From YBYHAMK@ip3gate.usa.comMon Feb 26 11:21:18 1996
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 1996 16:58:01 -0500
From: YBYHAMK@ip3gate.usa.com
To: LCREW@andromeda.rutgers.edu
Subject: Part 3

THE TRIAL OF BISHOP WALTER RIGHTER
A FACT SHEET
Presented by Integrity, Inc.

3.	What did the Bishops say in 1994 in their Pastoral Study
Document?

A.	Continuing the Dialogue: A Pastoral Study Document of the
House of Bishops to the Church as the Church Considers Issues of
Human Sexuality offers no specific directives or rules on ordination of
non-celibate lesbians and gay men or on the blessing of same-sex
unions.

	The Pastoral Study Document on sexuality is a response to a
directive to the House of Bishops by the 1991 General Convention
(Resolution A104s/a) which called on the House of Bishops to develop a
"pastoral teaching" on the subject.

	Unlike a pastoral letter, which is canonically required to be read in
all parishes, a pastoral teaching is an attempt to summarize where the
church is at at a given time on a specific subject.  A pastoral teaching
does not claim to be a definitive exposition of the church's position on an
issue.  By downgrading the pastoral to a study document, the bishops
apparently meant it to have even less significance than a teaching.

	The section on Scripture addresses the seven passages alleged
to refer to homosexual practices (Genesis 19:1-29, Leviticus 18:22 and
20:13, Romans 1:18-32, I Corinthians 6:9 and I Timothy 1:10, Mark 10:6-8)
and describes differing interpretations of those passages.  In the
introduction to this section, the study document admits "that there is
significant disagreement among us as to how Scripture is to be used and
interpreted as we seek to apply it to this complex subject."

	The chapter on "discontinuities" focuses on "the experience of
those who have received God's gift of sexuality but are outside the
covenant of marriage," presenting the challenge of finding an appropriate
pastoral response to those who are single, whether young or old, and to
those who are gay or lesbian.

	One comment is that "there is no convincing evidence that
homosexuals who are 5 and 6 on the Kinsey scale can be truly
reoriented."

	The study document advocates a compassionate and pastoral
approach to unmarried persons in the sixth guideline.  While asserting
that "we believe sexual relationships reach their fullest potential for good
and minimize their capacity for ill when in the context of chaste, faithful,
and committed lifelong unions between husband and wife," it also goes
on to state: "There are those who believe this is as true for homosexual
as for heterosexual relationships, and that such relationships need and
should receive the pastoral care of the church."

	In the eighth guideline, the study document acknowledges that
"certain discontinuities exist, in human sexuality as well as in other
areas, between the standards and norms set forth by the church's
teaching and the experience of a number of the church's members." 
Such discontinuities, it states, "do not interrupt the communion we
share," and the church should "respond pastorally to those persons
whose sexual behavior does not conform to the traditional standards
and norms of the church."

	In the course of the debate on the Pastoral Study Document,
Bishop Peter Lee of Virginia moved to amend the resolution approving the
study document -- not the document itself.  His amendment, which was
approved, added these words to the main resolution: "...that the House
of Bishops, affirming the teaching of the church that the normative
context of sexual intimacy is lifelong heterosexual, monogamous
marriage and pursuing our Anglican tradition of historic truth
encountering contemporary life, offers Continuing the Dialogue..." to the
wider church.

	It is significant, however, that the bishops who initiated the
presentment against Bishop Righter generally opposed the Lee
amendment.  Bishop John MacNaughton of West Texas, a consenter,
spoke against the Lee amendment, preferring to specify "heterosexual
marriage" as the "norm," asserting that it countered "the perception, if not
the reality, that the teaching, the normative teaching of the church, is
now being changed."

	"It's evident we're not prepared to teach much of anything,
because we disagree on the meaning of so many words," said Bishop
William Frey, then Dean of the right-wing Trinity School for Ministry.
"We've been doing theology in a Hegellian fashion for so long that the
center keeps shifting.  Today I can say 'Jesus is Lord' and that's the
thesis.  Someone else can say 'Jesus is not Lord' and that's the
antithesis.  The Anglican via media then becomes 'Jesus is occasionally
Lord,'"  Frey said, drawing laughter.  "I would like a clear admission that
we are unclear."

