The Current Crisis in Modern Anglicanism

The Rev'd. Fr. David T. Coir
(Former) Priest-in Charge, Holy Redeemer Anglican Church, Canandaigua NY

December 29th, 2022

Dear Bishop Marsh and the Standing Committee,

As there are no other alternatives of clemency, I hereby issue with immediate effect this renunciation of ministry in the Anglican Church in America under canon 52.1.a. Please send me the letter described in 52.1.b. to the following address: [redacted].

I am submitting this renunciation for the following reasons:

First, my wife and I have moved closer to her family as we prepare for the coming of our first born this April, which removes us further away from any G3 parish. This also makes serving and being part of the continuing anglican community practically impossible for us. 

Second, I have spent many months praying and deliberating over this matter, and I have come to the conclusion that it is not a morally acceptable option to become the canonical subject of a putative bishop who has been married more than once, in flagrant contravention of biblical teaching and the canonical discipline of the Church.

Holy Scripture is unequivocally clear, with no exceptions or clauses, that "A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach (1Timothy 3:2).'' Any violation thereof, indeed, makes him blameful against the higher character of the fullness of the episcopate office. There is no explicit and implicit reference to any sense of "currently having" one wife, or to interpret this any other way. Besides the Church Fathers, through my own survey, I have found that other sects, and even heathens, the unchurched, and atheists come to the same conclusion.

One does not say: "this is my one wife the second time." No, that is preposterous and contradictory. They say: "This is my second wife." Ergo, a digamist. If we defy the holy scriptures, patristic teachings, and the canons of Holy Mother Church, then it is abundantly clear that no care is given to the teachings and vows of the Sacrament of Matrimony. Which time then did one mean the vows they swore before God? If this is the attitude concerning Matrimony, how then do we view the other Sacraments? In truth? I think not, more likely distorted. 

Pope Leo I, in his 12 Apostolic Letter, declared, "For as the Apostle says that among other rules for election he shall be ordained bishop who is known to have been or to be the husband of one wife, this command was always held so sacred that the same condition was understood as necessary to be observed even in the wife of the priest-elect: lest she should happen to have been married to another man before she entered into wedlock with him, even though he himself had had no other wife. Who then would dare to allow this injury to be perpetrated upon so great a sacrament, seeing that this great and venerable mystery is not without the support of the statutes of God's law as well, whereby it is clearly laid down that a priest is to marry a virgin, and that she who is to be the wife of a priest Leviticus 21:13 is not to know another husband? For even then in the priests was prefigured the Spiritual marriage of Christ and His Church: so that since the man is the head of the woman Ephesians 5:23, the spouse of the Word may learn to know no other man but Christ, who did rightly choose her only, loves her only, and takes none but her into His alliance. If then even in the Old Testament this kind of marriage among priests is adhered to, how much more ought we who are placed under the grace of the Gospel to conform to the Apostle's precepts: so that though a man be found endowed with good character, and furnished with holy works, he may nevertheless in no wise ascend either to the grade of deacon, or the dignity of the presbytery, or to the highest rank of the bishopric, if it has been spread abroad either that he himself is not the husband of one wife, or that his wife is not the wife of one husband." In Leo's decree we find scripture, tradition, and reason; In short, since the time of Israel, and reaffirmed in the New Testament, a high standard has been bound to the clergy concerning matrimony.

Father Heribert Jone in his work, Moral Theology, says that "Bigamist are those who have successfully married twice constitutes irregularity" and that "those who attempt the marriage or go through the civil ceremony, while bound by a valid marriage bond, Sacred Orders, or simple or solemn religious professions; or any man who attempts marriage with a woman who is bound by such religious profession or thereby becomes irregular."  Interpretive bigamy, under the law, is when a person is accounted as having had two wives, in which, according to Innocent III, a second marriage does not signify the union of Christ with His Church in the same manner as does a first marriage. This has been confirmed by Gregory X and in the Council or Trent.

This position is also affirmed in the work of Father Francis J. Hall.  Hall exhaustively defends the sanctity of matrimony, and affirms the teachings of the catholic faith, as supported by scripture, tradition, and reason. 

