Fort Worth Standing Committee Issues Presentment Against Edwards
Episcopal News Service. December 19, 2001 [2001-356]
Jan Nunley
(ENS) Members of the standing committee of the Diocese of Fort Worth issued a presentment against the Rev. Samuel Lee Edwards on December 17, charging him with violating the canons of the Episcopal Church.
The charges stem from a dispute between Edwards, who is canonically resident in Fort Worth, and Washington bishop pro tempore Jane Holmes Dixon. Dixon filed suit against Edwards and the vestry of Christ Church in Accokeek, Maryland, contending that Edwards' hiring 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. In October, a federal judge ruled in favor of Dixon and ordered Edwards to vacate the parish rectory. The case is currently on appeal to the 4th US Circuit Court in Richmond, Virginia.
The charges were issued May 29, 2001, by clergy of the Episcopal Diocese of Washington, under Title IV, Canon 7, Section 1 of the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church. The standing committee referred the charges to a church attorney for investigation.
Two month limit violated
On the third charge, the committee issued a presentment accusing Edwards of violating Title III, Canon 16.2, which requires that no priest officiate more than two months within the limits of any diocese other than that in which he is canonically resident "without license of the Ecclesiastical Authority." Edwards was denied a license to officiate by Dixon, but continued to hold services in the parish.
"The circumstances that give rise to the necessity of reviewing charges against our brother in Christ, the Rev. Samuel Lee Edwards, throw into high relief the unhappy divisions present in the Episcopal Church today," the committee stated in the preface to the charges. "We find ourselves faced with this task because of the estimation made by the Ecclesiastical Authority of the Diocese of Washington that Fr. Edwards is not a 'duly-qualified priest' and is thereby considered unfit to be rector of the parish that has called him.
"While we strongly disagree with that assessment, we are also faced with upholding the canonical integrity of the Episcopal Church."
'No core doctrine' on women's ordination
On the first charge, of a violation of Article III, which requires ordained persons to "conform to the Doctrine, Discipline, and Worship of the Episcopal Church," the committee found that no offense had occurred, and the charge was dismissed. In defending the decision, the committee referred to a 1997 resolution of General Convention (A053) which declared that "no member of this Church shall be denied access to...a call to a cure in a Diocese or Letters Dimissory on account of their sex or their theological views on the ordination of women." The committee said there was "no core doctrine" of the church mandating the ordination of women.
That 1997 resolution also called the canons relating to the ordination, licensing and deployment of women "mandatory" and called for a process to implement women's ordination "fully" in those dioceses (including Fort Worth) which do not ordain women or permit them to serve as clergy. Resolution A045, passed at the 2000 General Convention, gave the job of monitoring the implementation of women's ordination to a task force, anticipating full compliance with the canon by September, 2002.
The second charge, alleging that Edwards had held or taught doctrine contrary to that of the Episcopal Church, was withdrawn by those bringing the charge in correspondence dated November 13, 2001.
The committee's presentment will be given to the Ecclesiastical Trial Court of the Diocese of Fort Worth, which will try the case. In Fort Worth the court consists of 3 priests and 2 lay members who are "confirmed communicants in good standing" elected by the diocesan convention. A date for the trial has not yet been determined.