THE COMPLAINT AGAINST THE BISHOPS

This post is a sort of clearinghouse for information from other sources on the complaint against the seven bishops who filed the amicus curiae brief in the court appeal concerning property in the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth.  A friend sent me the link to George Conger at Anglican Ink.  The quote below is said to be from Bishop Matthews' letter:

“As the Intake Officer for the Church, I am obliged to inform you that a complaint has been received against you for your action in filing of Amicus Curiae Brief in the pending appeal in the Supreme Court of Texas in opposition to The Episcopal Diocese of Texas and The Episcopal Church. In the next few weeks, I will initiate a disciplinary process according to Title IV Canon 6 Sec. 3 & 4 of the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church,” Bishop F. Clayton Matthews wrote to the seven bishops.

George Conger did not name his source for the information in the letter.  Note that the quote mentions only "a complaint" and "a disciplinary process", and nothing about "charges".

Thanks to Jim Naughton at The Lead, this morning, I was directed to Bishop Dan Martins' post at his blog Confessions of a Carioca:

I cannot presume to speak for any of the other eight, but I need to be clear that my intention in attaching my name to the amicus brief was in no way to affect the outcome of that case. As the Bishop of Springfield, which is in Illinois, it is no concern of mine how a property dispute in Texas is resolved. If my action has the effect of aiding one side or the other, that is, from my perspective, an immaterial consequence. Rather, I took the action I did with the best interests of the Episcopal Church and the Diocese of Springfield, as nearly as I can discern them, at heart. My principal concern was to not leave unchallenged the assertion that the Episcopal Church is a unitary hierarchical organism at all levels, and that the dioceses are entirely creatures of General Convention. I viewed signing the amicus brief as consistent with my vow to uphold the doctrine and discipline of the Episcopal Church. 

I certainly signed on reluctantly and reservedly. As a matter of general principle, I am opposed to litigating church disputes in secular courts. Lots of scripture passages are challenging to interpret, but I don't think I Corinthians 10 is one of them. "Why not rather be defrauded?", St Paul says. Moreover, I realize how my action could be construed as one bishop interfering in the affairs of a fellow bishop's diocese, which is a big No-No. So I had to make a judgment call, and my judgment, after reflection and prayer, was that I had to join the intervention, because to allow such a false read of TEC polity to potentially help form legal precedent constitutes a danger that could bring harm to the church for decades to come, and resisting this outcome trumps my other concerns.

By signing on to the amicus curiae, Bishop Martins in no way meant to affect the property decision in the Diocese of Fort Worth and had only the best of intentions in his challenge to "the assertion that the Episcopal Church is a unitary hierarchical organism at all levels, and that the dioceses are entirely creatures of General Convention".   Did it never occur to the bishop that the brief might, indeed, affect the outcome of the litigation?  That he could appear to be supporting the cause of the breakaways against his own Episcopal Church?

I wonder why Bishop Martins did not take up the challenge to the hierarchical structure of the church within the channels of the church.  I wonder why he thought to promote "the best interests of the Episcopal Church" by a challenge in a court of law.

In a letter to the people of the Diocese of Albany, Bishop William Love quotes the same words from Bishop Matthews as those quoted above in Anglican Ink and says further:

While Bishop Matthews has informed me that he has received a “complaint,” against me and the other six bishops dealing with our participation in the above mentioned Amicus Curiae Brief, at this point, I have not been officially charged with anything and may not be depending on the outcome of the initial investigation of the “complaint.”

At the appropriate time, I will address my participation in the Amicus Curiae Brief with Bishop Matthews (as the Intake Officer) and others involved.

As I learn more about this situation, I will keep you informed. In the mean time I would ask for your prayers as this situation is resolved.

Again, no one is charged with anything.  A complaint is being investigated.

Commentary from the Anglican Communion Institute:

The sequence of events of the last few days leaves little doubt that these two issues of polity and Title IV were coordinated to coincide with the General Convention that begins this week. It is clear that the Title IV process is being used as a means to enforce a uniformity of thinking on polity that was inconceivable a generation ago. Less clear is whether differences of opinion over polity will be used as an excuse to preserve Title IV overreaches from corrective amendment.

I doubt that Bishop Matthews made public the information on the complaint, so, as to timing, I wonder who gave the information to George Conger and whether whoever released the information in the letter may have wanted to make martyrs of the bishops before GC.

Link to the complete text of the Amicus Curiae.