Dixon attorney claims
Bishop is final authority

Auburn V.F. Traycik | 25 August 2001

FOR MONTHS, the notion has lurked just beneath acting Washington Bishop Jane Dixon's insistence that her canonically tardy rebuff of Fr. Samuel Edwards must nonetheless be enforced. But now it is out in the open: the orthodox priest must be removed as rector of Maryland's Christ Church, Accokeek, because Dixon is the final authority for the "hierarchical" Episcopal Church (ECUSA) in the Washington Diocese, and empowered to "interpret" church canons.

So Dixon attorney David Schnorrenberg argued when the bishop's lawsuit against Edwards and the parish vestry moved into federal court in Greenbelt, Maryland, on August 23.

Asserting that ECUSA is instead a constitutional, canonical church with a system of checks and balances, defense attorney Charles Nalls saw Schnorrenberg's innovative view as elevating Dixon to "judge, jury, executive and legislative branch" all in one.

Fr. Edwards said later that Schnorrenberg's "extraordinary" contention that a diocese's bishop is "the sole interpreter of the canons" would mean that ECUSA has "franchised authoritarianism or absolute anarchy."

ECUSA, it seems, "doesn't have a pope, it has 100 of them," he said, referring to the approximate number of Episcopal dioceses. "I don't think that's the way [ECUSA] is organized." But then, from the start of the internationally-watched, six-month battle with Dixon, Edwards has been saying it is a contest between "the rule of law and the rule of whim."

FILED IN JUNE, Dixon's lawsuit seeks a declaratory judgment removing Fr. Edwards from the rectorship and rectory of Christ Church, based on Dixon's rejection of him seven weeks after the 30-day period in which bishops may demur on a vestry's rector call. It also asks the court to nullify the vestry's contract with Edwards, and affirm the bishop's claimed right to enter the parish property and conduct services there.

Adopting a new interpretation of the relevant canon, Dixon, who objects to Edwards' orthodox stands (e.g. on women's ordination) and strong criticisms of ECUSA, says that she can still refuse the priest after the 30-day limit. Parish leaders say that her lack of timely objection means that Edwards is the lawful rector.

During the August 23 hearing, U.S. District Judge Peter Messitte heard three hours of intense argument on the respondents' motion to dismiss the case, and on the plaintiff's motions for a preliminary injunction and summary judgment (a final ruling based on uncontroverted facts of the case). Messitte did not rule on any of the motions that day, rather taking the case under advisement.

A decision was not expected for several weeks. At Messitte's urging, the parties had undergone mediation for nearly a month prior to the hearing. While the effort clearly failed, Messitte has again encouraged the parties to seek a negotiated settlement prior to the issuance of his ruling in the case.

The hearing -- attended by Edwards but not Dixon, who was vacationing in Scotland -- was witnessed by about ten Dixon supporters, including her attorneys, while about 30 persons turned out to support Christ Church. They included about a dozen parishioners and some 15 persons from Save the Seed, a 500-member, non-denominational church in Waldorf, Maryland.

A spokesman for the Waldorf group said that cordial relations between members of Christ Church and Save the Seed had grown from a friendship between Seed's pastor and Christ Church vestryman Wes Courtney. Asked what principle the Waldorf group was there to defend, the spokesman said simply, "The Christian principle." Courtney and his fellow parishioners are Bible-believers, he said, "and that's what we are."

IN HIS OPENING REMARKS on the motion to dismiss, Nalls said the case was about an Episcopal parish "that has been literally rent asunder," which should not be in secular court.

He contended that Dixon lacks standing in her own right to bring a suit which--at every turn--involves the diocese as well.

Nalls pointed, for example, to claims in the bishop's pleadings that the church property is held in trust for the diocese and ECUSA--an assertion that the 303-year-old parish disputes. The property issue has arisen mainly because of Dixon's failed bid to enter Christ Church to conduct services for a parish that she says has no rector. When she attempted to do that May 27, parish lay leaders invited her to worship but not to lead the service, whereupon Dixon held a competing outdoor rite on church grounds. The rival Sunday service has continued at a nearby community center with former Washington Bishop Ronald Haines or other clergy presiding.

But Nalls' overarching argument for dismissal was that Dixon has not exhausted potential ecclesiastical remedies for her dispute with Edwards, which her lawsuit did not mention were available and already being pursued.

After Dixon's suit was filed June 25, it emerged that some Washington clergy had submitted presentment charges against Edwards on May 29, and that Dixon had vaguely preferred similar charges against the priest in a May letter to Bishop Jack Iker of Fort Worth. That is where Edwards remains canonically resident, and the charges are now being adjudicated.

Edwards is accused of constitutional and canonical violations, including teaching unapproved doctrine (apparently because he opposes women's ordination) and functioning in the diocese for more than 60 days without a license (a claim based on Dixon's non-acceptance of Edwards as rector).

Two sets of presentment charges were likewise lodged against Dixon after her lawsuit was filed. One was submitted by three retired Episcopal prelates--Bishops FitzSimons Allison (South Carolina), Maurice Benitez (Texas), and William Wantland (Eau Claire)--and another by some 35 Washington laypersons, and three clerics.

