legislative session. This is apparently what happened to the property change canon," Virtue Online wrote.

Thompson claimed that a "priest (later a bishop) who was physically present at the general convention and who closely watched to see whether or not this specific canonical change passed told me that it did not pass." While it may have passed the House of Bishops, it was possible that it did not pass the House of Deputies, Virtue Online reported.

In support of this contention, Thompson noted the 1981 printing of the Annotated Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church, known colloquially as White & Dykman, reported an error in the 1979 Convention Journal.

"The account of this legislation [the Dennis Canon] does not appear in the list of Concurrent Actions," White & Dykman reported on page 269. The absence of the note in future editions of the Church's standard reference work on the Constitution and Canons excited further suspicions.

Critics responded by noting the summary of legislation in the Convention Journal reported the passage of the Dennis Canon. The inaccurate claim that the Dennis Canon required passage by two successive meetings of General Convention advanced by Virtue Online also dampened the controversy.

Deputies to the 1979 Convention offered mixed responses. One stated he recalled quite clearly the vote, another was equally adamant the vote did not take place, while the majority stated they could not remember.

"It was almost thirty years ago," Mr. A. Hugo Blankingship, Jr., a deputy from Virginia said. "I just don't recall."

Documentary evidence held by the Archives of the Episcopal Church in Austin suggest it is likely the legislation passed.

Located atop the library of the Episcopal Theological Seminary of the Southwest, the Archives contain all of the records of 1979 General Convention. Transferred to the Archives in 1996 by the General Convention office, the original documents from the Denver Convention are held in two boxes and distributed among a number of three ring binders. Finding Aid

The Dennis Canon began life as resolution D-24 submitted by the Rev. Canon Walter Dennis of New York. It asked Convention to amend Title I.6 (as then numbered) by adding a fourth clause which read in part:

"All real and personal property held by any parish, mission, congregation or institution is held subject to an express trust in favor of the Episcopal Church and the Diocese" where the property is located.

If the parish "disaffiliated" from the Church, trusteeship of the property would pass to the Episcopal Church and the Diocese, the original copy of the resolution in the Archives said.

The Resolution went first for action to the House of Bishops and on the fifth legislative day, Sept. 13, 1979, the Bishops sent message 76 to the Deputies stating they had adopted the Resolution with amendment.

The resolution now read: "All real and personal property held by or for the benefit of any Parish, Mission or Congregation is held in trust for this Church and the Diocese thereof in which such Parish, Mission or Congregation is located. The existence of this trust, however, shall in no way limit the power and authority of the Parish, Mission or Congregation otherwise existing over such property so long as the particular Parish, Mission or Congregation remains a part of, and subject to, this Church and its Constitution and Canons."

On Sept 17, Committee 5 of the House of Deputies: Constitution and Canons issued its report on D-24 and recommended the House adopt the resolution as amended by the Bishops.

Each stage of the legislative process through the adoption by the Committee can be documented in the archives by reference to the original legislative papers. However on the 10th legislative day the record becomes unclear as the supporting documentation ends and the Journal of General Convention makes an error.

Page B-60 of the Journal reports the House of Bishops' approval of D-24. Page D-154 records the approval of the amended resolution D-24 by the Constitution and Canons committee and goes on to state that the Deputies concurred.

However, in support of the statement of concurrence the Journal refers to page C-150 for confirmation. However, page C-150 speaks not to the Dennis Canon, D-24, but to a different resolution, D-101.

Page B-144 of the Journal goes on to state that on the 11th legislative day the Deputies informed the Bishops that they had approved D-24 via message 204.

Missing from the Handbook of the Secretary of the House of Deputies-which contains all of the legislative actions and committee reports-were the reports on legislation from the 10th day of Convention. Days 1 through 9 and 11 were present as was the 10th day's consent calendar, but all that had survived in the documentary record was the day's agenda with annotations made by the Secretary of the House.

While other agenda items were marked as amended, concurred or had check marks besides it, the Dennis Canon was not marked off.

At this stage, the documentary evidence supporting passage of the Dennis Canon, Resolution D-24, came to an end. No records of the House of Bishops, save for those appended to House of Deputies' Committee Reports have survived, nor have the minutes or the messages to the House of Bishops from the Deputies confirming its actions.

A final examination of the remaining documents for the Convention in the Archives, however, unearthed the missing 10th day summary in the "print shop" binder-a record of all items sent for duplication.

Given that the summary of legislation was produced on the same day as the actions it describes took place, it is reasonable to assume that it is a true and correct record of events. While this indirect evidence exists of passage of the Dennis Canon, no direct evidence has survived.

Wicks Stephens, chancellor of the Anglican Communion Network, told TLC the "absence of usually present documentation is troubling and indeed suspicious."

While acknowledging that the documentary evidence in the Archives could be used to argue the Dennis Canon passed Convention, it also "suggests that it may not have been. In that event one can argue that the court should put the burden of proving its valid establishment on the party asserting its validity - TEC. At that point, how will TEC meet such a burden unless they can find the rest of the record?" he said.

END