NEWS STORY: Episcopal Court Hears Montana Bishop’s Sexual Misconduct Case

c. 2000 Religion News Service MINNEAPOLIS _ A judicial panel of Episcopal bishops hearing arguments this week in the trial of Montana Bishop Charles I. Jones were asked whether Jones should face punishment for an affair nearly 20 years ago. The court, meeting at the Church of Gethsemane in Minneapolis, said a written decision will […]

c. 2000 Religion News Service

MINNEAPOLIS _ A judicial panel of Episcopal bishops hearing arguments this week in the trial of Montana Bishop Charles I. Jones were asked whether Jones should face punishment for an affair nearly 20 years ago.

The court, meeting at the Church of Gethsemane in Minneapolis, said a written decision will be issued from the church’s New York offices. Arguments began Monday (Nov. 20) and wrapped up Tuesday (Nov. 21).


The court may impose sentences including “admonition, suspension and deposition.”

The Court for the Trial of a Bishop determined in August that Jones’ sexual relationship with a member of his parish 17 years ago “constitutes sexual exploitation and `Immorality and Conduct Unbecoming a Member of the Clergy”’ under the church’s canon law.

The remaining issue for the court is the nature of Jones’ treatment in response to those charges in 1993 and 1994. Jones maintains that he was disciplined at that time and should not be subject to another ruling under the church’s new disciplinary canons, revised in 1997.

“It was Bishop Jones’ perception that he was being disciplined,” said Jones’ attorney, Edward I. Curry.

Gregory Nye, attorney for the Episcopal Church, argued that Jones took a leave of absence and underwent counseling as part of a “healing process” that would not be considered discipline at that time or now. According to Nye, time off and therapy for Jones were arranged out of concern about the possible future risk Jones might present to the church.

Jones has been the bishop of Montana’s 48 parishes since 1986. Charges were first made against him seven years ago. Jones’ lawyers and church authorities disagree on accounts of how the case was handled at that time. Curry contended that the legal procedure that allows Jones to be retried on the same charges is flawed.

Serving as presiding judge was the Rt. Rev. Edward (Ted) Jones of Indianapolis, a retired bishop. Prior to 1997, when the church revised its rules pertaining to discipline, a bishop was subject only to charges of heresy _ violation of doctrine _ he explained in a press conference.

The current case surfaced during a period of transition from the old rules to the revised “Title IV” discipline canon, Ted Jones said.


The Montana bishop’s case was handled based on the policies and procedures of the presiding bishop’s office. “Our way of doing it was different then because the canon was different,” Ted Jones said.

The church has held only two other hearings to try a bishop in the past 100 years, Jones noted.

The 1997 church convention that created “Title IV” instituted a six-month period from Jan. 1 to July 1, 1998 as a statute of limitations against clergy for cases involving sexual exploitation. The complaint against Jones was filed by the victim on Jan. 8, 1998.

The revised canons allow victims to file complaints. Previously, a complaint was to be filed on behalf of a victim by three bishops, or by at least 10 clergy and lay people, some of whom resided in the diocese where the alleged offense occurred.

Six of the nine bishops on the court will have to agree in order for the Montana bishop to be punished. If the court fails to muster a six-vote majority, the case will be dropped.

KRE END HAFFTEN

Donate to Support Independent Journalism!

Donate Now!