Board of Inquiry Says It Is Without Jurisdiction in Ordination Charges
Diocesan Press Service. March 26, 1975 [75115]
NEW YORK, N. Y. -- A 10-member Board of Inquiry in the Episcopal Church, appointed to investigate charges against four bishops who participated in the ordination of 11 women deacons to the priesthood last July 29, has reported that "as a matter of law" it " is without jurisdiction" and that " the proper forum " for dealing with the charges is the House of Bishops.
By a vote of 8 -2 the Board has reported to Presiding Bishop John M. Allin that it found that "the core of the controversy here is doctrinal," which means, according to the canons of the church, that the House of Bishops rather than a Board of Inquiry has jurisdiction.
According to the canons, a presentment against a bishop "for holding and teaching publicly or privately and advisedly, any doctrine contrary to that held by this Church," may be filed with the Presiding Bishop by "ten Bishops exercising jurisdiction in this Church."
In cases where such charges are filed, two-thirds consent by the qualified voting members of the House of Bishops is required for doctrinal charges to be sent to a court of bishops for trial.
In the current case, involving non-doctrinal charges against a bishop, the canons provide for the appointment of a board of inquiry to investigate the charges, as filed "by three Bishops or ten or more male communicants of this Church. "
"The basic doctrinal question," the Board's majority report said, "is not simply whether women should be ordained to the presbyterate and episcopate but rather whether this Church's understanding of the nature of the Church and the authority of the episcopate permits individual bishops, by appealing solely to their consciences, to usurp the proper functions of other duly constituted authorities in this Church, such as the General Convention, Diocesan Bishops, Standing Committees, Vestries, etc. "
The canons of the Episcopal Church neither specifically prohibit nor approve the ordination of women to the priesthood, though the interpretation is that women may be ordained to the diaconate, through a canonical change by General Convention in 1970, but not to the priesthood and the episcopate.
The four bishops charged with violating " one or more of the provisions of the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church and Rubrics of the Book of Common Prayer " are: The Rt. Rev. Daniel Corrigan, retired former Suffragan Bishop of Colorado; the Rt. Rev. Robert L. DeWitt, resigned Bishop of Pennsylvania; the Rt. Rev. Jose Antonio Ramos, Bishop of Costa Rica; and the Rt. Rev. Edward R. Welles, retired Bishop of West Missouri.
In the Board's Certificate of the Determination of the Board of Inquiry and Report, it said that "were there not lack of jurisdiction by reason of the mixed nature of the issues, our judgment would be that upon the evidence presented to us there is more than sufficient ground to put" Bishops Corrigan, DeWitt, and Welles on trial.
A minority report, filed by the Rev. Edwin A. Norris, Jr., Chicago, and Mr. Clifford P. Morehouse, Sarasota, Fla., while pointing out that the evidence against Bishop Ramos "is unclear that he performed episcopal acts," said that the evidence against the other three bishops "has been amply documented."
The two minority Board members said that "while it is true that doctrinal issues are closely interwoven in this case with Constitutional and Canonical ones, they are nonetheless separable." Father Norris and Mr. Morehouse said they concluded that "the charges of Constitutional and Canonical violations do indeed come within the jurisdiction" of the Board of Inquiry.
They said they believe "the importance of the constitutional and canonical questions involved requires " that at least three of the bishops "be placed on trial. "
The minority report said that a presentment calling for a trial would be the only entirely fair procedure "both to the accusers and the accused, and to the Church at large. " The two men said to do otherwise might " appear to many to condone the illegal and uncanonical action of these Bishops. "
The majority report points out that the fact that "the Board declines jurisdiction in the circumstances should not be interpreted as condoning alleged conduct which constitutes substantial breach of Order. "
The conclusion of the majority of the members of the Board of Inquiry was that " since the charges against the accused bishops are inextricably bound with doctrinal issues we cannot make a determination that the violations of Order as charged should be tried alone."
