A Statement by Dr Philip Turner received by email
When I learned that complaints had been registered against the Bishops who might serve as witnesses in the case involving the diocese of Quincy and against those Bishops who had submitted an Amicus brief in the Fort Worth case, I wondered if a complaint had also been made against me. I also may be a witness in the Quincy case and was among those who submitted the Amicus brief. Accordingly, I enquired as to whether a complaint against me had been lodged with my diocese. I was told by an unimpeachable source that in fact a complaint against me had been received. I have not seen the complaint. I do not know what the complaints are or who the complainants are. The process is said to be confidential at this point, but confidentiality of this sort means that the nature of the complaint and the identity of the complainants are withheld from the accused member of the clergy. Only the complainants and the diocesan office know the relevant information. It is my belief that this complaint will be judged to be both without substance and frivolous. Nevertheless, an anonymous complaint whose source and content are unknown to the accused is not a matter about which I feel it right to remain silent.
Philip Turner
Sadly, I am not surprised. Sigh. The grasping, desperate maneuvers of a dying organization can catch many who are totally innocent of the complaints/charges like yourself and your fellow clergy. These actions are so senseless it defies description. Prayers ascending for all who have had complaints filed against them.
I think I would file a complaint about the alleged complainer.
After having lived through the perpetual revolution in the TEC beginning in 1976 I had though myself fairly unshockable. That the Lord would have brought TEC to a point where we are obliged to witness Stalinist-style purges in our own church is something I never, ever anticipated happening. I suppose they’ll be coming for even the insignificant ones like myself eventually.
Philip Turner, every American citizen has the Constitutional right to be advised of the nature of the complaint filed against him, and to confront his or her accuser, and there is nothing in the Constitution giving the accuser the right to insist upon confidentiality of the complaint that he or she is filing or has filed against the person or persons named. I believe that Federal law trumps TEC’s canons in this case.
[i] Can complaints against Dr. Seitz and Dr. Radner be far behind? [/i]
#5. Nope.
Cennydd, You are probably right that such confidentiality is indeed against federal law. However as we are all aware, a small thing such as federal law will not stop such maneuvers from occurring within TEC. Remember they have the courts bamboozled enough that all would be necessary to enforce this craziness is someone from 815 to send a copy of the new Title IV canons to the lawyer involved and Voila- poof – constitutional rights gone! easy, peasy. Sorry to be so cynical but the lengths TEc will go to purge anyone for anything seemingly knows no bounds. We are ALL in danger from these ……….. idiots.
As TEC continues it’s heartfelt decline we now witness the humiliating and vulgar actions our 815 staff-bishops (will the PB join soon them sooner rather than later?) Imagine presenting fellow priests and communicants with a notice that there is an anonymous complaint! “Mr Lincoln, we have an anonymous complaint which may be leading to charges against you”..really. I knew chivalry was dead, but…
So it is time that all priests go to their bishops and submit complaints about themselves – turn themselves in. I think we should all attend the candy store of the “most-high Intake Officer”
Thank you Philip, for not keeping this to yourself. What is being played out in your life now will soon happen to all of us if we do not have the courage to stand up.
Will we learn the identity of these anonymous complaintants or are they to remain hidden?
This is absurd. Under the current system, #8’s suggestion that we all turn ourselves in and submit complaints against ourselves is plausible. That would of course flood the intake officer with complaints and give him a Bruce Almighty of a headache.
What address should I address mine to?
Seriously.
TEC could save itself time, money and trouble by just declaring gay marriage a sacrament of “this church” tomorrow or Friday, and add a clause to Title IV that all TEC clergy must perform one by Aug 30 or be automatically deposed. They can put in another clause to depose any bishop who is not current on his 815 diocesan assessment by the end of the current quarter. That is the whole point of the exercise, after all.
If my recollection is correct, Dr. Radner is resident in Colorado and Dr. Seitz in Dallas, is that correct? (I know I am sometimes accused of jumping to conclusions, but since everyone else who signed either of the amicus briefs is charged and under investigation, it does not seem to much of a stretch).
I wonder what kind of reception such a complaint against a priest resident in Dallas might receive nowadays…. Response from the diocesan chancellor will be short and to the point, no doubt.
There could be cause for RICO action here if Schori persists in her persecution of these bishops for daring to speak their minds.
Philip, as one of your former students, and a strong admirer of the work you do, I salute you! Also, as one who early on tasted the vindictiveness of TEC against those who dare oppose them (I was “deposed” by faux bishop Lamb for leaving when San Joaquin did) I urge you to fight with all your might, and to remember that ACNA would welcome you with open arms. God bless you a keep you strong!
Charles Threewit+ (desert padre)
Here is how it works: first you have a hearing, and at that hearing you are allowed to call no witnesses, and you are not allowed to cross-examine those of the diocese.
Then the standing committee votes to send it all to trial…where you sit silently, the diocese tells it tale…and then the ecclesiastical court renders it verdict.
It is not worth showing up for, just leave before they get you…keeping your ordination in order.
