SHOW TRIAL
Yesterday, Dan Martins, the Episcopal Bishop of Springfield, wrote the following on the diocesan web site:
Early last year, I, along with seven other bishops and two priests, allowed my name to be attached to an amicus curiae brief placed before the Texas Supreme Court in a property dispute between the two factions that represent what used to be the unified Diocese of Fort Worth. The purpose of the brief was to refute certain claims made by attorneys for those remaining in the Episcopal Church regarding the hierarchical polity of the Episcopal Church. We believe that these claims falsely construe our polity, and to leave them unchallenged and allow them to contribute to the formation of legal precedent would be injurious to the long-term interets of our respective dioceses and of the Episcopal Church generally.
In late June, the eight of us were informed that a complaint had been lodged against us under Title IV of the Episcopal Church’s canons, those that concern clergy misconduct. In September, we were informed that, rather than proceeding to an adjudication, there would be a process of “conciliation” (a technical term under that canon).
Between midday yesterday and midday today, representatives of the accused bishops (I among them) met at a conference center in Richmond, Virginia with representatives of the complainants and a professional conciliator appointed by the Presiding Bishop. The desired outcome of such a meeting is formal document termed an Accord by the canons. An Accord is in lieu of a juridical determination of guilt or innocence and any attendant penalties.
We all signed an expansive confidentiality agreement, so there is not very much I can say, except this: We did reach an in-principle agreement that we expect will become an Accord, and that will resolve all the complaints that have been made against us.
According to the canons, an Accord is not officially reached until the Presiding Bishop approves it. In the event that happens, the document will be made public by her office. All of us who participated in this process are grateful beyond words for the prayers of a great many people. In time, there may be more that I can say about the agreement and my assessment of it. For now, I’m constrained by the confidentiality agreement.
Do you know why that link goes to Stand Firm and not the diocesan web site? Here is the link to the original story. Notice what happens when you click on it. Apparently, somebody in high places thought that what little information appears here violated that confidentiality agreement and Martins was forced to take the post down.
Let’s sum up. Eight Episcopal bishops and two Episcopal priests exercised their First Amendment rights by signing their names to a piece of paper. Since their opinions offended Church Center, they were brought up on spurious disciplinary charges.
Apparently, some kind of “conciliation” has been achieved which doesn’t sound as though the Episcopalians are going to announce that these charges never should have been filed in the first place. If that is in fact what is going on here, I see two possible options in play, both of them bad.
Bishop Martins and the others caved, at least to a certain extent, which means that the Communion Partner bishops finally have someone they can look down upon and feel morally superior to. Paris may be worth a Mass but a pointy hat and hooked stick shouldn’t be worth your integrity.
The other possibility is this: on its first field test, Mrs. Schori’s new ecclesiastical KGB worked like a finely-balanced timepiece. The Episcopal left now has an effective “legal” weapon it will employ against anyone in TEO who dissents from the party line and TEO “canon law” has just turned into the spiritual equivalent of the Soviet constitution.
I can’t stress this often enough. If you are a Christian, it’s not a matter of if you will leave the Episcopal Organization, it’s a matter of when. And “when” is coming a lot faster than you think.
Early last year, I, along with seven other bishops and two priests, allowed my name to be attached to an amicus curiae brief placed before the Texas Supreme Court in a property dispute between the two factions that represent what used to be the unified Diocese of Fort Worth. The purpose of the brief was to refute certain claims made by attorneys for those remaining in the Episcopal Church regarding the hierarchical polity of the Episcopal Church. We believe that these claims falsely construe our polity, and to leave them unchallenged and allow them to contribute to the formation of legal precedent would be injurious to the long-term interets of our respective dioceses and of the Episcopal Church generally.
In late June, the eight of us were informed that a complaint had been lodged against us under Title IV of the Episcopal Church’s canons, those that concern clergy misconduct. In September, we were informed that, rather than proceeding to an adjudication, there would be a process of “conciliation” (a technical term under that canon).
Between midday yesterday and midday today, representatives of the accused bishops (I among them) met at a conference center in Richmond, Virginia with representatives of the complainants and a professional conciliator appointed by the Presiding Bishop. The desired outcome of such a meeting is formal document termed an Accord by the canons. An Accord is in lieu of a juridical determination of guilt or innocence and any attendant penalties.
We all signed an expansive confidentiality agreement, so there is not very much I can say, except this: We did reach an in-principle agreement that we expect will become an Accord, and that will resolve all the complaints that have been made against us.
According to the canons, an Accord is not officially reached until the Presiding Bishop approves it. In the event that happens, the document will be made public by her office. All of us who participated in this process are grateful beyond words for the prayers of a great many people. In time, there may be more that I can say about the agreement and my assessment of it. For now, I’m constrained by the confidentiality agreement.
Do you know why that link goes to Stand Firm and not the diocesan web site? Here is the link to the original story. Notice what happens when you click on it. Apparently, somebody in high places thought that what little information appears here violated that confidentiality agreement and Martins was forced to take the post down.
Let’s sum up. Eight Episcopal bishops and two Episcopal priests exercised their First Amendment rights by signing their names to a piece of paper. Since their opinions offended Church Center, they were brought up on spurious disciplinary charges.
Apparently, some kind of “conciliation” has been achieved which doesn’t sound as though the Episcopalians are going to announce that these charges never should have been filed in the first place. If that is in fact what is going on here, I see two possible options in play, both of them bad.
Bishop Martins and the others caved, at least to a certain extent, which means that the Communion Partner bishops finally have someone they can look down upon and feel morally superior to. Paris may be worth a Mass but a pointy hat and hooked stick shouldn’t be worth your integrity.
The other possibility is this: on its first field test, Mrs. Schori’s new ecclesiastical KGB worked like a finely-balanced timepiece. The Episcopal left now has an effective “legal” weapon it will employ against anyone in TEO who dissents from the party line and TEO “canon law” has just turned into the spiritual equivalent of the Soviet constitution.
I can’t stress this often enough. If you are a Christian, it’s not a matter of if you will leave the Episcopal Organization, it’s a matter of when. And “when” is coming a lot faster than you think.
No comments:
Post a Comment