wfn.org | Priest called to Maryland parish charged with violating canons

[ENS@ecunet.org]

2001-184

Priest called to Maryland parish charged with violating canons

by Ed Stannard and Jan Nunley
estannard@episcopalchurch.org
jnunley@episcopalchurch.org

     (Episcopal Life/ENS) Charges made by a group of priests against a 
controversial priest called as rector of Christ Church and St. John's in 
Accokeek, Maryland, could send the conflict into the church's tribunals as well 
as secular courts.

     The Rev. Samuel Edwards, who remains in the parish despite Washington bishop 
pro tempore Jane Dixon's refusal to grant him a license, was charged with 
"disobeying both the constitution and canons of the Episcopal Church" by 12 
priests of the Diocese of Washington.

     The charges, dated May 29 and signed by the Rev. John Frizzell and 11 other 
priests--all residents of the diocese's Region 6, which includes Accokeek--accuse 
Edwards of violating Article VIII of the Episcopal Church's constitution, which 
requires a priest to conform to the "doctrine, discipline and worship" of the 
church; Canon IV.1.1(c), forbidding teaching doctrine contrary to that held by 
the church; and Canon III.16.2, proscribing a priest from officiating for more 
than two months without a license in a diocese other than his own.

Charges filed but not forwarded

     The charges, which do not constitute a presentment but could lead to one, 
were sent to Dixon, who is required to give notice of them to Bishop Jack Iker of 
the Diocese of Fort Worth, where Edwards is canonically resident. Iker then would 
determine whether the charges merit being sent to his diocesan review committee, 
which would decide whether to issue a presentment. If Iker does not act, Dixon 
may be able to do so, according to Canon IV.7.1.

     Dixon maintains that her May 26 letter to Iker about Edwards' actions 
constitutes notice of his liability to presentment, according to the Rev. Carter 
Echols, spokesperson for the diocese. 

     But Dixon also released a letter July 5 in which she stated her intention 
not to forward the Frizzell group's charges to Iker, maintaining that Iker's 
taking the parish under his "episcopal oversight and protection" dashed her hopes 
for a resolution outside the secular courts. Dixon filed suit June 25 in U.S. 
District Court in Greenbelt, Maryland, asking that a federal judge prohibit 
Edwards from officiating and prohibit the parish's vestry from barring her from 
"ministering to the congregation and performing episcopal acts there."

     "On May 31, I received the Rev. Canon John Frizzell's letter outlining 
possible presentment charges against Father Samuel Edwards and requesting that I 
forward those charges to the Right Reverend Jack Iker, Bishop of Fort Worth," the 
letter said. "…Eager for a speedy resolution of the dispute…I gave the Rev. 
Frizzell's letter careful consideration. However, based on several communications 
with Bishop Iker, it was abundantly clear that he had no intention of 
disciplining Father Edwards for his blatant and repeated violations of canon 
law."

Seeking an amicable solution

     Iker has denied Dixon's assertion, saying that her letter to him never did 
rise to the level of notification specified in the canons. The letter from Dixon 
states that "we both know that Father Edwards will be in violation of the canons 
of the Episcopal Church if he officiates on Sunday [May 27]," but does not detail 
the canons in question.

     "At no time has the Rt. Rev. Jane H. Dixon brought any charges before me 
against the Rev. Samuel Edwards, requesting that I take canonical disciplinary 
action," Iker said in an email. "At the request of the Presiding Bishop, I have 
been working with him and others to find an amicable and Christian solution to 
the Accokeek crisis, without resorting to law-suits, presentments, trials, etc. 
This effort ended when Bishop Dixon filed suit in federal court.

     "If Bishop Dixon, or anyone else, presses charges against Fr. Edwards in 
writing, our Standing Committee is prepared to take action in the appropriate 
manner. I regret that her public statement on this matter, dated July 5, 2001, 
calls into question my integrity and that of my entire Standing Committee 
relative to our willingness to deal with this matter in the proper way."

     Iker wrote to Dixon July 10 asking for "clarification" as to whether Dixon 
was requesting him to pursue disciplinary action against Edwards and why the 
Frizzell charges had not been forwarded to him.

Failure at resolution

     On the day Dixon filed the federal lawsuit, Presiding Bishop Frank T. 
Griswold wrote a letter to the church's bishops reporting that he had been 
"unsuccessful in my extensive efforts to assist those involved in the matter 
regarding Christ Church."

     "I deeply regret that this is the case, and ask you to keep all parties in 
your prayers," Griswold concluded. "Meanwhile, my office and I continue to make 
ourselves available to explore any possibilities that may emerge in the future."

     Edwards has refused to leave the parish, although the canonical 60-day 
period in which he could serve without a license expired on May 25. On May 27, 
Dixon was turned away from the church and celebrated the Eucharist outside, while 
Edwards conducted services inside.

     Dixon has refused to grant Edwards a license because she says he is not 
"duly qualified" to be a rector in the diocese. Edwards has made public 
statements calling  the Episcopal Church "the Unchurch" and said he would 
recognize Dixon only as an administrator, not as a bishop, since he opposes the 
ordination of women as priests and bishops. He did not return phone calls 
requesting his reaction to the possibility of presentment.

     Edwards' attorney contends that Dixon lost her opportunity to reject him by 
not doing so within 60 days of his call. Dixon and her chancellor reject that 
interpretation of the canons.

     Dixon sent Edwards a stern letter on May 22, asking for his written 
guarantee "without qualification" that he would "not support, and would actively 
oppose" any efforts to take Christ Church or its property out of the Episcopal 
Church, and that he would "recognize me and my successors" as his bishop in order 
to be accepted as rector. If he agreed, she said, she would appoint him as 
priest-in-charge for the three-year term of his contract, but without the legal 
and canonical rights of a rector. Edwards and Christ Church's vestry rejected 
Dixon's demands.

     Griswold backed Dixon's action in a statement issued May 28, saying that he 
was "deeply distressed" by the conflict at Christ Church. "There are many 
instances in which bishops have declined to approve the call of a rector," 
Griswold said. "What makes this situation so prominent is the fact that the 
bishop is a female, and the priest is a man opposed to the ordination of women. 
There are those who are only too ready to see this as the presenting issue and, 
therefore, to choose sides." He said Edwards' views "can be construed as 
encouraging schism" and therefore Dixon was acting within her responsibilities in 
rejecting him.

--Ed Stannard is news editor of Episcopal Life, the church's official newspaper. 
The Rev. Jan Nunley is deputy director of Episcopal News Service. This is a 
corrected version of the story that appeared in the July/August issue of Episcopal Life.