"Moving Slowly With Caution Isn't Stopping" -

AAC Commentary on the Special Commission Report

AAC Press Release

April 18, 2006



FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE



CONTACT:

Cynthia P. Brust

770-414-1515



“Moving Slowly with Caution Isn’t Stopping”



American Anglican Council (AAC) Commentary on

“One Baptism, One Hope in God’s Call”

The Report of the Special Commission on the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion





Introduction

The Special Commission on the Episcopal Church USA (ECUSA) and the Anglican Communion has released its report, “One Baptism, One Hope in God’s Call,” which includes 11 resolutions recommended for consideration at General Convention. The commission was charged with “preparing the way” for General Convention 2006, which will discuss “maintaining communion” in light of decisions at General Convention 2003 and the ensuing crisis. Recent suggestions in some of the media, blogs, and communication from various bishops that ECUSA might change course appear to be unfounded based on the commission report. ECUSA’s compliance with the stated expectations of the Anglican Communion, including the Windsor Report (issued by the Lambeth Commission, October 2004) and Primates’ Communiqué (issued at the Primates’ Meeting, Dromantine, February 2005), would incorporate a call to repentance for decisions and actions that are contrary to Scripture and Christian teaching; a strong affirmation of Christian tenets of faith and an acknowledgement that Anglicanism upholds Scripture as the central authority on matters of doctrine; a recommendation for the immediate cessation of ordination and consecration of non-celibate homosexuals as well as for same-sex blessings; and a clear call for the Episcopal Church to embrace Lambeth 1.10 as the appropriate consensus for the Communion.



The commission report, however, does not represent such compliance. While it expresses a commitment to live in “the highest degree of communion possible” (Paragraphs 24-25; Resolution A159), the report bases a claim of compliance with the Windsor Report upon expressions of regret that ECUSA’s actions have caused pain, the House of Bishops’ moratorium on approval of all episcopal elections, and the fact that General Convention has not approved official rites for same-sex blessings. Underlying the report is a promise of fudging the issue as well as an underlying message that the Scriptural view of sexuality is antiquated and that the current consensus of the Anglican Communion, with its affirmation of the authority of Scripture and Lambeth 1.10, is no longer acceptable and should be replaced. In short, the report does not reflect the mind of the Anglican Communion with regard to these issues, nor does it comply with the spirit and word of the Windsor Report or the Primates’ Communiqué. It is, therefore, inadequate.



Historical Perspective

In order to understand the report and its significance, it is necessary to frame its historic context. For over 30 years before the 1998 Lambeth Conference, some in the Episcopal Church began embracing revisionist theology that challenged basic tenets of Christian faith, such as the divinity of Christ, the doctrine of the Trinity, the Virgin Birth, the reality of Christ’s Resurrection, and the authority of Scripture. This slippery slope of heterodoxy went largely unchallenged by ECUSA or the Anglican Communion. In the wake of postmodernism, which denies absolute truth and espouses relativism, and the sexual revolution, the Episcopal Church gradually undermined Scriptural and traditional teaching on marriage and morality, particularly regarding sexuality.



In the decades immediately preceding Lambeth 1998, the Anglican Church in the Global South grew in size and stature, and at the Lambeth Conference, Global South leaders found their voice and exerted strong leadership and influence. As a result, bishops gathered at Lambeth recognized the threat to the faith once delivered, and an overwhelming majority voted for Lambeth 1.10 (526-70 with 45 abstentions), a resolution upholding Scriptural and traditional teaching on marriage and human sexuality.



The outrage from ECUSA was immediate. John Spong, then Bishop of Newark, said Global South leaders had “moved out of animism into a very superstitious kind of Christianity”; Frederick Borsch, then Bishop of Los Angeles, said that the bishops meeting at Lambeth were not “well-informed and wholly guided by the Holy Spirit on this issue;” and numerous revisionist bishops signed a letter authored by Bishop Ronald Haines of the Diocese of Washington apologizing to gays and lesbians for the pain caused by Lambeth 1.10. General Convention 2003 was the culmination of a “revolution in stages” in which revisionist leaders sought forcefully to abandon and undermine the apostolic faith of Scripture and Anglicanism. For this perspective to be validated, Scripture would need to be re-written or dismissed in order to promote the new gospel. General Convention 2003 greatly advanced this goal by defeating a resolution that affirmed the authority of Scripture and basic tenets of Christian faith (House of Bishops, Resolution B001); approving a resolution declaring that “local faith communities are operating within the bounds of our common life as they explore and experience liturgies celebrating and blessing same-sex unions” (Resolution C051); and affirming the election for bishop of V. Gene Robinson, a partnered homosexual. It is critical to understand that while the flashpoint issue at General Convention was sexuality, the crisis of belief within the Episcopal Church is far deeper and is centered on a challenge to the authority of Scripture and the person of Jesus Christ as the one and only means of salvation.



