Moyer / Bennison:
The Correspondence
These are the letters documenting the agreement between former Bishop of Pennsylvania, Allen Bartlett, and the “Seven Sister Churches” in the Diocese regarding “Episcopal Visitors.” There is no canon law which requires that the Diocesan Bishop make the visitations.
Charles Bennison promised that, if he were elected, he would continue this agreement. Upon his election he backed out of his promise.
17 October 1994
The Rt. Rev. Donald J. Parsons
308 West Edgevale Place.
Peoria, IL 61604
Dear Donald
Enclosed is a copy of an agreement which 'I reached with the ESA Rectors recently. I hope that this looks agreeable to
you. if you are called upon by any of them to do these Visitations. I am sure that you and I can work well together on this. I would want there to be free and open consultation between us as these visits are arranged and following such
,visits, and I feel sure you would agree. You would be coming as my representative, and we would take care of your expenses out of our Episcopate budget. In addition to expenses, we are currently paying a $300 honorarium, or, if there are two Visitations on the same Sunday, a total of $500. I hope this is satisfactory.
So far the only one who has said anything to me about this is David Moyer, who, I think, would like a visit sometime in the spring. At this point we have not yet received his parish's payment for the Episcopate, but he assured me informally that this would be coming. I will count on you to let me know of any requests under this agreement that come to you, so that we may ensure that all things are in order in that respect.
I look forward to working with you in this and welcome your thoughts.
Faithfully,
Allen L. Bartlett, Jr.
cc: The Rev. David L . Moyer
To: Episcopal Synod of America Rectors in the Diocese of Pennsylvania
FROM: The Rt. Rev. Allen L. Bartlett, Jr.
SUBJECT: Provision of Episcopal, Pastoral, and Sacramental Care
DATE: October 19, 1994
This summarizes my understanding of the: discussions we had on October 18 in response to your memorandum of September 15, 1994.
I Episcopal Visitations. . ESA parishes may receive Visitations from the Rt. Rev. Donald Parsons, or another bishop acceptable to the parishes and to the Bishop of Pennsylvania in either of two ways:
A. Provided the parish has paid in full its assessment for the episcopate due June. 1, 1994, and thereafter, the Bishop of Pennsylvania will invite the agreed upon bishop to make such an annual visitation, representing him and acting under his jurisdiction, in order to provide pastoral and sacramental care. Such Visitations shall be in lieu of Visitations by the Bishops of Pennsylvania. Visitations do not of course include ordinations. Travel expenses and honoraria would be provided by the Diocese of Pennsylvania on the same basis as that provided to other Visiting Bishops.
B. Should a parish fail to pay its assessment for the episcopate due June 1, 1994 or thereafter, permission for such Visitations by bishops' other than the Bishops of Pennsylvania will be granted only so long as Visitations by the Bishops of Pennsylvania are equally welcome and specific dates agreed to in advance.
C. Beyond the Episcopal Assessment, ESA parishes will seriously consider means of supporting diocesan programs and ministries.
D. This policy will remain in effect through the 1997 General Convention, in the hope that it will assist all parties in drawing into deeper unity in Christ.
II- Non-geographical Deanery It will not be possible to create such a structure, but I encourage the ESA clergy and leaders to meet together as you wish. I also encourage you to continue to participate in the life of your deanery, for what you may contribute to its life and what you may draw from it.
III. Dialogue- I welcome an ongoing dialogue between us to help us mutually to respond to General Convention Resolution C004sa (regarding matters relating to the "Conscience Clause,") and Resolution B1001 ("on the Pastoral study Document on Human Sexuality" ) .
(Dictated by Bishop Bartlett; signed espy to follow.)
The undersigned agree to the terms outlined in this “Provision of Episcopal, Pastoral and Sacramental Cor” set fourth by the Rt. Rev. Allen L. Bartlett, on the date October 19, 1994.
(7 signatures follow)
Fr. Moyer continues to refuse to permit Bishop Bennison to preach from his pulpit or to celebrate Mass at his altar, because Bennison continues to publicly deny critical articles of the Christian Faith.
