Canon Flanagan has been very active in the Church, serving in high positions in several Dioceses, on General Convention Standing Committees, as a General Convention delegate, and in groups like the Episcopal Women's Caucus. She has been involved in the discipline of other priests, and she knows very well the consequences of illegal and abusive clerical conduct.

As we made clear in our complaint for ecclesiastical discipline, her actions and those of the other priests were wrong and were very damaging not just to my wife, Linda, but to our entire family. Although Linda's right to receive communion was restored, it was only after a long and painful process.

So I am very grateful that the Committee has taken this step to begin the rectify the injustice visited upon us. But there is long process still ahead.

As we stated in our complaint, the accusations made against my wife were false, and the respondents knew or should have known they were false. As was stated in our complaint, there is reason to believe their real motive is my wife's orthodoxy and opposition to some of the decisions made at the 2003 General Convention. These are what one of the priests called her "dissenting theological position(s)".

Our complaint is based on the idea that it is important for these priests to be disciplined so that others will not be subject to the same abusive and illegal conduct in the future. Over the last year we have heard several other accounts of "sham" excommunications, where the lay person committed no real offense but were calculated to silence faithful Church members.

Other aspects of the Committee's decision bear further review and I would comment on them briefly -

Under Church rules, our daughter and I were entitled to lodge a complaint when the conduct of ordained persons is abusive and violates the right of a family member. The Committee also appears to have ruled that because we chose this route, its jurisdiction is limited. I will seek legal counsel on this point. If we had chosen the alternate route of recruiting seven fellow Episcopal Church communicants within the Diocese to join us in the complaint, it is undisputed that Church law would allow for broader jurisdiction to consider all offenses committed by the respondents. If it is necessary to follow that route, we will do so.

Overall, this process has taken too long. Church law requires the Review Committee to make a decision on a full investigation within 30 days after filing. We are now almost 100 days past filing. The Committee has authorized only a secret investigation into one of the respondents. Justice delayed is justice denied.

Other aspects of the Committee's deliberations are troubling. Our lawyer has been ignored and not received routine letters and notices, which come many days after the action they report. Questions about the legal status of the Committee have not been answered.

I am prayerful that this process will go forward in accordance with God's Will and infinite mercy, and bring us to a just and healing outcome.

Patrick Shaughness

Committee memo follows --

April 20, 2005

Subject: Shaughness complaint

The Review Committee met for a second time on April 20, 2005 at Church House. Members Stuart Kenworthy, Richard Kukowski, Robyn Franklin-Vaughn, Anne Elsbree, and Lisalyn Jacobs were present: member Howard Anderson was absent. After discussion, the Committee, by unanimous vote of all members present, made the following decisions:

1. The Committee will consider only the charges against the respondent of "Conduct Unbecoming a Member of the Clergy", on the ground that it does not believe the Committee has jurisdiction under the national Canon IV.3(A)(3) to consider the other charges contained in the complaint. The Committee nevertheless believes that certain facts relevant to such other charges may also be relevant to the charge of "Conduct Unbecoming a Member of the Clergy".

2. The Committee will not consider further the charge against Rev. Abbie Hazen, on the ground that the facts alleged are not in its view sufficient to make out a charge of "Conduct Unbecoming a Member of the Clergy".

3. The Committee requests the Church Attorney to undertake an investigation surrounding the charge of "Conduct Unbecoming a Member of the Clergy" against the Rev. Carol Cole Flanagan and render a confidential report to the Committee on this charge as soon as practicable. The Committee, however, has taken no position at this time as to whether the facts alleged in the complaint are sufficient to make out a charge against this respondent on this ground.

4. The Committee will not further consider the complaint against the Rev. Alison Quin on the ground of "Conduct Unbecoming a Member of the Clergy" until it receives the foregoing report from the Church Attorney regarding the charge against Canon Flanagan.

Stuart A. Kenworthy, President

[note-- Kenworthy is Rector of Christ Church, Georgetown, Washington DC]

END