From the Living Church:
The standing committee in the Diocese of Central New York on July 11 unanimously denied two motions made by the diocese, seeking a change of venue and termination of the current Title IV ecclesiastical court members in a presentment case against the Rev. David Bollinger, former rector of St. Paul’s Church, Owego. The trial is scheduled to begin July 16.
The two motions by the diocese arose out of a decision made by the presiding judge on May 29 to suppress the prosecution’s list of witnesses and most of its evidence against Fr. Bollinger after it still had not complied with a court-imposed deadline to submit the documents two weeks after the discovery deadline had elapsed. The diocese has also refused to make available a key piece of evidence, the so-called Shafer report, which had been requested by the defense and ordered to be delivered by Carter Strickland, the presiding judge.
Yeah, ecclesiastical cout or not, it never helps to tick off the judge. Especially when the court has basically bent over backward and extend the discovery production deadline by two weeks for you. Guess [the bishop] is having a bad day.
RSB
——
[i]edited, elves[/i]
I’m confused. “The Diocese” made two motions, and “The standing committee in the Diocese” unanimously denied the two motions. Does this diocese have an evil twin? What is going on here?
It would be interesting to see the list of current, pending and threatened civil and ecclesiastical lawsuits or charges existing in TEC. I’m sure it would not be supportive of our witness of the gospel.
What is going on here is that the diocese has been constantly seeking to undermine the integrity of the judicial process and they have consistently refused to abide by the court’s mandates, including the disclosure of evidence. There have been those in the diocese who have repeatedly asked for the release of the Shafer report and the diocese has not done so. The court has mandated that the Shafer report be released to Fr. Bollinger’s legal team and the diocese has refused to do so. The lack of due process was even too much for the Standing Committee.
#4 You seem to have some insight into what is going on. Is the Bishop refusing to give the report? Since the Court and the Standing Committee are saying it has to be given up, it seems the bishop is the only one left. The reason I am asking is if the Standing Committee is ordering the Bishop to abide by decision of the Court, this really is bigger news than it seems on its face.
Yes, the bp. is refusing to give up the report even though the court demanded that it be given to Fr. Bollinger’s defense team. The SC’s decision is big news and it shows the level of defiance that the bishop has been exerting against his own ecclesiastical court.
An excellent article—and most revealing—by Steve Waring.
We have several players.
— There is the moderate to liberal priest [from what I’ve heard] who seems to have attempted to do the right thing by blowing the whistle on sexual misconduct.
Of course, since this is ECUSA, he is now on trial.
— There is the ecclesiastical court of the diocese, which is attempting to gather evidence and documents pertaining to the diocese, including the Shafer Report, commissioned by the diocese. The ecclesiastical court has not, so far, received all the evidence it needs from the diocese. The trial court representatives are elected at diocesan conventions, by the way.
— There is the bishop of the diocese—Bishop Adams—who inhibited the priest Bollinger, [who kept bringing up the issue of sexual misconduct] because of alleged misuse of his discretionary fund. Now the bishop appears to wish to declare the ecclesiastical trial court “vacant†and “change the venueâ€.
— There is the diocesan controller, who is purported to have illegally gained information about the priest’s retirement account.
— There is the Standing Committee, which has denied the motions to change the venue and “terminate†the Ecclesiastical Trial Court based on the Trial Court’s decisions. The Standing Committee members are elected at diocesan conventions, by the way.
— I will add a separate “shadow†figure amongst the players . . . and that is the “executive summary†of the Shafer Report. The “executive summary†was released, the actual report was not, and the ecclesiastical trial court would like to see the whole report.
Tony–Thanks. I was on the ETC in Upper SC and always hoped for something “fun” like this to happen, but, alas it never did. I’d love to see the chief judge (1) drop all charges (2) hold the bishop in contempt (3) turn him over to the Bishops and demand a presentment. This being TEC, though, we don’t even try bishops for heresy, much less obstruction of justice.
David, I would rejoice at the same result. We have a bp. trying to silence a priest who is trying to get an investigation of sexual misconduct. The bp. maintains that there is only one complaintant and that his testimony isn’t credible, and he complains in an email that I am not a credible witness to the testimony of this complainant. Then he tries to silence the priest, but the priest persists in asking that the complaint be investigated. Then the bp. inhibits the priest on other flimsy grounds, but then other complainants surface. The Shafer Report looks into all this, and surprise, surprise, even the ecclesiastical court can’t prey that report from the bishop’s clutches.
Just be glad that you are not Fr. Bollinger who has had his reputation trashed and has had to live through this whole miscarriage of justice.
The TEC has not learned yet that if you go to a civil court for any reason whatsoever that you now must abide by the rules and decisions of the courts; including the demand for evidence. If you make a charge you better well be ready to substantiate it. I wonder when the TEC funds for court action are going to dry up. Nuff said!
#10…as long as people continue to donate their hard earned money to TEC, the funds will continue to feed these bishops and fund litigation.
Consider redirecting your tithes and offering away from TEC or restricting it to “parish use only” if you are in a reasserting parish.
There IS “something rotten” in “Denmark” (Syracuse), and it AIN’T tomatoes or apples!