Posted on 05/29/2006 6:39:53 PM PDT by sionnsar
PHILADELPHIA, PA (5/27/2006)--When bishop-elect V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire declared before several thousand Episcopalians that he would uphold the faith, he failed to tell them that he had a serious drinking problem and was in fact an alcoholic.
Now we have the specter of another bishop, the Rt. Rev. Mark Andrus, Suffragan Bishop of Alabama with a past that he won't talk about.
In the early '90s he was a curate at the Church of the Redeemer on Philadelphia's historic Main Line which involved in a shake-up resulting in both he and the Rev. Bruce Jacobson leaving the parish, but not before confidentiality agreements were made by the rector the Rev. Bruce Jacobson and then PA. Bishop Allen Bartlett.
When VOL first learned of the story in 2001 (after Andrus had left Redeemer,) I phoned the bishop in Alabama to ask about the charges. At the time Andrus broke down and said this was a horrible time in his life and please spare me this embarrassment. VOL did not pursue the story.
At the time of his departure from Redeemer, the Rev. Bruce Jacobson was rector of Redeemer but for only two weeks. He was asked to resign by Bishop Bartlett one week before his formal institution, and according to Jacobson he found another parish, St. John's in Bala Cynwyd.
All parties agreed upon a "confidentiality agreement" not to reveal what happened.
Jacobson resigned and took up as rector at St. John's, in Bala Cynwyd, another parish in the Diocese of Pennsylvania where he remained as rector till he retired to New England.
VOL called Andrus in Alabama where he is now suffragan bishop, and asked that if he had nothing to hide, would he allow Jacobson and Bartlett to lift the confidentiality agreement. Here is what he said: "Regarding the confidentiality agreement with Allen Bartlett and Bruce Jacobson; I cannot lift that. I can say that I did nothing wrong and I have nothing to hide."
VOL then called Bishop Bartlett and was told that a confidentiality agreement did indeed exist, but when pressed for details, he said he had "no comment." He also said he believed that he saw no impediment to Andrus being consecrated the next Bishop of California.
A call to the Rev. Bruce Jacobson was met with a polite refusal, and the hope that this writer would not press the issue. He did acknowledge that a confidentiality agreement had been signed. He refused to talk about the details of either his or Andrus's departure.
VOL again called Bishop Andrus with the following questions:
1. When Jacobson arrived at Church of the Redeemer and before he was fully installed as rector, did you make any allegations about him?
2. If so, what were the allegations and to whom?
3. What were the circumstances of your leaving the Church of the Redeemer?
4. Does Jacobson have any information relevant to your fitness to serve as bishop of California?
5. Does Bishop Bartlett?
6. Who has the authority to have the confidentiality restriction lifted?
7. Would you like to see it lifted?
Andrus returned the call again reiterating that he would not reveal what had happened at Redeemer and refused to allow any of the parties to lift the confidentiality agreement. "No formal allegations were ever made," he told VOL. In 2001 he described the events as "painful." He also said that anyone who claims to know what happened were not party to what actually happened and therefore it would be "rumor". "They were not first party to what happened and therefore they don't know," he told VOL. "There is nothing there that would challenge my claim to being fit for the job in California."
However, when Andrus was elected Suffragan Bishop of Alabama, VOL was advised that the Standing Committee of the Diocese of PA refused to give its consent.
Based on what has since transpired with Bishop V. Gene Robinson, there is no basis any more for secrecy in the Church. It is unacceptable. The people of the Episcopal Church have the right to know, so, in particular does the Diocese of California.
Traditional Anglican ping, continued in memory of its founder Arlin Adams. The bishop-elect did admit that something had occurred. There's reason to be concerned when there is "a shake-up resulting in both he [sic] and the Rev. Bruce Jacobson leaving the parish, but not before confidentiality agreements were made." It might be perfectly innocuous as regards his new position -- or it might not.
I know nothing of Bishop Bartlett, with whom this agreement was made, so I can't say further. If he were a bishop like, say, John-David Schofield, I'd drop the matter in a flash. If he were another Spong, I'd be very concerned.
With something like this (whatever it was), Andrus would have been much wiser not to run.
The bishop-elect did admit that something had occurred. There's reason to be concerned when there is "a shake-up resulting in both he [sic] and the Rev. Bruce Jacobson leaving the parish, but not before confidentiality agreements were made." It might be perfectly innocuous as regards his new position -- or it might not.
I know nothing of Bishop Bartlett, with whom this agreement was made, so I can't say further. If he were a bishop like, say, John-David Schofield, I'd drop the matter in a flash. If he were another Spong, I'd be very concerned.
With something like this (whatever it was), Andrus would have been much wiser not to run.
It is obvious from your previous postings that you don't much care for the bishop-elect...but take a look at the other choices; personally, I would rather have a religious progressive in the spirit of Christ than a "don't give a damn if you think the homosexual or fornication act is sin" lesbian, gay or libertine.
I think you're reading way too much into this.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.