Posted July 3rd, 2012
Central Florida Episcopalian: Around the Diocese
Dear Brothers and Sisters,
There has been much discussion on this list (and elsewhere) over the past few days regarding a complaint leveled against seven bishops (myself included) who filed an Amicus Curiae (“Friend of the Court”) Brief back in April in the Texas Supreme Court related to the dispute between Bishop Jack Iker, the departing “Diocese of Fort Worth,” and The Episcopal Church.
(First, thanks to all who have expressed sympathy and concern both on the list and in posts to me personally. Please allow me to respond to everyone in these general remarks.)
The seven bishops (Benitez, Howe, Lambert, Love, MacPherson, Martins, and Stanton) signed onto a brief that was written by three theologians of the Anglican Communion Institute (Professors Ephraim Radner, Chris Seitz, and Philip Turner) that objected to, and attempted to correct, the way in which the court in Texas interpreted the structure of The Episcopal Church.
The question is: is The Episcopal Church “hierarchical” beyond the level of the diocese? Our brief largely followed the argument the Anglican Communion Institute spelled out in great detail back in 2009, which in turn stemmed from an understanding of the structure of the Anglican Communion expressed in a letter the Archbishop of Canterbury sent to me, personally; and the brief itself can be found on the ACI web site.
In our opening “Statement of Interest” we stipulated that: “All of these bishops and all of the officers and directors of ACI remain in The Episcopal Church, and have submitted this brief solely because they disagree with the characterization of the governance of The Episcopal Church as submitted in support of the motion for summary judgment that the trial court granted in this case.”
We went on to say, “As is well known, these bishops and ACI oppose the decision by the Diocese of Fort Worth to leave The Episcopal Church. They have no intention of withdrawing from the Church, but it is precisely because they intend to remain in the Church that they are concerned that the trial court ruling has misunderstood, and thereby damaged, the constitutional structure of The Episcopal Church.”
I am at a complete loss to know how the filing of this brief could constitute an offense for which any of us could be charged!
At this point, formal “charges” have not been filed. A “complaint” has been submitted, but we have not been told who filed it.
My understanding is that Bishop Matthews (Director of the Office for Pastoral Development, and “Intake Officer” regarding this matter) could dismiss the complaint on his own reconnaissance – unless the Presiding Bishop were to direct otherwise. He has said that “in the next few weeks” he will “initiate a disciplinary process according to title IV Canon 6 Sec. 3 & 4 of the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church.”
I have just written him to express surprise that he foresees “‘a disciplinary process’ for the filing of an Amicus Curiae Brief…the purpose of which was simply to inform the court that (in our opinion) it misconstrued the structure of The Episcopal Church according to the Constitution and Canons.”
I asked, “In what way can such a filing be considered an offense that warrants ‘a disciplinary process’?”
I concluded by saying, “I look forward to hearing more fully from you.”
When I do I will keep all of you informed. You are free to further distribute this post if you do so in its entirety.
Warmest regards in our Lord,
Bishop John W. Howe
Very well written, Bishop Howe!! This is the best explanation so far of what has happened. You are not alone in expressing amazement in how filing an amicus brief can be an offense that warrants discipline.
My prayer remains the same- that these complaints will be found to be without merit by the Disciplinary Board.
The offense would have to be “Conduct Unbecoming”:
Conduct Unbecoming a Member of the Clergy shall mean any
disorder or neglect that prejudices the reputation, good order and
discipline of the Church, or any conduct of a nature to bring
material discredit upon the Church or the Holy Orders conferred
by the Church.
As this matter is now public, those who have filed these complaints should have the intestinal fortitude to claim authorship.One fully realizes that they are assured confidentiality by the provisions of the new canons, but that does not mean that they are bound by these rules to not step forward of their own free will in order to banish speculation that the complaints are in any manner linked to the office of the PB. As these complainants are not “abused” persons their cloaking this action has no purpose other than to avoid the sort of indignity the accused bishops now face. As it is inconceivable that their identities will not eventually be revealed, given the porous nature of this church, any thought that if the complaints are dismissed they may be allowed to remain anonymous is extremely unlikely. No doubt the Intake Officer would permit them to reveal themselves, if for no other reason that the complaints, now made public are inviting speculation damaging to the reputations of the officers of the PB, including the Intake Officer. For surely an investigation to discern whether there is a canonical offense to be answered should not take more than a day to conclude, even with breaks four lunch and coffee? Failure to clear up the matter of who these people are and why they have ‘complained’ surely brings TEC into further disrepute and particularly given the timing of the complaints as General Convention meets.
Further the House of Bishops should, as it meets, express its confidence in their colleagues. If the House believes that they erred in judgement it may say so and get on with its business.
I meant to say “not to step forward etc”.
At night roaches only move when the light comes on
It’s not illegal, unethical or misconduct for ANY person to file an Amicus Curiae in civil litigation, as far as I know. Attorneys, please confirm or deny…
“are in any manner linked to the office of the PB.” Obviously they are in some manner linked to the PB. See the previous entry of AS Haley.
Come now, +Howe, what else would you expect? 815 is copping a lot of criticism for the budget mess – what better way to take people’s mind off it than by filing a complaint against you and your colleagues?
You are always in our prayers.
Welcome to retirement huh? Who knows, God may use you now more than ever before. We finally see the working of Title-IV played out before our very eyes. Can the unidentified accusers perhaps be given unidentified defendants…?