Brief in Support of the Presentment
Brief in Support of the Presentment
Send mail to: lcrew@andromeda.rutgers.edu
IN THE COURT FOR THE TRIAL OF A BISHOP
JAMES M. STANTON, et. al.,
PRESENTERS
-v-
WALTER C. RIGHTER,
RESPONDENT.
BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PRESENTMENT
William C. Wantland, for himself, and for James M. Stanton, et. al.,
Presenters, for the Brief in Support of the Presentment against Walter
C. Righter, Respondent, sets forth the following matters and
authorities:
Introduction
The Presentment outlines the facts alleged by Presenters to be true
concerning the actions and teachings of Respondent. Proof of these
facts will be presented at the trial of this action.
This Brief outlines the law applicable to those facts. There are four
questions to be determined by the law of the Church. They are:
1. What is Doctrine?
2. What specifically is the Doctrine of this Church concerning the
ordination of homosexuals?
3. What constitutes teaching Doctrine contrary to that of the Church?
4. What constitutes an act in violation of ordination vows?
Having answmered these four questions, Presenters submit the
Conclusion that the teaching of Respondent and his action in ordaining
Barry L. Stopfel constitute violations of Canons IV.1.1(2) and (6).
Doctrine
In order to understand what is meant by ``doctrine,'' it will be
necessary to distinguish between ``doctrine'' and ``discipline,''
especially in regard to the ordination vows.
The Biblical Encyclopedia, edited by the Rt. Rev. Samuel Fellows, 1907
edition, Volume No. I, defines ``doctrine'' as coming from the Hebrew
words in the Old Testament and Greek in the New: ``(1) Leh'kakh
(samething received), instruction; (2) Mo-sav-raw', correction,
chastisement; (3) Shem-oo-aw' (something heard, and so an
announcement), proclamation, preaching; (4) Generally in the New
Testament doctrine is from Greek did-as'ko, to teach, but once it is
the rendering of lo'gos, something spoken, instruction.''
The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, Abingdon Press, 1962,
Volume No. I, simply defines ``doctrine'' by referring to Volume No.
IV, ``teaching.'' ``Teaching'' is defined as ``instruction or
exhortation on various aspects of Christian life and thought,
addressed to men already won by the missionary preaching in order to
strengthen them.''
Webster's New World Dictionary, Second College Edition, 1970, likewise
defines ``doctrine'': 1. something taught; teachings 2. something
taught as the principles or creed of a religion.
Where may the doctrines of the Church be found? According to
Philimore's Ecclesiastical Law, Second Edition, Volume No. II,
Offenses of the Clergy, in cases decided in the Church of England, the
doctrine of the Church was found in (1) Holy Scripture (Kings Proctor
v. Stone, 1 Consist. 424); (2) the Articles of Religion (ibid); (3)
the Creeds (Wilson v. Fendall, 2 Moo. P.C.C., N.S. 375) and (4)
Formularies of the Church, that is, pronouncements of Church teaching
(ibid).
The same sort of things are listed in the trial report of William
Montgomery Brown, tried and convicted of teaching contrary to the
doctrine of The Episcopal Church in 1924. White and Dykman's Annotated
Constitution and Canons, Volume I, First Edition, cites the Book of
Common Prayer, the Apostles' Creed, and the Nicene Creed as three
places where the doctrine of the Church may be found. The Appellate
Court for the Review of the Trial of a Bishop, in that case, held that
``doctrine'' was the teaching of the Church. As White and Dykman
stated:
The great importance of this case as a precedent lies, we believe,
in the ruling that an Ecclesiastical Court may take judicial notice
of the doctrines of the Church as law, in other words, the
establishment of a lex credendi, which ruling having the approval of
the House of Bishops in this case would seem to have all sanction
possible in the absence of an Ultimate Court of Appeal.
At least since 1603, the Church of England has required an ordination
vow from the ordinand to support the doctrine and worship of the
Church (Canon 36, Canons of 1603).
