Telling delegates that he had publicly refrained from addressing the issues (the Ct. Six had petitioned for AEO in May 2004) and kept them "in house" for fear of public attacks from those (orthodox parishes) which did not support their cause. Smith then launched into a tirade against the orthodox parishes, promising them no quarter in their desire to be rid of his heavy revisionist hand.

"Let me be clear: I cannot and will not grant a status - alternative episcopal oversight -- that is not permitted by the canons of our Church. Again, let me be clear: I have never spoken of or offered "settlement" in any conversation, public or private. "Settlement" is language of the law courts, introduced by their attorney. Reconciliation is the language of Christ. We are people of Christ, and my hope has been and is for reconciliation."

The bishop then laid out his thinking, ripping into the Ct. Six: "The basic issues - diocesan episcopal oversight of these parishes, and the obedience of the rectors to their ordination vows -- have not changed to this day. In their letter to me of May 2004, the clergy and lay leaders of these parishes named "alternative" or "adequate" episcopal oversight as their expectation, and outlined in detail what alternative episcopal oversight would mean to them. It is clear, as I have said over and over, that their demands lie outside any possibility for the Episcopal Church. To put it another way, were a bishop to accede to their conditions, he or she would have failed to uphold the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church."

"Within our polity there are two alternatives for the five congregations and their rectors: Either live in compliance with the Church's Constitution and Canons which means serving in communion with the Diocese of Connecticut and our bishops - which still includes the offering of delegated episcopal pastoral oversight; Or leave this church."

"Rather than choose either of those options, this small group of parishes, clearly with support from outside this diocese, chose to initiate legal and ecclesiastical action against the bishop and other members of our diocese on several fronts. Our response has required significant time, energy, and financial resources during this past year, and it certainly has diverted us from full attention to the nurture of our diocesan life and witness."

"They have brought three actions against us: First, A suit in federal court primarily over the matter of Saint John's Church, Bristol; second, Charges placed before the Presiding Bishop challenging my use of canons in the actions I took to remove the leadership of Saint John's; and third, An appeal to the Archbishop of Canterbury for consideration of their request for alternative episcopal oversight by the Archbishop's Panel of Reference."

"The Archbishop of Canterbury withdrew the complaint from the Panel of Reference because the petitioners had also initiated civil and ecclesiastical litigation. The Archbishop and the Panel reasoned that the civil and ecclesiastical suits seek judgment through adversarial action, whereas the purpose of the Panel of Reference is to seek reconciliation."

"Because the complainants pursue litigation, the Archbishop will not consider their complaint. Six months after the filing, the federal suit and its accompanying motions were dismissed in their entirety by Judge Arterton in late August."

"The ecclesiastical charges currently are in the hands of the Review Committee for the Ecclesiastical Court for the Trial of a Bishop. This month investigating attorneys for the Review Committee conducted several days of extensive interviews here in Connecticut, and they plan to continue with more investigative interviews later this month. At some time in the future those attorneys will report to the Review Committee, who then must decide whether to bring Presentment, which then would bring a trial in a court of the Episcopal Church. At this time, contrary to statements issued by the American Anglican Council and others, I am not under Presentment."

"We are not before the Panel of Reference, the federal case has been dismissed, and the ecclesiastical charges remain under investigation."

"For these past two years the five parishes and their clergy have continued to enjoy the benefits of The Episcopal Church while at the same time they refuse to contribute to our life and mission and they continue to pursue their own agenda. To turn a simile, it's been a little like flying an airplane, while some of the crew are working to dismantle it."

Smith said the agenda of the Ct. Six both in the press and in private communications through their spokespersons have continually misrepresented the issues and impugned his motives and character.

"They refuse to support our common mission and life financially: in 2005, of the five parishes, two parishes contributed nothing toward our diocesan budget, and for the other three the contribution average for the year was $430.00. They have refused to fulfill their canonical requirements to enable the bishops' visitations. In one instance their members were stopped from receiving communion in a diocesan pre-convention meeting."

Smith accused orthodox members from the five congregations of visiting other parishes to recruit "converts." " They held a service and a public rally on the grounds of the state capitol in which they denounced "false shepherds." The numerous allegations, complaints and motions, each of which we have had to answer, to date have cost us more than $350,000 in legal fees."

"Without even the courtesy of a call, much less seeking permission, they have invited breakaway bishops into our diocese for meetings and public events. Some of the clergy themselves are featured speakers at convocations which advocate the division of this church," he said.

The bishop publicly accused them of enjoying the benefits of belonging to the diocese, saying they purchase insurance coverage under diocesan plans for the health and life of their clergy and liability coverage for property and casualty claims.

"They continue to make contributions to the Church Pension Fund of the Episcopal Church for the future benefit of their clergy. They profit from tax privileged status under our diocesan exemption (which exemption they also have challenged in court). They have the ability to attend and participate and vote at this Convention. They have the privilege of unfettered use of property held in trust for the mission and ministry of the very diocese and bishop whom they repudiate."

Smith cited several new incidents in recent weeks.

"The five clergy and their lay leaders have now appealed the federal decision by Judge Arterton. Addressing the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York, they are seeking a reversal of Judge Arterton's ruling and in that appeal they seek damages of five million dollars. We will defend against that appeal.

"Second, last week the lead attorney for these members of our diocese sent a message to the attorneys representing us to give notice that they plan to file a new suit in Connecticut's Superior Court. In that same message there followed a lengthy demand that the bishop reach settlement with the plaintiffs. Settlement? Settle what? Settle with us or we sue? That sounds like a threat to me, in the way of the world, unworthy of Christ.

"Third, on October 12, in an article about the litigation in the Darien News a priest from one of the five parishes was quoted, "I would tell the bishop that if he was to let us remain Anglican we would drop the pending lawsuit and call it a draw." Wait a minute. First of all, we are Anglican. Whatever anyone else may say, or hope, we are Anglicans, you and I, and that's because we are the Episcopal Diocese of Connecticut, a member diocese of The Episcopal Church, a member church of the Anglican Communion.

"All along I thought the pending lawsuit was principally about Saint John's Bristol. Now we understand that they are willing to drop the charges concerning Saint John's if they get what they seek for themselves?

"It now appears that the legal actions are not the main event, but tactics intended to cost us and back us into a corner and bully us into submission. Makes me think of the little book "Hardball on Holy Ground". All this activity appears purposefully designed to bring this diocese to our knees. Is this really a matter of winning and losing or "calling it a draw"? And this is of Jesus?

"We are well aware of the canonical actions that are available to the diocese. They are serious. We have been patient.. We continue to hold open the door. Yet it is time to say, Enough. The passive nonsupport and the active sabotage of the diocese by the leaders of these five congregations and those who support them from the outside are a scandal in the community and before the Lord, and they cannot continue."

Then Smith ripped into the clergy and members of the five congregations demanding they make a decision one way or another.

"Perhaps in your mind or in meetings some of you already have made the decision to leave this church. Perhaps you are caught in this fray. It is time for your yes be yes, and your no be no. If one church, or two churches, or all five churches will return to the life and mission and communion of this Church, and, clergy, if you will honor your ordination vows, the door is wide open. If you cannot tolerate the life and openness of The Episcopal Church, then honorably move on. Above all, stop the whining and the destructive behavior which diminish all of us and the Lord Jesus."

Smith then publicly stated his total support for the diocese and the Episcopal Church's pro-gay agenda.

"The issues are whether this church will accept as full and valued members persons who are followers of Jesus and who are [non-celibate] gay and lesbian. We are divided by theology and experience, and we hold different perspectives and some of us hold those perspectives very strongly. For many years we have been living uneasily with the divisions, and the controversy has caused pain and anguish on all sides, on all sides. There has been no movement on the question within the Anglican Communion, certainly no movement to consensus."

"I believe in my heart and soul that it is time for this church, this diocese, formally to acknowledge and support and bless our sisters and brothers who are gay and lesbian, including those who are living in faithful and faith-filled committed partnerships, as followers of Jesus and faithful members of the Church."

Smith publicly admitted that when he became diocesan bishop seven years ago, he modified the Connecticut policy that had been in place, so that as of 1999, same-sex orientation and a committed same-sex partnership no longer would in themselves disqualify a person from being ordained or placed in a pastoral cure in the Diocese of Connecticut. The next year the Bishop and Diocesan Executive Council extended health benefits to same-sex partners. The reality of same-sex relationships came squarely into the public eye with the election and consecration of Bishop Robinson in 2003, and again with the surprising passage of the law for civil unions in Connecticut in 2005.

"I believe that it is time for us to re-think, re-pray and re-form our theology and our pastoral practices, to welcome, recognize, support and bless the lives and faith of brothers and sisters who are gay and lesbian in the equal fullness of Christian fellowship."

On reading his speech Fr. Ron Gauss, one of the Ct. Six and rector of Bishop Seabury Church in Groton for 30 years, had this to say: "Bishop Smith was [clearly] using us as a lead into his granting permission to Blessing Domestic Partners. The bishop's presentation is a skewed version of the truth."

The Rev. Christopher Leighton, rector of the evangelical/charismatic church, St. Paul's, Darien, one of the largest parishes in the diocese, responded to the bishop's blast telling VOL, "We all know that the theological conflict has been going on for many years. There has been no place in Connecticut for disagreement with the administration. The more inclusive they become, the more marginalized we are. I feel like I can identify with the people of Poland, who were blamed by the Germans, and then invaded by them. All along, the game being played is "blame the victim", unless +Smith cries out that he is a victim. But he has never been a victim, in the sense that he has all the power and authority of his office, and he makes his choices. All of the trouble in Connecticut that he likes to blame on us is really a result of the actions he has taken for seven years as diocesan. It is interesting that, in his speech, after excoriating the Connecticut Six, he reveals the further trajectory of his agenda all along, which is to bless same-sex unions. After such a tirade, very few will dare to disagree."

Said Leighton: "As far as his comment on lawsuits, presentments, and settlements, there has never been an authentic desire on his part to meet with us and sit down to discuss anything. All of our actions have been defensive. By the grace of God, we have been able to stand together as the Connecticut Six. But, we are also on the move, and are quite excited about what God has next for us."

And this is precisely why the Ct. 6 and all orthodox Episcopalians in the TEC will never accede to bishops like Smith who would change the received teaching of the church, and it is why, contrary to what Bishop Smith says, the Global South will never tolerate such innovations, and they are prepared to put into place a new structure that will accommodate orthodox dioceses, priests and parishes like the Ct. Six.

The only issue now is how this is to be done with respect to property ownership, and that, it would seem, will have to be played out in the civil courts.

END