The Anglican Communion has decried the actions of ECUSA while upholding Lambeth 1.10 as the authoritative mind of the Communion, and has warned ECUSA that failure to reverse its course will result in severe consequences. The Episcopal Church was instructed to choose to walk together or walk apart from historic Anglicanism.



ECUSA’s official response to Paragraph 135 of the Windsor Report, “To Set Our Hope on Christ,” was presented to the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC) meeting in Nottingham (June 2005). This document justifies their decisions and actions as led by the Spirit, argues that faith must be understood within specific cultural contexts, upholds their actions as prophetic, labels consecration of non-celibate homosexuals and same-sex blessings as justice issues, and emphasizes the need for a new consensus within the Anglican Communion. While the House of Bishops expressed regret over division caused by their actions and for breaking the bonds of affection (“A Covenant Statement of the House of Bishops,” March 15, 2005), rites for same-sex blessings are being developed in at least seven dioceses, and numerous blessings of same-sex unions have been reported. In an act of outright defiance, the Diocese of California’s list of nominees for bishop includes three partnered homosexuals.



General Analysis of the Report



Theological Foundation:

The report begins with a “biblical and theological basis for ECUSA’s understanding of communion.” In the introduction, the commission describes communion as formed through Baptism and in the Eucharist, sacraments making all those who partake members, “brothers and sisters,” in an indissoluble community. In this community, unity becomes the greatest good and highest goal, and the unforgivable sin is division caused by disagreement. The report neither acknowledges nor defines “communion” in terms of a common faith centered on creedal elements such as the doctrines of sin, repentance, salvation and reconciliation through faith in Christ, transformation, or sanctification. Rather, bonds of affection unite ECUSA in the fellowship of the Communion (Paragraph 38).



According to the report, unity is based not on God’s revealed and eternal Truth, but rather is attained at the expense of truth. Behavior reflects belief, and if truth is relative, so is behavior. As long as one is a member through the rites of Baptism and Eucharist, one can believe what one chooses and behave accordingly. In the report, the sacraments of Baptism and Eucharist, traditionally understood as efficacious based on a personal, saving, transforming relationship with Jesus Christ, are subtly elevated to equality with salvation. Revisionist proponents of such thinking would have been opposed to the very idea of ecumenical councils of the early Church because these councils would not accept individual theological beliefs contrary to revealed Truth. Heresy, for revisionists, is not viable unless it is the heresy of disunity and “exclusivity,” and yet such an assertion is historically indefensible. Although the Episcopal Church by its actions has caused schism domestically and internationally, it focuses on those who uphold orthodoxy as divisive.



In Paragraph 13, the commission clearly indicates that healing and reconciliation will involve a new understanding of traditional teaching: “What means are available for recognizing God’s will when it requires reinterpretation of scriptural texts?” A footnote on this question refers to Jesus’ “controversy with scriptural experts of his day over interpretation” of various Old Testament texts and implies that this gives us permission to rewrite Scripture, reminiscent of Bishop of Pennsylvania Charles Bennison’s statement: “[We] wrote the Bible, and we can rewrite it. We have rewritten the Bible many times.”



The report clearly demonstrates that the major issue before the Anglican Communion is far deeper than sexuality. One of the weaknesses of the Windsor Report is that it did not address the House of Bishops’ failure to affirm B001 (the resolution considered during General Convention 2003 which upheld basic tenets of Christian teaching and the authority of Scripture). Dismissal of traditional teaching and practice on human sexuality is a direct result of ECUSA’s abandonment of Scriptural authority.