In 1789, The Episcopal Church adopted a provision in the then Article
7 of the Church Constitution, providing for an ordination vow ``to
conform to the doctrines and worship'' of the Church as previously
provided by the Church of England. In 1901, Article 7 was amended and
renumbered Article VIII. The amendment now called those ordained or
consecrated to promise ``to conform to the Doctrine, Discipline, and
Worship'' of the Church.
White and Dyman's Annotated Constitution and Canons, Second Edition,
Volume I, points out that the addition of ``discipline'' means
obedience to the Constitution and Canons, in addition to the previous
oath of obedience to the ``doctrine'' of the Church:
The introduction of the word ``Discipline'' in 1901, making the
pledge of conformity one to ``the Doctrine, Discipline, and
Worship'' of this Church extends the ordination vow to obedience to
the provisions of the Constitution and Canons.
This, of course, implies that doctrine is not to be found in the
canons. That is the source of discipline. The doctrine, or teaching of
the Church, is to be found in the various formularies of the Church,
as seen above.
It therefore follows that ``doctrine'' is the teaching of the Church
as contained in pronouncements and formularies approved by Church
bodies, and that ``doctrine'' is distinct from the ``discipline'' or
canon law of the Church. Further, as reflected in the Brown trial,
matters approved by the House of Bishops as to doctrine have the
highest sanction possible.
Doctrine Concerning Ordination of Homosexuals
The teaching of the Church as approved by the House of Bishops in
regard to the ordination of homosexuals is fond in two actions of the
House taken at the special meeting of 1977. The first was the approval
of a statement prepared by the Committee on Theology, which proclaims:
Bishops . . . as guides for prospective ordinands and as the
ordaining minister, have encountered in the past, and may in the
future encounter, persons seeking ordination who acknowledge their
homosexual behavior.
* * *
With respect to the question of ordaining homosexuals, it is crucial
to distinguish between (a) an advocating and/or practicing (willful
and habitual) homosexual and, (b) one with a dominant homosexual
orientation only.
In the case of an advocating and/or practicing homosexual,
ordination is inadmissable; First, because ordination is a corporate
act which proclaims our understanding of ministry, the Church
thereby sets forth its values, not simply for itself, but in
evangelistic terms for the social order. The ordination of an
advocating and/or practicing homosexual, therefore, involves the
Church in a public denial of its own theological and moral norms on
sexuality.
Second, one of the vows required of an ordinand commits him or her
to the fashioning of personal (and family or community) life after
the manner of Christ so as to be an example to the Church.
The ordination of an advocating and/or practicing homosexual would
require the Church's sanction of such a life style, not only as
acceptable, but worthy of emulation. Our present understanding of
biblical and theological truth would make this impossible. (Journal,
1979, pp. B-190, B-191.)
Having passed the above doctrinal principles, the House of Bishops
then passed the following resolution:
In light of the principles concerning homesexuality adopted by this
House as contained in the report of its committee on Theology, it is
the mind of this House that, pending further inquiry and study by
the Church, no Bishop of this Church shall confer Holy Orders in
violation of these principles. (Journal, 1979, p. B-192)
Two years later, the 1979 General Convention, meeting in Denver,
Colorado, passed the following Resolution No. A-53 (Substitute):
Resolved, . . . That this General Convention recommend to Bishops,
Pastors, Vestries, Commissions on Ministry, and Standing Committees,
the following considerations as they continue to exercise their
proper canonical functions in the selection and approval of persons
for ordination:
1. There are many human conditions, some of them in the area of
sexuality, which bear upon a person's suitability for ordination;
2. Every ordinand is expected to lead a life which is ``a wholesome
example to all people'' (Book of Common Prayer, pp. 517, 532,
544). There should be no barrier to the ordination of qualified
persons of either heterosexual or homosexual orientation whose
behavior the Church considers wholesome;
3. We re-affirm the traditional teaching of the Church on marriage,
marital fidelity, and sexual chastity as the standard of Christian
sexual morality. Candidates for ordination are expected to conform
to this standard. Therefore, we believe not appropriate for this
Church to ordain a practicing homosexual, or any person who is
engaged in heterosexual relations outside marriage. (Journal,
1979, pp. C-88 -- C-93.)
