
The Episcopal
bishop of Connecticut may not be sued over his actions in a
struggle over the role of gays in the church, a federal
judge has ruled. U.S. district judge Janet Bond
Arterton in New Haven dismissed a legal challenge
against Bishop Andrew D. Smith, leader of the Episcopal
diocese of Connecticut.
"Whether Bishop Smith acted contrary to, or
outside of, the diocese's own rules is a question of
canon law, not a question of constitutionality of the
challenged Connecticut statutes," Arterton wrote in the
ruling Monday. "A declaration of unconstitutionality
by the court would not redress the plaintiffs' actual
grievances or their theological disputes" with Smith,
she ruled.
The lawsuit, which was filed by six parishes in
2005, accused Smith of violating the civil and
property rights of those parishes. The churches had
sought to break away from Smith's authority because of his
support for the election of an openly gay bishop in
New Hampshire.
The plaintiffs included five priests and lay
members from six parishes: St. Paul's, Darien; Bishop
Seabury, Groton; Christ Church, Watertown; Trinity,
Bristol; Christ and the Epiphany, East Haven; and St.
John's, Bristol.
The dispute between Smith and the so-called
Connecticut Six has attracted national attention since
Smith's vote in 2003 favor of Bishop V. Gene Robinson
of New Hampshire. The conflict was one of several court
battles in the United States between the church and
conservative parishes.
The lawsuit said Smith acted illegally when the
diocese seized control of St. John's Episcopal Church
in Bristol in July 2005 after its priest, the Reverend
Mark Hansen, was stripped of his duties by Smith. Smith
later removed Hansen from the priesthood.
The lawsuit also named the Most Reverend Frank
T. Griswold III, presiding bishop of the U.S.
Episcopal Church, and state attorney general Richard
Blumenthal as defendants.
"I am gratified by the decision of Judge
Arterton that it is inappropriate to seek federal
intervention in a matter of church life and
governance," Smith said in a statement. "Noninterference by
civil authorities in religious matters is a
constitutional foundation of our nation, and I trust
that those members of the Episcopal diocese of
Connecticut who appealed to the courts will recognize the
significance of this ruling and will seek to live in
communion with their bishop and this church," he said.
One of the six Connecticut priests, the Reverend
Ronald Gauss of Bishop Seabury Church in Groton, was
quoted by the Hartford Courant in editions prepared
for Wednesday that he was disappointed by Arterton's
ruling and that the priests will decide on their next step.
Five of the six priests, including Gauss, remain
in their posts. They were found to be "out of
communion" with Smith by a committee of the church
following a breakdown in negotiations that would have
allowed the churches to operate under the authority of
a conservative bishop. (AP)
These comments are reproduced as written by visitors to this Web site. They have not been edited for content, grammar, or spelling. The viewpoints appearing here are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion or views of advocate.com, The Advocate, or its affiliates.
Be the first to comment on this story.
If you would like to submit a comment for posting, please fill out the form above.
All comments submitted via this form are subject to posting or publication. (To send a private letter to an Advocate editor or writer, please use the e-mail button at the top of the page, or use snail mail.) If you would like your comment considered for publication in The Advocate magazine, please include your full name, your city of residence, and a phone number where you can be reached during business hours so that we can confirm your identity. Your e-mail address and telephone number are strictly confidential and will not be shared or used for any purpose other than to contact you about your comment.
Comments that do not concern specific articles in The Advocate or on Advocate.com will not be posted or published. See the Contact page for sending comments for reasons other than responding to Advocate editorial and news stories.
Please note that comments sent by fax or snail mail are unlikely to be posted, although they will be considered for publication along with all letters received via e-mail or via this Web page. Comments that chiefly concern Advocate.com content will be considered for posting only on the Web site. The Advocate reserves the right to edit submitted comments for grammar, spelling, obscenities, or libel; we will, however, do our best to preserve the original comment's style and intent. Comments considered for publication in The Advocate magazine may also be edited for length.