The Board's majority report said that currently, under the canons and constitution, "the ordination of women as presbyters (priests) is 'teaching publicly' a doctrine contrary to that held by the Church. "
The five men and three women making the majority report said that while the charges filed against the four bishops last August "are couched more in terms of procedural violations," yet the defense of the accused bishops " is basically doctrinal, " in that they believed "the Church was violating God's will in barring women from the priesthood. "
The controversy began with a service in the Church of the Advocate, Philadelphia, on July 29, 1974, when the four accused bishops participated in a service to ordain 11 women deacons to the priesthood.
The House of Bishops was called for a special meeting on August 14-15 in Chicago, and by a vote of 129 to 9 (with 8 abstentions) said that "the necessary conditions for valid ordination to the priesthood in the Episcopal Church" had not been fulfilled. None of the 11 women deacons had received prior certification from the four prescribed local sources: the parish vestry, the diocesan commission on ministry, the diocesan standing committee, and the diocesan bishop.
Letters of Accusation were filed on August 29, 1974, with the Presiding Bishop, by Bishops Stanley Atkins of Eau Claire (Wisconsin), William Brady of Fond du Lac (Wisconsin), Charles T. Gaskell of Milwaukee, and Albert W. Hillestad of Springfield (Illinois).
The charges were that the four accused bishops had not been invited by the Bishop of Pennsylvania to act in his diocese, that the 11 deacons had not been recommended for the priesthood by the standing committees of their respective dioceses, that their diocesan bishops had not given their approval, and that the deacons were women.
Neither the Presiding Bishop nor the House of Bishops has authority to discipline bishops who violate the constitution and canons of the church. This process is handled through channels outside the office of the Presiding Bishop and the House of Bishops.
When Presiding Bishop Allin received the charges against the four bishops, according to the requirements of the canons, he appointed a panel of three bishops -- Christoph Keller, Jr., of Arkansas ; Hal R. Gross, Suffragan of Oregon; and John T. Walker, Suffragan of Washington (D. C.).
This committee had the responsibility to determine whether the charges, if proved, would constitute a violation of the canons. Reaching an affirmative decision, the panel chose a 10-member Board of Inquiry to investigate the charges and determine whether the bishops should stand trial.
The Board of Inquiry, appointed by the three-member panel in October, 1974, met on December 12, 1974, February 20 and 21, 1975, and March 4, 1975. The four accused bishops appeared voluntarily before the Board at the February 21 meeting.
Presiding Bishop Allin has sent a copy of the Board of Inquiry's report to each member of the House of Bishops. " If the House decides that further action is necessary, " he told the bishops by letter, "the matter can be on the agenda of our next meeting in Portland, Maine, this September."
The members of the Board of Inquiry are: The Rev. Charles G. Newbery, chairman, rector of St. John's of Lattingtown, Locust Valley, N.Y.; the Very Rev. Roland Foster, dean of General Theological Seminary, New York, N.Y.; Mrs. John S. (Jean) Jackson, member of Executive Council, Lake Oswego, Ore.; Mr. Clifford P. Morehouse, former president of the House of Deputies, Sarasota, Fla.; the Rev. Edwin A. Norris, Jr., rector of Church of the Ascension, Chicago, Ill.; the Rev. Edward W. Rodman, assistant to the Bishop of Massachusetts for urban affairs, Boston, Mass.; the Very Rev. John D. Spear, dean of St. James' Cathedral, Fresno, Calif.; Mrs. Theodore (Cynthia) Wedel, former president of the National Council of Churches, Alexandria, Va.; Mrs. J. Wilmette (Martha) Wilson, member of Executive Council, Savannah, Ga.; and the Hon. Sherwood W. Wise, attorney, Jackson, Miss.
Mr. Peter Megargee Brown, an attorney in New York City, served as Church Advocate upon appointment by the Presiding Bishop.
[For attachments, please contact the Archives. -- Ed.]