After an 18 month saga of temporary inhibitions and presentment by the Episcopal Diocese of Central New York and Bishop Gladstone “Skip” Adams, III of Syracuse charging a parish priest with financial misconduct at his former parish, the priest was exonerated today when the Episcopal Church ecclesiastical court dismissed all of the charges. That priest now has restored to him by canon law the right to celebrate the Eucharist and perform the other functions of a clergyman which were taken away from him by the bishop a year and a half ago.
Fr. David Bollinger defended the proceeding which resulted in the church court refusing to allow any evidence to be introduced against the priest or any witnesses to testify against him. The judge cited numerous procedural problems with the case brought by the bishop and the diocese against Fr. Bollinger. Carter Strickland, the judge in the ecclesiastical court, had previously directed the prosecutor, church attorney James Sparks, to give Fr. Bollinger copies of the evidence against him, but the diocese refused to release it to the priest. One of the pieces of evidence was the so-called Schafer Report. That was a report commissioned by the diocese and prepared by a previous judge of the ecclesiastical court. That report was believed to have contained evidence to the effect that Fr.Bollinger was not guilty of misconduct.
“One of the basic rules of due process of law is that someone accused of an offense should be able to see the evidence against him,” said Raymond Dague, the attorney for Fr. Bollinger. “The failure of the diocese and the bishop to disclose this evidence to Fr. Bollinger was the straw that broke the camel’s back in their case against this priest. We applaud the faithful judge who was able to stand up against a bishop and tell him that he was not above the law and rules of fair play.”
In contrast to what has (not) happened in the diocese of PA, for instance, it is good to see an authority in a diocese other than the bishop be able to pound the gavel. It is still a terrible sign of lack of Unity when such disparity exists between authorities within a single entity. Good for Bollinger+ and the Court; bad news for diocesan morale and mission.
And congratulations, Pat and Ray, on your wedding anniversary.
RGEaton
This is fantastic news! Justice has been served. A priest has actually had due process offered.
Really gratified to see this.
Question: is the bishop subject to presentment or other action for failing to abide by court orders, as he would be in a civil court?
I don’t know, Words, but I think ol’ Skip just got his head handed to him……and BRAVO to Hizzoner!
[i]When the diocese realized that the judge in the ecclesiastical court was directing the prosecuting church attorney to turn copies of evidence over to Fr. Bollinger, the diocese tried unsuccessfully to get the judge off of the case and to transfer the case to another church court.[/i]
Terrible… this whole case has been unbelievable.
was not the diocese attempting to deny the accused due process by withholding evidence? exactly what country are we living in where such maneuvers take place? sounds like the good ole’ USSR or DDR to me. Breznev/Honecker would be proud. Ughh!
Interesting case, in that individuals across the political spectrum supported F. Bollinger. Glad that it has been resolved.
Strangely enough, Bollinger+ is a reappraiser in a reappraising Diocese. His only ‘crime’ was to hold +Skip accountable vfor his inaction.
Was this REALLY an “ecclesiastical” court of the Episcopal Church? It is confusing. I guess on the one hand I can’t believe TEC would do something that appears to be “the right thing.” On the other hand, it makes me proud that there are those in TEC who DO the right thing!
Congratulations Raymond… made my day!
The Diocese of Central NY has had some good recent history with Ecclesiastical Courts, beginning at least with Hugh Jones (I believe that’s his name – before my time) who was a distinguished lawyer and judge (I think) in NY. He mentored the two lawyers now on the EC, Mary Lou Crowley and Carter Strickland who was the judge over this case. I believe that the Diocese of Central NY has a right to be proud of the conduct of the EC. I also believe that the diocese must insist on the release of the Shafer Report.
Shades of a similar vendetta against Fr. Don Armstrong. His ecclesiasical court comes up at the end of this month – similar charges etc. He could care less now that he’s in CANA; however, it will be interesting to see how that plays out. What a web we weave!
It can be very confusing, and it can depend on whether the Diocese has adopted the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which many have. In such a case, the case of the prosecution can be thrown out of court if the prosecution fails to abide by the rules.
Of course this is all voluntary. There is no reason, except by diocesan canons, why a diocese need follow any secular court’s rules of civil procedure.
I wonder what this has cost Fr Bollinger personally both in money and in anxiety. I doubt it has cost the Bishop anything on either count.
As I recall, the diocese of Colorado has detailed some pretty specific charges in the Armstrong case, in particular those which pertain to the diversion of funds from various sources to the benefit of members of the Armstrong family.
#15
So? Like Adams, where is the evidence? One example of what you say is that the Bishop accused Fr. Don of not reporting the “income” on his tax returns. How could he know that without having access to the tax returns? Apparently, the IRS is quite happy with his tax returns. Other equally ludicrous charges are not backed up by evidence. Some of these Bishops seem to be cut out of the same cookie cutter. It makes one wonder if they had special seminary courses on how to “destroy” a fellow Christian.
Where’s the evidence? The presentment against Armstrong may be found at this site:
http://www2.gazette.com/interactives/pdf/Presentment.pdf
One particular charge – the “conversion” of almost $400,000 from the Clarice C. Bowton Trust, principally for the “educational expenses” of Fr. Armstrong’s son – appears to have substance.
But is he a “reappraiser”? I notice he gave an interview to David Virtue who then described him as “orthodox”. He is currently attending St. Andrew’s, Vestal which just left the diocese of Central New York for CANA. Hardly the actions of a “reappraiser”.
#17:
You just made my point. Read the presentment again. It’s a great fabrication of speculation without proof or evidence (think about the tax allegation for awhile). I guess the trustees didn’t find a problem. I know the vestry, with one exception, didn’t have a problem with the way money was handled. That also included the local District Attorney who was on the vestry at that time.
If there was criminal activity, then Bp. O’Neill should file charges in criminal court but you know well that he’ll never do that for obvious reasons.
Just read the presentment on the terms of the Bowton Trust scholarships. The situation is clear enough for those prepared to read it. It is clear that the scholarships were beyond the authority of both the vestry and Fr. Armstrong.
Re the bishop filing criminal charges – don’t believe we are living in the Middle Ages; – that is the job of the civil authorities. There again, as you note, “the local District Attorney … was on the vestry at that time”. So go figure that one. Guess we’ll all see what happens after the charges have been aired in church court.
A presentment is akin to an indictment. The purpose of a presentment is to advise the accused of the charges, to give him fair and adequate opportunity to prepare his defense, and to ensure that he is not taken by surprise because of evidence offered at the time of ecclesiastical trial. The purpose of a presentment is [i]not[/i] to present evidence or prove the charges made therein.
The disposition of a disciplinary proceeding against a cleric in ecclesiastical court, whether on the merits or by dismissal, does not preempt subsequent civil or criminal proceedings subject to the full panoply of constitutional protections.
Not necessarily the job of the civil authorities. It is their job to react to a criminal charge made by an agrieved party. If the diocese thinks it has a case against Fr. Armstrong it would be my preference to see it go to a secular court where, in my opinion, a jury of peers would render a more objective verdict. I don’t trust an ecclesial court any further than I can throw the cathedral. Just a mild hangover from the methods of the inquisition.
There are just too many people ready to burn Fr. Armstrong at the stake without a [i]fair[/i] trial. From the diocese point of view, he has already been tried and convicted in their press releases. The ecclesial court is quite suspect in my eyes. So, we shall see how this plays out. If I am wrong, I’ll be the first to grovel and admit it.