A canonical case against the Rt. Rev. Edward H. MacBurney, retired Bishop of Quincy, will be heard by Court for the Trial of a Bishop. It will be the first such case since the canons were amended by General Convention in 2006 to include members of the clergy and laity among the judges in a disciplinary case against a member of the episcopacy.
Bishop MacBurney has been served with a presentment, an ecclesiastical indictment. It charges him with violating Article II, Section 3 of The Episcopal Church Constitution and Title III, Canon 12, Section 3 which states: “No Bishop shall perform episcopal acts or officiate by preaching, ministering the sacraments, or holding any public service in a diocese other than that in which the Bishop is canonically resident, without permission or a license to perform occasional public services from the ecclesiastical authority of the diocese in which the bishop desires to officiate or perform episcopal acts.”
Bishop MacBurney, 80, was Bishop of Quincy from 1988-1994. In June of 2007 Bishop MacBurney confirmed several persons at Holy Trinity Anglican Church in San Diego. An overwhelming number of members of Holy Trinity voted to leave The Episcopal Church and affiliate with the Anglican Church of the Southern Cone in 2006. The Rt. Rev. James R. Mathes, Bishop of San Diego, filed the initial complaint against Bishop MacBurney.
The Rt. Rev. Andrew Smith, Bishop of Connecticut, will serve as the presiding judge. Other judges are Bishops Bruce Caldwell of Wyoming, Gordon P. Scruton of Western Massachusetts, George Wayne Smith of Missouri and Catherine M. Waynick of Indianapolis; the Rev. Marjorie Menaul of Central Pennsylvania and the Rev. Karen Montagno of Massachusetts; Maria Campbell of Alabama, and Jane Freeman of Ohio.
Bishop MacBurney’s response must be filed with the court by mid April, according to Wicks Stephens, who is serving as Bishop MacBurney’s lawyer. Mr. Stephens, who also is chancellor of the Anglican Communion Network, added that a discovery process would follow with trial presently contemplated in the fall. The Episcopal Church is being represented by Larry White, a Philadelphia lawyer who holds the title Church Attorney.
“From the very inception of the investigation by the Church Attorney Bishop MacBurney has made clear that he did perform confirmations at Holy Trinity Church in June of last year,” Mr. Stephens said. “However those facts alone do not establish a violation of the constitution and canons. Bishop MacBurney intends to resist the charges.”
Steve Waring
We invite your response to this article through a Letter to the Editor. Email your letter to tlc@livingchurch.org. Please include your name, city and state.
To find more news, feature articles, and commentary about the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion not available online, read The Living Church magazine each week. Click here to start your subscription.
To find more news, feature articles, and commentary about the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion not available online, read The Living Church magazine each week. Click here to start your subscription.
4 Comments
With Andrew Smith as the Presiding Judge, the Rt. Rev. Edward H. MacBurney, has no chance of a fair trial. May God watch over the Rt. Rev. Edward H. MacBurney...he does not deserve this treatment, as he is...true to the faith.
Post edited by TLC staff.
On it's face the charges appear to be true. However, the bishop is entitled to his day in court and he will have it.
The TLC staff has it right as far as it goes. But the whole process is a denial of TEC's acclaimed membership in the Anglican Communion of which the Southern Cone is a valid member. The harrassment of this and other Godly Pastors by TEC is reprehensible, illegal, and blatantly unChristian..
Let me get this straight. Bishop MacBurney confirmed several people in a church belonging to the Province of the Southern Cone (a member in good standing of the Anglican Communion),with whom we are supposedly in full communion, and no one in the Southern Cone objected to his actions, but the Bishop of San Diego did. For this he is to stand trial? Do I have this right?What if he can produce a letter from the Southern Cone inviting him to officiate? I realize that arguments from silence are tenuous at best, but isn't the absence of a protest from the Southern Cone at least a broad hint that Bishop MacBurney didn't act on a whim or without proper authorization? Just for giggles, let's say that he had confirmed a group of Lutherans, with whom we are in full communion. Would anyone have said anything? Probably not. A little consistency would go a long way here. Of course, that may be too much to ask in the present atmosphere.