The General Convention had therefore approved the theological
statement of the House of Bishops adopted two years earlier.
It should also be noted that the 1979 action described its action as
re-affirming ``the traditional teaching of the Church'', clearly
defining its prohibition against the ordination of practicing
homosexuals as doctrine.
This ``traditional teaching'' or doctrine, was again affirmed by the
Presiding Bishop and his Council of Advice on February 20, 1990, in a
Statement regarding the ordination of a practicing homosexual by the
Bishop of Newark on December 16, 1989: ``We affirm that the Episcopal
Church's position regarding the ordination of practicing gay and
lesbian persons is that set forth in a resolution adopted by the 1979
General Convention in which a majoridy of the bishops and deputies
affirmed'' the above quoted language of Resolution No. A-53s. The
Statement went on to declare ``We believe that good order is served by
adherence to the actions of General Convention.'' (Journal, 1991, pp.
502, 503.)
The position of the Presiding Bishop and Council of Advice was
affirmed and supported by the House of Bishops on September 18, 1990,
by its Resolution No B-1a. (Journal, 1991, p. 501.)
A year later, the 1991 General Convention met in Phoenix, Arizona, and
adopted the following Resolution No. A-104sa:
That the 70th General Convention of the Episcopal Church affirms
that the teaching of the Episcopal Church is that physical sexual
expression is appropriate only within the lifelong monogamous
``union of husband and wife in heart, body, and mind'' ``intended by
God for their mutual joy; for the holy and comfort given one another
in prosperity and adversity and, when it is God's will, for the
procreation of children and their nurture in the knowledge and love
of the Lord'' as set forth in the Book of Common Prayer.
The Resolution further ``directs the House of Bishops to prepare a
Pastoral Teaching prior to the 71st General Convention.'' (Journal,
1991, p. 746.)
At the 71st General Convention in Indianapolis in 1994, the House of
Bishops, in response to the mandate of Resolution No. A-104sa, adopted
Resolution No. B-1001:
Resolved, That the House of Bishops, affirming the teaching of the
Church that the normative context for sexual intimacy is lifelong,
heterosexual, monogamous marriage, . . . offers ``Continuing the
Dialogue; A Pastoral Study Document . . . to the Church . . .
In the Pastoral Guidelines of the Study Document, the House of Bishops
affirmed three Resolutions previously adopted by General Convention:
(A) The 1976 Resolution recognizing that homosexual persons are
children of God and have an equal claim on the pastoral care of the
Church; (B) the 1979 Resolution reaffirming the traditional teaching
that it is not appropriate for this Church to ordain practicing
homosexuals; (C) The 1991 Resolution declaring that the teaching of
the Church is that physical sexual expression is appropriate only
within a lifelong heterosexual marriage. The Guidelines then declared
that ``the Episcopal Church will maintain recognizable, faithful
Anglican norms in our teaching regarding sexuality''. Having set forth
this teaching, the Guidelines then declare that as a House of Bishops,
``we commit ourselves to . . . continue in trust and koinonia
ordaining only persons we believe to be a wholesome example to their
people, according to the standards and norms set forth by the Church's
teaching''.
It therefore is the doctrine of the Church in regard to ordination of
homosexuals that it is permissible to ordain a person with a
homosexual orientation, whose behavior the Church finds wholesome, but
it is not permsissible to ordain a practicing homosexual.
Teaching Doctrine Contrary to that of the Church
One of the grounds for the trial of a Bishop is ``holding and teaching
publicly or privately, and advisedly, any doctrine contrary to that
held by this Church.'' (Canon IV.1.1(2).)
Phillimore's Ecclesiastical Law, Second Edition, Volume II, Offenses
of the Clergy, cites the case of Heath v. Burder, 15 Moo. P.C.C.p. 1
180, to dofine the elements of proof in such a case as teaching
contrary to the doctrine of the Church. While the case deals with
teaching contrary to the Articles of Religion, the principles apply to
any teaching contrary to the formularies of the Church.
