|
|
Home  About Legal Situation with Bishop Bennison (part 1)
|
Legal Situation with Bishop Bennison (part 1) |
|
|
|
International Presence at the Church of the Good ShepherdWednesday, September 4th, 2002
On Sunday 1 September the people of the Church of the Good Shepherd were pleasantly surprised by a new presence in the pulpit. The Preacher and Communion Assistant was Fr. David Chislett, Parish Priest of All Saints, Wickham Terrace, in the Diocese of Brisbane in Australia, and Vice-Chairman of Forward in Faith Australia. He had been present in the USA for the international meeting of Forward in Faith which followed the FiF NA National Assembly in Illinois when he was invited to visit Good Shepherd.
He preached a truly marvelous and moving sermon on the meaning of taking up our cross daily and dying in order to live, supported by the communion of the saints. The sermon was skillfully addressed to the parish of the Good Shepherd in the midst of all their travails.
The reading of that wonderful first Confession of Jeremiah, with its promise of triumph, was followed by Psalm 16: 1-8. Fr David Moyer, doing what he has continued to do throughout the inhibition, read the Epistle, that glorious description of the transformation of the mind and the proving of the will of God in the Body from Romans 12.
He also spoke movingly and at length at the announcements at the Offertory. He was very, very solemn as he shared with his people the events that would soon unfold. After his update he received a sustained round of standing applause for his faithfulness.
Fr David Moyer writes … “for the sake of clarification, and the truthfulness of my situation”Saturday, August 17th, 2002
My brethren in the Lord Jesus:
For the sake of clarification, and the truthfulness of my situation as a man who has been Inhibited for six months from priestly ministries, and threatened with Deposition on Sept. 4, 2002, I respectfully ask that you consider the following facts:
1 - I have never barred the Bishop of Pennsylvania from my parish.
2 - On the occasions of being informed of his intentions to make an Episcopal visitation, I respectfully asked him not to come. It was his choice not to come.
3 - I have repeatedly told him that I and my people could not in good conscience welcome him in his pastoral and sacramental capacity because of his failure to publicly affirm orthodox, biblical, catholic, and apostolic Christianity as expressed within the Anglican Communion. Bishops are called to be teachers of the Truth as revealed in Holy Scripture and set forth in the catholic creeds. Failure to do so deems one a false teacher, and Scripture is clear about one’s moral duty in that regard. I should also add that my second ordination vow, twenty-five years ago, was to “with all faithful diligence, banish and drive away from the Church all strange and erroneous doctrines contrary to God’s Word written…”
4 - Several times during his episcopate, Bishop Bennison has worshipped with us, been a communicant at our Altar, and been welcomed for parish fellowship.
In the Name of God, I declare this to be factually true.
In the service of Christ,
The Rev. Dr. David L. Moyer, SSC
Rector, Good Shepherd, Rosemont
President, Forward in Faith, North America
Presiding Bishop Griswold Meets With Good Sheperd LeadersFriday, May 10th, 2002
(by William Murchison)
PHILADELPHIA — Episcopal Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold meets May 21 with the traditionalist leader temporarily barred from priestly duties by Pennsylvania Bishop Charles E. Bennison, Jr.
The Rev. Dr. David L. Moyer, rector of Church of the Good Shepherd in the Main Line suburb of Rosemont, said Griswold had invited him by letter to Episcopal Church headquarters in New York City for discussion of “a way forward” in the controversy with Bennison, an outspoken theological liberal long at odds with diocesan conservatives. Griswold has likewise scheduled a meeting May 16 with leaders of Good Shepherd’s vestry. Bennison is not expected to attend either session.
Fr. Moyer will attend the March 21 meeting along with attorney John H. Lewis, Jr., who represents him in a civil lawsuit against the bishop and diocese. Bennison, in March, placed Moyer, 51, under inhibition for six months, thus preventing him from functioning as pastor, preacher, and eucharistic celebrant.
