Court Acted as "An Arbiter of Religious Doctrine"
Robert Stowe England |
18 December 2001
RICHMOND, Virginia -- Fr. Samuel Edwards and the vestry of Christ Church, Accokeek, Maryland, accused a federal court in a brief filed yesterday of unconstitutional interference in the internal affairs of the Episcopal Church.
The brief was filed in the U.S Court of Appeals for the fourth circuit in the matter of a court ordered issued October 29 by Judge Peter J. Messitte of the U.S. District Court of Maryland's southern division in Greenbelt.
"The very nature of these matters places them beyond the subject matter jurisdiction of the Federal courts," the brief states. "To interfere in this process has placed the District Court in the position of an arbiter of religious doctrine in the contravention of the First Amendment of the United States Constitutions," it adds.
The dispute involves the call of Fr. Edwards to be rector of the parish, a call opposed by Acting Bishop Jane Dixon of the Episcopal Diocese of Washington. She rejected his call last March a full 83 days after she was notified of the call a year ago this month. Citing a church canon that limits bishops to a 30-day review, Fr. Edwards and the vestry claimed that Dixon's rejection was illegal and that his call was valid.
Dixon brought a lawsuit against Fr. Edwards and the vestry last June. In October Judge Messitte ousted him as rector, installed Dixon as rector ex officio, voided the contract between Fr. Edwards and the vestry, required the vestry to allow Dixon and her representatives to visit and hold church services and to allow Dixon to chair vestry meetings. The order also ousted the Edwards from the rectory and prohibited Fr. Edwards from conducting religious services within 300 feet of the church property.
The brief, which signals the content of oral arguments that will be made in behalf of the appellants late next month, also faults the district court for failing to violating the standards for making summary judgments.
Specifically, the brief states that Judge Messitte erred in assuming there were no genuine issues of material fact and it making determinations on the credibility of statements made by Fr. Edwards.
Under federal rules of civil procedure summary judgments can not be made when there are genuine issues of material fact, that is differences over the facts and the law. The brief accuses Judge Messitte of accepting Dixon's version of discussions between her and Fr. Edwards, while ignoring his. Determinations of credibility in such instances are left to juries.
The brief also accuses Judge Messitte of fudging the issue in determining there was no legal dispute over the 30-day limit that church canons set on bishops to comment or object to the call of a rector.
Judge Messitte accepted the argument of Dixon that she can interpret the canons since she is the highest authority in the diocese, the brief contends, and that if she interprets the canons to give her all the times she needs -- which she has so interpreted them -- makes her interpretation legal and valid.
The brief claims that the court has interfered in a matter on which there are pending disciplinary proceedings. Only after that matter is decided by church procedures can a court get involved, the brief contends. It further contends that court precedents support this view and that the rare intervention by secular courts in the matter of disciplining priests involves only the enforcement of a decision made internally by a church.
It does not involve a decision imposed by a judge on parties in dispute.
There have been two disciplinary proceedings, the brief notes, one against Dixon and one against Fr. Edwards. A Title IV Review Panel dismissed charges Dixon violated the 30-day canon limit in September, but did so in a manner that does not dispute the validity of Fr. Edward's and the vestry's views in the matter.
The Review Panel stated: "Both parties apparently hold these views in good faith and with the support of their advisors and canonical commentators."
A set of presentment charges against Fr. Edwards was brought last May by the Rev. Canon John Frizzell, Jr., along with 14 other clergy from southern Maryland in the Diocese of Washington.
Since Fr. Edwards remains canonically resident in the Diocese of Ft. Worth, these charges were considered by the Standing Committee of that diocese, but only after they were leaked by Canon Frizzell when Dixon failed to forward them to Ft. Worth, as is customary with a presentment charge.
The Standing Committee of Ft. Worth ruled yesterday that it would present Fr. Edwards on the single charge that he continued to conduct religious services in the Diocese of Washington 60 days without a license. Under the canons, any priest can conduct services for up to 60 days in another diocese, but needs a license to function after that time.
The ecclesiastical court of Ft. Worth will schedule a trial for Fr. Edwards, who plans to plead innocent and contends that he should not be convicted.
The brief also faulted the district court for failing to dismiss the case since there was no diversity of jurisdiction that would allow the case to be settled in the federal court. Dixon brought the case as an individual residing in Washington, D.C. against a Maryland parish. If the case had been brought by the Diocese of Washington, there would have been no difference in jurisdiction, since the Diocese of Washington is a legal entity both within the Diocese of Washington and Maryland.
The brief also notes that Bishop Jack Iker of the Diocese of Ft. Worth took the parish under his pastoral oversight last May. "This action intertwines the pending disciplinary proceedings with a matter of doctrinal concern throughout the worldwide Anglican communion -- extended pastoral care for traditional parishes -- an issue that has moved to the fore," the brief states.
The brief cites the moves in late November by Forward in Faith traditionalists within the Episcopal Church to establish a "formal, cross-jurisdictional Episcopal oversight. As a consequence, there is additional Constitutional concern that this matter of Church discipline and doctrine not be the subject of a Federal court proceeding."
The brief calls on the appeals court to overturn the district court's order and to dismiss the charges. Failing this, the brief asks that the order be overturned and the matter returned to the district court for trial.
The brief was prepared by parish attorney Charles Nalls of deKieffer & Horgan in Washington, D.C. He was assisted by Rufus Peckham of the Diocese of Washington, as well as Ken Matticks of Texas, John Hollister of Ohio and Dennis Mahoney of California.
Return to Dixon/Edwards archive
