Diocese of Central Florida: Standing Committee Chairman wants legal right to secede from TEC
Bishop John W. Howe says No

July 7, 2007

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

There have been a surprising number of posts on this list this weekend regarding the Bishop and whether or not he is being treated respectfully and fairly by the Diocesan Board and Standing Committee. (Thanks for your concern!) I think it is important for all of you to know what is behind this discussion.

At last month's meeting of the Executive Council of The Episcopal Church a motion was presented by Bishop Stacy Sauls of Lexington that passed (with two negative votes), declaring that any legislation by Dioceses of this Church that have amended or withdrawn their "accession clause" to the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church is "null and void." It named the four Dioceses that have done this: Fort Worth, Pittsburgh, Quincy, and San Joaquin. (You can read this story on the web site of The Living Church, if you are not familiar with it.)

One of the members of our Board proposed a resolution to respond to this action. It had three parts:

1) that the Board "declines to accept the limits on our freedom...to qualify or withdraw our accession to the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church in order to maintain our primary allegiance...to the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of Christ."

2) that the Board "does not recognize... any trust between this Diocese and the general Episcopal Church... upon the real or personal property of this Diocese...." and,

3) "that in the event such trust has been... asserted... the Board... hereby specifically revokes any such trust."

Before allowing any discussion of this resolution, I asked our Chancellor, Butch Wooten, to give us his opinion regarding it. He said he believed it reached so far into the doctrinal and spiritual affairs of the Diocese - which according to our Diocesan canons are in the "exclusive charge" of the Bishop - that it could not be considered by the Board. Our Vice Chancellor, Bill Grimm, agreed with this opinion.

I then ruled, as Bishop, not as Chair, that the motion was "out of order."

The President of the Standing Committee, Don Curran, who is a member of the Board, ex officio, immediately moved to "over-rule" my ruling, and he was seconded by several members.

I would not allow the motion to over-rule to be considered.

It was a very difficult meeting for all of us. Several members of the Board and members of the Standing Committee, some of whom were present, believe that as Chair I do not have the authority to prevent the motion to over-rule and that our Chancellors were wrong in their judgment that this motion falls within the arena of the Bishop's "exclusive charge over the spiritual affairs of the Diocese." They have argued this forcefully, and (with only one exception), I believe entirely respectfully.

Robert's Rules are clear that the Chair must allow a motion to over-rule if the issue is one that may be legitimately considered by the legislative body in question.

However, several passages in Robert's Rules indicate that the "rules" of the organization in question may surpass and limit Robert's Rules themselves. If a particular matter is not one that may legitimately be considered by a given legislative body, Robert's Rules do not apply.

It is the opinion of our Chancellor and Vice Chancellor that a resolution that says we have the right to withdraw our accession to the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church is NOT one that the Diocesan Board or even the Diocesan Convention may consider.

(It might be possible to dispute Canon I.7.4 that says that property owned by a parish is held in trust not only for the Diocese but also for The Episcopal Church. However, a California appellate court just last month held that "the right of the general church in this case to enforce a trust on the local parish property is clear, and that right has not been affected by intervening United States Supreme Court decisions or any statute enacted by legislature." And certainly this is very much in play in the current law suit in Virginia.)

To remove our accession to the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church would be - in my understanding, that of our Chancellors, and that of the Executive Council - a matter of abandoning one of the requirements for being a Diocese in The Episcopal Church. The fact that other Dioceses have done (or attempted to do) this is irrelevant. (If something is improper, it simply should not be done, no matter how many others have done or tried to do it. And, if the Executive Council says their attempts are "null and void," have they actually done it, or have they not?)

Under the National Canons, members of the Board must "faithfully perform the duties of that office in accordance with the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church and of the Diocese." (This point was made very clearly in a special meeting of the Board and the Standing Committee a month and a half ago, when our Chancellors gave a briefing on Canon and Florida law.) And, of course, all clergy have promised to "conform to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of The Episcopal Church." Voting to withdraw our accession to the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church (or to retain the "right" to do so) or to negate the property Canon would violate that duty and would make that vote "null and void."

The Board cannot act on this matter because we, the Diocese, wish to be a Diocese of and in The Episcopal Church, and those members of the Board who wish no longer to be such are free to leave, but they cannot decide for the rest of us that we are no longer part of The Episcopal Church.

Not even Convention can do this, for the same reasons. Those who want to continue to be part of The Episcopal Church would be the continuing Diocese.

So, we are at an unprecedented disagreement, at least in my time here. The Chancellor, Vice Chancellor, and I have solicited expert opinion on this matter, and we remain convinced that I was correct to disallow the motion, and correct to disallow the appeal to over-rule my judgment.

I told the Board that if I was wrong, I would gladly apologize profusely, and allow the consideration of the motion, but the more we have researched the matter the more we are convinced we are correct.

There is one member of the Standing Committee who believes the Chancellors and I are so wrong that he suggests the Board might consider a motion of no confidence in the Chancellors, and a law suit against the Bishop.

It is interesting to contemplate a law suit against the Bishop for insisting we cannot consider a motion that would be a violation of the Constitution and Canons of the Church!

That is where we are. I will try to keep you posted.

I covet your prayers for all of us in this highly conflicted time.

Warmest regards in our Lord,

The Right Rev. John W. Howe
Episcopal Bishop of Central Florida
1017 East Robinson Street
Orlando, Florida 32801
407-423-3567

This article comes from VirtueOnline
http://www.virtueonline.org/portal

The URL for this story is:
http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=6303