Dear Members of Trinity Parish:
As your bishop, I am inviting you to attend a confidential meeting at which I will provide you with additional information concerning my reasons for inhibiting the exercise of the priestly office by Dean Philip C. Linder.
I am convening this meeting because in my pastoral judgment, and in my exercise of the ministry of oversight as an ordained episcopal leader in our church, it is my conclusion that sharing additional information with you is necessary. I hope to assure you of the deliberate and careful way in which decisions have been made, and the factual justification for them. The ultimate goal of the meeting is to ensure that the health and wellness of the parish are preserved.
Continuing secrecy, even for “confidentiality reasons,” can only fuel wild speculation and unhelpful rumor-mongering. As Bishop Waldo has chosen to allow the Trinity drama to play out in the public arena, I hope he’ll finally be forthcoming about what’s really going on at his cathedral.
Compare the actions of the bishops of Northwestern Pennsylvania and Upper South Carolina. NWPA when informed of the behavior of his (dead) predecessor’s predecessor went public with the facts and has kept the names of the victims secret. USC imposed a “don’t communicate” order on the Dean and has attempted to do so on the Dean’s family and congregation. I don’t find in the canons any grant of authority to the bishop to require confidentiality of lay people, but the revisions of 2009 may have changed that.
Far be it from me to defend a man who has Gene Robinson as his “friend and mentor” and whose agenda to bring same sex blessings and much of the rest of the baggage of progressive activists to the diocese is fairly obvious and clear [noted in the walkabouts during the bishop search process], but Bishop Waldo has not “chosen to allow the Trinity drama to play out in the public arena” — in fact he chose for it to be *private* mediation.
It was when Dean Linder appears to have violated the confidentiality that is necessary for mediation that Dean Linder was inhibited — which perforce had to be public.
You cannot really inhibit someone after they violate a pastoral directive, and do so quietly and privately with no publicity. Inhibition is public and has to be. But inhibition did not need to occur until confidentiality was apparently breached.
I suppose the other option would have been to allow confidentiality to be breached with impunity, but that path certainly opens up even more options for violations than even just the breach of confidentiality. And then, of course, it plays out “in the public arena” anyway.
RE: “I don’t find in the canons any grant of authority to the bishop to require confidentiality of lay people, but the revisions of 2009 may have changed that.”
Tom — I assume it’s a legal document, not an ecclesial one. So the binding part would be either 1) legal or 2) conscience [as in, taking an oath].
So such a document would have nothing to do with a bishop requiring anything of lay people. It would have to do with simply one citizen requiring it of another when sharing information. Businesses have such documents all the time, sometimes even for simple meetings where technology or patents or other matters will be discussed.
I wonder, deeply, about the original pastoral directive. How wise and realistic was it? ‘Mediation’, in one ear, sounds like ‘working-through-differences.’ In the other ear it can sound like ‘negotiated settlement for separation.’ It seems like the leadership at Trinity where working on the latter b/c how could you work through any ssues or problems, if mediation was headed toward reconciliation, by banning all contact and conversation.
Painful no matter what.
MP2009 — confidentiality in mediation is pretty standard. I would ask a different question from you. If you are trying to work *either* towards “working through issues” or “negotiated settlements for separation” how can one do that if one party is running through the parish strewing stories around? Both parties were to submit to confidentiality during mediation. I’m not sure that is an unreasonable request. This kind of thing happens in work places all the time. You’re often even not allowed to talk about settlements *after the settlement* either!
Sarah. My mistake, maybe. Something gave me the impression that he was not aloud to talk with members of the congregation period, viz., that the ‘cone of silence’ extended to all talk not just talk about the mediation process. So I probably have a mistaken view of the nature of silence. And, of course, if he is “strewing stories around” that is a problem. (Do we know that is the case?)
Having said that, when I read that the congregation will now be invited to a meeting provided they keep the details confidential, I think, realistically, that information will be leaked, human nature being what it is, and therefore ask, “Why set the meeting up to fail in this regard?”
duh? Make that “allowed.” Yeesh. Long day!
RE: “Something gave me the impression that he was not aloud to talk with members of the congregation period, viz., that the ‘cone of silence’ extended to all talk not just talk about the mediation process. So I probably have a mistaken view of the nature of silence. And, of course, if he is “strewing stories around†that is a problem. (Do we know that is the case?)”
My understanding from the letters, resolution, etc, is that 1) they entered mediation via the bishop [for what purpose I do not know], 2) under condition of confidentiality regarding the issues in mediation 3) at which point confidentiality was very clearly violated [at least according to the bishop, which I understand is suspect], 4) at which point the bishop inhibited the Dean. That latter inhibition does indeed prohibit any contact with the parish, et al. But the original *confidentiality* agreement was for confidentiality concerning the issues of mediation and mediation itself.
If my understanding of the circumstances is incorrect — gleaned from the various documents and such — then please somebody step in and correct the timeline.