Seven bishops have been charged with misconduct for having endorsed a friend of the court brief prepared by the Anglican Communion Institute in the Diocese of Fort Worth case.Read the rest of the article.
On 28 June 2012, the Rt Rev Maurice M. Benitez, retired Bishop of Texas, 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, and the Rt. Rev. James M. Stanton, Bishop of Dallas were informed they had been charged with misconduct.
Why would the bishops join with a breakaway diocese in a suit against the church in which they took vows at their ordinations as bishops? The litigation in the dioceses thus far has been decided in favor of church property being held in trust for The Episcopal Church, which the courts have ruled as hierarchical from its beginning.
From the Service for the Ordination of a Bishop in the 1979 Book of Common Prayer:
How can bishops answer in the affirmative at the ordination service and then join as Amicus Curiae in a lawsuit with a breakaway diocese in litigation against their own church?My brother, the people have chosen you and have affirmed their trust in you by acclaiming your election. A bishop in God’s holy Church is called to be one with the apostles in proclaiming Christ’s resurrection and interpreting the Gospel, and to testify to Christ’s sovereignty as Lord of lords and King of kings.You are called to guard the faith, unity, and discipline of the Church; to celebrate and to provide for the administration of the sacraments of the New Covenant; to ordain priests and deacons and to join in ordaining bishops; and to be in all things a faithful pastor and wholesome example for the entire flock of Christ.With your fellow bishops you will share in the leadership of the Church throughout the world. Your heritage is the faith of patriarchs, prophets, apostles, and martyrs, and those of every generation who have looked to God in hope. Your joy will be to follow him who came, not to be served, but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many.....Are you persuaded that God has called you to the office of bishop?....Will you guard the faith, unity, and discipline of the Church of God?....Will you share with your fellow bishops in the government of the whole Church; will you sustain your fellow presbyters and take counsel with them; will you guide and strengthen the deacons and all others who minister in the Church?
Andrew Gerns at The Lead:
We don't know who brought the charges or what they are. Bishop F. Clayton Matthews is investigating to see if there is sufficient basis to proceed with a disciplinary action.
Mark Harris has also posted on this topic. He reminds us that we don't know what the specific accusations are, but expresses the opinion that if they are based solely on the filing of the amicus brief, "then we need to stand with these bishops."
ReplyDeleteYou are absolutely correct that in most of the Episcopal Church property cases, the courts have tended to rule in favor of TEC and the diocese and against the local congregation. Except for the South Carolina Supreme Court's decision in the Pawley Island case, I believe just about all state supreme court decisions have been in TEC's favor. So far, the U.S. Supreme Court has declined to review any of these decisions (although next term they will have an opportunity to consider a decision by a Louisiana appellate court in favor of a local Presbyterian congregation and against the PCUSA).
When we look at the lawsuits involving entire diocese's attempting to withdraw from TEC, the picture isn't that clear, at least not yet.
In California, a trial court has ruled in favor of TEC and the TEC-loyal diocese. This decision is under review by the California Court of Appeal.
In Pittsburgh, both the trial and appellate courts have ruled in favor of TEC and the TEC-loyal diocese, but that ruling was based on a stipulation that +Duncan et al. entered into (perhaps unwisely) in a previous lawsuit, and not on the merits.
In Fort Worth, the trial court rendered a summary judgment in favor of TEC and the TEC-loyal diocese. The Texas Supreme Court has accepted a direct appeal from that judgment, bypassing the intermediate court of appeals.
In Quincy, the trial court denied a motion for summary judgment brought by TEC and the TEC-loyal diocese, so in the absence of a settlement, we can probably expect a trial on the merits followed by an appeal filed by whichever side loses.
What will be the outcome when all these cases are finally decided is anyone's guess. TEC may win across the board. Or it may lose across the board (except Pittsburgh). Or it may win some and lose some.
In the meantime, these lawsuits and the disputes underlying them aren't helping the image of ACNA or TEC either one. ACNA is in danger of being perceived as a mixture of misogynistic homophobes and homophobic misogynists. TEC is in danger of being perceived as a bunch of Gollums more concerned about their "precious" than anything else. And the message of the gospel is being lost in the confusion.
Lord, have mercy on us all.
I'm reserving ALL judgment on this (on ALL of the parties), until I learn more.
ReplyDeletePaul, I read Mark's post. Joining in litigation against the church in which the bishops took their vows, Dan Martins, quite recently, is more than just having wrong opinions. The mere fact that the bishops joined the lawsuit on the side of the breakaways speaks ill of their loyalty to their own church.
ReplyDeleteAnd what about the people in the continuing Diocese of Fort Worth? Haven't they had enough? True...this is not a pretty picture. I have no idea how all of this will play out, or whether further action will be taken against the bishops, but they surely make their share of mischief.
