Anglican Communion Network

Single Post

Printer Friendly

Support for charges against the Rt. Rev. Andrew Smith

September 27, 2005

The Most Rev. Frank T. Griswold III
Presiding Bishop
The Episcopal Church Center
815 Second Ave.
New York, NY 10017

Re: Support for Charges against the Rt. Rev. Andrew Smith

Dear Bishop Griswold,

This letter is for the purpose of urging you to act promptly and affirmatively in passing along to the Review Committee the charges recently filed with you by clergy and laity of the Diocese of Connecticut against The Rt. Rev. Andrew Smith, Bishop of the Diocese of Connecticut.

Those charges relate to the conduct of Bishop Smith in respect to six parishes, their rectors and congregations in the Diocese of Connecticut. Those parishes are: Bishop Seabury Church, Groton; Christ Church, Watertown; Christ & the Epiphany Church, East Haven; St. John’s Church, Bristol; St. Paul’s Church, Darien; and Trinity Church, Bristol (the “Parishes”).

Our investigation reveals the following:

  1. On February 17, 2005, the Standing Committee of the Diocese of Connecticut received a complaint from its Bishop, Andrew Smith, concerning Frs. Allyn Benedict, Ronald Gauss, Mark Hansen, Donald Helmandollar, Christopher Leighton and Gilbert Wilkes (collectively the “Six Priests”), and their alleged violations of Canon IV.10.1. One month later, on March 17th, the Standing Committee met to review that complaint, and, at that time, determined that each of the accused priests had “abandoned the Communion of this Church by an open renunciation of the discipline of this Church … as evidenced by their conduct.” Their determination was reported to Bishop Smith by letter of the same date. The Standing Committee’s determination was communicated to the Six Priests, although Bishop Smith took no action on it at that time.
  2. We learned of the Standing Committee’s determination and the threat of Bishop Smith to depose the Six Priests using Canon IV.10.1. On April 14, 2005, we wrote our first open letter to Bishop Smith, informing him of our belief that such an application of Canon IV.10.1 would be a flagrant misapplication of that canon and imploring him not to do so. That letter was subscribed by 17 Episcopal bishops, 13 of whom are diocesans.
  3. We have subsequently learned that just five days later, Bishop Smith sought from the Standing Committee backup to support its determination that the Six Priests had abandoned communion. The Standing Committee responded with its 10 page report of April 29, 2005. We commend the report to you and will provide a copy if one is not readily available. Any fair reading of that report will reveal a contorted analysis designed to justify the wholly unsupportable application of that canon to the Six Priests who Bishop Smith and the Standing Committee know have continued resolutely to maintain their commitment to the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion.
  4. As you by now know, that is not the whole story. Purporting to act under the authority of Canon IV.10.1, on July 12, 2005, Bishop Smith inhibited Fr. Mark Hanson, Rector of St. John’s Church in Bristol. He then acted against the parish on the following day by appearing unannounced at St. John’s with an entourage which assisted him in physically seizing the property, evicting without benefit of the law its rightful possessors, changing the locks and installing a “priest-in-charge” without the vestry’s approval. Declaring himself to be above the law, Bishop Smith has continued to hold possession of the property and has relegated the injured congregation to the civil courts for redress. Since the seizure, the vast majority of the members of St. John’s have been worshipping at Trinity church in Bristol.
  5. The immediate response of the bishops of the Anglican Communion Network was to appeal to you to intervene. That request was made to you by letter and telephone by Bishop John Howe on the 17th of July. You reported that you had referred the matter to your Chancellor, and subsequently indicated that you would not respond further to that request.
  6. On July 27, 2005, a second open letter to Bishop Smith was sent. It was signed by nine diocesan bishops. Bishop Smith responded in writing the next day with denials and challenges, and refused to cease and desist from his inappropriate conduct.
  7. Subsequent to receiving the notice of inhibition, Fr. Hanson prepared and lodged with Bishop Smith a detailed verified denial of the charges on which the inhibition was purportedly based. Under the provisions of Canon IV.10.2, Bishop Smith is obligated to rescind the inhibition unless he makes a finding that the submittal was not made in good faith. Perhaps not surprisingly, Bishop Smith has not acted to withdraw the inhibition or to declare the grounds on which he finds the submission from Fr. Hanson not to be in good faith. Fr. Hanson remains under inhibition, unable to act as a priest in the diocese unless he wishes to disobey his bishop. Additionally, the others of the Six Priests remain under the cloud of a pending, inappropriate and unlawful inhibition for “abandonment of communion.”