Expression of Regret:

The committee declares a strong desire to remain in communion, expresses regret for straining the bonds of communion, and asserts that ECUSA has thereby met the standard required for walking together. While the report notes that the consecration of a non-celibate homosexual “raised many questions” (Paragraph 13), the commission does not acknowledge that decisions of General Convention 2003 are in fact contrary to Scripture, tradition and reason, and, therefore, outside the bounds of Christian teaching and practice (Paragraphs 33-35). Rather, the report focuses on the regrettable fact that actions of ECUSA have “breached the bonds of affection” of the Communion. The report expresses only regret for this breach and not repentance or even regret for the decisions and actions themselves (Resolution A160). The implication is that the commission regrets only a precipitous move before a necessary redefining of consensus. Paragraph 38 offers a very interesting distinction between expressions of regret and repentance:



Statements of regret seem to be immediate signs of the desire to remain in communion, while expression of repentance seems a collective process… We also believe General Convention’s consideration of such expressions of regret and repentance will provide clear evidence of our desire to reaffirm the bonds of affection that unite us in the fellowship of the Anglican Communion.



The Anglican Communion Instruments of Unity have expressed expectations for repentance of actions taken, as well as amendment of life marked by adherence to Lambeth 1.10.



Election of Bishops:

Based on the commission’s theological foundation and the need for a new consensus, the report does not call for a moratorium on consecrations of non-celibate homosexuals; rather, the committee urges only “the exercise of very considerable caution” with regard to the election and consecration of an individual “living in a same gender union” (Paragraph 51 and Resolution A161). Such a recommendation for caution seems intended to buy immediate goodwill within the Communion and time to change consensus. In addition, the commission commends the response of the House of Bishops regarding the Windsor Report’s call for a moratorium. In their March 2005 Pastoral Letter, ECUSA bishops claimed they lack the authority to impose such a moratorium on dioceses but pledged to withhold consent for the consecration of any individual elected to the episcopate prior to General Convention 2006.



The report not only fails to call for a moratorium on future consecrations of partnered homosexuals, but also claims that a moratorium by definition is intended to be temporary, in this instance, pending a new consensus developed during a period of prayer and study (Paragraph 48). The commission members “gratefully note” responses to the Windsor Report expressing diversity and inclusivity regarding human sexuality (Paragraph 48).



Public Rites of Blessings for Same-Sex Unions:

The commission obfuscates the issue of blessings of same-sex unions and falls far short of a recommendation for an immediate moratorium. First, the commission “expressly denies” that C051, the resolution recognizing that “local faith communities are operating within the bounds of our common life as they explore and experience liturgies celebrating and blessing same-sex unions,” which was approved at General Convention 2003, represents authorization of official rites for same-sex blessings. The report argues that only liturgies included in authorized ECUSA worship publications (Book of Common Prayer, 1979; the Book of Occasional Services, 2003; and Enriching Our Worship 1 and 2, 1997 and 2000) can be considered authorized or official. For the commission, then, compliance with the Windsor Report is centered on official rites rather than widely practiced, though non-official, liturgies. It is true that General Convention of the Episcopal Church has not adopted or developed official rites, but it is equally true that blessings of same-sex unions (for clergy and lay partners) routinely occur in churches and at homes and do in fact incorporate liturgy. The report neglects to cite that several dioceses have developed, or are in the process of developing, rites, and at least two bishops (John Chane, Diocese of Washington, and Jon Bruno, Diocese of Los Angeles) have personally performed blessings of same-sex unions. To suggest that “no official rite” equals “no blessings of same-sex unions” and non-liturgy is disingenuous at best. With or without official rites, C051 offered ECUSA’s stamp of approval on blessings of same-sex unions as liturgical practice within the church.



The report recommends that bishops refrain from authorizing rites but does not call for a moratorium on such rites or on the practice of blessing same-sex unions. In addition, the report expresses commitment to “ ‘a breadth of private response to situations of individual pastoral care’ ” (Paragraph 53). The commission is referencing a phrase included in a Pastoral Letter issued by Anglican Communion Primates at their meeting in Brazil in May 2003 (also quoted in the Windsor Report, Paragraph 143). In the letter’s section on human sexuality, the Primates emphasize that they could not “support the authorization” of blessings of same-sex unions, noting the Archbishop of Canterbury’s assertion that “it is through liturgy that we express what we believe.” The Primates are clearly concerned that authentic Christian pastoral care be extended to all people, regardless of their sexuality, however, and the pastoral letter goes on to say that:



This is distinct from the duty of pastoral care that is laid upon all Christians to respond with love and understanding to people of all sexual orientations. As recognised in the booklet "True Union", it is necessary to maintain a breadth of private response to situations of individual pastoral care.



