U.S. District Court Judge Peter Messitte heard pre-trial arguments on Aug. 23 from lawyers representing both the Bishop Pro Tempore of Washington and an Accokeek, Md., parish whose choice for rector brought a canonically tardy rejection from the Rt. Rev. Jane Holmes Dixon.

Judge Messitte is expected to deliberate several weeks before ruling on the case, which has drawn international attention because the bishop is a female and the priest a male who opposes the ordination of women to the priesthood. Leaders of the worldwide Anglican Communion have stated that the theological views of both those who oppose and those who favor ordination of women are valid and should be respected.

Lawyers for Bishop Dixon asked the court to affirm that part of Episcopal Church law which states that a bishop is the head of the diocese, but strongly cautioned the court against reviewing another part of Episcopal Church law requiring bishops to obey the canons.

"This is a case that involves decisions made by the church's decision-making board. Under the First Amendment, the court may not inquire into whether those decisions are right or wrong," said David M. Schnorrenberg. "You have to defer to that decision. And if you don't defer to that decision, you are establishing religion," he told the court.

Charles Nalls, lawyer for the Rev. Samuel Edwards and Christ Church, said the entire matter was out of place in a secular court, especially given the fact that potential ecclesiastical remedies have not yet been exhausted. Any decision by the secular court before those proceedings were complete would pre-empt the findings of two separate ecclesiastical court bodies currently investigating various canonical issues, he said.

"Where is the harm in going by the canonical process (Bishop Dixon) is sworn to uphold and let it play its way out and trust in the institutions of the church?" Mr. Nalls said. "This is ultimately a conflict over [the Episcopal Church's] internal rules and workings" and the "ecclesiastical tribunals of the Episcopal Church have not acted."

In questions posed to both sides, Judge Messitte appeared to be exploring whether or not the court could separate Bishop Dixon's right of access to Christ Church from Fr. Edwards' rectorship. On May 27 Bishop Dixon attempted to declare the parish rectorship vacant. She was prevented by parishioners from entering the church to celebrate the Eucharist.

While agreeing that the questions of access and rectorship could in theory be separated, both Mr. Nalls and Mr. Schnorrenberg argued that the two issues were intertwined.

Mr. Nalls tried to distinguish the canonically required triennial episcopal visitation to a parish from Bishop Dixon's aim of taking charge of Christ Church as its ex-officio rector. The latter implies a more frequent presence which would impinge on the key question of whether Fr. Edwards is the lawful rector and may exercise his rights in that role.

The question of access and removal were also intertwined from Mr. Schnorrenberg's point of view. He said that allowing Fr. Edwards to remain in the rectory would invite interference in Bishop Dixon's ministry at Christ Church.

Judge Messitte could issue a preliminary injunction and summary judgment (a final ruling based on irrefutable facts of the case) in favor of Bishop Dixon, or he could rule in favor of Christ Church and dismiss the case. A third option would be to proceed to trial. While he deliberates, the judge again urged both parties to pursue a fourth option -- a negotiated settlement.