We believe that the conduct of Bishop Smith in using Canon IV.10.1 as the basis for threatening the Six Priests with inhibition and deposition is deplorable. In our judgment, that act alone would support a presentment of Bishop Smith for conduct unbecoming a member of the clergy. For a bishop of this Church to threaten his clergy with disciplinary action under an inapplicable canon that would deprive them of a fair hearing and trial on their alleged wrongdoing is an exercise of raw power which cannot be condoned.

While the charges previously filed by clergy and laity of Connecticut recite several canonical violations committed by Bishop Smith, they do not include a charge of conduct unbecoming a member of the clergy. In our view, Bishop Smith’s conduct includes the following:

  1. Deceitfulness. Bishop Smith is asserting as a ground for discipline a canon which he knows has no application to the circumstances at hand.
  2. Injustice. By using Canon IV.10.1, Bishop Smith is intentionally seeking to deprive clergy under his jurisdiction of access to the ecclesiastical trial processes to which they are canonically entitled when charged with violations of the canons.
  3. Bullying. By groundless threats of inhibition and deposition, Bishop Smith is seeking to intimidate clergy under his pastoral authority and care into not opposing him on grounds of conscience and theology.
  4. Arrogance. Bishop Smith has exercised the powers of his office in such manner as to declare that he is above the law, both ecclesiastical and civil, and thus to bring great disrepute upon the Episcopal Church and the Diocese of Connecticut as a whole, and upon the office of bishop in particular.
  5. Oppression. Bishop Smith’s act of intentionally leaving clergy within his jurisdiction under threat of charges of abandonment of communion when he knows he has no basis in fact or law to press those charges is an act of pure oppression directed at the clergy and all those who care about their welfare.

Can such conduct be anything other than conduct unbecoming a member of the clergy?

CONCLUSION

We believe that Bishop Smith’s actions have come about because the Six Priests have expressed their disagreement with him on theological issues, including in particular his support of the consecration of V. Gene Robinson as the Bishop of New Hampshire. We implore you to exercise your role as Presiding Bishop of the whole Church and in so doing to promptly pass those charges on to the Review Committee with the direction that the charges of the Connecticut clergy and laity receive a fair and objective hearing. Such action will obviate the need for us to proceed further at this time to formalize and file charges against Bishop Smith for conduct unbecoming a member of the clergy.

Faithfully in Christ,

Keith L. Ackerman
Bishop
Diocese of Quincy

James M. Adams Jr.
Bishop
Diocese of Western Kansas

Peter H. Beckwith
Bishop
Diocese of Springfield

David J. Bena
Bishop Suffragan
Diocese of Albany

Robert W. Duncan
Bishop
Diocese of Pittsburgh

Andrew H. Fairfield
Retired Bishop
Diocese of North Dakota

Daniel W. Herzog
Bishop
Diocese of Albany

John W. Howe
Bishop
Diocese of Central Florida

Jack L. Iker
Bishop
Diocese of Fort Worth

Stephen H. Jecko
Retired Bishop
Diocese of Florida

Edward L. Salmon Jr.
Bishop
Diocese of South Carolina

John-David Schofield
Bishop
Diocese of San Joaquin

Henry W. Scriven
Assistant Bishop
Diocese of Pittsburgh

Posted at 9:02 am 9.28.2005 | Permalink

Homepage