An ecclesiastical court ruled July 16 in Syracuse, N.Y., that the Rt. Rev. Gladstone “Skip” Adams, Bishop of Central New York, would not be permitted to testify in the trial of the Rev. David Bollinger, former rector of St. Paul’s, Owego, who stands accused of financial misconduct and disobedience.
Before the trial began, Carter Strickland, the presiding judge, excluded most of the evidence and all of the witnesses for the prosecution because it missed the discovery phase filing deadline by more than two weeks. Bishop Adams was not on a witness list submitted to the court at least 60 days before the start of the trial.
What if they held a trial, and the prosecution failed to show up?
If the diocese choses not to present whatever *evidence* they have upon which they based their charges, can one presume that they were hoping for a Star Chamber?
Are not Star Chambers specifically named as unconstitutional in these United States? Does canon law of TEC, trump the US Constitution, for citizens of these United States?
In an “Update” from Stand Firm, a priest on the scene, state that the case against Fr. Bollinger was “dismissed”.
According to Stand Firm, from a very “reliable source”..
Thanks be to God!
Go to the Transfigurations blog for the perspective of one of the lawyers who advised Fr. Bollinger.
“Are not Star Chambers specifically named as unconstitutional in these United States? Does canon law of TEC, trump the US Constitution, for citizens of these United States? ”
Are you saying that ecclesiastical courts are [or ought to be] required to follow the US Constitution? Whatever your stance about the Bollinger trial, this would seem to be a pretty novel approach.
#4, Simply because a person is in clerical orders, does not abrogate his constitutional protected rights as a US citizen.
Star Chambers, are specifically forbidden by the constitution. Star Chambers are those kangaroo courts that were common under the crowns of various despots in Europe and common today in dictatorships of whatever party.
And what is novel about having ALL judicial bodies within the USA, adhere to the basic underlying law of the land?
To hold that a church does not need to take note of basic human and citizen rights, now that, is the novel idea.
“Simply because a person is in clerical orders, does not abrogate his constitutional protected rights as a US citizen…And what is novel about having ALL judicial bodies within the USA, adhere to the basic underlying law of the land?”
I’m sorry, Scottsreb, but what you’re saying simply doesn’t make any sense to me. Why would an ecclesiastical court of the Episcopal Church have to follow the US Constitituion? They aren’t part of the judicial system. They aren’t constrained by the Constitution any more than the Roman Catholic Church has to ordain women in order to comply with EEO statutes.
#6, this court in NY, is set up as a court. It has a judge, attornies for the prosecution and attornies for the defence. It has a list of charges and it operates under normal evidenciary rules in order to prove or disprove the case.
It has established procedures for bringing charges to trial and as it is with civil courts, there is *discovery* which must be gone through. One side may NOT withhold pertinent data from the other, if that data is either exculpatory or condemning.
This trial is not over a matter of church doctrine. To hold that WO is not possible as does the RCC, does not fly in the face of the EEO which cannot impinge on religious doctrine. IMO, this trial boiled down to a bishop angry at a priest, who would not shut-up and bury an accusation of sexual impropriety by another priest, brought forward by alleged victims of the sexual abuse.
The fact is that the court found that the diocese failed in all aspects of their case; they failed to meet deadlines, failed to release files requested both by the court and defense, failed to qualify any of their witnesses. In spite of this, the diocese tried to have the accused found guilty and permanently defrocked, basically because they said he was guilty.
Their own court found that the diocese was so far wide of the mark, that all charges were dismissed. So yes in this case, the rights of the accused, his constitutional rights, were upheld and the diocesan star chamber was defeated.
#7 Yes, Scottsreb, the court is set up broadly along the lines of a civil court, with rules of procedure and attorneys, but AFAIK the only documents that regulate it are the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church and those of the Diocese of Central NY. Dragging the US Constitution into the argument is beside the point.
I’m not arguing the court shouldn’t have found as it did – it seems to me that justice prevailed. But the US government doesn’t oversee how churches regulate themselves; TEC has the sort of court system that it does because it seemed best and we decided to put it into effect, not because the US Constitution mandated it.