The Diocese is seeking a ruling that would see Fr. Moyer and his vestry tossed out of the Church of the Good Shepherd and replaced by a priest and vestry of similar theological convictions but still committed to staying in The Episcopal Church.

Speaking for the diocese, attorney Mary Kohart said that that there was no dispute over the fact that Good Shepherd's Charter required the corporation to operate in accordance with Church Canons and required it to worship in accordance with the requirements of the Episcopal Church. She argued that the Diocesan Standing Committee had decided in a 2002 Resolution that Good Shepherd was not operating in accordance with Church Canons because its vestry continued to employ Moyer after he was defrocked by the Bishop.

She said that its decision could not be revisited by a civil court. When the Judge asked her if that was true even if there was evidence that the Standing Committee had acted out of caprice and whimsy, she responded "yes, although that certainly was not the case here."

Kohart then argued that because the corporation's assets were being diverted to a purpose inconsistent with the Good Shepherd's Charter, the Court could vest those assets in the Church Foundation to be held in trust. When Judge Ott asked her "in trust for what", she replied "in trust for Good Shepherd."

Dickerson described as a "bunch of speculation" the argument that Good Shepherd's property automatically belonged to the Diocese and National Church and claimed the parish held title to the property. The 2002 resolution passed by the Standing Committee said that because the Vestry had continued to employ Moyer after he was defrocked by Bishop Bennison, Good Shepherd's vestry had ceased operating the Church in accordance with Church Canons.

Dickerson argued that there was no evidence that the Standing Committee was correct in finding that the Vestry was in violation of the canons by employing Moyer, or that the current lawsuit was filed after it had complied with the resolution's two conditions: that no suit could be filed against Good Shepherd over the property until there was an attempt to mediate the dispute and the Standing Committee gave its consent to the filing of a suit.

Kohart responded with the argument that the suit had been brought originally by the Standing Committee itself because it was filed while Bishop Bennison was inhibited. She argued that that fact alone made clear it consented to the filing of the suit and was satisfied that appropriate steps had been taken to try and resolve the matter first. Dickerson then questioned whether the Standing Committee had the authority either to adopt the 2002 resolution or to bring the suit as the Diocesan Ecclesiastical Authority. Dickerson then read to the Court the Canon which states that, in the absence of a Bishop, the Ecclesiastical Authority in the Diocese moves to a bishop coadjutor and then to a Bishop suffragan. There is nothing to say the Standing Committee had any authority unless the Diocese had no bishops in office.

Kohart noted that the 2002 resolution upon which the litigation is based was adopted when Bishop Bennison was in office and the Ecclesiastical Authority of the Diocese. She also noted that when Bishop Bennison returned, the pleadings were amended to name him as the Petitioner. Thus, the resolution was adopted when Bishop Bennison was the Ecclesiastical Authority, the suit was brought when he was inhibited and the Standing Committee served as the Ecclesiastical Authority and the suit was amended after August 2010 to set forth that the suit was being brought as the Bishop because of his return to the role of Ecclesiastical Authority.

Dickerson then argued that Canon 13.4 (the Canon which the Diocese has identified as giving it the right to take control of Good Shepherd's property) conflicted with the Canons of the national church and claimed that the relief sought by the Diocese would cut the National Church from its trust interest in Good Shepherd's property.

Based on these two arguments, Dickerson claimed that the case could not proceed unless the National Church was added as a a party so that it could protect its trust interest in Good Shepherd's property and speak to the question of whether Diocesan Canon 13.4 conflicted with the National Canons.

Dickerson also argued that there was no evidence that Episcopal Church canons were violated because Good Shepherd continued to employ Moyer after he was defrocked. He claimed, essentially, that Moyer was affiliated with an Anglican Church and that this was close enough so that a parish who employed him could say it was employing an Episcopal Priest.

Kohart argued that Fr. Moyer had been inhibited and deposed by Bishop Charles Bennison, had challenged that decision in a jury trial and lost, and was no longer an Episcopal priest. She argued that the First Amendment would not allow the Court to decide for the Episcopal Church whether Moyer was an Episcopal Priest or whether some affiliation with a church calling itself "Anglican" meant that Moyer was an Episcopal Priest. She argued that Moyer said he now belonged to another Anglican jurisdiction not recognized by The Episcopal Church or the [worldwide] Anglican Church.

She said Moyer was not licensed to officiate in the Diocese of Pennsylvania and even assuming he had a license to officiate in another Diocese of the Episcopal Church, that did not allow him to officiate at Rosemont because Church Canons state that the license must come for the Bishop of the Diocese where the priest seeks to officiate. .She also argued that there was no evidence from Moyer that the Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC) is even in communion with the Anglican Church and, through it, in communion with the Episcopal Church. In short," the Diocese of Pennsylvania does not recognize his status."as one which would allow him to be licensed, even if he asked.

Kohart argued that the relationship between the Good Shepherd and the Diocese, and the Diocese and the National Church was set forth in the organic, founding documents of each: the Charter in the case of Good Shepherd and Article I of the Diocese's constitution. These documents are what create the hierarchy in the Episcopal Church, where each lower level agrees to be bound by the rules adopted by the level above.

Kohart further argued that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's decision in St.James the less made clear that when a parish joined a voluntary association and agrees to be bound by the rules, one of which is that the rules can be changed, the parish is bound not only by the rules as they existed when it joined, but by all future changes to the rules. "When Good Shepherd became a member of the diocese they were bound by the rules even if the rules got changed. It is part of the package when you join." One of those rules was that it agreed to vest in the Standing Committee the right to decide if it was not acting in accordance with the Canons and whether its property should be vested in the Church Foundation and held in trust.

Kohart ended by saying that "We want to put the corporation back into the fold where it is supposed to be." The church's corporate charter requires the rector and vestry to operate the parish as an Episcopal Church and to comply with the Canons of that Church. "They have run away with it and we want it back."

In his summation Judge Ott said that once the lawyers get back to him about whether the National Church should intervene in the case to set forth its position, he would make a decision on whether he would permit additional pleadings, hold another hearing, or issue a determination on the Diocese' Motion for Summary Judgment.

END