Validity Claimed for Eleven: Court Declares PB In Contempt
Diocesan Press Service. May 12, 1975 [75175]
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The Ecclesiastical Court in the Diocese of Washington has taken unprecedented action. It has declared Presiding Bishop John Allin in contempt of court for failing to honor a subpoena, as required by church law, Title IV, Canon 2, section 4.
Bishop Allin was one of approximately 25 witnesses called to testify in the trial of the Rev. William Wendt, rector of St. Stephen and the Incarnation. The trial, held at St. Columba's, D.C., began April 30 and lasted three days.
The gothic architecture of this 101-year-old parish, with its stained glass windows and polished oak, and the somber judicial robes worn by the members of the court contributed to the solemnity of the occasion. Although the formality of a traditional courtroom was present and all legal procedures adhered to, observers noted that, throughout the trial, there was an "atmosphere of openness, warmth and human understanding. "
Fr. Wendt is charged with violating "Title III, Canon 20, Section 1(a) and his ordination vow to reverently obey his bishop and follow his Godly admonitions (Book of Common Prayer, page 543), thereby subjecting him to presentment and trial under Title IV, Canon 1, Sec. 1 (4) and (6) of the General Convention."
Fr. Wendt allowed the Rev. Alison Cheek of the Diocese of Virginia to celebrate Holy Communion at St. Stephen's Nov. 10, 1974, although Bishop Creighton* requested otherwise. Ms. Cheek is one of the 11 deacons whose ordination to the priesthood in Philadelphia, July 29, 1974, was declared invalid by the House of Bishops.
Church advocate (prosecuting attorney) Tillman Stirling said in his opening statement that the proceeding had nothing to do with the ordination of women in general or Ms. Cheek in particular. Defense attorney William Stringfellow was equally adamant that the validity of Ms. Cheek's ordination and Fr. Wendt's exercise of Christian conscience were "inextricable" from the court's deliberations. Over the prosecutor's objections, the court accepted a number of documents and numerous testimonies with the assurance to apply them with appropriate consideration of their relevancy.
In his summation as the trial ended, Stringfellow particularly noted that, although historically ecclesiastical courts have not been known for fairness and openness toward the defense, Fr. Wendt and his attorneys had received "much due process" and that they had been shown every reasonable courtesy and privilege.
The Rev. William Beal, one of the two members of the seven-member Ecclesiastical Court not called to serve in this case, attended most sessions as an observer. "All the principals," he said, "exercised their responsibilities in a careful and conscientious manner. The Church's advocate," he said of Tillman Stirling, "had a very difficult role which he accomplished with a great deal of skill and loving concern for the whole church. "
Beginning with Bishop Creighton, first to be called to the witness stand, many were questioned about the term, Godly admonition. Bishop Creighton expressed distaste for the term, saying that he believes the relationship between priest and bishop is advisory, pastoral and consultative and not to be likened to a general's order, as Stringfellow suggested. He conceded that he had expected Fr. Wendt to obey his request regarding Ms. Cheek.
Among other witnesses questioned about Godly admonitions was retired Presiding Bishop John Hines. He agreed with Bishop Creighton's interpretation about ideal priest-bishop relationships. He also spoke of the need for humility and said that although he had issued many admonitions, he would not presume to call any of them "Godly. "
All witnesses who were asked expressed the belief that Bishop Creighton was within his authority to request that Ms. Cheek not preside at a Eucharist in the Diocese of Washington and that it was reasonable for him to expect his advice to be followed.
Christian conscience was another phrase frequently referred to during the three- day trial. Several witnesses expressed a conviction that some other ordination vows are at least as important as obeying one's bishop. These include studious, diligent obligation to the Word of God and seeking discernment of the Will of God.
Sources of guidance in the search of Christian conscience are many, witnesses said, and include the Scriptures.
Ms. Cheek referred to a "higher design" when questioned about her reasons for acting contrary to her bishop's inhibition.
Dr. Charles Willie, Harvard sociologist and former vice-president of the House of Deputies, said that Christ was not only male but also Jewish which, he said, indicates that "sex is no more or no less important than ethnic background." He believes no legislative body has any scriptural authority to oppress anyone.
Fr. Wendt, who admitted to much "anguish and grief" over the conflict between the bishop's advice and what he felt to be the Will of God, said that ultimately the Scripture's call for the "whole giving of life and will and body to God " led him to obey his Christian conscience instead of Bishop Creighton. Affirming his awareness of the need for respecting regulatory canons, Fr. Wendt said, "Greater are God's laws for man. "
Dr. Marion Kelleran, a retired Virginia Theological Seminary professor who is chairperson of the Anglican Consultative Council, testified that she believes "unlike many people, Bill Wendt seems to know when he is walking with Christ. "
Dr. Rosemary Reuther, Roman Catholic theologian who was among witnesses, said that it sometimes "becomes necessary to witness to truth when the church is lost in its bureaucratic procedures. "
Bishop Robert DeWitt, resigned, one of the bishops who participated in the "irregular " ordination of Ms. Cheek and ten other women In Philadelphia, was among witnesses giving precedence to the "laws of man. " The vow to obey bishops, he said, is qualified with the words "God being my helper. "
The Rev. Dr. A. T. Mollegen, theologian on the Virginia Theological Seminary faculty, said that Christian ethics and moral theology require that a priest is obliged to "do what seems the most probable right." His final duty, Dr. Mollegen added, "is that he obey his conscience. "
"Obedience must have conscience," said Ms. Cheek in explaining her decision to preside at Eucharists in spite of her bishop's inhibition.
