We acknowledge receipt of your letter, dated March 31, 2005. We have received copies of your letters to the Churches of the diocese, dated March 29, 2005 and to Father Hansen, of March 31, 2005. In the March 29th letter, you announce the actions of yourself and the Standing Committee to impose inhibition and ultimately deposition of Father Hansen and five other priests, because you and the Standing Committee have concluded that each priest has "abandoned the communion of the church".

In your letter to Father Hansen, you state that you have offered to meet privately with him prior to April 15, 2005, "with a goal of accepting Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight or returning to full communion with this diocese." On the other hand, in your letter to us you refuse to consider meeting with us until you have first met with Father Hansen, because, his meeting with you "will be one of bishop and priest, as the issue before [you] is the abandonment of communion of this Church by a priest." In a similar vein you state in your letter to us that "[t]he matters before us can be addressed only within the polity of the Episcopal Church."

Notwithstanding your insistence on the privacy of matters between a bishop and priest, on March 29, 2005, you made a public statement to the "Clergy of the Episcopal Diocese of Connecticut" that "the six parishes and their rectors have abandoned the communion of this Church." In our view, it is no longer appropriate for you to insist on a private meeting with our Rector, while publicly charging him, all of us and our parishioners with abandonment of communion. The charges of abandonment of communion are false. The portions of your letter concerning the "status" of our request for adequate delegated Episcopal oversight are also false and misleading in numerous respects.

We now demand a public retraction of the false and misleading statements contained in your March 29, 2005 letter "To the Clergy of the Episcopal Diocese of Connecticut" and the release to us and to our Rector forthwith of all documents and reports on which you and the Standing Committee purported to act, as stated in your letter to the clergy of this diocese. In our view the theological dispute between us centers on your conduct as follows:

1. On November 2, 2003, you participated in the consecration of an Episcopal bishop contrary to the express declarations of the Primates' Statement of October 16, 2003. (We note that the House of Bishops on March 15, 2005, suspended further consecration of all bishops until you address the issue of the consecration of a bishop openly living in a same sex union. In view of the extraordinary nature of these events, we request that you now provide pastoral guidance and respond to us on this subject as it is your duty to educate the Wardens, Vestry, and parish on your theological position and official stance in this matter.) 2. On June 21, 2003, you ordained to the Diaconate two persons openly living in a same sex union. (We infer that the House of Bishops on March 15, 2005 expects that you and each bishop, in his or her diocese, as necessary, will suspend further ordination as priests and deacons of one openly living in a same sex union. To date you have failed to respond to us as to your intention to continue with such ordinations as they have not been approved. We remind you that the following Resolution passed during the 1979 General Convention remains the standard. "We re-affirm the traditional teaching of the Church on marriage, marital fidelity and sexual chastity as the standard of Christian sexual morality. Candidates for ordination are expected to conform to this standard. Therefore, we believe it is not appropriate for this Church to ordain a practicing homosexual, or any person who is engaged in heterosexual relations outside of marriage." 3. Since August 8, 2003, you have condoned the blessing of same sex unions. You have voted in favor of such blessings in a General Convention Resolution which recognized same sex marriage as a legitimate institution under the eyes of God. (On March 15, 2005, the House of Bishops suspended the public blessing of same sex unions, yet you have failed to indicate to us what action you will take if a priest of this diocese continues to bless same sex unions.)

In your letter to the Clergy of this diocese and to us, you failed to mention the Primates' Communiqué of February 24, 2005 which we conclude, after careful study, both illuminates and provides the basis for resolving our present theological disputes. That communiqué requires that our Church accept the Windsor Report recommendations, as we have urged. We are deeply concerned about the implications for ourselves as a result of the Primates' actions in requesting that the U.S. delegation of the Anglican Consultative Counsel (ACC) voluntarily cease to attend the ACC and the Presiding Bishop voluntarily cease to attend future Primatial meetings.

In our view, full Anglican Communion is now impaired, if not broken, and the Preamble of the Episcopal Church U.S.A. (ECUSA) Constitution is being wholly ignored. It is now imperative, therefore, we be given pastoral advice respecting your continuing ability, in the Anglican Communion, to discharge your own duties to us and the parishes you serve. We need to consider with you, as a preliminary step, the extent to which this parish and its priests can observe directions from you, acting in concert with the Presiding Bishop and other, to defy the Primates and thereby cause us to be taken out of the Anglican Communion, against our wishes.

Because we perceive our risk of exclusion from the Anglican Communion to be grave and imminent, please be advised we have directed our Rector not to meet with you until:

1. Your and the Standing committee's charges against him and us have been unconditionally supplied to us and him; and 2. You advise us and him as to your proposed future course of conduct regarding our wish to resort to a Panel of Reference to obtain adequate delegated Episcopal pastoral oversight at the earliest possible time. (We do not regard that subject to be one solely between bishop and priest, as you state in your letter to Father Hansen; we welcome, however, your proposal that delegated Episcopal pastoral oversight be implemented forthwith as an appropriate alternative to any other action.)

If you agree that a Panel of Reference as prescribed by the Primates Communiqué would positively facilitate this critical situation, we would willingly join with all other affected parishes, priests, and their legal advisor, in a single meeting, with you and your Chancellor, in Hartford at your earliest convenience. The goal of that meeting would be to affect adequate delegated Episcopal pastoral oversight by immediate resort to the Panel of Reference.

On the other hand, if you do not find our suggested meeting acceptable and we agree that we have reached an impasse, we will be required to consider whether it is necessary and reasonable for us to reach our own conclusion as to whether you have effectively departed the Anglican Communion.

We are concerned by what we perceive to be an emerging pattern within ECUSA and in this diocese of inhibiting and deposing priests and proposing to enact, imminently, draconian canon law changes that would allow deposition of lay people, excommunication of our lay leaders and deprivation of their civil rights. The proper discharge of our duties to our parish requires no less of us in these most extraordinary times, especially when viewed in the clear light of the Primates' Communiqué and its guidance.

We keep you in our prayers.

Yours in Christ Jesus,

For the Vestry and Parish of St. John's Bristol

Senior Warden: David W. Thompson
Junior Warden: Richard E. Gonneville

Clerk: Eizabeth Stretch
Treasurer: Dr. William G. Witt

cc: The Standing Committee