Bishop Allin Issues Statement on Contempt Citation
Diocesan Press Service. May 6, 1975 [75171]
NEW YORK, N.Y. -- Presiding Bishop John M. Allin of the Episcopal Church, who was cited for contempt last Friday ( May 2) by a diocesan ecclesiastical court in Washington, D.C., said he did not appear to testify because of his decision to "honor " certain "long-standing commitments."
The court was considering charges against the Rev. William A. Wendt, a Washington priest who was charged with disobeying his bishop by allowing the Rev. Ms. Alison Cheek to act as an ordained priest in his parish by celebrating the Eucharist last November.
Ms. Cheek is one of 11 women deacons who took part in a service of ordination to the priesthood last July 29 in Philadelphia. In mid-August the House of Bishops said "that the necessary conditions for valid ordination to the priesthood in the Episcopal Church were not fulfilled" in that service.
Bishop Allin said that he recognizes "that along with all members of the church " he is "fully subject to its constitution and canons," which includes the duty to testify in person or by deposition when summoned.
Bishop Allin said that no reference is made in the citation to his stated "willingness to testify by deposition, as authorized by canon."
The canonical provision is that "in case there is ground to suppose that the attendance of a witness at the forthcoming trial cannot be obtained, it shall be lawful for either party to apply to the Court . . . who shall thereupon appoint a Commissioner to take the deposition of such witness . . . . "
Bishop Allin said that in "both my responses to the court " -- telegrams to the president of the court on April 25 and on May 1 -- he had assured the court "of my availability to testify by deposition should your court wish me to do so."
Apparently the court did not "appoint a Commissioner to take the deposition" of Bishop Allin, as provided in the canon. "The court, " Bishop Allin said, "did not ask me for a deposition. "
Bishop Allin said that he has discovered since he assumed office last June that "there are many demands on the office of the Presiding Bishop, more than can be met at any one time. "
Bishop Allin said that in this case he had to choose "between a Washington trip " to testify in person at the court trial "and other conflicting long-standing commitments." He said that he "chose to honor those commitments made many months ago."
Those commitments, he said, included the commencement address at Trinity College, Toronto, and consultations in the Canadian city with the Most Rev. Donald Coggan, the new Archbishop of Canterbury, and the Most Rev. Edward W. Scott, Primate of the Anglican Church of Canada. He also addressed the annual convention of the Diocese of Arizona in Phoenix and was the chief consecrator of the Rt. Rev. William A. Jones as Bishop of the Diocese of Missouri.
Bishop Allin's Chancellor, Hugh R. Jones of Utica, N.Y., advised the Presiding Bishop that the canonical "duty" imposed on members of the church "to attend and give evidence" when subpoenaed "was necessarily relative rather than absolute." He said that there should be response to such a summons to testify unless the "discharge of the duty to testify would be inconsistent with the performance of what was considered to be an even higher duty. "
Chancellor Jones told Bishop Allin that "you measured your responsibility to live up to your prior commitments more important than your duty to appear in Washington, particularly where there were alternative canonical procedures whereby your testimony could have been made fully available to the Diocesan Court. "
"For reasons of which I have not been informed," Chancellor Jones added, "the Court in the end did not consider your testimony of sufficient importance to warrant recessing the trial to take your deposition. "
Chancellor Jones said that he has "serious doubt as to the authority of the Court to have issued the Citation of Contempt as it did."
He said that it is his opinion that "the power of a Diocesan Ecclesiastical Court to command attendance of members of our Church as witnesses is limited to the geographical territory of the Diocese under whose authority the Court is established and convened."
"Thus," he said, "technically viewed, the 'subpoena' of the Ecclesiastical Court of the Diocese of Washington beyond the borders of that Diocese was indeed only an 'invitation'" to the Presiding Bishop "to attend and give testimony."
"Commissions for the taking of depositions," he said, "have been the traditional, practical solution" in secular court systems "when testimony is desired from a witness in another state. "
Also, Chancellor Jones pointed out to Bishop Allin, the court made no provision for him "to appear and to show why you should not be held In contempt," which is normally done in secular legal procedures in consideration of due process.
In summary Chancellor Jones told Bishop Allin, "Thus, in my view, the Ecclesiastical Court here was in error as to the extent of your duty to give testimony in the circumstances of this case. Indeed I would have thought that in the Anglican Communion few excuses (other than perhaps a fundamental matter of individual conscience) would have been more acceptable than a prior commitment to confer with the Archbishop of Canterbury. Similarly, in my opinion, the Ecclesiastical Court had no jurisdiction over witnesses outside the Diocesan borders and additionally it ignored recognized requirements of due process in presuming to exercise extra-territorial authority."
[For attached statements, please contact the Archives. --Ed.]