The Primates’ reference to “True Union” is key, as it establishes an accurate context for the Pastoral Letter. In “True Union”, a paper commissioned by Archbishop Drexel Gomez, scholars express a strong argument against blessings of same-sex unions, whether officially and unofficially:



The union of physical bodies can affect the union of the ecclesial Body. Something which seems so small and immaterial can evidently have an explosive effect. Policy about sexual behaviour is not just a private matter. (6.24)



…it would be preferable if within the Communion as a whole a moratorium

could be placed on actions in this area which seek to alter the traditional public teaching and practice of the Christian Church. (6.18)



The emphasis of the paper, as well as the Primates’ Pastoral Letter and the Windsor Report, is that practice (official and unofficial) must be consistent with the teaching of Scripture and the Communion. The commission, however, intentionally misrepresents and distorts the clear meaning of these documents, taking them out of context and applying them to support revisionist teaching and practice. Paragraph 53 of the report states, “The Episcopal Church has authorized no other rites. We remain, however, committed to maintaining ‘a breadth of private response to situations of individual pastoral care.’ ” Resolution A162 opens with a call to “maintain a breadth of private response to situations of pastoral care,” implying that such “pastoral care” includes turning a corporate blind eye to blessings of same-sex unions or actually performing such blessings (Paragraph 53 and Resolution A162). The resolution recommends not proceeding with authorization but says nothing about practice of liturgies being conducted in Episcopal churches.



Commitment to Windsor and Listening Process:

The report frames its resolution regarding the Windsor Report by focusing on the Listening Process. The commission’s report repeatedly references “a new consensus” and identifies the Listening Process as a significant tool for reframing the argument and redefining the consensus of the Communion and highly recommends “To Set Our Hope on Christ” as a significant resource for the Listening Process. Both “To Set Our Hope on Christ” and the commission report focus on the Listening Process as a means to change the mind of the Communion and to develop new consensus, which would ultimately embrace and affirm the new gospel of revisionism (Paragraphs 63-65, Resolution A 165).



Anglican Covenant:

Paragraph 72 of the report commends the concept of an Anglican Covenant recommended by the Windsor Report as a means of interdependence in the Communion, but notes three varieties of covenant emphasis – canonical/structural (Windsor Report), doctrinal/confessional (Primates), and missional/relational (Anglican Consultative Council). The report includes a sample covenant which focuses on mission rather than a doctrinal/confessional model. Obviously a covenant based on traditional, apostolic teaching and practice would be inconsistent with the commission’s desire for a new consensus in the Communion. The report’s recommended resolution (Resolution A166) only calls on ECUSA to “follow the development processes and report to Executive Council.” Is this non-committal resolution designed to protect ECUSA should a binding, historically based covenant with a creedal/doctrinal focus be crafted?



Summation

The Episcopal Church was given an opportunity to choose to walk together with the Communion – to choose this day whom it will serve. “One Baptism, One Hope in God’s Call” does not call ECUSA to affirm and conform to the traditional teaching and practice of the Anglican Communion. Instead, it advances revisionism while claiming a desire to remain in the Communion. The "autonomy-in-communion" pleaded for in the Windsor Report is reduced to mean simply "autonomy" in terms of ECUSA’s teaching and practice. Having been asked to stop and reconsider, ECUSA is rebelliously insisting that they go slowly, but remain on the same course. The trajectory of the leadership of the Episcopal Church remains on that very course of revisionism, and it seems nearly impossible that General Convention 2006 will change the course. We will continue to pray for a miracle, because only the truth sets us free.





Sources

“One Baptism, One Hope in God’s Call,” The Special Commission on the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion, April 2005 (Appendix includes Primates’ Dromantine Communiqué and pertinent text from the Windsor Report).

http://www.episcopalchurch.org/documents/SCECACReport.pdf



"To Set Our Hope on Christ: A Response to the Invitation of Windsor Report Paragraph 135,” June 2005.

http://www.anglicanlistening.org/



“True Union,” January 2003.

http://www.americananglican.org/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=ikLUK3MJIpG&b=687991&ct=1254205



Primates’ Pastoral Letter, Brazil, May 2003.

http://www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/articles/34/50/acns3450.html

###
Date: 4/18/2006

Judge reserves decision in $4.35 million lawsuit

By David W. Virtue
www.virtueonline.org
4/15/2006

OWEGO, NY: New York State Supreme Court Judge, Jeffrey A. Tait declined
on Good Friday to dismiss charges brought by an Episcopal priest against
Central New York Bishop Gladstone "Skip" Adams III, the diocese and
former controller and administrator Gael Sopchak.

