From YBYHAMK@ip3gate.usa.comMon Feb 26 11:23:06 1996
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 1996 17:08:18 -0500
From: YBYHAMK@ip3gate.usa.com
To: LCREW@andromeda.rutgers.edu
Subject: Part 5

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

7.	Do we know the position of any of the bishops on the
Court with respect to Bishop Righter's ordination of Barry
Stopfel?

A.	Yes.  During the debate at the House of Bishops meeting at
General Convention in July 1991, when a motion to censure Bishop
Righter (and Bishop Ronald Haines) was being debated, some who are
now members of The Court for the Trial of a Bishop spoke:

	Bishop Edward Jones of Indianapolis: "I know that Bishop
McAllister made his statement without malice, but that is not why I stand
here.  For reasons that are specifically pastoral, I must in conscience
add my name to the list of Righter and Haines."

	Bishop C. Cabell Tennis of Delaware: "I speak against censure,
for the same reasons that Bishop McAllister spoke for it.  In this situation,
we do not have clear boundaries; then there can be no offense.  If there
is no offense, it is totally unjust to censure someone.  The issue is not
homosexuality, nor whether acting or not acting; the issue is an issue of
accountability.  I think that the boundaries are simply not there."

	Bishop Andrew H. Fairfield of North Dakota: "My wife and I have
a conflict over homosexual behavior.  I think it is inappropriate; she has
no problem with it.  I offend her when I say something about it, because it
hurts people she cares about.  But the net effect is positive, because
she confronts me about it.  ...  This is an issue for the whole House. 
Spong is here, censured, but still belonging.  You are not driving them
out, but this is our way of saying 'You have done something that is an
offense to the way we act together.'  That is why I support censure." 
[Note: Bishop Spong has never been censured.]

	Bishop Roger J. White of Milwaukee: "In 1977 we did say that
the General Convention is the highest way we have to govern this
Church.  I am opposed to censure.  We must live with that tension
between what God wants us to be and what we are."

8.	Will there be additional trials?

A.	No.  The canonical changes effective in 1996 make it virtually
impossible to bring another action like this.  The Canons now require both
that 25% of the bishops concur and that a committee of bishops and a
Board of Inquiry review the charges.  The statute of limitations has also
been reduced to two years.  The claim by Bishop Wantland in his
January 27, 1995 cover letter to the Presiding Bishop that "it is our
intention to file Presentments against the next most recent offender, and
so on" is pure bluster.  The only way such an action could be brought
under the new Canons is if the right wing is able to maintain their 25%
(which is unlikely; many who consented have indicated they thought
they made a mistake) and a Presiding Bishop is elected who appoints a
committee in which those drawn from the conservative 25% represent a
majority.

9.	Has the Episcopal Church considered a moratorium on
ordinations of non-celibate lesbians and gay men?

A.	Motions for a moratorium have been brought before every
General Convention since 1985.  They have always been defeated.  The
fact that the conservatives continue to press for a moratorium on
ordinations of non-celibate lesbians and gay men (and that such
requests are always defeated) suggests that there is no rule extant
against such ordinations.

	The most recent consideration by the House of Bishops was
during General Convention in 1991.  The late Bishop George L. Reynolds
of Tennessee moved an amendment to the committee resolution on the
Stopfel and Carl ordinations calling for a moratorium in ordination of
"sexually active homosexual persons" for a period of three years (until
the 1994 General Convention) and demanding the deposition of any
Bishop who abrogated the moratorium.  This amendment was voted
down by a large majority of the House.  The amendment was resubmitted
with the expiration date changed to the next meeting of the House of
Bishops (March 1992).  This amendment met with the same fate as the
earlier one.

	The House of Deputies overwhelmingly rejected a moratorium in
1994.  On August 31, during the debate on Resolution B-012a which
established the committee on Dialogue on Human Sexuality, a clerical
deputy from Kansas moved to amend the resolution to add a three-year
moratorium on "the blessing of same-sex unions and the ordination of
practicing homosexuals" and that the moratorium be considered "part of
the discipline of this church."   This motion was defeated by a vote by
orders overwhelmingly in both orders - 88 No to 25 Yes in the Lay order;
84 to 30 in the clerical order.  (This was only 22% of the lay deputations
in favor and only 26% of the clerical deputations.)

	The moratorium's defeat was reported in the press and was
criticized by the Episcopal Synod of America at its post-convention
meeting in Indianapolis.  At least four of the accusers are members of the
ESA (Wantland, Schofield, Iker and Ackerman).  Episcopal News Service
reported on the meeting:

The Legislative Body of the Episcopal Synod of America met for several
days after the General Convention in Indianapolis and issued a statement
September 7 decrying the mood and inaction of the convention.  "We
were distressed by many of the highly publicized results of the General
Convention," the statement said, contending that the "general trend
against biblical morality was even more radical than we expected."  It
cited as evidence the rejection by the House of Deputies of "a
proposed moratorium on the ordination of practicing
homosexuals and the blessings of same-sex unions."  Any
bishops who advocate or participate in blessing such unions or ordaining
practicing homosexuals "have broken communion with us and have
placed themselves outside the household of faith until they repent of their
actions," the Legislative Body said.

