Nalls defends Fr. Edwards in open letter

Robert Stowe England | 2 April 2001

ACCOKEEK, MD - One news item got lost in all the emotion and commotion at Christ Church Sunday over the diocese's rejection of the parish's call of Fr. Samuel Edwards to be its rector.

It was the public release by parish attorney Charles Nalls, partner at deKieffer & Horgan, of an 18-page letter dated March 31 in response to a harsh 21-page letter dated March 27 from JoAnn Macbeth, diocesan chancellor and a partner at Crowell and Moring.

Macbeth had declared in her letter that Fr. Edwards "preaches, and appears to intend to practice, acrimony, division, disobedience, disrespect and separation from the Episcopal Church. He simply is not fit to be a rector."

Nalls takes that claim head on: "Further, there has been a concerted effort to demonify Fr. Edwards for his personal views and writings, views that are held by many in the Episcopal Church and which are no more unusual than the views of clergy currently serving in this Diocese . . . I would proffer to you that it is not the Rector, Wardens or Vestry that are engaging in 'acrimony, division, disobedience, disrespect and separation,' and we ask you and the Diocese quite simply to stop."

The duel of legal letters pushes the dispute into the court of public opinion, where each side hopes to gain an advantage ahead of expected legal actions on both sides.

The jump into the public arena was begun in a caustic letter early last month to the vestry of Christ Church from Washington, D.C. Suffragan Bishop Jane Dixon, who became Ecclesiastical Authority after the former bishop retired on December 31 before a new Bishop of Washington could be elected. Dixon's letter was sent to all members of the parish and to all the clergy in the diocese.

Nalls takes on Macbeth's allegations one by one, challenging each and declaring that Macbeth and Dixon had made no credible case that Fr. Edwards was no duly qualified and not fit to be a rector. He also finds much of the letter irrelevant.

"We do not contend, as you state, that the Bishop does not have the authority to disapprove the call of clergy into this or any other Diocese. Regrettably, a substantial portion of your letter is directed to this issue, and is simply irrelevant. A Bishop can disapprove the call of clergy into a diocese, but only under well-defined circumstances and within specific time limits."

The vestry of Christ Church does contend, Nalls writes, that Bishop Dixon failed to act in her disapproval under the circumstances and limits set forth in the canon. He challenges that Dixon "now seeks to usurp the power of parishes, through their vestries, to call duly qualified clergy to fit their parish profile. This now appears to be a Diocese-wide effort."

Nalls says that he intends to submit letters from other parishes showing a pattern of rejecting candidates that do not comport with the diocese's revisionist views.

"Apparently there now is a philosophical litmus test that is being applied to prospective clergy in this Diocese. Christ Church has made a test case for the application of this standard. It is neither seemly, nor canonical."

He describes the canons covering the call of the rector as being far more simple than Macbeth suggests in her letter. "The powers of the Vestry and Bishop are carefully delineated, and suitable checks are in place to prevent a Vestry from electing a priest who is not duly qualified, and to preclude a Bishop from interfering with a clergy call by delay or subterfuge."

Citing White and Dykeman's Annotated Constitution and Canons, he asserts the bishop has no right of veto:

"If the bishop be satisfied that the person so elected is a duly qualified minister [and gives his consent or fails to respond within thirty days] the vestry may then, but not until then, proceed to issue a call to such minister to become rector of the parish, but if the bishop refuses to give his consent to such election [within thirty days] no valid call can be made to the minister so elected." (White and Dykeman, Vol. 2, pp. 908-909, 1981 edition.)

The canons give bishops the power to prevent the call of a priest he deems objectionable, but these powers are limited, Nalls contends.

He also questions whether or not Dixon can even exercise the authority given diocesan bishops in the canons to reject the call of a rector: "if the diocese is itself without a bishop, there is no mention in the canons that the Ecclesiastical Authority (the Standing Committee or Suffragan Bishop appointed under canon) has the power to veto a rector within the time limit prescribed in Canon."

Nalls further questions whether Dixon can exercise some of the authority she has. In a footnote, he states: "In this case the Suffragan Bishop has not become the Diocesan Bishop, nor is their support in the Canon for a Bishop pro tempore. This power relates only to specific powers to be exercise in the absence of the Bishop." Dixon has designated herself "Bishop pro tempore" and no longer refers to herself as the Suffragan Bishop.