On the other hand, three local rectors, the Rev. Dr. C.E. Berger (All Saints', Chevy Chase), the Rev. James Daughtry (St. Paul's, K St.) and the Rev. Richard C. Martin (St. George's, D.C.), judged Bishop Creighton's request as a "Godly admonition."
They believed Fr. Wendt should have obeyed regardless of his "conscience." Fr. Daughtry and Martin were among the 18 priests who formally requested an investigation of Fr. Wendt's disobedience. Their action, making it canonically necessary for Bishop Creighton to convene the Board of Presentors, initiated the procedure culminating in the trial of Fr. Wendt.
In a statement issued at the time of the St. Stephen's service, Bishop Creighton said that he did not intend to take any disciplinary action because he felt any action "would not make a positive contribution to the solution of our present dilemma."
The words valid and irregular were also key words discussed during the proceedings. The defense sought to establish that the Philadelphia ordinations, although irregular, were nonetheless valid in that most requirements had been met. Many theologians testified for the defense that the ordinations were "sacramentally valid" although "canonically irregular."
Bishop Hines, who agreed with this position, said that ordination is a "peculiar and unique gift which, once conferred, cannot be taken away. " He said all the "constituent elements were present in Philadelphia. " However, he agreed with others that the ordinations did not comply with "in-house Episcopal regulations " and were therefore irregular.
Bishop DeWitt said that the "ordinations in Philadelphia contained the elements "essential to validity. "
The Rev. Paul Washington, rector of the Church of the Advocate where the ordinations took place, said, "There are times when the church must speak for itself, not leaning on its structure to speak for it. "
Dean Edward Harris, Episcopal Divinity School, Cambridge, Mass., another witness, said that "the requirements of form, manner, competence, validity and intention" were all met in Philadelphia. Although he agreed with Bishop Hines and others about in-house regulations not being met, he also considers the ordinations valid. He views the celebration at St. Stephen's as "valid sacramental action by an irregularly ordained priest. "
Relevant to the question of validity was the House of Bishop's August 1974 statement in which that House expressed its conviction that the Philadelphia ordinations were not valid. It was especially around this action that the defense sought the testimony of Presiding Bishop Allin.
Many witnesses at Fr. Wendt's trial testified that the House of Bishops acted hastily and beyond its authority. It is not a legislative body except in conjunction with the House of Deputies meeting in General Convention.
"That decision was only an opinion," said Dr. Willie. Dean Harris, characterizing the Chicago meeting as a "painful judging on faith and order without reports from its committees," said the House of Bishops acted without clarifying the theological implications. "They gave a simplistic answer to a complex question," he concluded.
The ambiguity of the canons was called to the court's attention by numerous witnesses, each of whom had his or her interpretation. Dr. Kelleran remarked that it is "accidental when canons agree with one another."
Many witnesses, including Bishop Creighton, expressed conviction that nothing in the present canons prohibits the ordination of women to the priesthood. He has stated that, should the 1976 General Convention fail by all available means to put its seal of approval on the priesting of women, he will proceed to ordain Washington's qualified female deacons, confident that such action is within his authority and that of the canons. He is, however, reluctant to take such unilateral action, mindful of the resultant limited ministries for those women and of the collegial relationships among bishops.
Witnesses for the prosecution, on the other hand, stated that "canons are not arbitrary and no one can override the lawful process established by canonical law. " Dr. Rightor, who believes canonical pronouns should be interpreted generically, also reminded the court that the canons were not written at one time by one person and therefore differ. He believes the specific reference to priesthood in the canon applying to female deacons was meant to clarify the status of "deaconesses" who were not theologically trained.
Disagreeing with Dr. Rightor that affirmative action by the 1973 General Convention would have been expedient but was not mandatory was Dr. Berger. He believes the defeat of the resolution calling for the priesting of women also defeats the legality of generic interpretation of canons concerning the priesthood.
Among several witnesses agreeing with Dr. Rightor was Dean Harris who said General Convention action is " superfluous in the mind of the church. "
In the minds of Fr. Wendt, his attorneys, members of the St. Stephen's vestry, numbers of that congregation and many witnesses appearing at the trial, Ms. Cheek was validly, if irregularly, ordained. At St. Stephen's they waited until Nov. 10 to fully celebrate her ordination out of deference to Bishop Creighton. They also hoped the House of Bishops, although they could not legally regularize the Philadelphia ordinations, would at least affirm and support their theological validity and take some action toward solving the church's dilemma.
"We have reached the end of phase one," commented the Rev. Curtis Draper, one of the five members of the court, as the third day of the proceedings ended May 2.
The Court, in accordance with Canon 42, section 10, has several tasks. Court president Thomas plans to complete these requirements within two weeks.
First, they will consider the evidence and declare, in writing, their "decision on the charges . . . stating whether the accused is guilty or not guilty of the charges, or any part thereof."
Secondly, they will state, also in writing, the "grounds upon which they base their decision." Finally, they will state the "sentence which, in their judgment, should be pronounced."
These documents will be forwarded to Bishop Creighton, who will notify Fr. Wendt in writing.
If Bishop Creighton approves the findings, "he shall pronounce such canonical sentence as shall appear to him to be proper. " The pronouncement of sentence will occur in not less than 30 days after Fr. Wendt has been formally notified at a meeting to be attended by Fr. Wendt, at least two clergy and any others who desire to be present.
* The Rt. Rev. William F. Creighton, Bishop of the Diocese of Washington - editor.
* The Rev. Dr. Henry H. Rightor, professor of Christian education and pastoral theology, Virginia Theological Seminary, Alexandria, Va. - editor.