10.	Is Bishop Righter really being charged with heresy?

A.	Absolutely yes.  Former Title IV, Canon 1, Section 1 (2), the canon
under which charges are brought here, states as an offense for which
a bishop may be tried:  "Holding and teaching publicly or privately, and
advisedly, any doctrine contrary to that held by this Church."  This is a
classic definition of the meaning of heresy.  The accusers on February
27 will be claiming that there is a doctrine of the Episcopal Church which
Bishop Righter has violated.

11.	Is homosexuality the real issue, or is it discipline?

A.	Clearly the question now before the court is one of doctrine, but
is it doctrine (and discipline and/or authority) in general, or specific
doctrine against the ordination of non-celibate lesbians and gay men? 
Although the House of Bishops was content in 1966 merely to censure
Bishop James A. Pike on the alleged grounds that he had denied the
Virgin Birth, the bodily ascension into heaven of Jesus, and the Trinity; in
1995, it voted to try Bishop Righter for heresy based on his interpretation
(together with that of all the bodies of the diocese having canonical
responsibility) of what constitutes a proper candidate for ordination.  If
doctrine is that which one must believe to remain a valid member of the
Church (or perhaps even for purposes of attaining salvation) it is curious
that the denial of ordination to non-celibate gay men and lesbians could
be considered more central to the Episcopal Church's teachings than is
belief in the Holy Trinity.  To lesbians and gay men, this sounds like
homophobia at work.

	Some of those who consented to the presentment may indeed
have felt that discipline and not homosexuality was the real issue, but it
doesn't paint a pretty picture of the Episcopal Church.  Bishop Edward
Salmon of South Carolina, a consenter, told the Commission on Human
Affairs, which he chairs, that the trial is not about homosexuality but
about polity.   Dr. Louie Crew, Integrity's founder and a member of the
commission asked, "Then are you saying that the Church is scapegoating
lesbians and gays?"  The bishop replied, "Yes."

	Dr. Crew later said:  "I hear absolutely no good news in the notion
that the trial is not really about homosexuals.  I hear only the world's
message -- this is the only group it's still safe to abuse."

12.	What is the doctrine of the Episcopal Church?

A.	Three times in this century the Episcopal Church has examined
this question with respect to the beliefs enunciated by bishops.  In the
first two instances, the issues had to do with core beliefs (e.g., the
nature of Christ) and not with the Church's moral teachings.  There is a
single precedent dealing with the issues now before this court, and in
that instance there was held to be no doctrine against the ordination of
non-celibate lesbians and gay men.

	When this question was last widely discussed in the Episcopal
Church, it was 1966 and certain bishops where considering initiating a
heresy presentment against Bishop James A. Pike, the Resigned Bishop
of California.  At that time, no one suggested that the doctrine of the
Episcopal Church consisted of every General Convention resolution or
the entirety of the Bible, as the accusers here suggest.  Rather, even the
most conservative bishops suggested that the doctrine was contained in
the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds, and perhaps in the Prayer Book.

	Thus in 1966 the accusing bishops were in agreement with the
1924 Court of Review of a Trial of a Bishop which, in considering the
appeal of Bishop William  Montgomery Brown's heresy conviction,
defined the "doctrine of the Church" as the "articles of faith" which "must
be accepted by all members of the Church."

	The Presentment of Bishop Brown made explicit reference to the
"Doctrine" that is "held by the Protestant Episcopal Church, as contained
in the Book of Common Prayer and especially in the Apostles' and Nicene
Creeds."

	The accusers would have us believe that in the last 31 years, the
doctrine of the Episcopal Church has grown exponentially to include all
General Convention resolutions (presumably since 1789) and the entire
Bible (including the Apocrypha?).  This alleged expansion is obviously
the product of desperation.  Even the accusers would admit that the
Creeds and the Prayer Book are silent on issues of homosexuality. 
Therefore, they must expand the concept of "doctrine".

	The last group of bishops which examined this question (with
regard to Bishop Stewart Wood's ordination of a non-celibate lesbian in
1994) did not explain what the doctrine of the Episcopal Church is on
ordinations.  Instead, they held 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 said that the 1979 General Convention
resolution that "recommend[ed]" it was "not appropriate" to ordain
non-celibate lesbians and gay men was what it said it was - "a
recommendation" -- and "not ordinarily understood to be a mandatory
directive."  "In short, a majority of this committee believes that this
resolution is only what it purports to be: a statement of principal 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.