On Pentecost Sunday, May 27, some members of Trinity Episcopal Church, Bristol, including its rector the Rev. Donald Helmandollar, voted to align themselves with the Convocation of Anglicans in North America (CANA). CANA is an initiative of the Anglican Church of Nigeria, a foreign province acting outside the bonds, customs and traditions of the Anglican Communion.
Bishop Andrew Smith first learned of the vote through an Internet posting. He phoned Helmandollar and later received a letter dated May 27 stating that “he and the parish” had formally aligned with CANA.
Bishop Smith brought the matter to the clergy members of the Standing Committee and, with their advice and consent, released Helmandollar from the responsibilities and privileges of a priest in The Episcopal Church under Title III, Canon 9.8. Formal notice of the action was sent out on June 20.
After confirming that the wardens and vestry of Trinity had all also voted to align with CANA, Bishop Smith removed them from their positions under Title I, Canon 17.8 of the Canons and Constitution of The Episcopal Church.
The Bishop asked the CANA group at Trinity to vacate the buildings and surrender control of the assets by July 8. Through an attorney, the CANA group has stated that there will be no compliance and has further announced an intention to bring trespass charges against any Diocesan personnel who help recover possession of Parish property for the use of loyal Episcopalians. The Diocese has now turned the task of recovering the Parish property over to its attorneys.
On July 12, Bishop Smith wrote and sent a letter to members of Trinity Episcopal Church, inviting all who wish to continue as Episcopalians to meet with him to discuss the situation, meet a priest-in-charge for Trinity, and begin to identify new leadership.
“Trinity Episcopal Church has a long and solid history as a parish of this Diocese,” he wrote. “Its founders and members over the generations have built the parish within the family and tradition of The Episcopal Church. I truly regret that some members have seen fit to try to tear the congregation from the fabric of the Church and now lay claim to its property and assets.
“Please know that regardless of what may have been said by others, a parish in The Episcopal Church is a constituent member of the Diocese of which it is part. That is a matter of Canon law, and in Connecticut it also is a matter that has been determined by the civil courts. Trinity Episcopal Church, Bristol, is and remains a parish of the Episcopal Diocese of Connecticut.
“… Please do pray for the whole Church of God in these times. I am praying for all the members of Trinity Episcopal Church. My hope is that we may pray, reason and work together to serve Christ in our day, as a blessing to God and a clear witness to Christ’s redeeming love in this world.”
I do not for one second believe that Smith actually means this.
“CANA is an initiative of the Anglican Church of Nigeria, a foreign province acting outside the bonds, customs and traditions of the Anglican Communion.”
In it’s practice of blessing same sex unions and believing and practicing “new things” in its theology, the Diocese of Conneticut is “acting outside the bonds, customs and traditions of the Anglican Communion.” How a bishop can insist that the Spirit is doing “a new thing” with one voice and then castigate a province of the Anglican Communion for not following the traditions of the Church with his next breath is dumbfounding for me.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
My understanding is that one (1) member of Trinity Church voted against aligning with CANA at the most recent annual meeting. Smith is going to have some difficulty finding Episcopalians (plural) who want to meet with him. Given that he is already making the mortgage payments and paying the salary of a vicar in another Bristol church (the one where he changed the locks) this does not seem a wise financial move.
Maybe finances isn’t his motivation.
[b]thief[/b] One who steals, especially by stealth.
Let’s see. A secret meeting and refusal to return property to its rightful owner. Theft for sure. Criminal charges should be brought against Mr. Helmandollar and the CANA group.
[blockquote]Let’s see. A secret meeting and refusal to return property to its rightful owner. Theft for sure. Criminal charges should be brought against Mr. Helmandollar and the CANA group[/blockquote]
It’s hard to know in these discussions when people are being sarcastic. But, since you didn’t include the mandatory “smiley”–the “annual meeting” at Trinity, Bristol, is like all parish annual meetings, a public meeting, not “secret.” At least no more secret than the meetings of KJS and David Booth Beers, or Andrew Smith and his Standing Committee mentioned in the article.
The rightful owner of the property is Trinity Church Society, which was founded in 1750 and predates the Episcopal Church by decades. The parish claims that it is Trinity Church Society, and the bishop is trolling for a few disgruntled members so he can claim that they are Trinity Church Society. For all practical purposes, a judge will decide who is Trinity Church Society, and thus the “rightful owner.” Should the court decide that the diocese is Trinity Church Society, then the current occupants and caretakers for the last 250+ years will gladly turn the empty property over to the diocese, and the diocese can then pay through the nose to pretend that an empty building is still an Episcopal Church, or they can sell it for condos or other real estate development. What they won’t be able to do is to keep running it as a viable parish.
