Saving St. James

Some names and events have been redacted to keep the focus on the actions and the harmful effect it had on St. James. Some members in the Diocese have reported similar stories suggesting a need for a heartfelt and transparent conversation about these issues.

 

CLAIM 4

 

Respondent Bishop Provenzano intentionally and willfully disregarded the reconciliation process stipulated in TEC Canons to resolve deeply embedded systemic issues at St. James’ and the detrimental actions by the church’s Priest-in-Charge to the temporal and spiritual health of St. James’ Church.  The applicable TEC Canons are Title III.9. and Title IV.1

 

1.  On 1/12/17 the complainant petitioned the Bishop for reconciliation.[1]  The email documented specific issues that were having a detrimental effect on the church.   The complainant and the Bishop had a brief discussion before a Diocesan Council meeting.  The bishop said he had suspected something off at the church and committed to convening a meeting of church leadership. 

 

2.  After this meeting, the Bishop showed little interest in reconciliation or the Title IV complaint.  In addition, the Bishop did not keep his commitment to call for a leadership meeting.

 

3.  What proceeded over the next 548 days was a gradual escalation that resulted in a Title IV complaint againstREDACTED and discovery of the Bishop’s for St. James’.

 

4.  TEC Canons recognize disagreements can emerge in local churches that could affect pastoral relations.  Though the canons give wide latitude to local ecclesiastical authorities to establish appropriate frameworks to resolve these disagreements the emphasis is on reconciliation. 

 

5.  In a 7/13/18 email, the Bishop disclosed his thoughts about the reconciliation process.  He wrote:

 

“I have always given you the benefit of a wide range of opinions on matters related to our diocesan life. But at this juncture, you have gone too far. I am very disappointed in your mischaracterization of our efforts and your attack on REDACTED.”

 

6.  The complainant’s reconciliation petition, the local Title IV complaint, and communication regarding REDACTED focused on specific actions and decisions he made as Priest-in-Charge and the detrimental effects it had on the vitality of the church.    

 

7.  The effects of REDACTED actions and decisions were so harmful some members would say after Sunday service, “priests come and go; we'll have a new priest again.”

 

8.  In each of the emails to the complainant, the Bishop tries to impress that the complainant was aware of the Bishop’s intention for St. James’.  This is categorically false.  In the 7/13/18 email mentioned above, the Bishop included Canon Clair Woodley, Rev. Canon Patricia, and Janet Adam.  The Bishop intentional misrepresented that he communicated his “efforts” or plans.[2]

 

9.  The Bishop’s 7/13/18 email is deeply paternalistic: 

 

“I have always given you the benefit of a wide range of opinions on matters related to our diocesan life.” 

 

10.  The language implies the Bishop simply tolerated the complainant’s advocacy for St. James’ and placated his views from the beginning.  It suggests the Bishop had no intention of entertaining the petition or acting on the complaint.   

 

11.  It explains the tokenism found in the Bishop’s correspondence with the complainant:

 

I am working to address the concerns and create a positive result that supports and enhances the ministry of the whole. - 2/13/17 [No details or concepts discussed or mentioned.][3]

 

We are addressing the concerns you have raised in a proper manner and will include the leadership of the parish when it is appropriate. - 2/28/17 [No details or concepts discussed or mentioned.][4]

 

The Diocesan Council have a real handle on what is happening in one of our diocesan mission churches. - 7/13/18 [No details or concepts discussed or mentioned.][5]

 

You may not like the direction of this plan, as it focuses on extending the ministry of the parish beyond the remnant of St. James that I inherited after the fracture in the parish.
 - 7/14/18 [No details or concepts discussed or mentioned.][6]

 

12.  In the Bishop’s 7/14/18 email the complainant’s motivation is questioned:

 

“I encourage you to examine your motivation in all of this.” 

 

13.  The complainant’s motivations have been consistent from the start of the process: to seek reconciliation, to restore a harmonious relationship between the priest‐in‐charge and laity, to strengthen ministry, and to build on past accomplishments.

 

14.  The complainant’s efforts for St. James’ have been transparent from the start.

 

[1] See Appendix B.

[2] See Appendix G.

[3] See Appendix H.

[4] See Appendix I.

[5] See Appendix G.

[6] See Appendix C.