Federal Judge Rules Against Edwards, Accokeek Vestry in Dispute with Washington Bishop
Episcopal News Service. October 30, 2001 [2001-312]
Jan Nunley
(ENS) A federal judge in Maryland has ordered that Washington bishop pro tempore Jane Holmes Dixon be given full access to Christ Church and St. John's in Accokeek, Maryland and has ordered the Rev. Samuel L. Edwards to vacate the parish's rectory within 10 days.
Judge Peter J. Messitte of U.S. District Court in Greenbelt, Maryland, heard arguments [sic] August 23 in the case brought by Dixon against Edwards and the parish's vestry. Dixon contended that Edwards' hiring by the vestry over her objections violated the 1798 Maryland Vestry Act, requiring that the appointment of rectors be subject to the canon law of the Episcopal Church. The suit also asserted that "all parish property is held in trust for the Episcopal Church and the diocese," while the vestry claimed it holds the deed in direct ownership with an unrestricted right to the property.
Messitte declared the contract between the vestry of the parish and Edwards "invalid, null and void, unenforceable and without effect" and that under the Maryland Vestry Act, Edwards is "unlawfully using and occupying buildings and property" of the parish.
The court ordered Edwards and the vestry to "take no actions, directly or indirectly" to hinder Dixon "or her delegate" in officiating at services and presiding at meetings of the vestry and parish. Edwards, by contrast, is prohibited from officiating "on or near" the grounds of the church and from taking any action in the capacity of rector of the parish.
Court has no say in bishop's decisions
In a 40-page opinion, Messitte wrote that the "courts have repeatedly and invariably recognized that the Church is hierarchical" and that the bishop is "the highest ecclesiastical authority" in the diocese. "Even if her decisions…were arbitrary (and the Court in no way means to suggest they were), they were decisions for her, as Bishop, to make," Messitte said. "The court had and has no say in the matter."
Attorneys for the vestry had asked that the suit by Dixon be dismissed. They argued that only the diocese could have been "injured" by the actions of Edwards and the vestry, not Dixon personally, and the diocese was not a party to the suit. Messitte replied that Dixon, as ecclesiastical authority, "has a personal stake in enforcing her entitlement" to act as rector ex officio and president of the Accokeek vestry in the absence of a rector. Furthermore, he wrote, both the diocesan standing committee and the diocesan council, acting for the diocese, declared their support for Dixon and their feeling that she could "adequately represent the Diocese's interests."
No suspension of bishop's authority
The vestry's attorneys also argued that the matter was one for the ecclesiastical, not the civil courts, and that church proceedings--including charges against both Dixon and Edwards for violating the canons--were pending at the time it was filed. Therefore, they reasoned, Edwards and the vestry were not obligated to follow Dixon's decision until the Title IV Review Committee had ruled on whether Dixon was subject to presentment on the charges.
The committee has since dismissed the charges against Dixon. Charges against Edwards are currently before the standing committee of the Diocese of Fort Worth, in which he is canonically resident.
Messitte dismissed the contention that Edwards and the vestry were free to ignore Dixon's authority until the review committee had acted on the charges against her. "Until a review panel (or a panel reviewing a decision of a review panel) holds to the contrary, Bishop Dixon represents the highest ecclesiastical authority of the Church," he wrote. "Were it otherwise, no decision of a bishop would ever have binding effect, given the theoretical possibility that disciplinary charges might be filed against the bishop by a few individuals who disagreed with him or her. The result, to put it mildly, would be considerable disorder within the Church."
Reconcile and rebuild
"I am very pleased with Judge Messitte's decision, which made very clear that the . . . laws of the Episcopal Church protect and defend the principles of the diocese and my authority as the bishop," Dixon said in a statement. She said she looked "forward to working with the vestry and the parishioners to reconcile our differences and rebuild this congregation."
Edwards is in Mundelein, Illinois for Forward in Faith/North America's 13th annual assembly, and was not available for comment. He is a former executive director of the organization, which is opposed to the ordination of women to the priesthood and episcopate.
Charles H. Nalls of deKieffer and Horgan, attorney for Edwards and the vestry, told the Washington Post: "We're very disappointed. We think it's really exceptionally far-reaching." Nalls is expected to file a notice of appeal and a motion for a stay of judgment before Judge Messitte. If Messite denies the stay, the appeal goes to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia.
"This dispute has been the source of a great deal of anxiety and pain among all those involved," commented Presiding Bishop Frank T. Griswold, "and even with this decision, the essential disagreements have not disappeared. However, it is my hope that all parties will now commit themselves to the hard work of forgiveness and reconciliation for the sake of mission."
For more ENS stories on this subject, see:
Calling of rector splits Maryland parish
Communiqué from May 15th meeting with the Presiding Bishop
Confrontation continues over choice of rector in Maryland parish
Griswold writes to bishops on Accokeek
Priest called to Maryland parish charged with violating canons
Fort Worth to investigate charges against Edwards
Letter of the Presiding Bishop regarding presentment charges against Bishop Dixon
Complaints against Dixon sent to disciplinary review committee
Charges against Fort Worth priest sent to church attorney for probe
Federal judge hears arguments in Dixon v. Edwards