A litany of pious men and works affirm the aforementioned. We can look to the Apostlic Constitutions, St. Augustine of Hippo, St Jerome, Tertullian, Origen, 

St John Chrysostom, Pope St. Innocent I, and the list goes on. The fact of the matter is, one cannot have his cake, and eat it too. There is mercy in our Lord's church, however, for the clergy, a strict canonical standard as affirmed by scripture, tradition, and reason must be upheld. 

I was under the impression that the Anglican Church in America affirmed and upheld catholicity and orthodoxy, however, by my witness and education, there is, if any, a minimal standard of confirmatory therein. In addition to my chief reasons, my wife and I have endured ill treatment when serving at Holy Cross and Holy Redeemer. Furthermore, I can name the deacons and priests who do not believe in the Real Presence of our Lord in the the most Holy Eucharist; or affirm the Sacrament of Confession to be optional, or do not affirm the apostolic teachings of the ecumenical councils. If care is only exercised concerning Holy Orders, but even then scriptural and canonical requirements are cherry-picked, how then could one faithfully say, 'I believe', yet he does the contrary? One might as well ordain homosexuals and women to Orders if a blind eye is turned for digamists and those who are irregular by defects of mildness, reason, knowledge.

Was I ignorant to these proceedings? Maybe. Did I recently discover the truth in its entirety? most definitely. I always have and always will stand with catholicity and truth. True Anglicanism is not its own jurisdiction, or a "reformed catholic" as many say, but a distinct expression and custom (i.e. liturgical, not theological) of the Catholic Faith. It is with a heavy heart to say that this expression is practically dead.

With all this said, I go in peace. Not as schismatical nor riotous, but as a good God-fearing man, striving to serve our Lord in the fullness of faith and in the beauty of holiness.

I hereby confirm that I will no longer exercise any "Orders" putatively conferred upon me in the Anglican Church in America. I respectfully decline to engage in any further communication or provide any further information. Please do not respond to this communication. I would be most appreciative if you could simply let me go in peace.

Do know of my prayers for you, and that we may all be one day united in the fullness of faith and truth.

In Christ,

The Rev. Fr. David Coir

The Rev’d. Fr. Chip Angell

Rector, St. John's Anglican Church

Chancellor of the Diocese of the Holy Cross

Trinitytide

July 28th, 2021

Dear brethren and Priests of God,

May this letter find you full of grace and peace in Our Lord Jesus Christ.  As a long time priest and Chancellor in the Diocese of the Holy Cross, I have been impressed by the Holy Spirit and my responsibility to you and the diocese, to speak forth concerning the up-coming proposal to “merge” with the Anglican Catholic Church in September.  I have of course read what Bishop Hewett has offered as “pros and cons” of such a union, and spoken with him in person a month ago.  I listed as he explained his reasons and hopes for this alignment and I believe them to be valid as to him but insufficient for the diocese and my parish at this time.  With this in mind, I recently wrote Archbishop Haverland to make inquiry into the proposed joining the ACC, as I personally, had very little knowledge of their polity, priests and structure.  I felt that a bit of due diligence was necessary and therefore incumbent upon me to at least ask for various items to help clarify and enable me and use to get a better handle on some of the other pros and cons of their jurisdiction.

In my letter to Bishop Haverland I asked for a copy of their canons, budgets for the province and diocese of the south, audits and contact lists for priests and various committees.  I especially asked for his feelings and thought on the upcoming possible merger.  He responded by sending a packet of materials, ie. Canons and various budgets, as well as some contact names to follow up with if I so desired.  However, he let me know in his letter, which was enclosed, that “his own time and the time of his part-time staff are not filled with empty hours.”  I surmised he meant, as to waste time with superfluous requests and bothersome priests.  He answered my request for comment on the merger by stating “I do not think it is particularly appropriate for me to say much.”  Really?  In short his letter complied with my requests in part, but the spirit and tenor were something less than gracious and collegial; It was, clearly an imposition on him.

The canons of the ACC also are of concern and at odds with some of our positions theologically.  I refer to the two the Bishop has already mentioned to us in his assessment, to wit; the canon allowed divorced and remarried men to be Bishops and secondly the requirement for conditionally re-ordaining priests ordained after 1976 in the Episcopal Church.  I believe this directly affects several of our priests and would seem to undermine all of their previous sacramental ministry.