Fr. Moyer, president of the Episcopal Church’s largest traditionalist organization, Forward in Faith/North America, has refused the bishop’s repeated demands to visit the parish in order to preach and celebrate the Eucharist. The Good Shepherd controversy was a prime topic for discussion at last month’s meeting of Anglican primates from around the world, held at Canterb
ury Cathedral in England. Several primates reportedly told Griswold they were shocked that a traditional priest and parish could experience persecution at the hands of a liberal establishment.
Good Shepherd parishioners learned of the planned visit during services May 5 in an announcement by rector’s warden Stanley Bright, who with several other vestry members will attend the one-hour May 16 meeting.
Letter from the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Secretary for the Anglican Communion to the Secretary of FiF UKSunday, April 21st, 2002
Lambeth Palace
London SE1 7JU 21 April 2002
Dear Geoffrey,
Thank you very much for your letter of 5 March to the Archbishop of Canterbury. It was passed on to me by the Bishop at Lambeth before he set off to accompany the Archbishop on a pilgrimage in the Holy Land last week. I apologise for my negligence in not replying sooner, but this was to ensure that I took proper advice before replying to your letter, at the Archbishop’s request.
I can assure you that Archbishop George stands very firmly behind the spirit and letter of the Act of Synod which provided for extended episcopal care to Church of England parishes; and he will do everything necessary to uphold its provisions.
No one needs to tell you that ECUSA is different from the Church of England. It might rightly be considered injudicious to try exporting or coercing this arrangement upon other Provinces of the Communion. It ought really to be left to them, given their own history and experience to come to the conclusion as to whether or not they should provide the latitude within their collective episkope for ‘orthodox’ parishes to enjoy the oversight of ‘orthodox’ bishops.
Archbishop George has already said on several occasions that such an arrangement would go a long way in reconciling the inner tensions that exist in ECUSA. However, it will not be appropriate for him to begin commenting on particular cases in the United States where a priest’s relationship with his Bishop is severely impaired. More so, since ECUSA’s House of Bishops has just this month made some provision for dealing with such situations as the one on which you now seek the Archbishop’s comments.
He was very pleased that you had been in direct contact both with Bishop Bennison and the Presiding Bishop and expressed your views so clearly.
Know that anything that the Archbishop himself can possibly do, is being done in liaison with ECUSA’s leadership. Know too of his deep concern for the life of ECUSA and prayers for your ministry.
I am forwarding a copy of this message to Bishop Richard Llewellin as he has asked.
Sincerely,
Herman
The Revd Canon Herman Browne
The Archbishop of Canterbury’s Officer for the Anglican Communion
Fr. Moyer Meets Five Primates in LondonThursday, April 11th, 2002
(William Murchison)
PHILADELPHIA
Forward in Faith/North America’s president, recently barred from priestly duties by a revisionist Episcopal bishop, says traditionalist supporters will speak out for him during the annual meeting of Anglican Communion primates.
The Revd Dr David L. Moyer met in London with five primates - four currently serving and one retired - on the eve of the gathering, which began April 10 in Canterbury and continues into the following week.
He said friendly primates hope to secure from Archbishop of Canterbury George Carey “a clear and strong statement” affirming support for traditionalists, like himself, under attack by revisionist leaders.
Pennsylvania Bishop Charles E. Bennison in February inhibited Fr. Moyer as rector of his Philadelphia “Mainline” parish, Church of the Good Shepherd, Rosemont, as the latest gambit in his game to assert personal authority over the parish via an official visit there. Fr. Moyer, charging that many of Bennison’s theological teachings contradict historic Christian doctrines, has unsuccessfully asked Bennison to assign oversight of the parish to an orthodox bishop from outside the diocese.
Hoping to make the plight of Episcopal traditionalists better understood by Anglican primates, Fr. Moyer flew to London April 6 for talks arranged by the Revd Bill Atwood, general secretary of the Ekklesia Society, which seeks to build relationships among the Anglican Communion’s theological conservatives.
Fr. Moyer met with Archbishops Bernard Malango of Central Africa, Peter Akinola of Nigeria, and Drexel Gomez of the West Indies, and Yong Ping Chung of South East Asia. Also attending was Maurice Sinclair, retired archbishop of South America’s Southern Cone and longtime supporter of U.S. traditionalists’ concerns. Fr.Moyer also spoke for 30 minutes by telephone with Welsh Archbishop Rowan Williams, a leading candidate to replace Carey on his retirement this year as chief Anglican primate.
