Settlement negotiations collapse

Fr. Samuel Edwards | 13 September 2001

Issues regarding the ownership of the property of Saint John's Parish in Prince George's County have led to the failure of mediation aimed obtaining an out-of-court settlement of the controversy over the parish's call of the Rev. Samuel Edwards as its Rector.

Suffragan Bishop Jane Dixon, as temporary Ecclesiastical Authority of the Episcopal Diocese of Washington, filed a federal lawsuit against Fr. Edwards and the Vestry of Saint John' Parish on June 24 seeking to overturn the Vestry's call of Edwards and to assert the diocese's ultimate ownership of the parish property.

In response to the suit, the parish has asserted that:

- the call of Fr. Edwards was legitimate, under the laws both of the Episcopal Church and of the State of Maryland,

- that Bishop Dixon failed to raise objections to the call within the thirty-day time period church law gives her to do so, and that

- under Maryland law the property of the parish (which was founded in 1698 - almost a century before the Episcopal Church and almost two centuries before the Diocese of Washington) is owned outright by the Vestry.

The parish's attorney, Charles Nalls, Esq. of deKeiffer and Horgan, was informed by the diocesan chancellor and attorney for Bishop Dixon that after careful consideration of a proposal to settle the matter out of court, the Bishop had concluded that the "property issues were just too important" to enable a negotiated settlement to be reached. Accordingly, attorneys for the Bishop are formally notifying the court-appointed mediator that an impasse has been reached. This means that the matter will be decided by Judge Peter Mesitte of the Federal District Court for Maryland, Southern Division.

The parish has moved for dismissal of the suit on the ground that Bishop Dixon lacks standing as an individual to sue, or alternatively that there is no diversity of residence between the parties that would allow the court to take jurisdiction, and on the ground that, since church disciplinary proceedings are still under way, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction in the case. Arguments on motions by both parties were heard in the Federal Courthouse in Greenbelt on August 23. The judge has yet to rule on the motions.

"We are very sorry that Bishop Dixon has decided that we could not come to a mutually acceptable settlement in this matter without involving the court," said Fr. Edwards, "and we note with interest that the Bishop, who several times has indicated that the matter is not about the property, in the end cites the property matter as the reason for the impasse."

Fr. Edwards went on to say that, "I have contended from the beginning that in the end this entire controversy concerns the nature of a bishop's authority in the Episcopal Church. The question is whether there are any checks on that authority or whether each bishop is an absolute ruler within his diocese. It is plain to us that the law of the Episcopal Church envisions a constitutional form of government in which even its highest officials are subject to the rule of law. From the contention made in court by the Bishop's attorneys that she alone has the right to interpret the law of the church, it is equally plain that she believes that she is ultimately subject to no authority beyond that of her own will. In the end, the question that must be resolved is whether the Episcopal Church is still a constitutional body or whether it has decayed into an absolutist system."