Friday, July 06, 2012

"Show Trial" set for House of Bishops today

SATURDAY UPDATE: 


Please note that the House of Bishops will again convene in closed session on Sunday to take up this matter.

Seven of the bishops have written a Open Letter to the House of Bishops "repudiating charges of disloyalty brought against them by the provisional bishops of Fort Worth and Quincy."  The authors of the letter are:
    The Rt. Rev. John W. Howe, retired Bishop of Central Florida
    The Rt. Rev. Paul E. Lambert, suffragan Bishop of Dallas, 
    The Rt. Rev. William H. Love, Bishop of Albany 
    The Rt. Rev. D. Bruce MacPherson, Bishop of Western Louisiana 
    The Rt. Rev. Daniel H. Martins, Bishop of Springfield 
    The Rt. Rev. Edward L. Salmon, retired Bishop of South Carolina and Dean of Nashotah House 
    The Rt. Rev. James M. Stanton, Bishop of Dallas,
They stated they had been forced to act in order to protect the Episcopal Church – not to harm it.  
“No charge is more serious to us than the one that we have acted against our own Church—in other words, that we have been disloyal. We assure each of you that we have acted out of a profound loyalty to this Church we love,” they wrote.
Read more about it at Anglican Ink here.

*

The 815-appointed bishops of the shadow dioceses of Ft. Worth and Quincy have petitioned the Presiding Bishop for a closed door session today.  Remember, these two bishops are appointed by the very person they are petitioning to hear their complaints.  What a show!  George Conger of Anglican Ink has the story:

A letter accusing nine bishops of disloyalty to the Episcopal Church and violation of its canons is scheduled for discussion on 6 July 2012 during a closed session of the Episcopal Church’s House of Bishops meeting at the 77th General Convention in Indianapolis.

The letter has been described as “end run” around the Title IV canons, one bishop told Anglican Ink, that seeks a political solution to a judicial process.

On 5 July the Rt. Rev. C. Wallis Ohl, Jr., Provisional Bishop of Fort Worth, and the Rt. Rev. John C. Buchanan, Provisional Bishop of Quincy wrote to the presiding bishop asking the House of Bishops to “set the record straight regarding recent statements by certain bishops in our Church.”

Misconduct complaints were filed and investigations under the Title IV disciplinary canons have been initiated against the Rt. Rev. Maurice Benitez, retired Bishop of Texas, the Rt. Rev. John W. Howe, retired Bishop of Central Florida, the Rt. Rev. Paul Lambert, suffragan Bishop of Dallas, the Rt. Rev. William Love, Bishop of Albany, the Rt. Rev. De. Bruce MacPherson, Bishop of Western Louisiana, the Rt. Rev. Daniel Martins, Bishop of Springfield, the Rt. Rev. James Stanton, Bishop of Dallas, the Rt. Rev. Peter Beckwith, retired Bishop of Springfield, and the Rt. Rev. Edward L Salmon, retired Bishop of South Carolina and Dean of Nashotah House.

The nine bishops have so far not been informed as to the crimes they have committed or have been told the names of their accusers, but in their 5 July letter Bishops Ohl and Buchanan accused them of harming the church by “officially misrepresenting the polity of the Church; invading the episcopal jurisdiction of other bishops; taking official, formal, affirmative actions directly against their own Church and sister dioceses; and even recognizing the continuing authority of breakaway former bishops over the bishops who are recognized by this Church.”

“In doing so they give aid and comfort to breakaway factions who would take title and control of substantially all of the real and personal property of this Church and cripple its mission and ministry,” the two bishops said.

By endorsing an amicus curiae brief in the Diocese of Fort Worth lawsuit before the Texas Supreme Court, and having executed an affidavit affirming their testimony in the Quincy lawsuit the bishops had violated the doctrine and discipline of the Episcopal Church.

The two bishops charged their colleagues with having “falsely claimed” that “dioceses can unilaterally leave” the Episcopal Church. They “denied the Dennis Canon and failed to safeguard Church property”; the “recognize the wrong bishops” thereby injecting “chaos into core ecclesiastical functions” of the Episcopal Church; and they “violated the ecclesiastical jurisdictions” of Fort Worth and Quincy by having endorsed legal documents pertaining to questions outside their dioceses.