“I brought them up to speed,” said Fr. Moyer. “They all were distressed by my inhibition. They plan to go into the primates meeting and discuss the unacceptable situation where men like myself, doctrinally sound, are being barred from their ministry. This is unacceptable to them… They’re increasingly realizing that we’re coming to a crisis point.”
Fr. Moyer said the primates were given a dossier of almost 200 pages, compiled by Atwood and Forward in Faith/North America’s National Field Director, Lay Canon Carolyn (Cris) Fouse, documenting persecutions and actions that Episcopal leaders have engineered against traditionalists. The documents, Fr. Moyer said, “show that the Episcopal Church is in so many areas in a state of apostasy.”
Of the conversations, he said, “It was encouraging to know of their support. We are at a watershed… This can’t go on; this simply can’t go on.”
Fr. Moyer said Archbishop Williams - generally regarded as a church liberal - had “expressed his deep concern and dismay over the situation in the Anglican Communion. He said he would do all he could to bring sense to things. I heard from him legitimate concern and a promise of action.”
Fr. Moyer’s inhibition as rector of the landmark Anglo-Catholic parish he has served for over a decade is intended to sideline and silenced him for six months as pastor, preacher, and eucharistic celebrant. At the end of the period, he becomes subject under church canons to deposition from the priesthood.
Forward in Faith/North America - part of an international alliance among Anglicans - has 17,000 American members, both inside and outside the Episcopal Church. It was formed in 1989 to defend Christian doctrinal basics against questionings and denials by many of the very Episcopal Church leaders charged with their defense.
Archbishop Malango Rejects Inhibition of Moyer and Questions Communion with BennisonMonday, April 8th, 2002
(Auburn V.F. Traycik and William Murchison)
IN A POWERFUL OPEN LETTER issued on the eve of the Primates’ Meeting in Canterbury, an African archbishop has refused to recognize the inhibition of orthodox Episcopal priest David Moyer by Pennsylvania Bishop Charles Bennison, and has questioned whether he can remain in communion with Bennison.
The Most Rev. Dr. Bernard A. Malango of Central Africa also says it is “evident” in light of such incidents “that we, as primates of the [Anglican] Communion, have not exercised sufficient leadership when bishops depart from historic teaching or use the structures of the church to assault the faith and attack those who seek the Gospel’s preservation.”
Malango’s letter is the strongest signal yet that escalating disturbance over the inhibition of Moyer - leader of Good Shepherd, Rosemont and of Forward in Faith-North America - could have an explosive effect on the April 10-16 gathering of Anglican primates (provincial leaders).
It also indicates that Malango, 59, who succeeded Archbishop Walter Khotso Makhulu as head of the Central African province last year, will be active for orthodoxy and unity among his colleagues. In his letter, Malango says he has asked the Archbishop of Canterbury to help ensure that the primates address Moyer’s inhibition “and the broader conflicts which have led to it,” asserting that it is “not reasonable” to do otherwise. He also has appealed for “urgent intervention” in the Bennison/Moyer situation by Episcopal Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold.
On March 1, Bennison ordered Moyer, 51, to cease priestly functions in his diocese for six months, after which the priest faces deposition without trial, unless he pens “a good faith retraction of his canonical failures,” the bishop said. The order was based on a diocesan standing committee determination that Moyer has abandoned the communion of the church by actions the bishop sees as denying his authority - chiefly the refusal of Moyer and his vestry to allow him to make official visits to Good Shepherd, because they view Bennison, a pro-homosexual liberal who thinks the Church can rewrite the Bible, as a false teacher.
Writing with “a heavy heart,” Malango says that the inhibition of a “godly priest” such as Moyer “is symptomatic of deeper problems in the…Communion, especially in ECUSA (the U.S. Episcopal Church): the erosion of foundational doctrine of the Christian faith. This situation must be addressed. To fail to do so threatens the future of the Anglican Communion.”