The only possible criminal actions involving a church building in the area that I know of was a case of trespass, computer crime, and physical harassment two summers ago, in which a group of twelve or so people invaded a church building, changed the locks, intimidated a secretary, and hacked into a computer. But the victims chose not to file criminal charges.
I believe Smith’s+ version of the events is more accurate.
[i]Within our polity there are two alternatives for the five congregations and their rectors:
Either live in compliance with the Church’s Constitution and Canons which means
serving in communion with the Diocese of Connecticut and our bishops – which still
includes the offering of delegated episcopal pastoral oversight; Or leave this church.
Rather than choose either of those options, this small group of parishes, clearly with
support from outside this diocese, chose to initiate legal and ecclesiastical action against
the bishop and other members of our diocese on several fronts. Our response has
required significant time, energy, and financial resources during this past year, and it
certainly has diverted us from full attention to the nurture of our diocesan life and
witness.
They have brought three actions against us: first, A suit in federal court primarily over
the matter of Saint John’s Church, Bristol; second, Charges placed before the Presiding
Bishop challenging my use of canons in the actions I took to remove the leadership of
Saint John’s; and third, An appeal to the Archbishop of Canterbury for consideration of
their request for alternative episcopal oversight by the Archbishop’s Panel of Reference.
The numerous allegations, complaints and motions, each
of which we have had to answer, to date have cost us more than $350,000 in legal fees.
Without even the courtesy of a call, much less seeking permission, they have invited
breakaway bishops into our diocese for meetings and public events. Some of the clergy
themselves are featured speakers at convocations which advocate the division of this
church.
The benefits they enjoy? They purchase insurance coverage under our diocesan plans for
the health and life of their clergy and liability coverage for property and casualty claims.
They continue to make contributions to the Church Pension Fund of the Episcopal
Church for the future benefit of their clergy. They profit from tax privileged status under
our diocesan exemption (which exemption they also have challenged in court). They
have the ability to attend and participate and vote at this Convention. They have the
privilege of unfettered use of property held in trust for the mission and ministry of the
very diocese and bishop whom they repudiate.[/i]
Let’s see…costing the diocese $350K in legal fees, using the benefits of insurance, pension fund, tax status. Theft plain and simple. Smith+ has it right, if you want to leave, go with honor and quit the games.
Rev (#7), You can believe whatever you like, but presenting Smith’s own address as evidence supporting your conclusion is highly circular. I wasted too much of my time “fisking” his address last fall, I don’t have the luxury now, but I hope your naivete fades.
“I truly regret that some members have seen fit to try to tear the congregation from the fabric of the Church and now lay claim to its property and assets.”
This is truly an Orwellian inversion of language, using the Primates’ “tear the fabric” words in the opposite way. It is, of course, as anybody can plainly see, the behavior of TEC (which explicitly includes Smith, by his own actions) which have torn the fabric of the Church.
There’s also this bit: “The Bishop asked the CANA group…” As if there were some OTHER group in the picture! If I’ve heard correctly, I think there was one… ONE… objection to leaving CANA? Maybe the Trinity folks can confirm that for me. What other “group” is he expecting to meet with?
“On July 12, Bishop Smith wrote and sent a letter to members of Trinity Episcopal Church, inviting all who wish to continue as Episcopalians to meet with him to discuss the situation, meet a priest-in-charge for Trinity, and begin to identify new leadership.”
I suppose it’s worth a try, you can’t blame him. But I wonder what percentage of the attendees will truly be members of Trinity? Will they be communicants in good standing? Will they be canonically eligible to be elected to a vestry?
I also wonder, where did he get a mailing list of members?
Finally, I wonder if he’s aware that he’s “acting outside the bonds, customs and traditions of the Anglican Communion” by this meddling in the affiars of the Church of Nigeria? Who is he to be stealing sheep from +Martyn??? 🙂
Connecticutian…spin it all you want. I’m not at all naive to the schemes and agendas of the so-called reasserters. “Fisking” huh? LOL I’m sure it was a noble attempt.
Revamundo – there are a number of Bishop’s who would readily be defended. This one is not one of them. I wouldn’t bother trying if I were you.
Similar reports of close to 100% support were said of St. John’s, Bristol, but it didn’t last. Only a small segment remains away from that church, having fled to Trinity. Thus I not only question if Trinity will follow through on their stated support but I also wonder if Trinity has already made plans to worship elsewhere or if they are going to wait until the last minute to start looking.