PURGE II
It has officially begun. George Conger reports:
Disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against three bishops of the Episcopal Church under the provisions of Title IV for having endorsed a legal pleading filed in the Quincy lawsuit.
On 28 June 2012, the Rt. Rev. Edward L. Salmon, Jr., former Bishop of South Carolina and Dean of Nashotah House seminary, the Rt. Rev. Peter H. Beckwith, former Bishop of Springfield, and th Rt. Rev. D. Bruce MacPherson, Bishop of Western Louisiana received an email from the Rt. Rev. F. Clayton Matthews stating that the charges had been leveled against them.
“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 signing affidavits in opposition to a motion for Summary Judgment made by representatives of The Episcopal Diocese of Quincy and The Episcopal Church in the Fall of 2011 to secure the Diocesan financial assets from a breakaway group. 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 Matthews wrote.
The bishops have not been informed what canon they violated. But they appear to be accused of violating the canons for having filed a brief in opposition to the national church’s motion for summary judgment in the case of the Diocese of Quincy v. the Episcopal Church.
George Conger also reports:
Seven bishops have been charged with misconduct for having endorsed a friend of the court brief prepared by the Anglican Communion Institute in the Diocese of Fort Worth case.
On 28 June 2012, the Rt Rev Maurice M. Benitez, retired Bishop of Texas, the Rt Rev John W. Howe, retired Bishop of Central Florida, the Rt Rev Paul E. Lambert. Suffragan Bishop of Dallas, the Rt Rev William H. Love, Bishop of Albany, the Rt Rev D. Bruce MacPherson, Bishop of Western Louisiana, the Rt Rev Daniel H. Martins, Bishop of Springfield, and the Rt. Rev. James M. Stanton, Bishop of Dallas were informed they had been charged with misconduct.
“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.
The bishops have not been notified with violation of the canons they have committed, but Bishop Matthews’ notice refers to the pleading they endorsed in the Diocese of Fort Worth case presently before the Texas Supreme Court.
Make no mistake; this goes straight to the top. The Curmudgeon reports that these charges wouldn’t have been filed at all if the Presiding Bishop didn’t want them to be.
Needless to say, these “charges” should never make it past the Intake Officer. Why they require investigation “over the next few weeks” is beyond this canon law attorney. To be sure, Bishop Matthews is unable to dismiss the charges on his own if the Presiding Bishop objects to that dismissal. Canons IV.5.4 and IV.5.5 state in part as follows (note that in the case of charges against bishops, Canon IV.17.2 (c) provides that “Bishop Diocesan” shall mean the Presiding Bishop):
Sec. 4. Upon receipt of such information, the Intake Officer may make such preliminary investigation as he or she deems necessary, and shall incorporate the information into a written intake report, including as much specificity as possible. The Intake Officer shall provide copies of the intake report to the other members of the Reference Panel and to the Church Attorney.
Sec. 5. If the Intake Officer determines that the information, if true, would not constitute an Offense, the Intake Officer shall inform the Bishop Diocesan of an intention to dismiss the matter. If the Bishop Diocesan does not object, the Intake Officer shall dismiss the matter…
Let’s see. A seminary head, a suffragan bishop and four sitting diocesans. Two things stand out, at least to me. I didn’t think Mrs. Schori had it in her. And why Mark Lawrence wasn’t somehow worked in completely escapes me.
Yeah, I know, Lawrence didn’t put his name on either one of those briefs but legality has never gotten in Mrs. Schori’s way before(no offense, Mudge, but as far as the Episcopal Organization is concerned, the position of “canon law attorney” has basically become completely and utterly meaningless).
Is this an overreach on the part of the Episcopal left? Could be. Mark Harris is not at all happy. And reading between the lines, one detects a certain nervousness on the part of Mr. Naughton’s fine establishment wheresome troublemaker left the following comment(which, to their credit, they published).
To say the least, I find it more than a little amusing that many of the same people who consider the Leadership Conference of Women Religious to be heroes and the Vatican to be oppressive bullies can turn around and apparently demand absolute, total and unquestioning obedience to the views of Second Avenue.
What’s going to happen? My sense is that these charges will be allowed to die a quiet death. To pursue them, to suggest, as Miss Wells seems to advocate in the post immediately below this, that one’s personal opinions on non-Church affairs ought to affect one’s chances of becoming an Episcopal bishop turns the Episcopal Organization into far more of a cartoon than it believes the Roman Catholic Church to be.
And then there’s the whole “should I stay or should I go” argument. I can’t answer that one; Lord knows I stayedway longer than I should have so what you do is between you and your Creator and I’ll pray for you either way. But I do know this.
These charges, along with their evident approval by the highest figures at 815, indicate that it’s no longer a question of if you will leave the Episcopal Organization. It’s a question of when you will leave the Episcopal Organization.
Disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against three bishops of the Episcopal Church under the provisions of Title IV for having endorsed a legal pleading filed in the Quincy lawsuit.
On 28 June 2012, the Rt. Rev. Edward L. Salmon, Jr., former Bishop of South Carolina and Dean of Nashotah House seminary, the Rt. Rev. Peter H. Beckwith, former Bishop of Springfield, and th Rt. Rev. D. Bruce MacPherson, Bishop of Western Louisiana received an email from the Rt. Rev. F. Clayton Matthews stating that the charges had been leveled against them.
“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 signing affidavits in opposition to a motion for Summary Judgment made by representatives of The Episcopal Diocese of Quincy and The Episcopal Church in the Fall of 2011 to secure the Diocesan financial assets from a breakaway group. 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 Matthews wrote.
The bishops have not been informed what canon they violated. But they appear to be accused of violating the canons for having filed a brief in opposition to the national church’s motion for summary judgment in the case of the Diocese of Quincy v. the Episcopal Church.
George Conger also reports:
Seven bishops have been charged with misconduct for having endorsed a friend of the court brief prepared by the Anglican Communion Institute in the Diocese of Fort Worth case.
On 28 June 2012, the Rt Rev Maurice M. Benitez, retired Bishop of Texas, the Rt Rev John W. Howe, retired Bishop of Central Florida, the Rt Rev Paul E. Lambert. Suffragan Bishop of Dallas, the Rt Rev William H. Love, Bishop of Albany, the Rt Rev D. Bruce MacPherson, Bishop of Western Louisiana, the Rt Rev Daniel H. Martins, Bishop of Springfield, and the Rt. Rev. James M. Stanton, Bishop of Dallas were informed they had been charged with misconduct.
“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.
The bishops have not been notified with violation of the canons they have committed, but Bishop Matthews’ notice refers to the pleading they endorsed in the Diocese of Fort Worth case presently before the Texas Supreme Court.
Make no mistake; this goes straight to the top. The Curmudgeon reports that these charges wouldn’t have been filed at all if the Presiding Bishop didn’t want them to be.
Needless to say, these “charges” should never make it past the Intake Officer. Why they require investigation “over the next few weeks” is beyond this canon law attorney. To be sure, Bishop Matthews is unable to dismiss the charges on his own if the Presiding Bishop objects to that dismissal. Canons IV.5.4 and IV.5.5 state in part as follows (note that in the case of charges against bishops, Canon IV.17.2 (c) provides that “Bishop Diocesan” shall mean the Presiding Bishop):
Sec. 4. Upon receipt of such information, the Intake Officer may make such preliminary investigation as he or she deems necessary, and shall incorporate the information into a written intake report, including as much specificity as possible. The Intake Officer shall provide copies of the intake report to the other members of the Reference Panel and to the Church Attorney.
Sec. 5. If the Intake Officer determines that the information, if true, would not constitute an Offense, the Intake Officer shall inform the Bishop Diocesan of an intention to dismiss the matter. If the Bishop Diocesan does not object, the Intake Officer shall dismiss the matter…
Let’s see. A seminary head, a suffragan bishop and four sitting diocesans. Two things stand out, at least to me. I didn’t think Mrs. Schori had it in her. And why Mark Lawrence wasn’t somehow worked in completely escapes me.
Yeah, I know, Lawrence didn’t put his name on either one of those briefs but legality has never gotten in Mrs. Schori’s way before(no offense, Mudge, but as far as the Episcopal Organization is concerned, the position of “canon law attorney” has basically become completely and utterly meaningless).
Is this an overreach on the part of the Episcopal left? Could be. Mark Harris is not at all happy. And reading between the lines, one detects a certain nervousness on the part of Mr. Naughton’s fine establishment wheresome troublemaker left the following comment(which, to their credit, they published).
To say the least, I find it more than a little amusing that many of the same people who consider the Leadership Conference of Women Religious to be heroes and the Vatican to be oppressive bullies can turn around and apparently demand absolute, total and unquestioning obedience to the views of Second Avenue.
What’s going to happen? My sense is that these charges will be allowed to die a quiet death. To pursue them, to suggest, as Miss Wells seems to advocate in the post immediately below this, that one’s personal opinions on non-Church affairs ought to affect one’s chances of becoming an Episcopal bishop turns the Episcopal Organization into far more of a cartoon than it believes the Roman Catholic Church to be.
And then there’s the whole “should I stay or should I go” argument. I can’t answer that one; Lord knows I stayedway longer than I should have so what you do is between you and your Creator and I’ll pray for you either way. But I do know this.
These charges, along with their evident approval by the highest figures at 815, indicate that it’s no longer a question of if you will leave the Episcopal Organization. It’s a question of when you will leave the Episcopal Organization.
No comments:
Post a Comment