|
|
|
Ecclesiastical Case Reports
Dixon v Edwards and the Vestry of St John's Parish
(United States District Court for the District of Maryland: Judge Messitte, October 2001)
Rector - appointment - canonical obedience
The Rt Revd Jane Holmes Dixon, acting Bishop of Washington in the Episcopal Church of the United States, sought summary judgment in her action against the Reverend Samuel L Edwards, a priest who claimed to be entitled to be rector of St John's parish, Accokeek. In December 2000, the vestry of St John's advised the bishop that it was planning to elect Mr Edwards as its next rector. The bishop informed the vestry that the appointment could not be approved until a satisfactory background check had been made and a discussion held with the bishop of the diocese where Mr Edwards was canonically resident. Following a meeting, Bishop Dixon informed Mr Edwards and the vestry that she would not approve the appointment. She relied upon remarks made by Mr Edwards to the effect that he was encouraging congregations to sever their connection with the church and that his obedience to her, as bishop, would be limited. Despite this, Mr Edwards moved to Accokeek and began officiating at services, which was not itself unlawful as any priest may do so for up to two months. Bishop Dixon sought to preside at a meeting of the vestry and at mass. This was refused. A diocesan canon and by-law respectively provided that where the parish is without a rector, the bishop shall preside if present. The district judge referred to the standard of deference that civil courts must pay to ecclesiastical authorities as articulated in Watson v Jones 80 US (13 Wall) 679 (1871) and reaffirmed in many subsequent decisions. By way of example, in The Serbian E Orthodox Diocese for the United States and Canada v Milivojevich 406 US 696 (1976), it was held:
'decisions of religious entities about the appointment and removal of ministers … are beyond the ken of civil courts. Rather, such courts must defer to the decisions of religious organizations on matters of discipline, faith, internal organization, or ecclesiastical rule, custom or law.'
The district judge found that the Episcopal Church was hierarchical in structure such that decisions of higher authorities in the church had binding effect on lower authorities. The Washington Diocese is organised pursuant to a law of Congress and the vestry of St John's according to the Maryland Vestry Act, under which it is incorporated and expressed to be subject to the provisions of the canon law of the Episcopal Church. The defendants maintained that Bishop Dixon was not the highest ecclesiastical authority in the diocese. They pointed to the ecclesiastical review panel, a tribunal to determine whether a bishop has violated the national canons. Various charges against Bishop Dixon had been laid before the panel alleging she had abused her authority by attempting to disapprove of Mr Edwards. However such charges had been rejected and it had been decided that Bishop Dixon had acted properly. In any event, it was conceded that appeal to a review panel did not have a suspensory effect on decisions of a bishop. Affidavit evidence confirmed the apostolic leadership rôle of the bishop. A letter from St Cyprian was cited: 'the Church is the people united to the bishop, the flock clinging to its shepherd. From this you should know that the bishop is in the Church and the Church in the bishop.' Thus, even if the actions of the bishop were arbitrary (which the district judge did not suggest they were), the court had no say in the matter and had to defer to her decisions. Accordingly summary judgment was granted to the bishop and an injunction was granted to secure the removal of Mr Edwards from the rectory, the cessation of his officiating at religious services and the right of Bishop Dixon, or her delegate, to perform duties in the parish.
[MH]
|
Search the Case Reports & Journals (issues 1 to 39) |
|
|