	Following the vote, accuser Bishop Maurice M. Benitez of Texas
said that "the pastoral guidelines [in] the pastoral study document are
vague and confusing" and that they will allow "widespread and differing
interpretation by bishops and dioceses, effectively allowing the blessing
of same-sex unions and the ordination of non-celibate homosexual
persons."

4.	Why did the accusers choose to charge Bishop Righter
with heresy?

A.	The reason was purely procedural.  It is unlikely that any of the
accusers actually believe that Bishop Righter's ordination of the Rev.
Barry Stopfel constituted heresy.  More likely, they believe that the
ordination violated the discipline of the church.  They have said on
numerous occasions that the issue is authority (i.e., discipline), not
homosexuality.

	There are a limited number of offenses which give rise to a
presentment and trial of a bishop.  These include 1) crime, 2) immorality,
3) heresy - "holding and teaching publicly or privately, and advisedly, any
doctrine contrary to that held by this Church," 4) violation of Prayer Book
rubrics (instructions), 5) violation of the national Constitution and Canons,
6) violation of diocesan canons, 7) an act which involves violation of
ordination vows, 8) habitual neglect of the exercise of the ministerial
office or of worship, and 9) conduct unbecoming a member of the
clergy. 

	There had been an effort in 1994 to bring a presentment against
another bishop who had ordained a non-celibate lesbian.  The charge
was that in so doing he had performed an act in violation of his ordination
vows.  Since ordinands at all three levels of ministry promise to uphold
the "doctrine, discipline and worship of the Church," this would be the
logical choice if you feel the discipline has been violated.  However,
charges were dismissed by the panel of bishops appointed by the
Presiding Bishop to review them.  The panel held that "there is no
provision of the Constitution or Canons of the church which prohibits the
ordination of homosexuals."

	If the committee appointed by the Presiding Bishop finds that
charges, if true, could constitute an offense, those bishops then appoint
a Board of Inquiry which also reviews the charges and decides whether
to issue a presentment.

	It was obvious to the accusers in this case that they could never
succeed in forcing a trial on the ordination of non-celibate lesbians and
gay men by alleging a violation of ordination vows.  There was,
however, one offense that did not require a bishops' committee and
Board of Inquiry to issue a presentment.  That charge is heresy.  Under
the canons covering this proceeding (as revised in 1991), the consents
of 25% of all the bishops of the church were sufficient to issue a
presentment.

	It is important to note that this rule was changed in an extensive
revision to Title IV of the Canons in 1994 (effective January 1, 1996). 
Any future charges would require both the consents of 25% of the
bishops and a review by a committee of bishops appointed by the
Presiding Bishop and a Board of Inquiry.  In addition, the statute of
limitations was reduced from five to two years.

	Bishop Wantland had long been frustrated.  He had threatened
presentments in the past but had abandoned his efforts before charges
were filed.  It was he who initiated the 1991 revisions to the Canons
which reduced the consent requirement from 2/3 to 25%.  (He had
requested zero.)  Following General Convention in 1994, however,
Bishop Wantland realized that the window of opportunity he had created
would be closed at the end of 1995.  He suggested to likeminded brother
bishops that they pursue a heresy charge since it could avoid the
"indictment" stage (the bishops' committee and Board of Inquiry), but they
had to act quickly to beat the changes in the Canons.  They also had to
act before one of their number retired since all ten must be diocesan
bishops.

5.	Have other bishops been charged with offenses based
on their support of the ordination of non-celibate lesbians and
gay men?

A:	Yes.

R. Stewart Wood, Jr. (1994) In a melodramatic moment at the General
Convention in 1994, charges were filed with the Presiding Bishop by six
priests and 29 lay people from two congregations of the Diocese of
Michigan claiming that the Rt. Rev. Stewart Wood, Jr., Bishop of
Michigan, violated his ordination vows and the church's Constitution and
Canons when he ordained an open non-celibate lesbian to the
priesthood.  The Rev. Jennifer Walters had been ordained to the
priesthood on August 18, 1994.  Bishop Wood had ordained her to the
diaconate in June 1993. 

	As required by the Canons, a committee of five bishops was
appointed by the Presiding Bishop to investigate charges.  All charges
were dismissed in a seven-page report issued November 7, 1994, after
a ten-week investigation.