Nalls notes that a bishop may also reject a priest beyond calling him "unqualified" by rejecting the letter dimissory and inhibiting him from functioning in the diocese.

The letter dimissory is a testimonial from one bishop to another that enables a priest to transfer between dioceses. However, there is only one specific reason for refusing a letter dimissory in Canon III.16.1(d) and it is "credible information concerning the character of the Member of the Clergy concerned." Otherwise, the letter dimissory is given to the Ecclesiastical Authority and "it shall be the duty of the Ecclesiastical Authority to accept it unless there is credible information of bad character.

Nalls asserts that all the points raised by Macbeth concerning Father Edwards' statements and possible intentions to remove the parish from the Episcopal Church do not stand up under examination.

He also takes issue with Macbeth's concerns about the future behavior of Fr. Edwards. He notes that should any problem arise with Fr. Edwards in the future, the diocese has many remedies in the canons. These include godly admonition and discipline. "Thus, there simply is no need to ignore canon and the power of the Vestry to call and contract with a priest as provided in canon and civil law," Nalls concludes.

Nalls then argues that Bishop Dixon has not made a case that Fr. Edwards is not duly qualified. The term "duly qualified" goes to moral and intellectual grounds, Nalls sates, and notes that "neither of which are at issue here." He thinks "duly qualified" refers to the moral and intellectual fitness of a candidate, citing:

"The term qualified must . . . receive a more comprehensive meaning than merely that he has been ordained; it must be taken to mean that the bishop is to be satisfied of the general fitness of the Minister elected, both morally and intellectually, before he can . . . complete such election to a Parish under his jurisdiction." (White, Church Law)

He notes that the definition of 'duly qualified' came before the 1934 canon that set a 30-day limit. That limit was added "to prevent endless delay in the call of a Rector, a tactic that apparently been used . . . to thwart the call of Anglo-Catholic priests and vice versa."

Nalls also faults Macbeth's heavy reliance on the presentment case involving Long Island Bishop Orris Walker, who rejected the call of a rector. Walker, he contends, made due and timely objection to the qualification of the priest inovled.

Nalls also chides both Macbeth and Bishop Dixon for attacking Fr. Edwards' writings. Those comments "appear to be little more than a personal difference of opinion between the Suffragan Bishop and Fr. Edwards. Indeed, Fr. Edwards' views represent a norm within Christendom in general and the Anglican Communion in particular."

Nalls then cited other clergy within the Diocese of Washington that "far exceed" the comments of Fr. Edwards.

Nalls cites several instances. He cited the diocese's rejection of a resolution on unity and dialogue regarding sexuality issues and forced acceptance of women's ordination. He noted comments by Fr. Michael Hopkins, a gay cleric, that any dialogue on sexuality issues is tantamount to rejecting "my right to be here."

Nalls cited the preaching of Fr. Ted Karpf, now diocesan development officer, who said in a sermon at St. John's Lafayette Square in Washington, D.C. "The body of Christ has AIDS. Lord, have mercy."

Nalls wrote that "such a statement . . . is offensive to many. Placed in the context of an emotional sermon, it is perhaps understandable. As a determinant of 'fitness' or 'due qualification,' however, such pronouncements do not find canonical proscription."

By basing her decision on Fr. Edwards's rejection of women's ordination, as she indicated in a March 30 Washington Post article, Bishop Dixon is in disagreement with the Primates' stand at Kanuga, N.C. that bishops respect those with different views. He says her action also violates the spirit of a recent pastoral letter from the House of Bishops.

Finally, Nalls accuses Bishop Dixon of improperly interfering with the powers of wardens and vestry to call a rector. He cites the Maryland Vestry Act of 1798: "the vestry of every parish shall have fully power and authority, from time to time, to choose one or more minister . . . to officiate in any church or chapel belonging to the parish, and to perform the other duties of a minister therein". He asserts that the whole polity of the American church arose under a situation that gave extraordinary powers to vestries, not bishops.

The letter ends with a plea for the diocese to cease its interference in the call of Fr. Edwards.