MORE ON THE COMPLAINTS AGAINST SEVEN TEC BISHOPS AND TWO MORE

Disciplinary process set to begin on complaints against nine bishops:

[Episcopal News Service] Two complaints apparently have been filed about the involvement of five active bishops and four retired bishops in property litigation in two Episcopal Church dioceses.

Word of the complaints surfaced on various blogs and e-mail lists on June 30. No information about either complaint was released by the Episcopal Church, including the name or names of the complainants.

According to the reports, including an extensive one here, Bishop Clayton Mathews e-mailed two groups of bishops to tell them that he had received complaints against them and that “in the next few weeks” he would begin the disciplinary process as called for in Title IV.6.3-4 of the canons of the Episcopal Church.

It is highly unusual for the existence of a complaint to become public knowledge at this point in the process, regardless the order of the person against whom the complaint is filed.

“As cited in Title IV, disciplinary matters are confidential at this stage,” Episcopal Church Public Affairs Officer Neva Rae Fox told Episcopal News Service July 2. “We are honoring that confidentiality.” (My emphasis)

In one instance, the complaint apparently concerns the fact that seven bishops endorsed an amicus curiae or “friend of the court” brief prepared by the Anglican Communion Institute, Inc. in the pending appeal of a court ruling involving the Diocese of Fort Worth and the bishop, clergy and laity who broke away from that diocese in November 2008.
The brief objects to the trial court’s ruling that told the dissidents to return “all property, as well as control of the diocesan corporation” to the Episcopal leaders of the diocese.
....

Those named in the Fort Worth complaint are retired Diocese of Texas Bishop Maurice M. Benitez, retired Diocese of Central Florida Bishop John W. Howe, Diocese of Dallas Bishop Suffragan Paul E. Lambert, Diocese of Albany Bishop William H. Love, Diocese of Western Louisiana Bishop D. Bruce MacPherson, Diocese of Springfield Bishop Daniel H. Martins, and Diocese of Dallas Bishop James M. Stanton.

MacPherson is also named in the other complaint, along with retired Diocese of South Carolina Bishop Edward L. Salmon, Jr. and retired Diocese of Springfield Bishop Peter H. Beckwith. Matthews e-mailed them to say that a complaint has been received against them because they signed affidavits opposing to a motion for summary judgment made by representatives of the Diocese of Quincy and the Episcopal Church in the fall of 2011 to secure diocesan financial assets from a group that broke from the diocese in November 2008.

Read the entire article at ENS.

At least we now know that the persons who handle complaints in the Episcopal Church did not make the information public.  I had not previously written about the complaint against the bishops about the affidavits in the Diocese of Quincy because...well, because I have a one-track mind, and I am only one person and can't cover everything.  Now you know.

H/T to Ann Fontaine at The Lead.

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.

JUDGE GRANTS EPISCOPAL CHURCH'S MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENTS IN DIOCESE OF FORT WORTH

From Jim Naughton at The Lead:

On Friday, January 21, 2011, the Hon. John P. Chupp of the 141st District Court, Tarrant County, Texas, granted the Local Episcopal Parties’ and The Episcopal Church’s Motions for Summary Judgments. He denied the Southern Cone parties Motion for a Partial Summary Judgment The orders can be seen here.

The Court orders provide in part that the defendants, including Bishop Jack L. Iker, “surrender all Diocesan property, as well as control of the Diocesan Corporation, to the Diocesan plaintiffs and to provide an accounting of all Diocesan assets within 60 days of this order.” Additionally, “the Court hereby orders the Defendants not to hold themselves out as leaders of the Diocese.”

It's only right, and it's about time.

In November 2008, former Bishop Jack L. Iker and other diocesan leaders left The Episcopal Church and aligned themselves with another church, the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone. Since then they have been using the name and seal of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth and occupying Episcopal Church property.

For over two years, faithful Episcopalians in the diocese have not only been denied the use of their property, but they've had their name appropriated by those who left the Episcopal Church. Here's the website of the real Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth.

Check out the phony Diocese of Fort Worth. Confusing, right? The giveaway on the home page is the prominence of the link to Exodus International "a ministry of freedom from homosexuality through the power of Jesus Christ".

It's been a long night, but a new day has dawned.

UPDATE: From the phony Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth comes the news that they will appeal the decision by Judge Chupp, which is not surprising. Will they ask for a stay on the order to vacate the property, and, if so, what are the chances that a stay will be granted? Thanks to Bex in the comments for the update.