Fr. David G. Bollinger, rector of St. Paul's church in Owego who was
inhibited by Bishop Adams for alleged financial irregularities, outing
an alleged pedophile priest and for invading his personal bank account
by the controller, is suing the bishop, diocese and Sopchak for $4.35
million.

Named in the lawsuit was the alleged pedophile priest Fr. Ralph Johnson
now living in Gibson, Pennsylvania. According to an eyewitness report
the judge showed considerable interest in the now resigned diocesan
administrator's breaking into Bollinger's personal accounts.

Bollinger's wife Kelly is also claiming $250,000 as part of the lawsuit
for "wrongful and tortuous conduct of the defendants, loss of services
and consortium with her husband" thus impairing his health.

The bishop sought unsuccessfully to have the charges dropped. The bishop
presented the suit as a violation of his First Amendment rights to
discipline his clergy. The lawsuit is not about property rights.

While Bollinger has not been removed from the parish, he cannot function
as a priest. He has been inhibited but not deposed. His lawyer David
Goulden maintains that the inhibition is no longer effective because the
Standing Committee of the Diocese did not play by the rules and did not
hold hearings. The presentment against Fr. Bollinger has been extended
for 90 days from April 5.

Diocesan attorney Jonathan Fellows wore a tie with all kinds of crosses
on it, an observer noted, and works for the high end Syracuse law firm
of Bond, Schoeneck and King. The law firm allegedly charges $300 to $400
an hour. It is estimated that the diocese will spend $220,000 to
$300,000 to defend itself and to bring Bollinger down, said a source.
"We believe the diocese will need to get assistance from a fund
administered by the national church to pay the fees in lawsuits brought
by bishops against priests," he said.

A decision will be made on June 16.

END

CHURCH CLOSING IN BINGHAMTON?

In a letter from the Wardens and Rector of Trinity Memorial Church dated April 10, the following is said:

"As was announced at the worship service on March 26, we have received a letter from the Senior Warden and Vestry of Christ Church inviting Trinity to enter into dialogue with Christ Church about consolidating both churches..."

This is astounding and certainly not welcome news. It is sad to see the oldest church in Binghamton contemplating closing up, and the question must be asked what other options are there?

Consider this: the ministry of the Rev.s Matt and Anne Kennedy has prospered in the small parish on the Southside in Binghamton, Church of the Good Shepherd. Whereas Trinity and Christ Churches have much different approaches to liturgy and other matters, Good Shepherd and Christ Church are both churches in the Anglo-Catholic tradition. Secondly, there is no reason to doubt that the growth that has happened on the Southside could not also happen downtown. Thirdly, the Church of the Good Shepherd would be a great location for social ministry, particularly since the men's shelter a few blocks from Good Shepherd closed a few years ago due to structural problems in their building.

Why wouldn't the diocese consider this? Because the Kennedys believe and teach the orthodox faith of the apostolic and catholic church. This is not the faith that is currently being taught at Christ Church, Trinity Memorial, or in most of the churches in the Diocese of Central NY. It is unfortunate to see any church closing, but it is a sign of the ministry or lack thereof that was being done under the liberal non-gospel. Still, it is sad to see.

The Process of Deconstruction

This short essay is by the Rev. Matt Kennedy, rector of Good Shepherd, Binghamton:

As I noted last week in my “almost” article with regard to the Standing Committee on the Anglican Communion, Dr. Ephraim Radner has said it all with regard to the Report itself. There is little to add from an orthodox perspective.

Instead, I want to focus on the word “process” as it was used by Dr. Radner in his response and contrast his use of the word with that of the Committee.

In the beginning of his response to the published report, Dr. Radner correctly notes that the resolutions contained therein represent only the very beginning of a “process”; that they are suggestions destined for a far more “balanced” committee that will draft the actual resolutions which will be debated on the floor of General Convention.