The archbishop states that Fr. Moyer “is well known to me,” and that he has observed the priest’s ministry to be “faithful, his moral character above reproach, and his theology and practice of ministry sound. It is not reasonable to inhibit such a faithful priest for ‘abandonment of ministry’ when the center of the conflict with his bishop is desire to maintain the doctrine, discipline and faith of the church. It is also grossly unfair to the people of the parish and impacts the bonds that link us in communion. It is also not reasonable to fail to address Bishop Bennison’s theology and actions.”
The archbishop noted, too, that the initially-encouraging “covenant” on “supplemental pastoral care” recently okayed by Episcopal bishops “will mean little if it is not employed in situations like Pennsylvania,” and if the issues which gave rise to the need for alternative oversight remain unaddressed.
And - whatever the primates do - he raises the question of how he will respond to the American situation. “While it has been our policy to happily accept the validity of the ministry of bishops and clergy from other provinces, sadly it appears no longer wise to do so indiscriminately,” Malango states. “Situations must obviously now be evaluated individually.”
He adds that Bennison’s public statements and ban against Moyer demonstrate “the possibility of such grave theological deficiencies…that the very character of [the bishop’s] ministry is called into question. I need to investigate…whether or not we can be in communion with Charles Bennison.”
Conversely, Malango declares that: “As Archbishop and Primate of Central Africa I do not recognize this inhibition. I will continue to recognize Father Moyer as a priest in good standing in the Anglican Communion. He is welcome to function sacerdotally in our churches.”
He concludes by urging “concerned people and parishes throughout the world to offer concerted prayer for these painful circumstances” and for “wisdom, courage and fidelity” to prevail at the Primates’ Meeting.
Pension Letter and UK VisitTuesday, April 2nd, 2002
(by William Murchison)
PHILADELPHIA
The attorney for the Rev Dr David L. Moyer says he is studying carefully a letter from the Church Pension Fund ending Fr Moyer’s pension benefits. John H Lewis, Jr, said he would withhold comment on the matter until he has better determined the pension fund’s grounds for action.
Fr Moyer — who was earlier inhibited by Pennsylvania Bishop Charles E Bennison III as rector of Church of the Good Shepherd, Rosemont — was told in a letter from the fund that as of March 4 he was “no longer under the ecclesiastical authority of the Bishop of Pennsylvania” and, further, that “Church of the Good Shepherd is no longer part of the Diocese of Pennsylvania”.
Removal of pension benefits, under Canon 10 of the Episcopal canons and constitution, normally follows upon a priest’s formal departure from the Episcopal Church. Fr Moyer has declared that he considers himself and the parish still a part of the church despite the inhibition Bennison imposed a month ago.
The parish, which opposes the bishop’s non-orthodox theology, has declined to receive Bennison for a formal episcopal visit, at which he would preach and celebrate the Eucharist.
The pension fund decision, if sustained, would amount to one more salvo in Bennison’s cannonade, aimed at breaking down the parish’s, and Fr Moyer’s, resistance to him as ecclesiastical authority. The parish has repeatedly asked Bennison to approve appointment of an outside episcopal visitor of orthodox theological convictions. Bennison has repeatedly told the parish it must first agree to submit to this authority.
Meanwhile Fr Moyer announced to Good Shepherd’s congregation on Easter Sunday that he is to leave Saturday night for London and two days of meetings with orthodox primates gathering for the following week’s annual primates’ meeting, to be held in Canterbury.
He said he would seek the primates’ counsel as to his own and the parish’s strategy in their struggle with Bennison for theological integrity. Fr Moyer had planned to keep the meetings — which the Rev Bill Atwood of the Ekklesia Society helped to coordinate — secret in advance; however, he decided on Easter to let the congregation know by way of encouragement. Fr Moyer has not functioned liturgically at Good Shepherd since the inhibition order was issued; he regularly addresses the congregation during the annoucements.
“I’m not going [to London} like Nicodemus by night,” he told FOUNDATIONS. “I’m going to witness and to seek godly counsel.”
Fr Moyer’s meetings will take place next Monday and Tuesday. He returns to Philadelphia on Wednesday.
