Source: American Anglican Council
February 5, 2010
By The Rev. Phil Ashey
Introduction: On February 2, 2010, the American Anglican Council (AAC) released a document describing how The Episcopal Church (TEC) has spent millions of dollars in over 50 lawsuits, deposed or inhibited 12 bishops and more than 400 other clergy, and violated its own canons numerous times. This paper was written at the request of several members of the Church of England's General Synod in preparation for their vote regarding the nature of their relationship with the Anglican Church in North America. On February 4, Mr. Simon Sarmiento, member of the Church of England and founder of the blog "Thinking Anglicans," published a rebuttal of what he called "factual inaccuracies" in the AAC's paper. Mr. Sarmiento is not an attorney and admitted to having the help of, among others, TEC's lead lawyer, David Booth Beers, and the Presiding Bishop's Special Council for property litigation, Mary E. Kostel.
Mr. Sarmiento's full paper is located at: http://thinkinganglicans.org.uk/uploads/ashworthrebuttaltec.html
The following points are in reply to Sarmiento's assertions of factual inaccuracies.
1. The numbers of clergy deposed for abandonment of communion is at least 237, not 170. The number of bishops so deposed is three. In addition, nine bishops and at least 152 clergy have been removed for "renunciation of ordained ministry" in violation of the plain reading of the canons.
All of this has been documented in our paper The Episcopal Church: Unjust and Overbearing Episcopal Acts, at pp. 3-21. The list we published does not purport to be a complete list - in fact, since we have published it, more clergy have contacted us and identified themselves as having been inhibited, deposed or released under the abandonment and renunciation canons by TEC. We have documentation and substantiation showing the inhibition, deposition and release of all these clergy for either alleged abandonment of communion or renunciation of ministry. The American Anglican Council can provide copies of this documentation by facsimile or e-mail if requested.
2. The Renunciation canons are not simply juridical in process. The plain language of the canons (III.9.8 for priests and deacons, III.12.7 for bishops) does in fact address the indelibility of Holy orders.
Please read the plain language of the canons at pages 9 and 12 of our brief: upon renunciation, the bishop, priest or deacon "is deprived of the right to exercise the gifts and spiritual authority as a Minister of God's Word and Sacraments conferred in Ordination." Please note: the removal is not specific to the Episcopal Church. It goes directly to the gifts and spiritual authority conferred in Ordination. If the Episcopal Church wanted to change the catholic understanding of Ordination and limit the renunciation to ministry within the Episcopal Church it could have done so by amending Canons III.9.8 and III. 12.7. It has chosen to leave the language referring to ordination intact and without limitation.
3. Neither Bishop Jack Iker nor any of the other bishops removed by TEC under the Renunciation of Ministry canons ever voluntarily resigned their Holy Orders or ministry as a bishop.
Please note Bishop Iker's statement on page 10 of our brief:
"The Presiding Bishop is misleading the Church and misrepresenting the facts in her recent allegation that I have renounced the ordained ministry of the Episcopal Church. According to Canon III.12.7, any bishop desiring to renounce his orders "shall declare in writing to the Presiding Bishop a renunciation of the ordained ministry of this Church, and a desire to be removed therefrom," and that the PB shall then "record the declaration and request so made." I have not written to the Presiding Bishop making any such declaration or request. I hope the House of Bishops will hold her accountable for her continued abuse of the canons."
This statement and the statements of the other bishops who did not voluntary resign as required by the canons are a matter of public record and may be read at pp. 8-11 of our brief. Of the clergy who resigned their position within The Episcopal Church, transferred to another Province of the Anglican Communion, and were summarily removed by the renunciation of ministry canon (III.9.8), not even one wrote a letter voluntarily renouncing their ministry and a desire to be removed therefrom. There is no such thing as an "implied renunciation" in canon law or common sense.
4. The statement "all clergy - including bishops - who leave TEC for another province of the Anglican Communion... are required to complete a corresponding exit process [under the Renunciation of ministry canons].." is manifestly false and misleading.
There is nothing in the plain language of canons III.9.8 and III.12.7 that require a Renunciation of Ministry upon a transfer to another province of the Anglican Communion - period. As we note in our brief at page 13, use of the Renunciation canons for transfers creates a novel and functional definition of Holy Orders in The Episcopal Church, the net effect of which might well be to redefine American Anglicanism in TEC as an autonomous church with an autonomous understanding of both communion and Holy Orders.
5. The statement "In fact, it is contrary to the policy of The Episcopal Church to seek remedies from laypersons, and it has never done so" is manifestly false and misleading.
The American Anglican Council has documented at least 48 cases where the Episcopal Church and the diocese have sued individual vestry members (see pp. 27-28 of our brief). This too is a matter of public record and we are prepared to substantiate the facts with copies of the pleadings if necessary - copies that will show from past cases that it is indeed the policy of the Episcopal Church to sue individual vestry members and that such cases are current within the courts. In Virginia alone, approximately 200 individual vestry members were sued by The Episcopal Church and the diocese. In some cases, the Episcopal Church and the Diocese have sued for punitive damages - which requires a showing of malicious behavior on the part of the vestryperson being sued. In other words, The Episcopal Church is alleging that the act of leaving amounts to the kind of malicious conduct that would be on a par with a fraud or a tort. Such damages are often triple the amount of the property and/or the accounting alleged. The Episcopal Church sued individual vestry members for punitive damages in the California cases (St. David's North Hollywood, St. James Newport Beach, All Saints Long Beach). Even where punitive damages were not alleged, there are cases where The Episcopal Church has sued individual vestry members for an accounting of all funds expended by the church after they have departed. In any case, when the Episcopal Church and/or Diocese sues an individual vestry member, the financial costs of hiring an attorney as well as the emotional distress and intimidation is costly. In all such cases, as we have noted, the mere existence of a lawsuit has financial implications for the vestry member sued. Those consequences include the inability to obtain a mortgage for a home or other necessities, or a security clearance for a new job.
There is simply no need to sue individual vestry members. The corporation of the church in question is a sufficient party to sue. The only reason to sue individuals is to intimidate them.
One must ask the question, at what point does such a willful and reckless indifference to the facts amount to an intent to deceive?
______________
No comments:
Post a Comment