Here follows the letter of inhibition of Fr. Moyer by Bishop Bennison. Fr. Moyer has done nothing more than uphold the apostolic Faith and catholic order of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. Bennison uses (or misuses) Canons which were never meant to be used in a situation such as this. (See below for the response from Fr. Moyer and from his attorney, John Lewis, Esq.)
March 1, 2002
The Rev. David L.. Moyer
Church of the Good Shepherd
19 Montrose Avenue
Rosemont, Pennsylvania 19010
Dear David:
It genuinely pains me to have to write this letter.
At its meeting on February 26, 2002, the Standing Committee of the Diocese of Pennsylvania made the findings set forth in the attached document and the determination that you have Abandoned tine Communion of this Church by an "open renunciation of the .... . Discipline. .. ..of this Church.." Pursuant to the provisions of Canon IV.10.Sec. l of the Canons, of General Convention, the Standing Committee transmitted to me its determination, a copy of which is enclosed.
Based on my personal knowledge of the matters considered by the Standing. Committee, with great sadness I affirm their determination.
In accordance with the mandate of Canon IV.10.Sec.1. of the Canons of General am hereby inhibiting. you from officiating in this Diocese for a period of six months, beginning March 4, 2002. You have the rights specified in Canton IV.1O.Sec.2. a copy of which I have enclosed. If for any reason you believe any Finding of the Standing Committee is materially in error, you should advise me promptly.
I fervently hope that during the next six months you will reconsider your refusal to permit my visitation. in the meantime, I trust you know of my prayers for you, your family, and the people of the Church of the Good Shepherd..
Very truly yours,
Charles F.. Bennison, Jr.
CEB/tob
Letter from the Standing Committee of the Diocese of Pennsylvania to Fr. David Moyer:
March 1, 2002
The Right Reverend Charles L. Bennison, Jr.
Bishop of the Diocese of Pennsylvania
240 South Fourth Street
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106
Re: The Reverend Dr. David L. Moyer
Right Reverend and Dear Sir:
The entire membership of the Standing Committee of the Diocese of Pennsylvania met on February 26th, 2002 in order to consider your report that the Reverend Dr. David L. Moyer has abandoned the Communion of this Church by an "open renunciation of the …Discipline…of this Church."
The Committee was cognizant of the direction in the Canons of General Convention that "the Discipline of the Church shall be found in the Constitution, the Canons and the Rubrics and the Ordinal of the Book of Common Prayer.." The Committee also was cognizant of the requirements in Title TV Canon 10, Section I of the Canons that it was our primary duty to ascertain and consider the facts, make a determination, and forward the same to you for further action.
In carrying out these responsibilities under the Canons, the Committee has taken into account the actions of. the Reverend Dr. David L. Moyer over several years, including actions taken during the episcopacy of Bishop Bartlett. At his request, the Reverend Dr. David L. Moyer met with the Standing Committee; presented his reasons for, pursuing the course of action he has taken over the past several years, and answered questions from members of the Committee. The exchange of views during the meeting was candid and respectful.
FINDINGS
1. For almost a decade, while Rector of The Church of the Good Shepherd, Rosemont, the Rev. Dr. David L. Moyer has failed to honor requests from the Bishops of the Diocese of Pennsylvania to schedule formal Visitations at which the Diocesan Bishop would celebrate the Holy Eucharist and Preach the Word in addition to carrying out the other responsibilities imposed on him by the Canons of. General Convention.
2. In 1999, the Rev. Dr. David L. Moyer disobeyed a Pastoral Direction and Solemn Warning from the Diocesan Bishop to accept a formal Visitation. The Bishop in his discretion chose not to pursue disciplinary action against the Rev. Dr. David L. Moyer under Title IV of the Canons of General Convention at that time as part of the Bishop's continuing efforts at reconciliation.
3. For many years the Rev. Dr. David L. Moyer has failed to present confirmands from Good Shepherd Rosemont to the Bishop of this Diocese as mandated by Canon III.14.Sec.2(d) of the Canons of General Convention. In May 1999, the Rev. Dr. David L. Moyer presented confirmands from Good Shepherd Rosemont to a Bishop other than the Bishop of this Diocese,' in contravention of Canon M.. l 4.Sec.2(d)
4. 4. In the fall of 2000, the Rev. Dr. David L. Moyer invited Archbishop Maurice Sinclair of the Province of the Southern Cone (South America) to come to Good Shepherd to preside, preach and confirm without the consent of the Diocesan Bishop.. While the Diocesan Bishop eventually granted Archbishop Sinclair permission to function, he did so only as part of his continuing efforts at reconciliation.