Holy Week Letters from Forward in Faith, UKMonday, March 25th, 2002
To the Parish of The Good Shepherd, Rosemont
The Council of Forward in Faith, UK sends its warmest greetings to the Parish of The Good Shepherd, Rosemont in this Holy Week.
We know that the poignancy of this Week will especially touch your hearts.
As you share in the Lord’s Passion, so as members of his Body, we share with you.
You are witnessing for the faith once delivered to the saints. The pastor whom the Lord has chosen and given to you has been taken away from you by wicked men.
You and he share the pain and dereliction of Our Lord and his disciples. But be of good cheer! The Lord has overcome the world.
To him be ascribed all glory and dominion, henceforward and to the ages of ages.
To Bishop Charles E Bennison
Dear Bishop Bennison,
It is with great sorrow that we learn, at the beginning of this Holy Week, in which Our Lord and Saviour waged reconciliation by the saving power of his cross, that you have found yourself unable to affirm the faith of your baptism, confirmation, ordination and consecration, and so be reconciled with the parish priest and people of the parish of the Good Shepherd, Rosemont.
It is, for the whole Church, a cause of shame that you have not found it in your heart, as their pastor, even to respond to them.
No one can doubt, most especially at this season, that for Christian people it is life and health to affirm that Our Lord and Saviour is the one and only Lord of all things created, that he affirmed and asserted that Lordship by his Resurrection from the tomb, and that he took with him the wounds of his earthly passion into the glory of that same Resurrection to which he welcomes those who trust in him.
Out of love for the eternal bridegroom (who, wedded indissolubly to his Church, bestows upon it in mercy and love the gift of eternal life) it is the privilege and joy of Christian people to image that wedding of heaven and earth in lives of married continence and fidelity. In this, as in all things, they delight to do the will of the Word of God as they find it in his Word written.
It is a cause of penitence and shame to the whole community of which he is a part, if a bishop of Christ’s Church, one and universal, cannot in plain words affirm these truths. It is a schismatic act if, unable himself to proclaim the faith of the Church throughout the ages, he persecutes those who do teach and affirm it.
May the Lord who turns the hearts of the disobedient to the wisdom of the just fill you with his Holy Spirit in this season of his humiliation and his glory.
For and on behalf of the Council of Forward in Faith UK.
Geoffrey Kirk
National Secretary.
CC. The Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church
The Archbishop of Canterbury
The Vestry of the Good Shepherd, Rosemont
Bennison/Moyer CorrespondenceWednesday, March 6th, 2002
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.
Yours faithfully,
Allen L. Bartlett, Jr.
copy: 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, 2002The 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, 2002The 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 7596VIA 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
Will you affirm basic doctrines?Tuesday, March 5th, 2002
(by William Murchison)
PHILADELPHIA – A leading traditionalist rector inhibited by his liberal bishop says the bishop can settle the controversy by affirming key articles of the Christian faith.
Pennsylvania Bishop Charles E. Bennison, Jr., last weekend ordered the Rev. David L. Moyer to stand down from his priestly duties for six months. Due to Bishop Bennison’s theological positions, Fr. Moyer and his historic Anglo-Catholic parish, Church of the Good Shepherd, Rosemont, have repeatedly refused the bishop’s demands for an official visit to the parish.
In a letter to the bishop Tuesday, Fr. Moyer contested the order barring him from the exercise of his duties and invited the bishop to “clarify” any theological misunderstandings between them by publicly affirming Jesus Christ’s uniqueness and bodily Resurrection, the unacceptability of sex outside heterosexual marriage, and the Holy Scriptures as God’s inspired Word.
“To bring us to the point of reconciliation,” Fr. Moyer’s letter said, “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,” Fr. Moyer concluded,“and in the prayers of the people of Good Shepherd.”
Fr. Moyer,besides serving as Good Shepherd’s rector since 1989, is president of the Episcopal Church’s largest traditionalist organization, Forward in Faith/NorthAmerica.”
Bishop Bennison, in various public statements, has taken positions many see as contradicting moral and theological doctrines central to Christianity, as in the bishop’s assertion that “Because we [the Church] wrote the Bible, we can rewrite it.” The bishop likewise has argued that “We should approve gay and lesbian marriage.”