“This is not a matter of a few unhappy bishops stating their personal views on church polity. They each affirmatively and officially acted by injecting themselves, intentionally and without invitation from the bishops exercising jurisdiction, into local litigation, opposing this Church and sister dioceses on core ecclesiastical issues regarding the very identity of other dioceses,” the two argued.

“We respectfully urge that the House of Bishops set the record straight on the polity of this Church regarding its hierarchical character,” they asked Bishop Jefferts Schori.

Read it all here.




The Bishop's seem to be holding forth now as they are supposed to be back on the air, but are on hold.  Here is the text of the letter from SF here:


July 5,2012
The Most Rev. Katharine Jefforts Schori
The Episcopal Church
815 Second Avenue
New York, NY, 10017
Re: Request to set the record straight
Dear Bishop Jefforts Schori:
We, the bishops of the Dioceses of Quincy and Fort Worth, with the support of the Standing Committee and Council of each diocese, respectfully urge the Church’s House of Bishops, at its meeting at the 77th General Convention in Indianapolis, to set the record straight regarding recent statements by certain bishops in our Church. The subject bishops are:
1. The Rt. Rev. Maurice M. Benitez (resigned, Diocese of Texas);
2. The Rt. Rev. John W. Howe (resigned, Diocese of Central Florida);
3. The Rt. Rev. Paul E. Lambert (suffragan, Diocese of Dallas);
4. The Rt. Rev. William H. Love (diocesan, Diocese of Albany);
5. The Rt. Rev. D. Bruce MacPherson (diocesan, Diocese of W. Louisiana);
6. The Rt. Rev. Daniel H. Martins (diocesan, Diocese of Springfield);
7. The Rt. Rev. James M. Stanton (diocesan, Diocese of Dallas);
8. The Rt. Rev. Peter Beckwith (resigned, Diocese of Springfield); and
9. The Rt. Rev. Edward L. Salmon (resigned, Diocese of South Carolina).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The House of Bishops is well aware of the litigation across this Church resulting from breakaway factions who left The Episcopal Church but claim to have taken parishes and entire dioceses, and all the historic church property, names, records, and funds, with them, and claim to “be” the continuing parish or diocese. In the Dioceses of Quincy, Fort Worth, San Joaquin, and Pittsburgh, these breakaway efforts were led by former members of the House of Bishops.
Recent events illustrate that there are still bishops in our Church who harm the Church by officially misrepresenting the polity of the Church; invading the episcopal jurisdiction of other bishops; taking official, formal, affirmative actions directly against their own Church and sister dioceses; and even recognizing the continuing authority of breakaway former bishops over the bishops who are recognized by this Church. In doing so they give aid and comfort to breakaway factions who would take title and control of substantially all of the real and personal property of this Church and cripple its mission and ministry.
Specifically, on April 23, 2012 Bishops Benitez, Howe, Lambert, Love, MacPherson, Martins, and Stanton, purporting to act in their official capacities as bishops of The Episcopal Church and its House of Bishops, caused to be filed an amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) brief in litigation in support of a breakaway faction led by former bishop Jack Iker and against this Church and its Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth.
Similarly, on October 6, 2011, 2011, Bishops Salmon, MacPherson, and Beckwith,purporting to act in their official capacities as bishops of The Episcopal Church and its House of Bishops, caused to be filed affidavits in litigation in support of a breakaway faction led by Alberto Morales and against this Church and its Episcopal Diocese of Quincy. The details of their misrepresentations are reflected in the documents themselves. However, generally the bishops falsely claimed as follows:
1. They Represented that Dioceses Can Unilaterally Leave: These bishops give aid and comfort to breakaway factions trying to alienate this Church’s historic property and identity and urge a false view of polity that would purport to authorize each bishop across this Church to lead his or her diocese and church property in the diocese out of The Episcopal Church.
2. They Denied the Dennis Canon and Failed to Safeguard Church Property: These bishops advocate that the breakaway parties should prevail in the litigation against The Episcopal Church and the loyal Episcopalians in those dioceses and assert positions that would strip millions of dollars of historic property and funds, lovingly accumulated by generations of Episcopalians, from the mission and ministry of this Church, and instead urge that they be used by breakaway factions for the mission and ministry of a new church. They thus would nullify this Church’s trust interest in all the real and personal property of congregations in those dioceses and, indeed, across The Episcopal Church and fail to safeguard property of the Church and its dioceses.
3. They Recognized the Wrong Bishops: The amicus bishops in the Fort Worth case expressly claim that Iker, not Bishop Wallis Ohl, repeatedly recognized by the Church, is still the bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth; in the Quincy filing the affidavit bishops imply that Morales, not Bishop John C. Buchanan, repeatedly recognized by the Church, is the bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Quincy. By this claim these bishops not only reject this Church’s authority to recognize its own bishops but they arrogate for themselves, in direct defiance of this Church, the authority to determine the episcopal authority of every other bishop in the Church, substituting at will their personal standards for those of this Church and trying to inject chaos into core ecclesiastical functions of The Episcopal Church itself.
4. They Violated Episcopal Jurisdiction: By their public filings in local litigation, without invitation or consent of the ecclesiastical authority in those sister dioceses, these bishops directly violated the ecclesiastical authority and episcopal jurisdiction of Bishop C. Wallis Ohl and Bishop John C. Buchanan, respectively, who have been consistently recognized by The Episcopal Church as being the current bishops of Fort Worth and Quincy. By inserting themselves in local litigation against the ecclesiastical authority in those dioceses, the subject bishops have violated the longstanding prohibition against “acting in another diocese without the consent of the diocesan authority”’ and have engaged in boundary crossing to interfere profoundly in the mission and the very existence of a sister diocese and the jurisdiction of other bishops of this Church.
CONCLUSION
This is not a matter of a few unhappy bishops stating their personal views on church polity. They each affirmatively and officially acted by injecting themselves, intentionally and without invitation from the bishops exercising jurisdiction, into local litigation, opposing this Church and sister dioceses on core ecclesiastical issues regarding the very identity of other dioceses.
We respectfully urge that the House of Bishops set the record straight on the polity of this Church regarding its hierarchical character. Respectfully submitted,
The Rt. Rev. C. Wallis Ohl
EPISCOPAL DIOCESE OF FORT WORTH
The Rt. Rev. John C. Buchanan
EPISCOPAL DIOCESE OF QUINCY