Dr. Radner recognizes that these initial suggested resolutions are part of a process of decision. The Episcopal Church must decide by June whether to commit herself to the Communion by submitting to the Windsor Report requirements. That is the process.

The Committee‘s Report (PDF), however, redefines the “Windsor Process” as some sort of give and take “conversation” at a used car lot. “The communion is asking for five thousand dollars, let’s offer them two thousand and see how low we can get them.” The subtle deconstruction begins in section two with this interesting description of the Windsor Report:

The Lambeth Commission was given one year to complete its work, and in October 2004 released the Windsor Report. WR is primarily a study of the nature of the Church and of communion. It does not address itself directly to questions of sexuality generally, or homosexuality in particular. Rather, WR invites the Anglican Communion into a process of discernment about the nature and unity of the Church. This process has increasingly, across the Anglican Communion, become known as the “Windsor Process.” (Section II paragraph 15)

The problem is that the WR does indeed address the issue of homosexuality directly in its early affirmation of Lambeth 98 resolution 1.10 and in the specific requests found in section D. These requests do not call for a conversation but a decision.

In other words the “process” as it has been misrepresented in the report is more of an external bargaining process with the wider Communion on the “nature of the Church” rather than an internal process of decision in response to the Windsor Requests. In fact, the Windsor Report is both/and. It does encourage a conversation with regard to the nature of Communion but it (along with the Dromantine Communique) also calls on the Episcopal Church to make certain specific decisons that will indicate her desire to take part in that conversation.

As bishop Langrish made clear, the Episcopal Church cannot come out of General Convention with a “counter-offer” and expect to remain connected to the body. The Anglican Communion is not a used car dealership and the Windsor Report was not an “offer”.

A better illustration of the real Windsor “process” might be to liken it to the “process” of reconciliation following a husband’s adulterous affair. When the wife says, “You can come back home if you’re willing to give up the other woman and commit yourself to the vows of marriage,” she’s not “bargaining” or initiating a “conversation,” much less inviting “dialogue.” She is setting a boundary. The real “conversation” can’t even begin until the husband agrees to end his adulterous affair. That minimal requirement must be met before the real conversation or dialogue can even begin.

In the same way, the Windsor requests set the boundary. They are the minimal requirements that must be met before any Communion-wide conversation with regard to homosexual behavior in the Church can even begin.

The Windsor Process then is not just an external bargaining process with regard to the nature of the Church, but it is also calls for an internal process of decision within the Episcopal Church.

My guess is that the Committee hopes their attempted redefinition of the "Windsor Process" will set the tone of the debate all the way to the Convention floor, influencing bishops and deputies and even moderate primates monitoring events from overseas. The current general expectation, that General Convention 2006 represents a "decision-making moment," is dangerous to ECUSA. The Committee hopes to subtly undermine that expectation so that by June everyone is talking and thinking in car-lot terms.

To counter this, the orthodox members of the next committee to take up the suggested resolutions along with the orthodox deputies and bishops need to consistently call attention to the Standing Committee on the Anglican Communion's subtle deconstruction of Windsor and contrast it with +Langrish’s words and the primates stated expectations at Dromantine.

From the New Yorker Online

The full article is posted on Orthony. This piece is interesting to me:

One of the wonderful things about the Episcopal Church, and about any liturgical church, where you sit and follow a program, is that it is possible for parishioners to go to a church and not know where its politics lie. But in the marketplace of faith it does seem that there’s no contest between the liberal view and the theologically conservative view. The liberal, mainline churches are losing parishioners across the board. The conservative churches are not only growing but growing by leaps and bounds. To me, the reason seems obvious: if you’re shopping for faith, faith is the thing you want, not a watered-down version of a civics lesson. That’s not to say that the evangelical or more orthodox view is just a marketing tool, but people who get up on Sunday morning and say “I think I’ll go to church today” tend to want the genuine article, rather than a speculative “maybe it’s true, maybe it’s not true, we’re all on this journey together” exploration. Because it’s a lot easier, frankly, to stay in bed and get up in time for the first football game.