Fr. Moyer’s letter outlines the traditional understanding in these controversies with citations from the Bible, the Book of Common Prayer, and Anglicanism’s almost 500-year-old Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion.
Fr. Moyer denied having abandoned the Episcopal Church, as alleged in the order of inhibition, which he said was based on a finding by the diocesan standing committee. “It is precisely,” Fr.Moyer said, “my grave concern for and loyalty to the Communion of the Church that undergirds my continuing and consistent actions as a priest.”
Inhibition,an unusual action, is designed for use against priests who have renounced the Episcopal Church and is rarely if ever contested. Fr. Moyer considers himself an Episcopal priest and 137-year-old Good Shepherd an Episcopal parish despite their deep differences with the bishop over theology.
Fr. Moyer,rector since 1989, said he had chosen “at this time… to take an in-house retreat to be concentrated in prayer and discernment, and not formally engaging in priestly duties.” During the period priestly duties at Good Shepherd will be handled by two staff priests and a deacon.
Meanwhile Fr. Moyer’s attorney, John H. Lewis, Jr., in a letter to the Pennsylvania diocese’s chief attorney, staked out his client’s legal position, calling the inhibition order “invalid, illegal, unjust, and unchristian.”
“The plain truth,” Lewis wrote Chancellor William C. Bullitt, “is that Fr. 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 Fr. 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 attempting to be faithful to the doctrine of the Church.”
“It is Bishop Bennison,” Lewis charged, “who has rejected creed and doctrine while trying to enforce ‘discipline.’”
Fr. Moyer also received strong support from Church of England traditionalists. The head of the English Forward in Faith organization, the Rev. Geoffrey Kirk, asked Episcopal Presiding Bishop Frank T. Griswold III “to act upon your own admonitions” concerning “inclusiveness and gracious conversation.” Fr. Kirk said Forward in Faith was “amazed and horrified” by Bishop Bennison’s order. In a separate communication he appealed to Archbishop of Canterbury George Carey for intervention in the widening fray.
FiF UK National SecretarySunday, March 3rd, 2002
Dear Bishop Bennison,
I write as the National Secretary of Forward in Faith/UK to express our surprise and indignation at the inhibition issued by you against Fr David Moyer.
Fr Moyer is well known to us in Great Britain as a courageous but gentle warrior for Christ - one, moreover, who has struggled, for himself and others, to sustain (within dioceses like your own, which have embraced a narrow, intolerant and wilful sectarianism) a place for Anglicans who share the majority view of the Communion and its Historic Faith. He is seeking in the United States no more by way of the provision of Alternative Oversight than we in the Church of England already enjoy.
Your action (as, in your own heart and before God, you must know) does the causes you espouse no credit. It is, moreover a schismatic act, in so far as it necessarily relates to all those bishops, dioceses, parishes, priests and people throughout the Anglican world who stand with David Moyer and against the agenda which, by means both illegitimate and ungodly, you are pursuing.
If it is not too late, we beg you seriously to take to heart the undoubted truth that doctrinal and moral innovations in the life of the Church which cannot be advanced except by expelling from it those who dissent, are not and cannot be the work of God’s Holy Spirit.
With assurance of our prayers for you and the diocese of Pennsylvania,
Geoffrey Kirk
National Secretary FiF/UK
FiF NA President, Fr Moyer, Inhibited by Bishop BennisonSaturday, March 2nd, 2002
(by William Murchison)
PHILADELPHIA — Months of heated ecclesiastical sparring climaxed March 1 as Pennsylvania Bishop Charles E. Bennison, Jr., ordered a leading traditionalist rector to cease functioning in his parish for six months.
Bennison accused the Rev. Dr. David L. Moyer, rector of Church of the Good Shepherd, Rosemont, of having renounced the Discipline of the Church through, among other actions, denying him the right to preach and celebrate the Eucharist at the parish.
Moyer, who is also president of the churchs largest traditionalist organization, Forward in Faith/North America, is to step down from all parish responsibilities beginning Monday, March 4. Under church canons, he faces formal deposition from the Episcopal priesthood at the end of the period Moyer called Bennison’s action formally known as inhibition of ministry a very unfortunate and unnecessary act of aggression against someone who is faithfully committed to upholding the Gospel and the catholic religion. He said he was consulting with a number of trusted individuals, both clergy and lay, in an attempt to discern the proper course of action.