She is charged with constitutional and canonical violations related to her campaign to oust Fr. Edwards. These include ignoring the 30-day limit to oppose a rector call, and failing to obtain permission from Christ Church's rector and wardens to hold services within the parish's geographical boundaries. A Review Committee of bishops, clergy and laity began considering those charges on August 20, and has called for "extensive" additional documentation, Nalls said.

As a result of the canonical disciplinary process, Edwards or Dixon, or both, could face admonition, suspension, or defrocking, attorneys told the judge.

Nalls contended that any decision by the court before the church proceedings were complete would pre-empt the findings in those cases, and risk unconstitutional interference. This is ultimately a conflict over ECUSA's internal rules and workings, he said, and the "ecclesiastic tribunals of the Episcopal Church have not acted."

Disputing one of Dixon's arguments for preliminary injunction, he also asserted that there was no "irreparable harm" involved in maintaining the status quo while the process prescribed by the canons runs its course. Meanwhile, he said the parish should be allowed to retain the rector it chose.

"The lawfully elected vestry of Christ Church went through a canonical process to call a rector...They followed the rules," he said. "No one is going anywhere. The flock is being tended to," he said.

BUT SCHNORRENBERG MAINTAINED that Christ Church is "not following the rules" because it has ignored Dixon's conclusion that Edwards is "not duly qualified" to be rector. Asserting that ECUSA, while it lacks a pope, is a "hierarchical church," he countered that the case primarily involves "decisions made by the decisionmaking authority" of an ECUSA diocese, upon which the secular court cannot pass judgment under the First Amendment. The court should therefore accept as final and enforce Dixon's directive on Fr. Edwards, which he said the defendants have "disobeyed," dividing Christ Church in the process.

The defendants say there is "a hierarchical [disciplinary] process going on, but there's a hierarchical decision that has been made," Schnorrenberg said. He noted that some 70 ECUSA bishops had endorsed Dixon's right to make such a decision.

He accused the rector and vestry of the historic parish of asserting "squatter's rights," but claimed that this is "not a case about who owns the property." Rather, if Christ Church is part of ECUSA, it must honor its bishop's decisions, he declared.

He contended that Dixon had not tried to force her way into Christ Church, but had suffered injury because she was denied what he said was her canonical right of access to it, which he said could be exercised "as often as she pleases."

Injunctive relief was indicated, he maintained, because a "big number of people are being adversely affected" by the Accokeek dispute (though the respondents told the judge that only 20 active Christ Church members, out of some 135, had joined the rival group; average attendance at the parish this summer was said to be 60).

Schnorrenberg also said that it could take over a year (past Dixon's retirement date) for a church court to restore Dixon's "right to exercise her ministry" at Christ Church. Court action now to relieve this "hardship" will not stop the ecclesiastical process, he pointed out.

"What do I need to know about the bishop that authorizes her to [enter the parish]?" asked the judge, who also wanted to know why Dixon was called bishop pro tempore.

Schnorrenberg asserted that Dixon, a suffragan who assumed oversight of diocesan affairs after the December 31 retirement of Bishop Haines, is "the bishop of the Diocese of Washington" and its "ecclesiastical authority" and as such may "interpret" the canons.

The attorney first asserted that a church court cannot overrule Dixon--perhaps meaning to say, though, that the court would be adjudicating a different issue--i.e., whether or not Dixon was guilty of canonical violations in the Edwards case. Under questioning from Messitte, he later acknowledged, though, that bishops are subject to the will of General Convention through the enactment of canon law. Asked if the convention is subject to any higher authority, Schnorrenberg, in a moment of liberal candor, said it is not.

IN HIS THOUGHTFUL QUESTIONS posed throughout the hearing, the judge appeared to be exploring particularly whether or not the court could offer the bishop injunctive relief by separating the questions of Dixon's access to Christ Church and Edwards' rectorship of it. Could the court defer ruling on the priest's removal, he asked, and affirm Dixon's right to visit Christ Church--assuming for now the "regularity" of her rejection of Edwards?

Neither attorney seemed to favor the move, however. Schnorrenberg agreed that the questions could be separated, but vied for all the relief that Dixon had requested, while Nalls argued that the issues of access and rectorship are intertwined.

In his reply, Nalls tried to distinguish the bishop's canonically-required triennial visitation to a parish from Dixon's aim of taking charge of Christ Church as its ex-officio rector. That implies a more frequent presence, which would necessarily impinge on the key question of whether Edwards is the lawful rector, and his rights in that role. As the rector sits on the parish vestry, such a move would also impact church property and other corporate responsibilities, he said.

Nalls also held that, while Dixon is the diocese's "acting ecclesiastical authority," she remains a suffragan bishop, who has no canonical right to be a parish rector.

"[If we] resolve the issue of who the rector is" in ecclesiastical court, "the visitation issue becomes less muddy," he said.

Schnorrenberg contended that even allowing Edwards to remain in the rectory would invite interference in Dixon's ministry at Christ Church. "She has the right to access" whether it not it supplants someone later found to be the rightful rector, he said. Afterward, both Nalls and Edwards said they felt the "searching" questions posed by Judge Messitte indicated that he is approaching the case carefully, and weighing all the issues.