TWO complaints under canon law have been filed against nine bishops in the Episcopal Church in the United States. Both complaints were connected to property litigation in two dioceses.

The complaints involve five serving and four retired bishops. Some of the bishops confirmed the existence of the complaints - which have been lodged under the new Title IV disciplinary canons - to their dioceses and congregations on Sunday; others released details on their blogs.

A spokeswoman for the Episcopal Church said that disciplinary matters should be kept confidential, and she declined to comment.

The first notification of complaint was sent by the intake officer for the Episcopal Church, Bishop Clayton Matthews, to the former Bishop of South Carolina, the Rt Revd Edward Salmon; the former Bishop of Springfield, the Rt Revd Peter Beckwith; and the Bishop of Western Louisiana, the Rt Revd Bruce MacPherson.

In that letter, Bishop Matthews said that he would initiate a disciplinary process against the bishops after complaints about "your action in signing affidavits" in proceedings regarding the diocese of Quincy.

This relates to their opposition to the diocese of Quincy, and the Episcopal Church's motion for a summary judgment to secure assets from a group that broke away from the diocese in 2008.

Bishop Matthews was appointed as intake officer - under the new disciplinary canons, which came into force last year - by the Presiding Bishop, Dr Katharine Jefferts Schori.

The Title IV canons state that the process begins when a complaint is sent to the intake officer, who can then investigate, and before a detailed written report is drawn up.

Bishop Matthews has also sent emails to seven bishops - Bishop MacPherson; the retired Bishop of Texas, the Rt Revd Maurice Benitez; the retired Bishop of Central Florida, the Rt Revd John Howe; the Bishop of Dallas, the Rt Revd James Stanton; the Suffragan Bishop of Dallas, the Rt Revd Paul Lambert; the Bishop of Albany, the Rt Revd William Love; and the Bishop of Springfield, the Rt Revd Daniel Martins - telling them that they will also be subject to disciplinary procedures.

In this case, Bishop Matthews wrote, it related to "your action in filing of Amicus Curiae Brief in the pending appeal in the Supreme Court of Texas in opposition to The Episcopal Diocese of Texas and The Episcopal Church".

An amicus curiae brief is a third-party submission offered as a "friend" of the court. The seven bishops endorsed a brief from the Anglican Communion Institute in the pending appeal of a court ruling that involved the diocese of Fort Worth, and the bishop, clergy, and laity who broke away in 2008. The brief objected to the court's ruling that all property should be returned to the diocese.

The Anglican Communion Institute said that the bishops had signed up because they were concerned that the court ruling had "misunderstood and thereby damaged the constitutional structure of the Episcopal Church".

Bishop Love told his diocese: "In the letter, Bishop Matthews states, 'As the Intake Officer for the Church, I am obliged to inform you that a complaint has been received against you for your action in filing of Amicus Curiae Brief in the pending appeal in the Supreme Court of Texas in opposition to The Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth and The Episcopal Church. In the next few weeks, I will initiate a disciplinary process according to Title IV Canon 6 Sec. 3 & 4 of the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church.'

"To date, I have not seen a copy of the 'complaint', nor do I know who issued it, or what it says. While Bishop Matthews has informed me that he has received a 'complaint' against me and the other six bishops, dealing with our participation in the above-mentioned amicus curiae brief, at this point, I have not been officially charged with anything, and may not be, depending on the outcome of the initial investigation of the 'complaint'."

Bishop Martins of Springfield said that he was distressed that the General Convention, which runs from 5 to 12 July, was to be "complicated" by the filing of these complaints. He said that he opposed "litigating church disputes in secular court".