	The committee's report pointed out that "there is no provision of
the Constitution or Canons of the church which prohibits the ordination of
homosexuals."  While concluding that "a General Convention resolution
carries the authority of the church and may be enforceable under the
Canons," the committee said that "to serve as the basis of canonical
disciplinary action," the resolution "must be clear in its intent to establish
doctrine or discipline."  It acknowledged that the 1979 General
Convention resolution that said it was "not appropriate" to ordain open
homosexuals was "a recommendation" and "not ordinarily understood to
be a mandatory directive." [The pertinent section of the 1979 resolution,
after all, begins: "... this General Convention recommend ..."]  "In short,
a majority of this committee believes that this resolution is only what it
purports to be: a statement of principle for the guidance of persons
involved in the ordination process.  It is not a statement of disciplinary
requirement for breach of which action may be taken under Title IV" of
the canons.

	During the pendency of the charges, Bishop Wood conducted the
ordination of another open non-celibate lesbian.

Ronald Haines (1991)  See Question 1.  The House of Bishops at
General Convention in 1991 declined to censure the Bishop of
Washington, the Rt. Rev. Ronald Haines, for his ordination of a
non-celibate lesbian, the Rev. Elizabeth Carl, to the priesthood in 1991. 
The motion to censure included both Bishops Haines and Righter.

John S. Spong (1987)  Charges that the Rt. Rev. John S. Spong, Bishop
of Newark, committed heresy by, inter alia, advocating the blessing of
same sex unions and the ordination of non-celibate lesbians and gays
were dismissed by a panel of seven bishops in October 1987.

	The charges, brought by the Society for the Preservation of the
1928 Book of Common Prayer, were dismissed because the clergy and
lay people bringing them were not bishops and therefore without
standing to bring heresy charges.

(1990) On December 16, 1989, in the glare of massive media attention,
Bishop Spong ordained an openly non-celibate gay man, the Rev. Robert
Williams, to the priesthood.   Almost immediately there were claims that
Spong would be charged with offenses, or, at the least, censured.

	This time another ultra-conservative group in the church, the
Episcopal Synod of America, threatened to "file the charges if Spong
does not resign voluntarily."  [Bishop Spong remains in office.  Four of
the ten accusers are members of the ESA.]

	Bishop Wantland told AP in early January 1990 that he and other
bishops planned to initiate a presentment against Bishop Spong, charging
him "with violating the church's doctrinal teachings."   Wantland said he
had "far more" than the ten needed to support a formal charge.  He
repeated this to UPI, adding, "Bishops from New York to California, from
Texas to Kansas, from Tennessee to Indiana are totally opposed to what
Bishop Spong did. There is a clear intent on the part of a large number of
bishops to bring this matter to a clear resolution."

	What happened?  Conservative columnist Mike McManus reported
in his syndicated column later in January 1990:

And conservatives backed away from beginning a formal process of
censure called a "presentment."  Wisconsin Bishop William Wantland
explained why: It would be a "tortuous two-year legislative process"
requiring a two-thirds vote of every living bishop including those in
nursing homes simply to indict Spong to hold a trial.  Even if convicted,
Spong could appeal to the whole body of bishops, demanding a second
two-thirds vote.  "And on a first offense he'd only be censured, not
removed from office."

Therefore, Wantland and others will short-circuit the process by going
right to the House of Bishops asking for censure of him at their meeting in
September.  "It does the same thing that a trial court would do, but a year
and a half earlier," said Wantland, who is an attorney.

Texas Bishop Maurice Benitez is even calling for a special meeting of the
House of Bishops.

	The Houston Post reported further on the position of Bishop
Benitez, another of the ten accusers:

At this point, I would prefer to see (the censure) action, if a sufficiently
strong  resolution  can be adopted," he said. "If not, then I have indicated
that I am willing to be one of the signatories in the filing of presentments
against Bishop Spong."

	No charges were ever brought against Bishop Spong under the
canons.  However, in February 1990, the Presiding Bishop and his
Council of Advice (nine bishops elected presidents or vice presidents of
the church's nine Provinces) issued a statement saying:

We regret the hurt and confusion caused for many members of the
church by the ordination and subsequent events.  We believe that good
order is not served when bishops, dioceses or parishes act unilaterally. 
As the Presiding Bishop and Council of Advice, we disassociate
ourselves from the action of the Standing Committee and the Bishop of
Newark in carrying out this ordination.

    At the same time, however, the statement stressed that the
dissociation from the ordination was not a separation from "the many
members of our church who are gay and lesbian."

Several conventions have affirmed and reaffirmed their God-given
dignity, in common with all members of the body of Christ.  We do the
same, and value their presence and their service within the church.