5. The Rev. Dr. David L. Moyer has disobeyed the Diocesan Bishop's most recent Pastoral Direction and Solemn Warning of February 2,.2002 to permit a Visitation by the Bishop on a Sunday during February 2002 at which the Bishop would carry out those responsibilities imposed on him. by the Canons of General Convention.
6. The Rev. Dr. David L. Moyer recently has permitted his name to be placed in nomination for election as a "bishop" by the group calling itself Forward In Faith North America, thereby willingly participating in an election process that clearly violates the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church
7. On a cumulative basis, the foregoing actions openly demonstrate a continuing, consistent refusal to act in accordance with the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church and the Rubrics of the Book of Common prayer.
DETERMINATION
The foregoing actions, continuing over an extended period and demonstrating an increasing level of confrontation with the bishops of this diocese, constitute an "open renunciation of the ... Discipline ... of this Church" by the Reverend Dr. David L. Moyer within the meaning of Canon 10 of Title TV of the Canons of General Convention..
We therefore transmit this Determination to you for further action in accordance with Section 1 of Canon 10. We also transmit herewith a Report expanding further on the reasons why the Standing Committee believes the Findings set forth above support the Determination made by the Committee.
For the Standing Committee, we remain
Respectfully yours,
The Reverend Mr. Glenn M. Matis, President
The Reverend Mr. William H. Wood, III, Vice President
Letter from Fr. Moyer to Bishop Bennison in response to the inhibition:
March 5, 2002
The Rt. Rev'd Charles E. Bennison, Jr.
240 South Fourth Street
Philadelphia; PA 19106
Dear Bishop Bennison,
After careful reading of the Inhibition of March 1, 2002, I must contest this judgement and disciplinary action, which is based on the accusation that I have abandoned the Communion of the Church. I do this without prejudice to my legal position, which is separately stated by my attorney. It is precisely my grave concern for and loyalty to the Communion of the Church that undergirds my continuing and consistent actions as a priest. At this time, I have chosen to take an inhouse-retreat to be concentrated in prayer and discernment, and not formally engaging in priestly duties.
My fundamental concern, past and present, is for the structures of the Church being upheld. The basic structure of the Church is grounded in" Holy. Scripture and the Book of Common Prayer, which shapes the mind of the Anglican Communion. The Canons are clearly subservient to the Bible and the Prayer Book.
With that background, I am in full agreement with your statement in your March 1, 2002 letter to the clergy of the Diocese of PA, where you write: "We have to uphold the structures of our Church if we are to maintain our unity, and we have to hold one another accountable at the same time".
In that spirit, I ask you to assist me. If I am mistaken, and have a misunderstanding of how you have violated the structural elements of the. Christian Faith, you can easily clarify this by publicly affirming:
1. The uniqueness of Jesus Christ as the only way of obtaining eternal salvation.
The Book of Common Prayer: Article XVIII. Of obtaining eternal Salvation only by the Name of Christ:
"They also are to be had accursed that presume to say, That every man shall be saved by the Law or Sect which he professeth, so that he be diligent to frame his life according to that Law, and the light of Nature. .For Holy Scripture doth set out unto us only the Name of Jesus Christ, whereby men must be saved".
The Book of Common Prayer: Fifth Sunday of Easter (p.173):
"0 Almighty God, whom truly to know is everlasting life: Grant us so perfectly to know thy Son Jesus Christ to be the way, the truth, and the life, that we may steadfastly follow his steps in the way that leadeth to. eternal life; through the same thy Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who liveth and reigneth with thee, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen".
The Holy Bible:
"Jesus said to him, I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me". (John 14:6)
"And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved". (Acts 4:12)
2. The physical bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ.
The Book of Common Prayer: Article IV. Of the Resurrection of Christ:
"Christ did truly rise again from death; and took again his body, with flesh, bones, and all things appertaining to the perfection of Man's nature; wherewith he ascended into Heaven, and there sitteth, until he return to judge all Men at the last day".