Believe me here, I have been through it.
There is no US Constitutional protection for people being disciplined within TEC. I believe that the Title IV complaints against priests are at the Diocesan level, so there is little chance that someone in Dallas would be charged. Although it would be interesting to see if the failure to charge in Dallas would be enough to charge the Bishop with violation of the Canons.
I am vividly reminded by these actions, once again, of the blind lashing out of a dying beast, determined to take with it into oblivion the lives of its proximate tormentors, those who frustrate the objects of its urges. Would God that it pass quickly into history.
Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer
#16, I thought the same thing. These actions are of a dying “beast” who lashes out at anything while dying. I agree- May the rot in TEC die quickly.
#2 and #9. No. We will not learn the name of the complainants if there is not a trial/hearing and I don’t just mean the DBB. While the charges against Bishop Lawrence have been found to be without merit by the DBB, we still do not know the names of those communicants in the Diocese of SC who filed a complaint to the intake officer. As our bishop said at our most recent convention, we may never know. If you don’t know the name of the complainants, you can’t file a complaint against them. You can ruin someone else’s career without expecting a smidge of trouble yourself. Nice, eh?
It stands to reason, then, that if the names of the complainants are not revealed to the bishops, then the alleged complaints should be dismissed without action being taken against them.
#19. But that would be way too logical and besides that would be against the canons. No we can’t be violating canons, now can we?? ;- 0
Anonymous accusations? It seems that Kafka and Stalin are designing strategies for the PB.
tjmcmahon wrote at #11:
[blockquote] “TEC could save itself time, money and trouble by just declaring gay marriage a sacrament of “this church†tomorrow or Friday, and add a clause to Title IV that all TEC clergy must perform one by Aug 30 or be automatically deposed. They can put in another clause to depose any bishop who is not current on his 815 diocesan assessment by the end of the current quarter. That is the whole point of the exercise, after all.” [/blockquote]
True. TEC can act as capriciously as it likes – No court is likely to be interested, given TEC’s insignificance: it *claims* to have 1.9 million members, but its real size is probably much smaller, and its membership is trending strongly downwards, as its income.
TEC seems to have made a real effort over the last couple of years to appear reasonable, but now that mask is slipping, in a number of ways:
E.g. The latest version of the budget produced by the 815 bureaucracy slashes the TEC contribution to the Anglican Communion Office by more than 50%, so it seems clear that the close buddy relationship between them is over. 815 is no longer interested in keeping the Anglican Communion on-side, e.g. to forestall eventual expulsion.
And now there are these complaints taken against most of the prominent conservative remaining in TEC, and clearly with the full connivance of Schori, Sauls etc.. As tjmcmahon points out, 815 does not consider itself bound by any particular rules of conduct (except when it suits), so why didn’t they do just do this a year ago?
It would seem that they no longer see any point in trying to keep the remaining conservative laity and clergy in TEC. This is curious. It has been demonstrated time and again that Liberals are quite unable to plant or grow congregations. They can only parasitically live off the efforts of those who are able to do these things (conservatives). And congregations are where the income of the church comes from (you can raid an endowment fund of course, but that only works for so long, plus that is one area where court or government intervention is very possible if its not done the right way).
So who do 815 think is going to pay all their bills for the next 12 months? Curious.
#22, Michael. What? You mean simply adding a few million to the budget for planting congregations won’t work to plant new congregations? Really? You mean there is actual work involved? evangelism? Surely TEC is counting on all those wealthy new congregations to send on in those millions to close the budget deficit?? It will happen. just wait and see! (ok finished with my sarcasm- feeling better now 😉 )
The process is said to be confidential at this point, but confidentiality of this sort means that the nature of the complaint and the identity of the complainants are withheld from the accused member of the clergy.
Is no one among the “right-thinking” in TEC at all troubled by this way of handling “complaints”? I find it deeply offensive that our secular government is much more Christian in its justice toward accused persons than my own church. I see no justification for those who have made this to be so.
For the rest, I think TJ has nailed it in #11.
These complaints, along with the underlying litigation, reveal a fear of a TEC without the credibility of the property in question. Meanwhile, the PB unwittingly admits: “A lot of the anxiety in this body right now is rooted in fear of diminishment, loss of power or control, or change in status.”
🙄
BfT19, “Although it would be interesting to see if the failure to charge in Dallas would be enough to charge the Bishop with violation of the Canons.”
On those grounds “failure to charge” for tolerance of non-approved gay weddings, communion of the unbaptised, et alia ad nauseum, you should cover all the bishops in TEc and especially the PB, don’t ya think?
Sherri2, There is no reason to be offended. That time is long gone. However deeply offended you maybe does not matter to those who wanted these canons passed. I do believe there were plenty of people who had NO idea what was really in them. That is of their own doing as there was plenty of opportunity to find out about these revisions to the Title IV canons. Most people just did not bother instead accepting whatever came from GC as the way it should be. I am sure you can search the archives and other blogs if you want to know more of the discussion. Time for discussion is LONG GONE.