These are just a few of the issues confronting us in the very near future, which need to be addressed.  I’m sure you may have others on your heart as well, such as, there’s been no call for a time of prayer and fasting for the issue at hand.  The overall lack of spirituality of this endeavor and the absence of the Name Jesus in the midst of all of this, gives me pause.  Unity and expediency at the expense of purity only leads us to where we all have come from.  You don’t stitch up a dirty wound, and God’s ministry is not accomplished by man’s methods.  I caution you all concerning this upcoming vote and ask for prayer and intercessions to be made in regards the same.  St. Paul writes, “I appeal to you brethren, by the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment.” I Cor. 1:10.

In the cause of Our Lord,

Fr. E. W. Chip Angell+

Rector, St. John’s Anglican Church

Chancellor, Diocese of the Holy Cross

The Rev’d. Deacon Mark Kirkland
Minister-in-Charge, Church of the Advent, Greenwich, CT (DHC-ACC)

May 31st, 2020

Although I am a permanent deacon and not a priest, I have been in the Continuum since 1986 and in ordained ministry since 1991 serving a parish in Greenwich CT. 

While I fully support the G4 Intercommunion, I am opposed to The Diocese of the Holy Cross being absorbed into the Anglican Catholic Church.

Canons

One of the things l like about the DHC is the simple straightforward set of Canons.  I have been told that the ACC has a very detailed, comprehensive set of canons that would put the Roman Catholic canons to shame.  Jokes abound how they regulate the tilt of a biretta, and the width of a stole.  I was told that they actually have a canon requiring that clergy must wear their clericals all the time during their waking hours.  I have a secular job in city government which would make my life extremely difficult if I had to wear clerics to my secular office.  Bottom line, each of us should get and read those canons and think “do I really want to be bound by every single one of these?”  They may allow us to keep some of our canons now, but how long will that last?

Divorced and remarried bishops. 

A certain priest in the APCK was running for bishop. He had been divorced and remarried, and he failed to receive the required number of votes needed from the council of Bishops to be made a bishop.  Abp. Morse threw that vote out and consecrated this divorced and remarried man a bishop in the APCK. and as a result suffered a mass exodus of parishes!

This one act resulted in the founding of the DHC.   Meanwhile, this bishop then went to the ACA, and served there basically as a priest with a mitre. After a few months this bishop applied to the ACC, was accepted, made Ordinary of his Diocese, and then ordained a man with a ninth grade education to the priesthood.  If Abp Haverland is opposed to consecrating divorced and remarried men,  how did this man get accepted into the ACC as a bishop AND an ordinary?  

Bishop Florenza

As to Bp. Florenza, he ordained a man David Mulligan a priest.  David Virtue wrote about it.  Google Father David Mulligan and you will see two very different stories.  One from the ACC newspaper that portrays him as a saint, and the town newspaper that shows a very different side to this man.  That’s all I’m going to say on this matter you all can read it for yourselves.   But this Bp Florenza banning a priest from going to Father Howard’s ordination tells me the famed “one true churchiness” is alive and well in the ACC. 

For me it’s this in a nutshell:  we left the APCK because they consecrated illegally a divorced and remarried man as a Bishop.  And now we are seeking unity with a group that has received that very same man into its fold and made him an Ordinary with a diocese to boot!   I cannot support that because I simply can’t get my head around it!

The Rev'd. Fr. Richard Cumming

Rector, The Anglican Church of St. Mary the Virgin, Liverpool, NY

Former member of the G4 Doctrine Commission on Holy Orders

January 8th, 2022

Dear Brethren,

In Scotland, we have a saying: "we've bought a pig in a poke."  A "pig in a poke" (pronounced "pig'in apoke") is an article of merchandise whose quality is unknown to the buyer at the time of purchase.

When it comes to the G4 and the ACC [Anglican Catholic Church], we have indeed bought a pig in a poke.

But you were warned.  The ACC told us that they would not commit to establishing a canon prohibiting the consecration of twice-married men to the episcopate.  But you went ahead anyway and voted to join up with these disreputable elements who have no respect for the authority of Holy Scripture or Holy Tradition and who commit public acts of sacrilege by consecrating canonically irregular candidates to the episcopate.  So to use another Scottish saying, "hell skelp it intae ye."

