Trial date moved to May 13th

EPISCOPAL NEWS SERVICE Note 1345 by ENS
February 12, 1996--for immediate release

COURT FOR TRIAL OF A BISHOP RESPONDS TO PRE-
TRIAL MOTIONS

BY JAMES SOLHEIM
     The Court for the Trial of a Bishop, convened to deal
with charges that retired Bishop Walter Righter broke his
ordination vows and is guilty of false teaching, has responded to
pre-trial motions presented at a December 8 hearing in Hartford,
Connecticut.
     In a memorandum dated January 10, the court denied
motions to disqualify members of the court and another to
disqualify one of the lay assessors. It did grant a motion to
"separate the issue of church doctrine and bifurcate the
proceeding," inviting both parties to submit papers to the court
addressing the question, "What does and does not constitute the
doctrine of the church, particularly as it is binding on what a
bishop may or may not teach."
     The court declined to allow Bishop William Wantland of
Eau Claire to act as counsel for the Presenters who are bringing
the charges, or to address the court in future hearings, "since he
is himself one of the Presenters and a potential witness in the
case." Wantland, who is an attorney, participated in the pre-trial
hearing as an assistant to the Church Advocate, despite
objections from Righter's attorneys.

JUDGES SAY THEY HAVE AN OPEN MIND
     Acknowledging that the wider church's trust of the
outcome of the trial "may depend, in part, on the church's
perception and opinion of the fairness of the process used to
arrive at the outcome," the court took "very seriously the
challenge to four of its members."
     The motion was to disqualify Bishop Edward Jones of
Indianapolis; Bishop Douglas Theuner of New Hampshire;
Bishop Arthur Walmsley, Connecticut (retired); and Bishop
Frederick Borsch of Los Angeles because some of them had
"knowingly ordained a non-celibate homosexual person and
because they signed A Statement in Koinonia," written by
Bishop John Spong of Newark at the 1994 General Convention. 
     The Koinonia Statement argues that sexuality is neutral
and that it is possible for same-sex relationships to be holy,
adding that homosexual persons "who choose to live out their
sexual orientation in a partnership that is marked by faithfulness
and life-giving holiness" should not be excluded from the
ordained ministry.
     "The court polled its members and each and every judge
confirmed that he is, in fact, unbiased and impartial regarding
the case at hand," the memorandum said. "All of the judges
believe they have an open mind and are ready, willing and able
to judge this case on its merits, in a fair and independent
manner, and not on any preconceived ideas they may have about
the issues involved."

LAY ASSESSOR NOT DISQUALIFIED
     The motion to disqualify lay assessor Sally Johnson
because she is chancellor, or legal adviser, for the Diocese of
Minnesota was denied. Under a canon that took effect January
1, 1996, chancellors can't serve as church attorneys or lay
assessors. The court said it saw no reason to apply the new
canon "retroactively so as to disqualify Ms. Johnson" and the
new canon didn't suggest that they should.
     "The court finds the intention of the canons is that once a
Court for the Trial of a Bishop is constituted with qualified
personnel, the Court and its personnel should remain in place
throughout the pendency of the matter, even if the canonical
requirements for continuing to serve the Court change," the
memorandum concluded.

DISCUSSION OF DOCTRINE COMES FIRST
     The court did accept a motion by the Presenters asking
the Court to settle the question of church doctrine "prior to the
factual issues relating to the Respondent's [Righter's] conduct,"
despite objections that the motion had not been filed in time.
     "Both parties conceded that questions of doctrine are akin
to questions of law in the secular courts," the memorandum
pointed out. "As the sole arbiter of issues of doctrine, the Court
can request submissions from the parties in whatever form it
deems would be most helpful to it in its deliberations...."
     At the opening session of the court, February 27 at 9
am, each side will be given three hours for the argument, based
on papers the court has invited them to submit ahead of time.
They may also submit up to 20 references of "previously
published materials touching" on the question of doctrine.
     If further pre-trial proceedings are necessary, the court
set March 26 "and continuing until completed." It added, "If the
case is not resolved as a result of the Court's rulings on the
issues of doctrine, trial will commence on May 13, 1996."