Bishop Bennison's Letter to
the Archbishop of Wales
and Bishop of Monmouth
The Episcopal Diocese of Pennsylvania |
20 September 2002
The Most Rev'd Rowan Douglas Williams
Archbishop of Wales and Bishop of Monmouth
Bishopstow
Newport
WALES
Your Grace:
Gregory Cameron has emailed me your letter regarding the canonical discipline of David Moyer. I am very grateful for the care and attention you obviously have given to this matter - and for the promptness of your response.
I realize that David Moyer's deposition, unlike that of others in ECUSA, has become difficult for Archbishop Carey and you because he has effectively made his case a cause célèbre for Anglican traditionalists globally, and because as a global communion we do not have in place the canonical structures with which to handle a case such as his. The implications of the latter are that each province must deal with disciplinary matters internally and until we grow closer as a communion, as I hope we will, without intervention from Canterbury.
The statement in your private letter to Geoffrey Kirk that, at least hypothetically, you would permit or license David Moyer to function in your diocese therefore, as you are very kind to observe, will not make my life any easier. But of far greater significance, it effectively signals on your part a willingness to override ECUSA's canons, which every ECUSA bishop and I at our consecrations solemnly engaged to uphold. Deposition in Wales, as you note, differs from deposition in ECUSA. According to our canons one can be deposed not only for doctrinal or moral, but also, as in David's case, for disciplinary, reasons. According to our canons, moreover, David is to vacate ALL ecclesiastical offices and is not to function as a priest anywhere until such a time as he would successfully apply for the remission of his deposition, and yet you are saying he may potentially do so in Wales because you, as do those of us in our diocese, find nothing wrong with him morally or doctrinally. Inasmuch as David was deposed before he transferred into Archbishop Malango's, and thence Bishop Duncan's, jurisdictions, moreover, means that by your statement you are giving approbation to their disregard for our canons, too.
I would respectfully ask that you expect as much of David in regard to his own province as you would were he your priest. (Given what I understand are your views on the issues before the church, it is doubtful that David would welcome you for a full visitation to his church any more than he will me). In the third paragraph of your letter to Geoffrey Kirk you state: "However, in this Province the issue of licenses entails certain rights and obligations within a diocese (there would have to be a canonical oath-taking, he would be cited for formal Visitations, etc.) ...." Thus, the Church of England would require no less from Dr. Moyer than the Diocese of Pennsylvania has required: adherence to the canons and, in particular, recognition that he has an obligation to permit his Bishop to make formal Visitations. Our diocese has only asked the same of him.
The Diocese of Pennsylvania has never said that David is "guilty of any moral or doctrinal delinquency," and the Diocese of Pennsylvania, like you, recognizes that David "is respected as a priest of disciplined life, personal spirituality and great teaching capacity." But just as these strengths are not, by themselves, enough to have him be formally licensed by you, they are not enough under the Constitution and Canons of this Church.
As you are aware, FiFNA made public your letter to Fr. Kirk and, indeed, only the one paragraph which best serves its purposes. In response to the harm that FiFNA has thereby caused, I hope that as soon as possible you will say publicly something to the effect that while you find nothing erroneous in David morally or doctrinally, his deposition arises out of a disciplinary context within ECUSA, is an internal matter between him, his bishop, his Standing Committee, and ECUSA, and until such time as the remission of his deposition occurs no transfer to or recognition in another province of the Communion is possible.
Finally, in his presidential address to ACC-11, Archbishop Carey names me as one who has acted unilaterally without consulting with the Province and the Communion. I want you to know that on the day of David's inhibition over six months ago I sent to all ECUSA bishops the Standing Committee document outlining David's canonical infractions that I also just sent to you -- and that, while none elected to do so, every ECUSA bishop had six months to respond. Moreover, on four occasions this past summer I sought to obtain from the ACC Office in London permission to mail to all Anglican Communion bishops a letter summarizing the situation, but never heard back any definitive response to my request. I realize that you are not responsible for this lack of response from ACC, but I do want you to know that I have endeavored to be as responsible as possible in communicating as widely as possible throughout this painful process.
I have emailed Gregory with possible times when we can talk over the telephone, and I look forward to doing so. May God bless you as you begin your new ministry.
Sincerely,
Charles E. Bennison, Jr.
Cc: The Most Reverend Frank T. Griswold III
The Chancellor of the Diocese of Pennsylvania, The Standing Committee of the Diocese of Pennsylvania
Return to Moyer/Bennison archive