How many of you would have voted to join the ACC if you had known that this small Diocese, already struggling financially, would thereby incur additional financial obligations to the amount of $13,200 per annum?  Again: "hell skelp it intae ye."

This Diocese has lost four parishes over this move.  There are two more parishes that have boycotted Synod over this move.  Other parishes have stopped tithing over this move.  This is a complete disaster on all fronts, and we are kidding ourselves if we think that we have any future with the ACC.

The ACC has no future, mark my words.

For the past four years, ever since we joined the G4 in October 2017, my Vestry has been in impaired communion with this Diocese.  This Diocese keeps moving further and further away from the doctrine and discipline enshrined in its own canons, and it keeps aligning itself closer and closer to these degenerate elements in the G4.  And we won't even get into the fact that we all know of numerous instances where senior clergy in this Diocese have violated the canons with impunity.

I have always been a loyal priest of this Diocese, and I have always done my utmost to maintain the relationship between my parish and this Diocese.  But it is getting harder and harder to do so.

My Vestry openly refuses to acknowledge the ACC and refuses to acknowledge that this parish is part of the ACC.  Frankly, I am not remotely interested in changing their mind, but even if I were, what could I possibly do to change their mind?  For the most part, the ACC is a ragtag bunch of semi-protestants, philistines, and adulterers.  Who in their right mind would want anything to do with such disreputable elements?

My Vestry voted unanimously months ago not to send a single penny to the ACC Pension Fund.  I cannot fight them on this.  I can convince my Vestry that a priest who is abandoned by his wife and then remarries need not be deposed.  But I cannot convince my Vestry to fund the pension of an ACC priest who has been married FOUR times.  And I cannot convince my Vestry to fund the pension of an ACC priest who got divorced then remarried and then got consecrated to the episcopate.  I just can't win those kinds of battles with them.  

Why should I even have to fight such battles in the first place?  What kind of a church ordains such men in the first place?  And what kind of a diocese votes to join such a church?  

Each and every one of you knows the answers to these questions.  So please do not bother debating with me unless you are prepared to provide candid answers to those questions.

If you wish to fight those battles with your vestries, go right ahead.  "Hell skelp it intae ye."  I am not wasting my time on this ACC nonsense anymore, so please don't waste my time asking for money.  My Vestry has made it clear: the ACC Pension Fund will not get a single penny from this parish.  Causa finita est.

RPC+

The Rev’d. Fr. Richard Dibble

Rector, St. Lucy’s Anglican Church, West Winfield, NY (ACA)

October 17th, 2022

To the world at large, especially the people of the Continuing Anglican world,

especially to the people of the TAC, the ACA, and the Diocese of the Northeast, and the clergy and bishops thereof *,

How to begin? About a year and a half ago, I had a conversation with a professional mental health counselor. It was a strange situation. It was strange because I was ordered to pursue professional counseling by a bishop, and it was even more strange because the bishop told me I had been told by him to do so previously at least seven times and refused. It was strange because I had, in fact, never previously been ordered to do so, by that bishop or anyone else, nor refused.

In fact, in the times following the death of my son, our whole family, myself included, walked a long and bumpy journey of grief, which included many counselor visits with many counselors, many of whom were professionals and paid for their services. The idea that I had refused such was simply preposterous. Just the same, when ordered to, even though under false pretense, I went to see this counselor again, whom I had seen before, and told him all these things.

His parting counsel to me was that I did not need further help, and there was every appearance I was being abused by my bishops. Not sexually, of course, but abused just the same, and it all made sense then. I asked what he suggested I do about it, and his response was simple: Expose it if I was up to it.

So, in following the demands of a bishop, even though I knew there was something quite amiss about them, I came to the place where to follow his instruction with whole heart I must make public the experience my family and tiny congregation has received at the hands of our bishops. Our journey has been arduous. If we had not thought manipulations were occurring before starting this attempt to make these things plain and open, the treatment we have received after starting would have made it far more obvious. We have encountered quite discourteous treatment, attempts to cover up, refusals to document, orders not to communicate, intimidations, and violations of our canons and constitution, in the name of “the good order of the church” and “transparency.”

