Pennsylvania church asks appeals court to reconsider delay over shrine

Holy Trinity’s November 2 petition asks the Third Circuit Court of Appeals for another hearing, either by the original judges or by the court’s full group of active judges. It challenges an October 19 decision that left the denial of a temporary court order in place. [1,2]

The filing opens:

“Holy Trinity Ukrainian Catholic Church wishes to build a Shrine on its property in Collier Township, Pennsylvania, to further its religious mission.” [1, p. 1]

According to the court’s opinion, the shrine would honor Mary and the sanctity of life, with a chapel, museum, gift shop, and retreat center on property with a cemetery. The parish holds regular services at its existing church elsewhere. This dispute concerns a new worship site, not closing that church. [2, pp. 2–3]

The township denied the requested zoning changes, citing concerns about traffic and fundraising, according to the opinion. The majority also said objections to the shrine’s anti-abortion message hinted at religious hostility and discrimination, concerns better addressed on a fuller record. It thought the parish very likely to win one claim under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, or RLUIPA, which protects religious use of land. That prediction was not a final judgment. [2, pp. 3, 5–8]

Why, then, did the church not get an immediate order? The majority explained:

“Preliminary relief does not automatically follow whenever a party is likely to win on the merits.” [2, p. 8]

A preliminary injunction is a temporary order before a case ends. The majority said the requested order would not remove remaining fundraising and approval barriers, while a final ruling could still protect the church. It also found the request unclear about what officials must do. [2, pp. 9–13]

Judge Matey disagreed. His dissent said the harm included lost time for religious use of the property, not merely delayed fundraising. He said a narrow order could let the parish seek approvals without ordering the township to issue permits or waive health and safety rules. [2, dissent, pp. 6, 8–9]

The new petition argues that the majority conflicts with other decisions and fails to treat lost religious freedom as urgent harm. That is the church’s argument, not a ruling granting its request. [1, pp. 11–21]

In a November 3 announcement, the church’s lawyer Ryan Gardner said, “No church should have to wait years for its religious liberty to be protected.” The dispute concerns both the right to build and when courts should act. [3]

Adventist faith and liberty context

The Adventist Church’s 1995 Religious Freedom statement says it will defend the liberty of all people, “including those with whom we may disagree.” Defending that right does not mean sharing the parish’s beliefs or worship. [4]

The voted Fundamental Beliefs are separate: Belief 1 places Scripture first; Belief 12 describes a community of worship, fellowship, and service. Belief 20 teaches seventh-day Sabbath observance; it does not decide this Catholic parish’s zoning case. Belief 25 says the time of Christ’s return has not been revealed. [5]

Ellen White’s The Great Controversy, chapter 38, offers a historical Adventist reading of Revelation 13–14 about state pressure over worship and allegiance. That interpretation is not a finding that this dispute fulfills prophecy. Puls Strom makes no such claim or prediction about Christ’s return. [6]

For Adventists, defending a neighbor’s freedom to worship can be an act of faith without becoming an agreement about doctrine.