Comment: One of the regular comments that I have heard from members of other Episcopal congregations in our area is that their priests don't keep them informed about what is going on in the national Episcopal Church or the worldwide Anglican Communion. That's because on both fronts the liberals (of which all but two of our local church are) are getting their heads handed to them. Not only is membership and attendance taken a sharp downturn since the election and consecration of an actively homosexual bishop in New Hampshire, the actions of the Episcopal Church have been repudiated nationally and internationally. As liberal ecusa shrinks and the evangelical churches gain strength the liberals still will not admit, even to themselves, that they are on the wrong track. It's about truth, and liberals don't want to hear that, and they will not believe that God has given us truth in the Holy Scriptures.

Owego Update

CENTRAL NEW YORK: Episcopal Priest Faces Two Charges of being a
Pedophile
Former St. Paul's Priest Allegedly Renounces Orders then Retracts
Confession

By David W. Virtue
www.virtueonline.org

SYRACUSE, NY (4/3/2006)--A retired Episcopal priest in the Diocese of
Central
New York who was accused of pedophilia by another priest, has apparently
confessed his crimes and allegedly renounced his orders to Bishop
Gladstone
"Skip" Adams and Fr. John Martinicchio, Chairman of the sexual abuse,
"Pastoral
Response Team". However, he later retracted his confession. The bishop
has
allegedly threatened a presentment against him.The priest who revealed
the
alleged sexual activities of the priest Fr. Ralph Johnson is Fr. David
Bollinger, priest for 20 years at St. Paul's, Owego, NY. He himself has
been
inhibited by the bishop for alleged financial irregularities and for
allegedly
whistle blowing on Fr. Johnson.

Chris Peterson a vestryman at St. Paul's, Owego, NY, told VirtueOnline,
that
Johnson, now living in Gibson, PA got a visit recently by Bishop Adams
and Fr.
John Martinicchio, rector of Christ Church, Binghamton, where the priest
allegedly confessed his crimes and renounced his orders during this
meeting.
This confession supports the allegations that were raised over two years
ago by
Fr. David Bollinger, then rector of St. Paul's.

Peterson wrote VirtueOnline saying that when a second person came
forward with
allegations of sexual misconduct of several decades ago, the Diocese of
Central
New York obtained the services of a forensic psychologist, who verified
that the
allegations were, in fact, true.

Bishop Adams and Father John Martinicchio, the head of the Diocesan
Response
Team, then visited Johnson, the accused priest, at his home in Gibson,
Pennsylvania.

"Fr. Johnson signed a paper in which he relinquished his position as a
priest in
the Episcopal Church. It is not known whether this paper contained any
explicit
admission of guilt. But priests have three days in which to reconsider
resignations. And Fr. Johnson rescinded his resignation within those
three days.
The Diocese is now working on a second paper, which, it is hoped, Fr.
Johnson
will sign. If not, we are told, the Diocese will then seek a Presentment
against
Fr Johnson," said the vestryman.

All parties concerned are receiving professional care at Diocesan
Expense, said
Peterson. "Damages are not being sought; merely, an acknowledgment from
the
Church that what happened, actually happened."

When I approached Fr. Martinicchio about what took place, VOL was told,
"I have
no comment. I am not going to discuss the situation." Bishop Adams did
not
respond immediately to an E-mail about the situation. But Ms. Kathleen
McDaniel,
Executive Assistant to the Bishop responded to the e-mail sent to Bishop
Adams
with a copy to VOL saying; "Sorry to have to bother you (bishop) with
this. I
was tempted to delete it. Then I was tempted to send a reply on your
behalf and
simply say, no." The bishop did not personally respond.

Later Bishop Adams did respond to VOL and said this: "Your inquiry is
inappropriate and it would be correspondingly inappropriate for me to
respond."

But Fr. David Bollinger the ousted priest from St. Paul's was under no
such
restriction. He told VOL, "I believe I have been inhibited as a
punishment for
trying to seek the truth about Johnson's alleged pedophile activities
when I
received an affidavit from one of 16 victims of my parish charging the
former
parish priest with sexual abuse."

Bollinger sent the signed complaint to the bishop and pastoral response
team. As
a result of doing this, and because he blew the whistle on the former
parish
priest, the bishop turned on Bollinger and inhibited him and then
accused him of
misusing his Discretionary Fund.

VirtueOnline revealed the name of the priest, Fr. Johnson and identified
him as
retired and living in Gibson, PA. VirtueOnline called the priest.