We realize that these things are unpleasant to hear. We all love our church and would rather not have these things happening. Indeed, we expect to be slandered as wanting to cause division in the church. On the contrary, we understand accord to be something reached with open dialogue and full knowledge of the facts. The “peace” or “unity” that comes with issues being hidden to avoid discomfort is false. Any time a statement is made, it shows if there is unity or not- some believe it and others don’t. The statement doesn’t cause disunity; it merely makes it apparent.  Making it clear in the first place and dealing with it is the only way to build a healthy unity. Covering important things for the sake of one’s comfort is dysfunctional. We are given ample direction in scripture to work issues through rather than deny and shush them.

We (the little congregation at St. Lucy’s and the Dibble children who grew up in but left the ACA) have attempted to follow the teaching about bringing up wrongs found in Scripture in a stepped approach, applying it as best we can understand it in the structure of our church. You may well be reading about these occurrences for the first time here and have some sense of shock and think that we are wrong to approach it in this way without trying other ways first. This is not our first choice!

We have tried other ways! And we have ended up in the uncomfortable situation of having our only real choice be between allowing abuse to go unchecked or making it quite public. If you are told that this manifestation is some type of great unfair surprise to anyone involved, please know that such is not the case.

It is our belief that this is a great opportunity. We (the ACA) are at a crossroads, and a good bit of thinking should be done about which direction our beloved church is to go. It is the responsibility of us all to make decisions based on the best knowledge we can find and what we understand God would want us to do. As we see it, the real question is whether the Anglican Continuum exists to support a class of elite bishops, exempt from truth, canon law and constitution, accountability, and able to abuse people and clergy without consequence; or whether the bishops exist to serve the church through godly leadership.

It is important to be fact checkers. We ask that you check facts when you can and ask questions. We will TRY to be as factual in our story as possible. There will, no doubt be some thought and emotion in it. We ask you to recognize these for what they are, and we do not wish to present them as anything else.

We are all obligated to examine our own thoughts to see if they are true, and dismiss them if they are not. Our thoughts should be able to stand questioning or testing when appropriate, and any of us concerned with good thinking would not object to this, nor be offended or threatened.

Our feelings just are. Feelings are neither right or wrong. But thoughts must have sound reasoning and true facts. Often times people confuse thoughts with feelings, and please be aware of this. It is important because we really have no right to challenge someone’s feelings- they just are. You may find someone presenting a thought as a feeling to exempt it from criticism, and this is bad reasoning.

So if you want to hear our story, please read on, at your own risk. If your biggest concern is something like the changing leaves, and thinking about people really being hurt in your church is something you are incapable of knowing and surviving (as some imply you are), then please beware! We do not believe many would really be unconcerned! If things like this happened to you, our fellow Christians, we would want to know and support you, and we believe a lot of you are also so minded.

With every desire to live our faith well, we are your humble servants.

For St. Lucy’s and our family,

Richard S. Dibble+

Additional information and documentation can be found at gatherthegleanings.org

The Rev'd. Fr. Ed Kalish

Rector (ret.), St. Thomas Anglican Church, Ellsworth, ME (ACA)

(1)

June 6th, 2022

Dear St. Thomas friends,

When Ed resigned as priest of St. Thomas in 2019, he told you it was to give him time to work on his thesis. He did need time, but this was not the whole truth. We didn’t give a full explanation, because we were trying to protect the office of Bishop Marsh, who insisted on Ed’s early resignation.

Since then, we have learned of  several clergy and their families whom Bishop Marsh has mistreated, so we no longer believe we can “take the hit” for him. It seems as if the DNE will never be what God intends it to be until the bishops repent of their tyranny and start leading in humility. A few weeks ago, Ed wrote to the DNE clergy exposing the bishops, and resulting in his being inhibited by Bishop Marsh without a trial, and therefore without any opportunity of appeal (in violation of the canons of the ACA).

Below is the letter from Bishop Marsh inhibiting Ed, along with pertinent excerpts of a letter from Bishop Hendy to Ed, and my letter of response to him (which he hasn’t answered). These will give you some insight into what is going on. More information is available from us, if anyone would like it.

We pray for St. Thomas as a church, and for you all individually. Please pray for the diocese and for us.

