A Comment from TitusOneNine

From a member of the St. Paul's, Owego vestry on the posting of the Bishop's Memo (you will find the Bishop's Memo below). ed.

It is entirely true that gentlemen do not read other people’s mail, let alone publish it. Gentlemen also do not leave their wives and children in order to pursue the pleasures of Sodom with other men. A promise means something to a gentleman. Gentlemen keep their word, as this Bishop has not—he told the Vestry we could testify before the Standing Committee, and did not let us do so. Gentlemen value their honor almost above all else. A gentleman discovered in a dishonorable action will, if he cannot make amends, have the decency to withdraw from society until he can. His good name is not a fraud visited on the public, propped up by image consultants and public relations men—it is the man himself, right down to the core.

A gentleman holding a high public position discovered in a vile scheme to dispossess another man of his good name by fraud and secrecy will have the decency to resign his post.

If a gentleman held the position of Bishop of the Diocese of Central New York, why, none of this would be necessary. So why bring up the standards of gentlemen in the case of Bishop Adams?

The point of publishing documents which, in the normal course of things, would have remained private, is that this is not the normal course of things. There is no way to obtain justice for Father Bollinger in the Diocese of Central New York, were Skip allowed to proceed in the privacy and secrecy to which he is evidently accustomed.

The case of Gladstone B. Adams and others clearly demonstrates that the structure of the Episcopal polity has always assumed a certain high moral caliber among the Church leadership. Absent fidelity to the cardinal moral virtues, the structure cannot prevent abuses which would not be tolerated in the secular polity. There is no guarantee of separation of powers: the functions of prosecutor, judge and jury are all combined in the person of Bishop Adams.

Here and there, the Bishop speaks of “independent” investigations. What makes them independent? Merely the say-so of the Bishop. An “independent” investigator exonerated Gael Sopchak of assuming Father Bollinger’s identity and getting into his private retirement account. By what process of evidence-gathering and reasoning did this person reach his or her conclusion. If we knew this, we might form the impression that there was, indeed, some independence. (unlikely, given the transcripts of her conversations with a bank officer) But the Bishop refuses to release the report of this so-called investigation.

Given the vulnerability of this structure to the non-gentlemen who now occupy some of its highest posts, it is now necessary to appeal to places where obtaining justice is more likely, and where truth is more likely to have a hearing. What a scandal!

Chris Peterson
Owego, NY