wfn.org | Federal judge rules against Edwards, Accokeek vestry in dispute

[ENS@ecunet.org]

2001-312 add 1

Federal judge rules against Edwards, Accokeek vestry in dispute with Washington 
bishop

by Jan Nunley
jnunley@episcopalchurch.org

     (ENS) A federal judge in Maryland has ordered that Washington bishop pro 
tempore Jane Holmes Dixon be given full access to Christ Church and St. John's in 
Accokeek, Maryland and has ordered the Rev. Samuel L. Edwards to vacate the 
parish's rectory within 10 days.

     Judge Peter J. Messitte of U.S. District Court in Greenbelt, Maryland, heard 
arguments August 23 in the case brought by Dixon against Edwards and the parish's 
vestry. Dixon contended that Edwards' hiring by the vestry over her objections 
violated the 1798 Maryland Vestry Act, requiring that the appointment of rectors 
be subject to the canon law of the Episcopal Church. The suit also asserted that 
"all parish property is held in trust for the Episcopal Church and the diocese," 
while the vestry claimed it holds the deed in direct ownership with an 
unrestricted right to the property.

     Messitte declared the contract between the vestry of the parish and Edwards 
"invalid, null and void, unenforceable and without effect" and that under the 
Maryland Vestry Act, Edwards is "unlawfully using and occupying buildings and 
property" of the parish.

     The court ordered Edwards and the vestry to "take no actions, directly or 
indirectly" to hinder Dixon "or her delegate" in officiating at services and 
presiding at meetings of the vestry and parish. Edwards, by contrast, is 
prohibited from officiating "on or near" the grounds of the church and from 
taking any action in the capacity of rector of the parish.

Court has no say in bishop's decisions

     In a 40-page opinion, Messitte wrote that the "courts have repeatedly and 
invariably recognized that the Church is hierarchical" and that the bishop is 
"the highest ecclesiastical authority" in the diocese. "Even if her 
decisionswere arbitrary (and the Court in no way means to suggest they were), 
they were decisions for her, as Bishop, to make," Messitte said. "The court had 
and has no say in the matter."

     Attorneys for the vestry had asked that the suit by Dixon be dismissed. They 
argued that only the diocese could have been "injured" by the actions of Edwards 
and the vestry, not Dixon personally, and the diocese was not a party to the 
suit. Messitte replied that Dixon, as ecclesiastical authority, "has a personal 
stake in enforcing her entitlement" to act as rector ex officio and president of 
the Accokeek vestry in the absence of a rector. Furthermore, he wrote, both the 
diocesan standing committee and the diocesan council, acting for the diocese, 
declared their support for Dixon and their feeling that she could "adequately 
represent the Diocese's interests."

No suspension of bishop's authority

     The vestry's attorneys also argued that the matter was one for the 
ecclesiastical, not the civil courts, and that church proceedings--including 
charges against both Dixon and Edwards for violating the canons--were pending at 
the time it was filed. Therefore, they reasoned, Edwards and the vestry were not 
obligated to follow Dixon's decision until the Title IV Review Committee had 
ruled on whether Dixon was subject to presentment on the charges.

     The committee has since dismissed the charges against Dixon. Charges against 
Edwards are currently before the standing committee of the Diocese of Fort Worth, 
in which he is canonically resident.

     Messitte dismissed the contention that Edwards and the vestry were free to 
ignore Dixon's authority until the review committee had acted on the charges 
against her. "Until a review panel (or a panel reviewing a decision of a review 
panel) holds to the contrary, Bishop Dixon represents the highest ecclesiastical 
authority of the Church," he wrote. "Were it otherwise, no decision of a bishop 
would ever have binding effect, given the theoretical possibility that 
disciplinary charges might be filed against the bishop by a few individuals who 
disagreed with him or her. The result, to put it mildly, would be considerable 
disorder within the Church."

Reconcile and rebuild

     "I am very pleased with Judge Messitte's decision, which made very clear 
that the . . . laws of the Episcopal Church protect and defend the principles of 
the diocese and my authority as the bishop," Dixon said in a statement. She said 
she looked "forward to working with the vestry and the parishioners to reconcile 
our differences and rebuild this congregation."

     Edwards is in Mundelein, Illinois for Forward in Faith/North America's 13th 
annual assembly, and was not available for comment. He is a former executive 
director of the organization, which is opposed to the ordination of women to the 
priesthood and episcopate.

     Charles H. Nalls of deKieffer and Horgan, attorney for Edwards and the 
vestry, told the Washington Post: "We're very disappointed. We think it's really 
exceptionally far-reaching." Nalls is expected to file a notice of appeal and a 
motion for a stay of judgment before Judge Messitte. If Messite denies the stay, 
the appeal goes to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia.

     "This dispute has been the source of a great deal of anxiety and pain among 
all those involved," commented Presiding Bishop Frank T. Griswold, "and even with 
this decision, the essential disagreements have not disappeared. However, it is 
my hope that all parties will now commit themselves to the hard work of forgiveness 
and reconciliation for the sake of mission."

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