5 comments:

Tregonsee said...

There is no question that even among some of those who support the same goals there is real concern about how +KJS is going about it. My first reaction was that this was intended to head off the debacle of Title IV actions, and perhaps fire a warning shot that even the HoB can find a spine. On second thought, who knows?

Andy said...

well-placed video snippet. And now it seems that nothing short of lock-step obesiance will be tolerated. Hey waaaait a minute... isn't this group supposed to be all about tolerance?

Daniel Weir said...

Tolerance does not require that we remain silent when people make statements that we consider false. The notion of diocesan sovereignty rests on a misreading of the Constitution and Canons and the history of the Episcopal Church. It is an idea that would havev been thought laughable by most Epsicopalians fifty years ago. I am not sure that the bishops who filed the amicus brief have violated the canons, but I do understand how that action has caused difficulties for Episcopalians in Fort Worth. Perhaps it would be good for the House of Bishops to meet without spectators to discuss the different opinions that its members have about polity.

Kevin said...

I see the word tolerance has a very subjective meaning (it means whatever some what it to mean, even if contradictory to the established denotation) as is the polity when its Pike, Spong or Robinson changes after folks get there way. Very interesting ...

Anonymous said...

It would hardly be a hierarchical church if bishops could enter lawsuits on the side of people leaving the church and attempting to make off with church property in the bargain, would it? In other words, doing nothing would seem to prove the point advanced by those who claim that hierarchy ends at the diocesan level much more than a disciplinary proceeding.

Scout