The Rev'd Mark H. Hansen, Ph.D.
P.O. Box 71
Simsbury, CT 06070
May 19, 2006
VIA EMAIL
His Grace the Right Honourable The Archbishop of Canterbury
Lambeth Palace
London SE1 7JU
Most Reverend Sir,
It has recently come to my attention via the news media that you have withdrawn the case of the so-called Connecticut Six from consideration by the Panel of Reference (POR) because, "as a matter of principle" it "would not normally consider references where civil cases are proceeding."
I would respectfully alert you to the fact that, although the case of my own inhibition and deposition on grounds of "Abandonment of Communion" may have originally been part of the wider set of grievances submitted to you on behalf of all six parishes, I am not in fact a party to any civil action whatsoever, and my own case can quite logically and easily be considered separate and apart from the other matters affecting the six parishes and their clergy.
From the standpoint of canon law, the miscarriage of ecclesiastical justice perpetrated in my own case is so simple and straightforward that a member of the POR, in a matter of hours of focused reading, would inescapably conclude that the canons had been grossly abused by Bishop Smith of Connecticut in concert with a diocesan Standing Committee that was derelict in its duties.
Even a cursory review of the context of Canon IV.10.2, the canon invoked by Bp. Smith to depose me, will reveal that it was never intended for cases such as mine, but rather for those who voluntarily leave the Episcopal Church without informing their bishop.
Instead of looking to the immediate textual context of the invoked canon to determine its intended meaning, the Standing Committee of the Diocese issued an absolutely tortuous document which purports to derive the appropriate meaning of canonical terms by selective reference to definitions in a secular dictionary! This pivotal document - a letter dated April 29 from the Standing Committee to Bishop Smith - is the closest thing I have to a statement of charges against me.
The actual Sentence of Deposition references only the "findings of the Standing Committee... made on March 17, 2005," which was memorialized only by a letter stating that I and the other five priests of the "Connecticut Six" had "abandoned" the communion of the Church, without, however, offering any substantiation whatsoever. The utter lack of regard for any pretense of "due process" was simply breath-taking. Before considering the few relevant points of the "charges", such as they are, it is important to point out what I was not charged with. On July 13, in connection with my Inhibition, the bishop issued an "Affirmation ... Concerning the Abandonment of Communion by the Rev. Mark H. Hansen."
It contained a series of allegations - some false, some misleading, and some distorted - that received more public attention than anything that was ever relied upon to justify my deposition. Neither false charges concerning my contractually-granted sabbatical nor false statements concerning the financial condition of the parish were ultimately part of my deposition.
In short, the "Affirmation" was nothing more than a smoke-screen to conceal an unseemly assault on the canons. A list of logical flaws contained in the Standing Committee's April 29th after-the-fact explanation of its decision of March 17th would be too long for consideration here.
Most fundamentally, though, it seeks to treat all six of us convicted clergy as if we constituted a corporate entity, so that an accusation against one was equally damning of all. (The canons, of course, recognize only individual priests in such matters.) Of all the specific claims contained in the April 29th document, the only one that actually applied to me is that I did indeed - along with my entire Vestry, and the clergy and entire vestries of five other parishes - sign a request for alternative episcopal oversight on May 27, 2004.
I also did in fact pursue the effort to effectuate such oversight in concert with the other five –without, however, violating any canons at any time. Aside from that, all the specific accusations are based on allegations concerning clergy other than myself.
To try to accuse me of refusing to allow a "scheduled visitation" was especially bizarre, since Bp. Smith was in fact welcomed to the altar and pulpit of St. John's in December of 2003. The fact that Canon IV.10.2 was only intended only for cases where a priest voluntarily leaves the church without informing the bishop is evidenced by the provision in Canon IV.10.2 of an opportunity for the priest to issue a good-faith denial that any abandonment has taken place.
In other words, if for some reason the bishop has been misinformed as to the priest's intentions or actions, there is an opportunity for rectification and clarification in writing.
It is clear that the bishop and the Standing Committee's pronouncement that I had "abandoned the communion of this church" was based on misinformation and flawed reasoning. Therefore in good faith I exercised my canonical right to issue a good faith denial, which I did by means of a letter dated July 27, 2005.
The fact that Bishop Smith flagrantly chose to disregard that clear and straightforward denial, and cavalierly respond with remarks that were absolutely not germane and indeed intended to obfuscate my canonical status, is strong evidence of his fundamental contempt for the rule of law within the church - the bishop's efforts to cover his true motives with a fig-leaf claim of pastoral concern not withstanding.
In my judgment, the whole point of Bp. Smith's actions was to send a strong message to the church at large: if you think you have the canons on your side, think again, for the canons are a mere handmaid to raw episcopal power.
If the ultimate goal of the POR is reconciliation, and reconciliation is impossible without trust, I would seriously question whether trust is ever possible in an atmosphere of such rampant lawlessness.
As an aggrieved priest who has not had recourse to the civil courts, I respectfully request that you reinstate my case with the POR. I believe such an action will send a strong message upholding the importance of the rule of law within the Anglican Communion.
Faithfully yours,
The Rev'd Mark H. Hansen, Ph.D.
The URL for this story is:
http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=4073
Maintainer: Ted McMichael
Send Comments or Questions to:
Administrator.ChurchOfTheWord@verizon.net