The Holy Bible:
"Then he said to Thomas, Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it, in my side: do not be faithless, but believing". (John 20:27)
"See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; handle me; and see; for a spirit has not flesh arid bones as you see that I have". (Luke 24: 39)
3. That sexual intimacy and genital relations are only properly expressed in a monogamous, heterosexual marital union.
Book of Common Prayer: Article XX. Of the Authority of the Church:
"The Church hath power to decree Rites of Ceremonies, and authority in Controversies of Faith: and yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything that is contrary to God's Word written, neither may it so expound one place of
Scripture, that it be repugnant to another. Wherefore, although the Church be a witness and a keeper of Holy Writ, yet, as it ought not to decree anything against the same, so besides the same ought it not to enforce anything to be believed for necessity of Salvation".
The Declaration of Intention:
"We ................ and ................ desiring to receive the blessing of Holy Matrimony in the Church, do solemnly declare that we hold marriage to be a lifelong union of husband and wife as it is set forth in the Form of Solemnization of Matrimony in the Book of Common Prayer or in the Celebration and Blessing of a Marriage in the Episcopal Church".
4. The supremacy of the Holy Scriptures as the inspired Word of God.
The Book of Common Prayer: The Presentation at the ordination of a bishop (p: 513):
"In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, arid of the Holy Spirit, I, N.N., chosen Bishop of the Church in N., solemnly declare that I do believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God, and to contain all things necessary to salvation; and I do solemnly engage to conform to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of The Episcopal Church".
To bring us to the point of reconciliation, I respectfully ask that you publicly affirm these tenets of the Christian faith promptly, and certainly before Holy Week. Upon your public affirmations I would see myself in a position to welcome you to the Church of the Good Shepherd for a full Episcopal visitation.
You remain in my daily prayers and in the prayers of the people of Good Shepherd.
Faithfully in Christ,
The Rev'd Dr. David L. Moyer, SSC
Legal document from John Lewis, Esq., Attorney for Fr. Moyer:
MONTGOMERY, MCCRACKEN, WALKER and RHOADS, LLP
123 South Broad Street Philadelphia, PA 19109 1030
FAX TRANSMISSION March 5, 2002
ATTN: Rev. Dr. David Moyer The Church of the Good Shepherd
FROM: John H. Lewis, Jr. 215 772 7596
VIA HAND DELIVERY AND FACSIMILE
William C. Bullitt, Esquire
Chancellor, Episcopal Diocese of Pennsylvania Drinker Biddle & Reath, LLP
One Logan Square
18th & Cherry Streets Philadelphia; PA 19103-6996
Re: The. Rev. Dr. David. L. Moyer
Dear Bill:
Please be advised that I represent Father David L. Moyer with. respect to the letter (and enclosures) dated Match 1, 2002 sent by Bishop Charles E. Bennison, Jr. to Father Moyer.
Please be further advised that the following is the initial formal response of Father Moyer to that letter:
I : SUMMARY OF POSITION AND BACKGROUND
A. The actions taken by Bishop Bennison and the Standing Committee are invalid, illegal, unjust and unchristian.
B. At the time of his campaign to become Bishop Coadjutor of the Diocese of Pennsylvania, Charles Bennison entered into a contract with, inter alia, the Church of the Good Shepherd in which he promised that, if elected; he would not seek to compel the clergy or the vestry to accept his visitation to the Church of the Good Shepherd. In reliance upon that undertaking, the representatives of The Church of the Good Shepherd voted for him and he was elected.
C. Bishop Bennison has openly renounced the Doctrine of this Church in that he has, inter alia:
i) Stated that the Church created the Bible and; therefore, the Church can change the Bible;
ii) Denied the truth of the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ;
iii) Expressed his approval of sexual relations outside of Holy Matrimony, i.e. husband* and wife, as affirmed in Tine I; Canon 18; and
iv) Denied the centrality of Jesus Christ and denied the centrality of Scripture, asserting only "[t]he Centrality of Episcopal Oversight" Bennison Legal Brief, page 2).
D. The plain truth is that Father Moyer has not abandoned the Communion of the Church. Bishop Bennison and the Standing Committee knew (or should have known) that to be true. In their apparent desire to find a way to remove Father Moyer from the priesthood and; at the same time, to deny him any rights to contest that action, they have distorted a Canon of the Church that was never intended to deal with a priest who is faithful to the Doctrine of the Church.
