Charges Against Fort Worth Priest Sent to Church Attorney for Probe
Episcopal News Service. August 14, 2001 [2001-214]
Jan Nunley
(ENS) The standing committee of the Diocese of Fort Worth announced August 13 that it has engaged an independent church attorney to make a full investigation of allegations against the Rev. Samuel L. Edwards, called as rector of Christ Church and St. John's parish in Accokeek, Maryland, over the objections of Washington bishop pro tempore Jane Dixon.
Edwards, who continues to function as a priest in the parish despite Dixon's refusal to grant him a license, has been charged with "disobeying both the constitution and canons of the Episcopal Church" by 12 priests of the Diocese of Washington. Canonically resident in the Fort Worth diocese, Edwards was until recently executive director of Forward in Faith North America (FIF/NA), and is a long-time active opponent of the ordination of women. Fort Worth bishop Jack Iker has extended "Episcopal oversight and protection" to the Accokeek parish without Dixon's consent.
Fort Worth's church attorney is required to give a confidential report to the standing committee within 60 days. Within 30 days of receiving that report, the committee must convene to consider whether or not a formal presentment against Edwards is to be issued.
The Washington priests accused Edwards of violating Article VIII of the Episcopal Church's constitution, which requires a priest to conform to the "doctrine, discipline and worship" of the church; Canon IV.1.1©), forbidding teaching doctrine contrary to that held by the church; and Canon III.16.2, proscribing a priest from officiating for more than two months without a license in a diocese other than his own.
Dixon has also filed suit against Edwards in federal court. A hearing in that case is set for August 23.
Following the canons
According to Canon IV.3.a, any diocese may designate its standing committee to serve as the diocesan review committee required to investigate and issue presentment charges against a priest.
Four of the six people on the Fort Worth standing committee are members of FIF/NA and one serves on the organization's board. In addition, Iker, Edwards and the three clergy on the standing committee are members of the Society of the Holy Cross (SSC). But members of the committee told the Dallas Morning News they did not see a conflict of interest in their associations with Edwards, and Iker stated that "any suggestion that our committee is going to be deceitful, unfair or prejudiced in any way is an outrageous attack."
The procedure outlined by the Fort Worth standing committee follows Title IV of the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church. Charges against a priest must be made in writing, verified and addressed to the review committee of the diocese in which the priest is canonically resident, and must "concisely and clearly inform as to the nature of and facts surrounding each alleged offense." They may be brought by any three priests, any seven adult communicants in good standing, or by a majority of the standing committee, either in the diocese of the person accused or where the offense was allegedly committed. A standing committee must have "good and sufficient reason" to believe that the offense was committed. The ecclesiastical authority of the diocese in which the offense was committed, if different from that of the priest's canonical residence, may also bring charges.
Where the accusation is of "holding and teaching publicly or privately any doctrine contrary to that held" by the Episcopal Church, as it is in Edwards' case, charges may be made "only by a majority of the members of the standing committee" of the diocese in which the priest is canonically resident or of the diocese in which the offense was committed.
But whenever a bishop has "sufficient reason" to believe that a priest canonically resident in his or her diocese has committed an offense requiring investigation in "the interests and good order and discipline of the Church," the bishop is directed to inform the diocesan review committee in writing, "but without judgment or comment upon the allegations," and the committee is directed to proceed as if a charge had been filed. The canons provide that any charge against a priest should be "promptly filed" with the president of the diocesan review committee.
Form of notice questioned by Iker
According to Canon IV. 7.1., if a priest canonically resident in one diocese acts in another "in such a way as to be liable to presentment," the ecclesiastical authority there is bound to give notice to the ecclesiastical authority where the priest is canonically resident, along with "reasonable ground for presuming its truth."
Dixon told Iker in a letter date May 26 that "we both know that Father Edwards will be in violation of the canons of the Episcopal Church if he officiates on Sunday [May 27]." Edwards did in fact hold services on that date.
But Iker maintains that charges filed by the Washington priests were never forwarded to him by Dixon, and that Dixon never made a clear statement to him of Edwards' alleged offense against the canons. Nevertheless, on July 19 Iker asked Fort Worth's standing committee to proceed in the investigation of the allegations against Edwards.
Had Iker, after "due notice" from Dixon, failed for a period of three months to initiate an investigation of Edwards, Dixon or the review committee in her diocese could have instituted proceedings against the priest in Washington.
Canonical time line
Within 30 days of Iker's request, the committee was required to convene to determine if a chargeable offense may have occurred, and if so, to send a written general statement of the charge and the facts supporting it to the church attorney, directing him to investigate the matter "promptly."
Within 60 days, "unless delayed for good and sufficient cause stated," the church attorney is to provide a confidential report of his findings and a recommendation on further action to the committee, which should share it with Iker.
Within 30 days after receiving the attorney's report, the committee convenes to consider whether or not to issue a presentment.
The committee can consider a variety of sources in making its decision, including the church attorney's report, writings or sworn statements, or experts' statements, and may appoint a subcommittee to hear the parties involved and receive additional evidence which it deems appropriate.
Reasonable cause needed
A presentment may then be issued by a majority of the committee if the information before it, if proved, provides "reasonable cause" to believe that an offense was committed by the person accused. Votes are not to be disclosed to anyone outside the committee.
Presentments should be in writing, dated, and signed by the president, secretary, or other person appointed to sign on behalf of the review committee. Originals are to be filed with the president of the diocese's ecclesiastical trial court, with copies to the bishop, the respondent, the church attorney and each complainant. Filing of the charge with the court marks the official beginning of presentment proceedings.
If the committee votes not to issue a presentment, its written decision and explanation is sent to the bishop to file it with the secretary of the diocesan convention, the accused priest, the church attorney, and each complainant.
Matters relative to decisions about presentment are assumed to be confidential, according to the canons. Non-compliance with time limits are not grounds for dismissal of a presentment unless they would "cause material and substantial injustice to be done" to the person accused.