FLASHBACK: BISHOP JEFFERTS SCHORI JOINS 25 OTHER BISHOPS IN AMICUS BRIEF SUPPORTING THE AUTHORITY OF DIOCESAN BISHOP
From the Dixon v Edwards 2001 District Court decision:
Professor Lewis Weil, Professor of Liturgics at the Church Divinity School of the Pacific in Berkeley, California, has stated on affidavit that the diocesan bishop is at the “apex” of the Episcopal Church hierarchy “as the apostle, chief priest, pastor and ecclesiastical authority of the diocese””¦. “All of this, in the Court’s view, gives a conclusive quietus to any argument about the role of review panels within the Church or whether Bishop Dixon may have had certain ecclesiastical remedies that she declined to pursue before coming to court. She is the highest ecclesiastical authority of the Washington Diocese of the Episcopal Church.
Amicus brief of 26 bishops [including then Bishop Jefferts Schori]:
“Episcopal Church governance is hierarchical and governed by canon law, as found by the District Court.”
From the Mark McCall South Carolina Affidavit:
181. Finally, in 2001 Louis Weil, like Mullin a professor at a TEC seminary, submitted expert testimony on the hierarchical structure of TEC to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland in Dixon v. Edwards, 172 F. Supp. 2d 702 (D. Md. 2001). Among Weil’s conclusions were the following (emphasis added):
I am qualified to explain the hierarchical structure of the Episcopal Church, and the diocesan bishop’s position at the apex of that hierarchy as the apostle, chief priest, pastor and ecclesiastical authority of the diocese”¦.
The polity of the Episcopal Church is hierarchical. In fact, the name of the Episcopal Church itself denotes the authoritative framework of the Church, and direction in which authority flows. The concept of episcope,” from which episcopal is derived, means oversight. Oversight, within the polity of the Episcopal Church, is the responsibility of a bishop within his or her diocese.The diocese is the jurisdictional unit of the Episcopal Church”¦.
Taken together, the role of the bishop as apostle, chief priest and pastor of a diocese, and the ordination vows taken by every priest signify the hierarchical nature of the Episcopal Church. Within this framework, it is the bishop who is the ultimate authority on issues of ministry within his or her diocese”¦.
In summary, the bishop is the cornerstone of the diocese. The history and liturgy of the Episcopal Church support the notion that the bishop is the ultimate authority over ecclesiastical matters within his or her diocese.
Weil’s expert declaration from the court’s public records is attached as Exhibit 3.
182. The district court relied heavily on Weil’s expert testimony in its decision:
Ultimately, however, Defendants’ suggestion that the Bishop is not the highest ecclesiastical authority is contradicted by every fundamental aspect of the faith, beginning with the very word “bishop,” which is derived from the Late Latin “episcopus” meaning “bishop” or “overseer,” through the Greek “episcopus,” comprised of “epi,” meaning “on or over” and “skopos,” meaning “watches””¦.Professor Lewis Weil, Professor of Liturgics at the Church Divinity School of the Pacific in Berkeley, California, has stated on affidavit that the diocesan bishop is at the “apex” of the Episcopal Church hierarchy “as the apostle, chief priest, pastor and ecclesiastical authority of the diocese””¦. “The history and liturgy of the Episcopal Church,” Professor Weil concludes, “support the notion that the bishop is the ultimate authority over ecclesiastical matters within his or her diocese””¦. All of this, in the Court’s view, gives a conclusive quietus to any argument about the role of review panels within the Church or whether Bishop Dixon may have had certain ecclesiastical remedies that she declined to pursue before coming to court. She is the highest ecclesiastical authority of the Washington Diocese of the Episcopal Church.
172 F. Supp. 2d at 717.
183. When this decision was appealed to the Fourth Circuit, two TEC bishops filed an amicus brief supporting reversal of the district court decision in a brief that argued the two bishops “strongly disagree [] with the lower court’s position on the authority of an Episcopal bishop.” This in turn prompted a second amicus brief by 26 TEC bishops in support of the trial court’s interpretation of TEC polity. They stated that their purpose was to respond to the arguments of the other amicus brief “because they believe that acceptance of those arguments would undermine and, indeed, would drastically alter the authority and the role of bishops in the Episcopal Church.” These amici concluded that “Episcopal Church governance is hierarchical and governed by canon law, as found by the District Court.” (Emphasis added.) Among the 26 bishops signing the second amicus brief was the current Presiding Bishop, on behalf of whom [Robert] Mullin prepared his testimony in this case. (See paragraph 3.)
184. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the decision by the district court, concluding that “Bishop Dixon is the highest ecclesiastical tribunal of the Church for the purposes of this dispute.” Dixon v. Edwards, 290 F. 3d 699 (4th Cir. 2002).