RESPONSE
2. The actions taken deny Father Moyer procedural due process in that the alleged
opportunity afforded Father Moyer to appear before the Standing Committee was a sham since it is obvious, from the length (20 pages) and complexity of the document faxed to Father. Moyer last Friday evening, that it already had been prepared well in advance of his meeting with the Standing Committee. Moreover, since the "Report" contains legal citations, it is doubtful that the "Report" was even prepared by the Standing Committee. It is more properly described as the "Bennison Legal Brief."
3. The action taken by Bishop Bennison: is invalid and illegal in that it represents a breach of his contract with the Church of the Good Shepherd, and Father Moyer is a third party beneficiary of that contract.
4. The actions taken by Bishop Bennison and the Standing Committee are invalid and illegal in that Canon 10 was never intended to deal with the facts presented here. Rather, it was intended to deal with those priests who leave the Episcopal Church to join another Church. If any Canons apply to the issues raised here (which is expressly denied), Canons 1, 3 and 4 of Tit It IV would be applicable. Since these Canons would provide substantive and procedural rights to Father Moyer (such as the right to demand a trial), it appears that Bishop Bennison chose to use Canon 10 for the purpose of denying him those rights.
5. Assuming that Canon 10 can be applied, the Canon is invalid and illegal in that it provides no meaningful opportunity for Father Moyer to contest the actions taken; e.g., there is no trial. Although Bishop Bennison violation of Section 1 of Canon 10, failed to advise Father Moyer that he will "consider deposing" Father Moyer at the end of the six months, that is Bishop Bennison's intended result in using. Canon 10. As the Queen of Hearts said in Alice in Wonderland: "Sentence first, verdict afterwards."
6. Assuming that Canon 10 can be applied, it is being applied for as improper purpose; i.e. to satisfy the Bishop's desire for personal power, not to advance the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
7: Assuming that Canon 10 can be applied, that. Canon: refers, not only to discipline, but also to the Doctrine of the Church. "Doctrine" is expressly defined in Canon 15 as: "the basic and essential teachings of the church. The Doctrine of the Church is to be found in the Canon of Holy Scripture as understood in the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds and in the sacramental rites, the Ordinal and Catechism of the Book of Common prayer." This obligation to follow the Doctrine of the Church must be superior to the obligation to follow discipline. Where discipline conflicts with Doctrine (as so expressly defined), Father Moyer is required to obey Doctrine, and that. is exactly. what he has done. The cover page of the Bennison Legal Brief refers to adopting creed and doctrine but rejecting discipline; but it is 13 ishepBenrusoti7wha has rejected creed and doctrine, while trying to enforce "discipline." Neither the Christian religion nor the Canons permit that result. .
8. The action taken is unjust and unchristian in that:
A. As the Bennison Legal Brief itself recognizes, the primary obligation of both Bishop Bennison and Father Moyer is to "live out the Gospel of Jesus Christ in the world" (Bennison Legal Brief, page 2). Father Moyer is endeavouring to be faithful to that obligation.
B. Bishop Bennison has chosen to take this action at a time that would deprive the congregation of Father Moyer's sacramental ministry during Lent and Easter.
9. The Canon (III. 14.2(e)) that deals with the duty of clergy with respect to a visitation by the Bishop refers only to the duty to exhibit the Parish Register and to provide information:
10.Since Bishop Bennison gave Father. Moyer just 2 days to react to a 20 page document, Father Moyer reserves the right to add to or amend this Response and Statement of Position: Father Moyer also reserves the right to assert that Sections 1 3 of Canon 14 of Title N are invalid or are invalid as applied to Father Moyer.
11. Finally, it is also sad and revealing to note that while this 20 page document is full of quotations and legal citations, it does not contain one reference. to the Bible, the Word of God. Similarly, while the "Report" acknowledges (page 2) the duty of Bishop Bennison and Father Moyer "to live out the Gospel of Jesus Christ in the world" r there is no further reference in the document to either Jesus or to the Gospel.
Very truly yours,
John H. Lewis
JHL:clm
Return to Moyer/Bennison archive
