We want to be members in good standing in the Anglican Communion. The constitution of the Episcopal Church says that it is a constituent member of the Anglican Communion. We are faithful Episcopalians. We have not abandoned the communion of this church. Neither has our rector. Yet you as a bishop have taken actions that places in danger our ability to remain in the Anglican Communion.

We want to be able to worship with a rector who upholds historic Anglican and biblical faith, a rector of our choosing, not one that has been imposed on us, and who does not share our beliefs.

We want to be able to run the affairs of our parish as we have always done, and as all the parishes of this diocese do, without hostile diocesan interference.

What would it take to enable the survival of this parish?

First, we ask that the keys to our property be returned. As a vestry, we have under canon law the primary responsibility for the physical integrity of this worship space. As bishop, you are always welcome to visit this parish. We have never denied you permission to visit. But there are proper procedures for episcopal visits. Showing up without warning in the middle of the week and changing the locks is inappropriate and a betrayal of the trust between this parish and the bishop.

Second, despite Fr. Hansen's sabbatical, our parish is not without pastoral leadership. Fr. Clayton Knapp has been providing such leadership on Sundays, and Fr. Thomas Beck has been providing pastoral care during the week. Fr. Knapp asked permission of you to continue in that position beyond the 60 days that is normally allowed for someone who is not canonically resident in the diocese, and you gave it to him. We would ask that you honor that agreement. We would ask that Fr. Knapp be allowed to continue as our priest during this time, as you promised. We do not recognize Susan McCone as our priest. We have not asked for her, and we ask that she would leave.

Third, we ask that we continue to be able to run the day to day affairs of our parish as do all other CT parishes, without outside interference by the diocese.

What will be the future of this parish if you continue with your present course of action?

If you really care about the future of this parish, we ask you to consider what the outcome will be if you do not honor our wishes in this regard.

First, as to the physical property. As you know, this is a large building. It is not paid for. There are many expenses. If we do not have control of our physical property, you will be driving the congregation out of this building. We may have to meet elsewhere or pursue legal means to get back access to our space. You are right that the present congregation is finding it difficult to meet our financial obligations. If this congregation is greatly diminished, we do not believe that those who are left will be able to maintain this building. You will end up with an empty building on your hands, as well as the mortgage, and all expenses related to its upkeep.

Second, we remember distinctly that when Bishop Curry last came to visit us, he promised that the diocese valued us and would never try to interfere with our intentions to practice biblical faith. My understanding is that when Fr. Hansen and the wardens met with you several months ago that you promised that you would never impose a rector on us against our will. Yet you are now trying to tell us that Susan McCone is our priest-in-charge.

A simple web search shows that Susan McCone's values are diametrically opposed to the values of this parish. She is the Executive Director of Affirming Catholicism, a group that has expressed its support for the ordination and blessing of practicing homosexuals, contrary to the official teaching of the Anglican Communion as affirmed at Lambeth 98 and the Windsor Report.

As the Executive Director, she has given her signature to a document to the Windsor Commission in support of the election of V. Gene Robinson to the office of bishop in the Episcopal Church although the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Anglican Primates, the Windsor Report, and now the Anglican Consultative Council have said that this action showed lack of respect for the Anglican Communion, and threatened its unity.

Ms. McCone has expressed in a sermon on her former parish's website her willingness to break with the Anglican Communion over this issue. She has described the position of those who affirm historic Anglican faith as that of the "religious right." Her theological values are clearly opposed to those of this parish. This parish will not accept her as a priest.

Finally, if our parish is not allowed to run its affairs without diocesan interference, then the vestry and congregation will be forced into a position of not being able to cooperate.

If you really care about the future of this parish, then you will not try to impose yourself on us in this way. This parish will not survive as a parish if we try to accept your plan for our future. What you have offered is a recipe for destruction, not survival.

Questions:

Why have you imposed a canon on Fr. Mark Hansen that is intended for priests who are leaving the Episcopal Church for another denomination? Fr. Mark has not abandoned the Episcopal Church. The canons provide for church trials for priests who are accused of disobeying their bishop. If you believe Fr. Mark has violated his ordination vows, why have you not brought him to trial on the appropriate charges?

Why did you have someone break into Fr. Hansen's office and go through his private papers? Is this not a violation of the vow of confidentiality that every priest takes? It is our understanding that a priest is supposed to be willing to go to jail rather than violate that confidentiality. We believe this act was illegal, since some of these documents were no doubt protected by civil laws concerning confidentiality.

Why have you removed Fr. Hansen's name from the Church Sign in front of our building? Although he has been inhibited, he has not been deposed, and he is still our rector for six months.

Why did you not honor the agreement you made with Fr. Knapp to extend his time as our supply priest?

You have claimed that the vestry has left the parish without pastoral care. Ms. McCone lives in Washington, CT, and works another job during the week. Fr. Beck lives fifteen minutes away. Trinity Church, Bristol, is ten minutes away. Our Sr. Warden Rick Gonneville can be reached at any time. How can someone who is working another job and who lives at the other end of the state provide pastoral care when you claim that the arrangements we have made will not?

Why have you tried to impose on us a priest whose values are directly contrary to ours, and contrary to the official teaching of the Anglican Communion? Why should our members be willing to approach for pastoral care someone whose values we regard as responsible for destroying our parish, and placing in jeopardy the Episcopal Church's place in the Anglican Communion?

Why did you enter our building with force? If you wanted to talk to our vestry, why did you not simply arrange a pastoral visit or visit a vestry meeting? Do you realize that canon law specifies that it is the vestry who have control of the physical space of the parish, not the diocese?

Why did you include as an accusation against Fr. Mark that the parish was not meeting its financial responsibilities to the diocese? It is not the rector who pays the bills. It is the vestry. Are you suggesting that the vestry is not meeting its canonical obligations to care for the building? We recently spent $8,000 to repair the restrooms. Are you suggesting that maintaining our only handicapped-accessible restrooms is less important than paying our diocesan assessment, that visitors to our parish should go without restroom facilities so that the diocese will receive the payment on its loan?

St. John's as a parish is not intentionally withholding funds from the diocese. Why have you not taken over other parishes that have not paid their pledges? Do you think that the tactics you have chosen will make it more likely that St. John's will have the income to meet its diocesan assessment? Is this really all about money and power?

Why have you consistently taken action against this parish and against the other CT 6 parishes within a week or two after the Lambeth Commission released its report, after the Primates called for the Panel of Reference, and, now, after the Anglican Consultative Council just met, each of which has criticized the Episcopal Church for its actions? Your timing here is puzzling, to say the least. Are you deliberately trying to show your contempt for the Anglican Communion?

Given repeated occasions when you have promised representatives of this parish one thing, and then done another, why should we trust you now?

William G. Witt, Ph.D.
Elected Spokesperson for the Vestry of St. John's Episcopal Church
(860) 224-8201