wfn.org | Charges against Fort Worth priest sent to church attorney for probe

[ENS@ecunet.org]

2001-214

Charges against Fort Worth priest sent to church attorney for probe

by Jan Nunley
jnunley@episcopalchurch.org

     (ENS) The standing committee of the Diocese of Fort Worth announced August 
13 that it has engaged an independent church attorney to make a full 
investigation of allegations against the Rev. Samuel L. Edwards, called as rector 
of Christ Church and St. John's parish in Accokeek, Maryland, over the objections 
of Washington bishop pro tempore Jane Dixon.

     Edwards, who continues to function as a priest in the parish despite Dixon's 
refusal to grant him a license, has been charged with "disobeying both the 
constitution and canons of the Episcopal Church" by 12 priests of the Diocese of 
Washington. Canonically resident in the Fort Worth diocese, Edwards was until 
recently executive director of Forward in Faith North America (FIF/NA), and is a 
long-time active opponent of the ordination of women. Fort Worth bishop Jack Iker 
has extended "Episcopal oversight and protection" to the Accokeek parish without 
Dixon's consent.

     Fort Worth's church attorney is required to give a confidential report to 
the standing committee within 60 days. Within 30 days of receiving that report, 
the committee must convene to consider whether or not a formal presentment 
against Edwards is to be issued.

     The Washington priests accused 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.

     Dixon has also filed suit against Edwards in federal court. A hearing in 
that case is set for August 23.

Following the canons

     According to Canon IV.3.a, any diocese may designate its standing committee 
to serve as the diocesan review committee required to investigate and issue 
presentment charges against a priest. 

     Four of the six people on the Fort Worth standing committee are members of 
FIF/NA and one serves on the organization's board. In addition, Iker, Edwards and 
the three clergy on the standing committee are members of the Society of the Holy 
Cross (SSC). But members of the committee told the Dallas Morning News they did 
not see a conflict of interest in their associations with Edwards, and Iker 
stated that "any suggestion that our committee is going to be deceitful, unfair 
or prejudiced in any way is an outrageous attack."

     The procedure outlined by the Fort Worth standing committee follows Title IV 
of the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church. Charges against a priest 
must be made in writing, verified and addressed to the review committee of the 
diocese in which the priest is canonically resident, and must "concisely and 
clearly inform as to the nature of and facts surrounding each alleged offense." 
They may be brought by any three priests, any seven adult communicants in good 
standing, or by a majority of the standing committee, either in the diocese of 
the person accused or where the offense was allegedly committed. A standing 
committee must have "good and sufficient reason" to believe that the offense was 
committed. The ecclesiastical authority of the diocese in which the offense was 
committed, if different from that of the priest's canonical residence, may also 
bring charges.

     Where the accusation is of "holding and teaching publicly or privately any 
doctrine contrary to that held" by the Episcopal Church, as it is in Edwards' 
case, charges may be made "only by a majority of the members of the standing 
committee" of the diocese in which the priest is canonically resident or of the 
diocese in which the offense was committed. 

     But whenever a bishop has "sufficient reason" to believe that a priest 
canonically resident in his or her diocese has committed an offense requiring 
investigation in "the interests and good order and discipline of the Church," the 
bishop is directed to inform the diocesan review committee in writing, "but 
without judgment or comment upon the allegations," and the committee is directed 
to proceed as if a charge had been filed. The canons provide that any charge 
against a priest should be "promptly filed" with the president of the diocesan 
review committee.

Form of notice questioned by Iker

     According to Canon IV. 7.1., if a priest canonically resident in one diocese 
acts in another "in such a way as to be liable to presentment," the 
ecclesiastical authority there is bound to give notice to the ecclesiastical 
authority where the priest is canonically resident, along with "reasonable ground 
for presuming its truth." 

     Dixon told Iker in a letter date May 26 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]." Edwards did in fact hold services on that date.

     But Iker maintains that charges filed by the Washington priests were never 
forwarded to him by Dixon, and that Dixon never made a clear statement to him of 
Edwards' alleged offense against the canons. Nevertheless, on July 19 Iker asked 
Fort Worth's standing committee to proceed in the investigation of the 
allegations against Edwards.

     Had Iker, after "due notice" from Dixon, failed for a period of three months 
to initiate an investigation of Edwards, Dixon or the review committee in her 
diocese could have instituted proceedings against the priest in Washington.

Canonical time line

     Within 30 days of Iker's request, the committee was required to convene to 
determine if a chargeable offense may have occurred, and if so, to send a written 
general statement of the charge and the facts supporting it to the church 
attorney, directing him to investigate the matter "promptly." 

     Within 60 days, "unless delayed for good and sufficient cause stated," the 
church attorney is to provide a confidential report of his findings and a 
recommendation on further action to the committee, which should share it with 
Iker. 

      Within 30 days after receiving the attorney's report, the committee 
convenes to consider whether or not to issue a presentment.

     The committee can consider a variety of sources in making its decision, 
including the church attorney's report, writings or sworn statements, or experts' 
statements, and may appoint a subcommittee to hear the parties involved and 
receive additional evidence which it deems appropriate.

Reasonable cause needed

     A presentment may then be issued by a majority of the committee if the 
information before it, if proved, provides "reasonable cause" to believe that an 
offense was committed by the person accused. Votes are not to be disclosed to 
anyone outside the committee.

      Presentments should be in writing, dated, and signed by the president, 
secretary, or other person appointed to sign on behalf of the review committee. 
Originals are to be filed with the president of the diocese's ecclesiastical 
trial court, with copies to the bishop, the respondent, the church attorney and 
each complainant. Filing of the charge with the court marks the official 
beginning of presentment proceedings.

     If the committee votes not to issue a presentment, its written decision and 
explanation is sent to the bishop to file it with the secretary of the diocesan 
convention, the accused priest, the church attorney, and each complainant.

     Matters relative to decisions about presentment are assumed to be confidential, 
according to the canons. Non-compliance with time limits are not grounds for 
dismissal of a presentment unless they would "cause material and substantial injustice 
to be done" to the person accused.

--The Rev. Jan Nunley is deputy director of Episcopal News Service.