Inhibition commonly is levied against priests who already have left the Episcopal Church. Moyer, 51, called himself probably the first Episcopal priest to remain in the church and still undergo inhibition.
Bennison, who strongly backs the gay rights agenda and has affirmed the churchs right to change Scripture, has long been at odds with Moyer and the historic parish in the Mainline suburb of Rosemont. The bishop, insistent on asserting his authority over the parish by presiding at worship there, met over several years with reputed refusals by Moyer and his vestry to allow such visits.
Bennison likewise objects to Moyers nomination to become bishop of a U.S. Anglican presence unaligned with the Episcopal Church. Forward in Faith/North America (FiF/NA) at a meeting in August may ask an overseas Anglican primate to consecrate an American priest who would serve American traditionalists under that primates supervision rather than inside official Episcopal Church structures. Moyer is among several Episcopal priests nominated for the responsibility.
The diocesan standing committee, which met with Moyer Feb. 26 in a session it called candid and respectful, advised Bennison by letter that Moyers actions, continuing over an extended period and demonstrating increasing level of confrontation with the bishops of this diocese constitute an open renunciation of the Discipline of this Church within the meaning of church canons.
The committee cited Moyer for disobeying orders to permit a Bennison visit, for failing to present Good Shepherd communicants for confirmation by Bennison, and for willingly participating in an election process that clearly violates the Canons and Constitution of the Episcopal Church.
The committees report takes swipes at traditionalists, whom it accuses of willingness to disengage themselves from the diocese while continuing like Moyer and Good Shepherd to call themselves Episcopalians.
The report makes plain that the standing committee sees obedience to the canons as a larger matter than theological debate and disagreement. Neither Bennison nor the standing committee addresses Moyers and Good Shepherds theological point, which is that, believing and teaching as he does, Bennison at many points steps outside the historic Christian faith.
Bennison has refused Good Shepherds repeated requests for oversight by a bishop other than Bennison. The bishop says he would allow such a plan only if Good Shepherd agreed to have him also as a visitor. Such a scheme, the parish believes, would overthrow the whole purpose of substituting a faithful bishop for one i.e., Bennison deemed to espouse false teaching.
Anglican primates recently urged the Episcopal Church to provide some such plan as Good Shepherd and other traditional parishes have desired. Bennison, in a late February meeting with the Good Shepherd vestry, said bluntly, The primates are wrong.
Bishop Charles E. Bennison Demands Visitation Rights at the Church of the Good Sheperd, RosemontTuesday, February 26th, 2002
Bishop Charles E. Bennison Jr.’s latest foray against a leading Forward in Faith/North America parish leaves the two sides in the long-running dispute at least as far apart as ever.
Bennison demands visitation rights at Church of the Good Shepherd, Rosemont. The parish, led by the Rev. Dr. David L. Moyer as rector, rejects Bennison’s demonstrated contempt for scriptural authority as well as his unstinting attachment to the gay rights agenda. Thus Good Shepherd declines to accord him the authority he seeks to practice as chief pastor and teacher.
Bennison on Feb. 19, in a lengthy meeting with Good Shepherd’s vestry, once more sought fulfilment of his demand for an official visit during which he would preach and celebrate the Eucharist. Once more the vestry declined to receive him on such terms.
The bishop, professing his commitment to “diversity” in the Pennsylvania diocese, nevertheless made plain that Good Shepherd’s old-fashioned Anglican orthodoxy falls outside the scope of the diversity he visualizes.
Reminded by a vestry member that Anglican primates had called for outside episcopal oversight in cases like Good Shepherd’s, Bennison replied, “The primates are wrong.”
Throughout the meeting, which lasted several hours, Bennison never wavered in insisting on his right to oversight of a parish that rejects his theological outlook. He seemed particularly vexed by FiF/NA’s plan to put forward later this year a candidate for consecration as a bishop by an overseas primate. |
|