VIRTUEONLINE: "Fr. Johnson you have been identified as the priest at St.
Paul's
in Owego, NY who sexually abused some 16 boys in the 70s. Is that true?"

JOHNSON: "Not that I know of."

VIRTUEONLINE: A woman has stepped forward with evidence that you had a
joint
bank account with her son to cover up your sexual behavior? Is that
true?

JOHNSON: "No way".

VIRTUEONLINE: "Fr. Bollinger, the current priest at the parish alleges
that he
has been inhibited because he exposed information about you to Bishop
Gladstone
"Skip" Adams? Why would the bishop go after him and not you?"

JOHNSON: "I don't know anything about this. Good luck with this."
Johnson then
hung up.

At the time the diocese said it had insufficient grounds to fully
investigate
the charges. But when another witness stepped forward earlier this year
the
diocese had no choice but to investigate the charges. While the issues
related
to the pedophile charges are closer to resolution at this time, the
diocese has
not yet rescinded the presentment against Fr. Bollinger.

PRESENTMENT ISSUED

But Bishop Adams had already taken the next step in his vendetta against
Fr.
David Bollinger. Following the November diocesan convention he moved
against Fr.
Bollinger and by decree of the Standing Committee inhibited him.

In a letter dated March 14, the Bishop handed down a presentment against
Fr.
Bollinger. The presentment means that Fr. Bollinger will now be tried by
an
ecclesiastical court. The diocese continues to maintain the veil of
secrecy over
the charges, claiming that they are doing so in order "to be fair and
faithful
to all persons involved." The letter further claims that the full
disclosure of
the presentment would "potentially prejudice the proceedings now before
the
Ecclesiastical Court."

The Standing Committee which issued the presentment is the same group
that would
not hear from the vestry (the leadership board) of St. Paul's, Owego,
the parish
where Fr. Bollinger served because to do so would prejudice their minds
in the
matter.

"I have been told by a member of clergy in the Diocese of Central NY
that a
member of the ecclesiastical court, the Rev. Dr. William Lutz, has said
in a
clergy meeting that he believes that Fr. Bollinger is guilty as charged.
If this
is what Fr. Lutz said, he would seem to have a prejudiced mind before
the trial
has even started. If so, this is just one more piece of an ever widening
accumulation of evidence that the diocesan process toward removing Fr.
Bollinger
from his parish and potentially from the priesthood has been extremely
flawed
from the beginning," said Bollinger.

The inhibited priest recently filed a $4.35 million lawsuit against the
bishop,
diocese and former comptroller by his attorney David Goulding. The
lawsuit names
Bishop Skip Adams, the Diocese of Central NY and former comptroller Gael
Sopchak
as defendants.

A letter later arrived stating that Fr. Bollinger's inhibition has been
extended
for another 90 days. This makes it over a year since Fr. Bollinger was
permitted
to function as a priest.

Multiple sources told VirtueOnline that the diocese has hired one of the
most
expensive law firms in Syracuse to handle the lawsuit. Ironically this
was the
same diocese that could not afford to continue the ministry of the
Thornfield
Conference Center and tore it down. "In the past two years, our
impoverished
diocese has paid $30,000 for a forensic audit, hired a public relations
firm and
now an expensive law firm. As our bishop tells us, a budget is a
theological
statement, and the forensic audit, PR firm and expensive law firm speak
volumes
about the bankrupt theology of the Diocese of Central NY," said the
source.

END

----

Has the Diocese of Central NY Complied?

This resolution was passed at the Annual Convention of the Diocese of Central NY in November 2005:

Resolution # 4
Subject: Diocesan Salaries
Submitted by: The Rev. J. Gurdon Brewster
WHEREAS the salaries, pension payments, and all other allowances paid to the Diocesan clergy and parish staff are known by each individual congregation, and whereas many Dioceses of the Episcopal Church declare their general and administrative costs by title and job description, and whereas, income of the Diocese of Central New York has been declining for several years;
BE IT RESOLVED that to encourage better stewardship and openness, the 2006 individual compensation and benefits of the Bishop and diocesan staff be printed with the Annual Report each year.
This Resolution is not recommended, was amended and passed.


Comment: This was presented and passed at diocesan convention as one small way to break through the veil of secrecy. I look forward to seeing this information that has never been made public, to my knowledge, in my nearly eight years in this diocese.