Sorry, Mimi,but by that reasoning, none of the Catholic Bishops, priests or nuns should be speaking/writing to testify before Congress, or any local/state legislature, saying anything against RC policies regarding healthcare,abortion, etc. They're breaking their vows of loyalty. It bishop of a conservative diocese, is Martins breakng the rules? translates to nobody is allowed to go to our secular legal justice system and disagree with their employer, which is effectively what TEC is for bishops. If the diocese is considered the employer of a bishop,as a
ReplyDeleteSide question: Is Martins or any other bishop allowed to participate in GC while under investigation? The timing so close to GC seems ... convenient, for some. Or a distraction from other things at GC.
By the way, according to the "Anglican Curmodgeon," a complaint has also been made against Bishop MacPherson and two other bishops for an amicus brief they filed in the Quincy case.
ReplyDeleteChris, no, it's not the same...at least as I see it. The bishops are suing their own church.
ReplyDeleteI don't see why the bishops would be barred from participation in GC only on the basis of complaints.
My question: Why are the bishops trying to get the courts to say TEC is not a hierarchical church? What are their plans, should the courts agree with them?
Mimi, I think you are missing a salient point. These bishops are NOT suing their own church, they have signed on to an Amicus Brief, a "friend of the court" brief which gives their understanding about the polity and structure of the church. They expressed their opinion, they are not suing TEC.
ReplyDeleteDon, you are correct that I don't necessarily understand law and court procedures. Why are the bishops in court to settle the matter of the polity and structure of the church? Why wouldn't the polity of the church be a matter to be settled within the church?
ReplyDeleteFrom Wikipedia:
ReplyDeleteAn amicus curiae (also spelled amicus curiæ; plural amici curiae) is someone, not a party to a case, who volunteers to offer information to assist a court in deciding a matter before it. The information provided may be a legal opinion in the form of a brief (which is called an amicus brief when offered by an amicus curiae), a testimony that has not been solicited by any of the parties, or a learned treatise on a matter that bears on the case. The decision on whether to admit the information lies at the discretion of the court. The phrase amicus curiae is legal Latin and literally means "friend of the court".
Surely the information the bishops offer to the court will be helpful to the case of the breakaways, Iker et al. The bishops may be friends of the court, but their actions do not appear to be friendly to their own church. Again, why not settle church polity within the church?
So if I understand your reasoning correctly, because they have offered an opinion that differs from what some in TEC, but not all, believe to be the case they should have had charge filed against them?
ReplyDeleteBy that same logic, noting your support for gay marriage, should not every bishop who allowed SSB's in their diocese when it was still canonically illegal (although, currently the generous pastoral response statement by the HOB does give canonical authority) should have been charged as well? They were acting in ways that violated the canonical law and rubrics of the prayer book. Anyone who values the opportunity to challenge authority should be appalled with this. One suspects that your position on this issue is more influenced by your theological disagreement with the bishops charged than with the very real abuse of authority to stifle dissent. Should not we all be engaged in insuring that the voice of all members of the church be heard? If we do otherwise are we not moving from working against injustice to becoming an instrument of oppression?
Don, I said nothing about "charges". I merely quoted George Conger, who talked of "charges". The quote from the intake officer at his website says "a complaint", which will trigger a disciplinary process. I have no idea what the result of the process will be. You're putting thoughts into my head.
ReplyDeleteI'm not going to discuss your suspicions nor the other matters you mention, because I want to stay on topic.
The comments to the post at The Lead on the complaints are very interesting.
ReplyDeleteForgive me, but any time I see Ephraim Radner making excuses about something, I am automatically suspicious. Given his past behavior, I think my suspicions are not entirely unfounded....
ReplyDeleteI will be reading the actually amicus brief later today to see what that bunch is up to. I don't trust a one of them any farther than I can throw him. They are like the boys who cried "Wolf"--there may actually be a wolf that we need to be concerned about out there, but their actions in the past have caused a number of us to doubt both their integrity and their intentions. (If this was such a big issue, why are the only bishops who signed the amicus brief ones who have been associated, at one point or another, with the schismatics?)
To those who are putting forth conspiracy theories about GC--I'll bet my next paycheck that the bishops are the ones who leaked the info to George Conger. Any complaint will not affect their presence at GC, and they know this. But I'm sure they couldn't pass up an opportunity to portray themselves as martyrs. Again. [rolls eyes]
To those who are putting forth conspiracy theories about GC--I'll bet my next paycheck that the bishops are the ones who leaked the info to George Conger.
ReplyDeleteDoxy, I surely will not take you up on your bet, but I'll double your money to anyone will.