Love in Christ,

Linda

(2) 

October 16th 2022

TIMELINE

The following is a timeline of events, relating what has happened to us. Documents 1 & 2 are included in this packet. The other documents referred to will be available online, on Gather the Gleanings: https://www.facebook.com/gatherthegleanings. Other documents can also be provided if requested.

April 2019    Meeting with Bp. Marsh at which he insisted that by Ed’s 72nd birthday, he needed to write a letter of resignation, which would be accepted. No reason given for this insistence that Ed wouldn’t be given permission to minister beyond that point.

June 2019    At Clericus, Bp. Marsh again insisted upon Ed’s resignation, saying that if St. Thomas had to close, God would hold Ed responsible. This of course isn’t true, and it is different from what the bp. used to say in the past, encouraging priests to just be faithful and preach the gospel. A retired priest who attends St. Thomas tried to defend Ed’s ministry, but the bishop pointedly ignored him.

August 2019    Episcopal visit from Bp. Marsh to St. Thomas. Looking through the parish register, he told Ed, “No growth. No baptisms. This is unacceptable.”  At the vestry meeting, he was told that the parishioners loved their priest and wanted him to continue even beyond his 72nd birthday. No response.  Then at lunch with Ed and Linda, he criticized many things about the service: the choice of Offertory hymn, the length of the Psalm reading, the way the deacon read. Nothing positive. He went on and on with his criticisms, humiliating Ed.

Aug. 2019 phone call to Bp. Marsh. Ed had invited some people to have petitions available in the church parking lot after the service for anyone to sign who wished to. Several parishioners did express interest in this opportunity, but one parishioner was upset and said she was leaving the church. When we tried to explain ourselves, the bp. angrily interrupted and jumped down our throats. He sounded horrified that we would do such a terrible thing as having these people come, but when other area churches were doing it, and a DNE priest is very involved—as a priest—in the pro-life movement, how were we to know that we shouldn't? Obviously, we weren't going to ride roughshod over a parishioner, knowing how she felt (and we didn't. She's still at St. Thomas.)

Fall 2019 Synod:    After a presentation on the importance of using web sites and other media in service of the churches, Ed told the bishops that he and Linda were not technologically savvy enough to do this. They told Ed he needed to leave St. Thomas at the beginning of the new year, without giving a specific date. So at that point, we thought this was a major reason that Ed was being told to resign.

Fall 2019 phone call:     Bp. Marsh asked Ed if he had told the vestry he was leaving, that he had to resign by Jan. 1, 2020 because an interim priest would be taking over then. After Ed pressed him, he reluctantly said who the interim replacement was.

Fall 2019    At a special vestry meeting, Ed told the parish that he was resigning—to work on his

master’s thesis. This was only partially true. To honor the office of bishop, he didn’t say that he was being forced into resigning.

Note: Ed obediently left St. Thomas by Jan. 1, 2020. He had never thought of going against against the bishop’s orders. Yet from April 2019 onward, he was constantly criticized by the bishop, as if he had been a rebel. And after his resignation, there was never any contact to us from the bishops, to see how we were doing, and there had been no apologies for the above actions.  We were left feeling very abused.

September 2020    Ed and Linda met with Bp. Marsh to try to discuss the above grievances. Because he spoke passionately, Bp. Marsh responded that Ed was angry, but that he had to leave St. Thomas “for the good of God’s Church.” Because the bp. had another appointment, there was no chance to discuss the content of what was said. But he had made a comment about the use of technology that made us realize that our limitations in that area had nothing to do with Ed’s being dismissed. That meant we didn’t know what the reason was.

February 2021 Since Bp. Marsh never followed up on the fall 2020 visit, Linda wrote to him, reiterating some of the abuses. Since she also reminded him of what Scripture says about the way shepherds should treat their sheep, the bishop wrote that her complaints arose because of our pain and anger over Ed’s dismissal from St. Thomas. He also said that we did not accept responsibility for actions we had taken, but didn’t say what those actions were. He never  addressed what she said. She responded that our complaints were not because of Ed’s dismissal from St. Thomas, but because of the way it was done. In his reply, the bp. said her letter was “highly inappropriate”.  Again, not addressing any specifics.  (doc’s. 3-6)

March 2021  Linda wrote to Bp. Marsh to ask why Ed had to retire when he did. The bp. responded that he and Bp. Webb had spoken to him several times about “the considerable challenges of fulfilling pastoral responsibilities at an advanced age, especially after having suffered a debilitating stroke.” (doc. 7) THIS IS FALSE. They had never told him any reasons.

