You have also caused harm to the order and discipline of our church by your blatant rejection of another diocese's disciplinary action.

Our Chancellor, our President of our Standing Committee and I refute your contention that I and our Standing Committee have misapplied Title IV, Canon 10.

Five years of restraint and six months of due process were generously offered this errant priest. During this time he was given every opportunity to demonstrate that he had not abandoned the communion of the Episcopal Church.

More than five years ago this priest led his congregation out of the Episcopal Church. No action was taken at that time in the hope that reconciliation could one day be achieved or that this priest might receive a call to another diocese of the Episcopal Church and could canonically be transferred there.

After five years and when neither of these hopes was realized, the Standing Committee and bishop had no alternative but to enforce the canons of the Church. The Standing Committee's determination was based on the following grounds:

1. Gene Geromel had led his congregation out of the Diocese and the Episcopal Church.
2. He has acknowledged that he is out of communion with his bishop.
3. He has shown no sign of wanting to return to the Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Eastern Michigan as a priest in good standing.
4. He has not participated in the Councils of the Church in the Diocese of Michigan for over five years. Prior to signing the letter of deposition I read the following statement:

"On February 6, 2000, The Rev. Gene Geromel and the congregation of St. Bartholomew's Episcopal Church voted with a vote exceeding two Thirds of their communicant population to leave the Episcopal Church.

The occasion for the vote was preceded by a one-year dialogue between members of St. Bart's vestry and members of the Diocese's Standing Committee. The prearranged understanding was that if the adult members were to cast a vote in excess of two thirds of their communicant population, the Diocese would sell the Church buildings and Rectory to the congregation at market value.

"A year prior to the vote, members of the congregation formed a legal entity, PECUSA, INC. without informing the diocese. In the year prior to the February 6, 2000 vote, the congregation defaulted completely in giving their diocesan tithe, in violation of diocesan canons.

The Rev. Geromel also publicly refused to receive the Bread and Wine of Holy Communion from the bishop of Eastern Michigan for more then a year up to the time of the vote stating that that he was not in communion with his bishop "The St. Bart's buildings, owned by the diocese, were sold to St. Bart's in due course, and St. Bart's became a church not recognized by the Episcopal Church. "In an act of generosity the bishop offered Gene the opportunity to remain a priest in the diocese as a licensed clergyman serving an ecumenical Church.

In order for The Rev. Geromel to be licensed he had to agree to abide by the Constitution and Canons of the church and his ordination vows in which he pledged obedience to, and remain in communion with his bishop. The Rev. Geromel said he could not do this in due conscience: hence the license was never granted.

"Consequently, in another act of hopeful reconciliation the bishop withheld a deposition process for a five year period with the clearly stated outcome that the Rev. Geromel might someday "return" to the Episcopal Church, or to a day when there might be a canonically appropriate way for Geromel to transfer to another duly recognized Anglican jurisdiction that was recognized by the Archbishop of Canterbury.

The House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church has upheld a long standing principle that a priest can only be transferred to another Diocese if they are called to physically work and live in that Diocese. A Priest may not function in a diocese other than their own without the other diocese's bishop's permission. "During these past five years, Geromel filed three annual reports to the bishop of Eastern Michigan where he had the fragile standing of a 'priest-not-in-good- standing' who may not function sacramentally in any Episcopal Church in Eastern Michigan.

Also during this period of time the bishop has once given permission to the Rt. Rev. Keith Ackerman, the bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Quincy, to visit St. Bartholomew's. Bishop Ackerman and the Bishop of Eastern Michigan had a standing agreement (which is know to Geromel) that he is welcome in Eastern Michigan as long as he sought prior permission and reported his activities to the bishop of Eastern Michigan.

"In January 2005, five years after St. Bartholomew's separation from the Episcopal Church, the Standing Committee of the diocese asked the bishop to finalize its relations with Geromel by issuing a six-month inhibition, during which time if Geromel did not reaffirm his communal status with the bishop, a letter of deposition would be served. The charge for the inhibition is that Geromel had abandoned the Communion of the Episcopal Church. Geromel made no attempt to deny the charges or change his stance of defiant relationship to the diocese."

As you all well know there is no satisfaction in issuing a deposition. Such matters ought never to be done in haste or without prayer. As you take the time to get know us better, I trust you will come to understand that Eastern Michigan is a diverse diocese where patience and prayer are abundantly practiced, I believe that the mission of our Church will be much better served if we who hold the sacred office of bishop refrain from public-paraded, instantaneous judgments and automatic condemnations. You all remain in my prayers as I trust I am in yours. May we together serve the blessed Trinity in unity, peace and love, and thereby become a sign of hope to our broken world.

Together in Christ,

Edwin M. Leidel, Jr.
Bishop of Eastern Michigan