The case hold that ``it is immaterial . . . whether the unsound
doctrines are preached or published;'' that in the case of a member of
the clergy ``advisedly maintaining or affirming any doctrines contrary
or repugnant to'' the teaching of the Church, it was the duty of the
Court to ascertain (1) on the ordinary principles of construction,
what is the true meaning of the teaching alleged to be infringed, (2)
what was the fair interpretation of the language used by the accused,
(3) whether by his language he has put forth doctrine which
contradicts that of the Church; that the word ``advisedly'' is not
limited to whose who avowedly reject the doctrine of the Church, but
is used simply to show that the act complained of is the deliberate
act of the accused; and that it is not necessary that the accused
should have propounded any intelligible heterodox doctrine, but it is
sufficient if what he propounds be directly repugnant to the doctrine
or teaching laid down by the Church.
It is therefore necessary for a violation of Canon IV.1.1(2), that the
accused, either by preaching or publishing (or otherwise publicly
proclaiming), teach deliberately something that is intentionally
contrary to the formularies (teaching or doctrine) of the Church, and
contradicts that declared teaching.
Violation of Ordination Vows
Another ground for trial is ``any act which involved a violation of
his ordination vows.'' (Canon IV.1.1(6).)
What is an ordination vow? The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian
Church, Second Edition, defines ``vows'' as ``solemn and voluntary
promises.'' Webster's New World Dictionary makes a similar definition:
``a solemn promise or pledge, esp. one made to God.'' Vergilius Ferm's
Encyclopedia of Religion defines a vow as an oath.
Phillimore's Ecclesiastical Law, Volume I, Ordination, speaks of the
``Oaths previous to Ordination,'' and refers specifically to the oath
required by Canon 36 of the Canons of 1603 to conform to the doctrine
and worship of the Church.
White and Dykman's Annotated Constitution and Canons, Second Edition,
Volume I, p. 112, refers to the declaration required in Article VIII
of the Constitution as ``the ordination vow.'' This is the vow to
conform to the ``Doctrine, Discipline, and Worship'' of the Church.
``Act'' is defined by Corpus Juris as ``something done; the exercise
of power, or an effect produced thereby; a thing done or performed; .
. . In a more technical sense, the word signifies something done
voluntarily by a person, or in other words, the result of the exercise
of the will.'' (I CJ 912.)
Therefore, anything done or performed voluntarily by a Bishop which is
in violation of the doctrine of the Church is an act involving a
violation of the ordination vow to conform to the doctrine of the
Church.
Conclusion
In summation, ``doctrine'' is the teaching of the Church as determined
by the formularies of the Church, including declarations by the House
of Bishops. ``Doctrine'' is not normally found in the canons of the
Church.
The Teaching or doctrine of The Episcopal Church in regard to
ordination of homosexuals is that while it is permissible to ordain a
person of homosexual orientation, it is not permissible to ordain a
practicing homosexual. Further, no Bishop shall knowingly confer Holy
Orders on a practicing homosexual.
Should any Bishop preach or otherwise publicly proclaim that it is
permissible and right to ordain practicing homosexuals, that teaching
or doctrine would be directly contrary to the declared teaching of the
Church, and would be a violation of Canon IV.1.1(2), prohibiting
teaching contrary to the doctrine of this Church.
Further, should that Bishop actually proceed to ordain a practicing
homosexual, knowing the ordinand to be such, that act would be a
violation of the Bishop's ordination vow to conform to the doctrine of
the Church.
Therefore, upon proof being made of the allegations against Respondent
contained in this Presentment, Respondent should be found guilty on
both Counts made against him in said Presentment.
The above and foregoing Brief in Support of Presentment is
respectfully submitted by William C. Wantland, one of the Presenters,
on behalf of all the Presenters.
Dated this January 27, 1995.
/s/ +William Eau Claire
Bishop of Eau Claire