This further emphases the [b]fact[/b] that the diocesan bishop is the final authority in his or her diocese, and that is the limit of hierarchy. It further proves that the Episcopal Church is actually nothing more than [b]an association of dioceses[/b] loosely headed by a bishop who is elected by these same bishops to preside over a House of Bishops, and therefore, the Church of which they are members. The bishop who presides over them is nothing more than a “first among equals;” there being no archbishop. The bishop who presides over that House is simply a bishop with [b]no authority over any diocese[/b], although the current occupant of that office disagrees.
Since she signed an amicus that runs contrary to the current position of 815, shouldn’t she be put through the same reconciliation process that Bishop Martins et al had to endure?
No, she should get the axe.
The question of hierarchy comes to a point when one considers who can fire a Presiding Bishop.
T19–thanks for putting this back up. It was pointed out during the Title IV disciplinary proceedings as well.
Cold meds can really muddle one’s brain. Take for instance this article. I would swear is said that KJS had signed an amicus brief stating that the diocesan bishop was the top of the hierarchy in TEC. I’m probably going to be disappointed in a few days when my head clears and I discover that this never really happened.
However, if I did really read what I think I just read, isn’t that game, set, match on the TEC legal position on whether a diocesan bishop is subject to the whims of GC? I mean, you know, KJS signature, and all.
The response may very well resemble something from the 1970s. This amicus brief and signature are “no longer operative.”
Is there a pdf copy of the brief online somewhere? Preferably suitable for framing.
The irony of this is rich indeed. It’s certainly not charitable, but I’m reminded of the famous Walter Scott saying: “[i]Oh what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive.[/i]”
David Handy+
O, what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practise to deceive!
“thanks for putting this back up”
How did I miss this the first time around? Or is my swiss cheese memory being particularly selective today?
#9- considering the enormity of this gaffe, you are being remarkably charitable. Several quotes about hypocrites (and their future) from Dante’s Divine Comedy come to mind, or Chrysostom on bishops…..
#11 — you can do a search. This has already been surfaced — and creatively addressed by new-TEC proponents. It was brought to the attention of Title IV assessors.
11. cseitz wrote:
Of course, the conciliation outcome being sought by Bishop Ohl and others exposed yet further double-standard and convenient amnesia, viz., the Presiding Bishop and her colleagues in the +Dixon v Accoceek case. They filed an amicus brief in the case and one that argued Bishop Dixon was the ‘highest ecclesastical authority.’
March 24, 2:42 pm | [comment link]
A few months ago I was lamenting to an Episcopal bishop how a certain person had had a total reversal in opinion on an important church issue.
The bishop’s response, “things change”
Seems to be the case here.
Thank you Dr. Seitz. I did do some checking. In addition to your comment, I also found some references on the Curmudgeon’s blog. Interestingly, both FiF and some liberal TEC blogs have extensive documentation on the case, but none had a copy of the amicus signed by KJS, although all had the one filed by +Iker and +Duncan in support of Fr. Edwards and the parish.
Do I detect something [b]fishy[/b] here? I sure do!
Thanks, this was the best laugh I’ve had on this issue in some time. It makes me grateful I’m no longer under her authority.
Ralph (#10),
Thanks for correcting my misquote of the famous Walter Scott saying. I was going from memory, and should’ve checked it first.
TJ (#11),
Thanks for the support. I agree that there are some passages in Dante that would also be fitting for describing the flip-flop. But perhaps a biblical allusion may be the most appropriate. In the end, charitable or not, the PB’s attitude toward canon law, or the Bible itself, seems tp treat them both as if they were Rohrshach ink blots, that can be interpreted any way that’s necessary, according to a pre-determined ideological agenda that suffers no obstacle to get in the way of the “prophetic” pursuit of “social justice.”
That cynical reading of the PB’s inconsistencies reminds me of the cynical attitude of Pontius Pilate in John’s Gospel. “Truth? What is truth??” IOW, her actions seem to convey the implicit postmodern attitude: Truth is whatever I say it is, since I’m in charge. Just ask David Booth Beers. He’ll back me up.
David Handy+
What is the legal significance of taking one position in an amicus in one case that is inconsistent with the position the same person is taking as a litigant in another? I have some vague recollection of law school discussions of inconsistent pleadings in separate courts, but that was a long time ago.
From another document from the 70’s’
“Here endeth the Protestant Episcopal Church, United States of America!”
May she rest in peace!
If I remember correctly,
“Oh what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive.â€
was written by Robert Burns, a Scot, but not Sir Walter Scott.