April 2021  Bp. Marsh admitted that no one from the parish had complained about Ed’s ministry.

Fall 2021 Synod    When we arrived at the election synod, Bp. Marsh took Ed aside and told him that if he didn’t repent, he would be inhibited. He didn’t say what Ed should repent of, although later, when Ed asked why he was threatened with inhibition, he was given the vague reason that it was because of  “e-mails and a meeting at a restaurant”. Ed’s name wasn’t called during the roll call; he had to tell the secretary he was present. 

Spring 2022  Various emails to and from Bp. Marsh, not resolving anything. Ed wrote to the DNE clergy, exposing some of the abuses. This prompted angry responses from both bishops.

May 2022    From Bp. Webb, we finally learned why Ed had been dismissed. Ed’s age and stroke were by themselves meaningless. But Bp. Webb wrote in his response to a letter of Ed’s, “When we met and had dinner in the winter of 2019, you and I discussed that you were having difficulties keeping up with the ministry at St. Thomas’ Church.  Although you bristled at the idea, you recognized (or at least stated) that it would be advantageous for the parish if you retired

a few months before your mandatory retirement age of 72 (Canon 37.10).You state in your letter that the congregation loved you, which is very true and is the reason that they were carrying you on their backs, even though you were no longer able to fulfill your duties.  They wanted to be

good Christian people, which they most definitely are, and not provide you with more hurt when you were so obviously struggling in your life.”

​Ed never said he was having difficulties keeping up with the ministry, because he wasn’t. He only said that he wasn’t technologically savvy.

Another excerpt from Bp. Webb’s letter: “[Bishop Marsh] has continuously attempted to reconcile with you, even while you were making some very outlandish statements about him and his “unfitness” for office.  While he sought reconciliation and mutual respect, even while needing to look out for the health of the entire diocese, you have figuratively ‘spit in his face.’ ”

May 2022    Because Ed had not repented and publicly recanted, he was inhibited WITHOUT A TRIAL.

June 2022    Linda wrote to Bp. Webb, refuting his statements about Ed’s incapacities and his saying that Bp. Marsh had continuously sought reconciliation. (doc. 1) She has never received a reply.

June 2022     Linda wrote to members of St. Thomas, revealing what had been going on. A parishioner responded that the church had not carried Ed on their backs because of any inabilities. (doc. 2)

So, where did the idea that Ed was incapable of fulfilling his duties come from??

(Note):    After his stroke, Ed wrote a thesis and received his MTS degree (cum laude) from Nashotah House!

Oct. 2022    Ed apologized to Bp. Marsh for the way he spoke to him in fall 2020, and in a recent phone call. Bp. Marsh in turn apologized for “any hurt caused by him or the diocese”.

Summary

1.  It’s obvious that Ed’s dismissal was totally egregious:  the reasons the bishops used to get rid of him were false. Ed was perfectly capable of continuing his ministerial duties.

2.  The bishops have consistently ignored our complaints, dismissing them by insisting that we are still angry and grieving over his loss of St. Thomas. This is in spite of the fact that they’ve been told this is not the case, and even though our original complaints concerned the way Bp. Marsh treated us during the summer and fall of 2019, before Ed left the church. This is a deliberate way to avoid dealing with what they’ve done. So we’ve received no apologies, except the general one given by Bp. Marsh. If there had ever been any discussion of our grievances, leading to reconciliation, none of what we’ve done would have been necessary.

3.  It’s apparently okay for the bishops to express anger at priests, and humiliate them, but if  priests and laypeople raise their voices, they are angry and “screaming at their bishops.” Also, if a bishop constantly criticizes a priest, sometimes in anger, it may not be too surprising if a priest sometimes responds in anger.

4.  It would be bad enough if Ed & Linda were the only people hurt by the actions of the bishops. But unfortunately, there have been several others that we know of. We love the DNE and are grieved at the way the bishops have been behaving. This is why we have kept trying to expose the treatment we’ve received.

 Sponsored by: