The Official Presentment Document
The Official Presentment Document
Send mail to: lcrew@andromeda.rutgers.edu
IN THE COURT FOR THE TRIAL OF A BISHOP
JAMES C. STANTON, BISHOP OF DALLAS, et. al.,
PRESENTERS
v
WALTER C. RIGHTER,
RESPONDENT,
PRESENTMENT
James M. Stanton, and the other undersigned Bishops exercising
jurisdiction in The Episcopal Church, hereinafter called Presenters,
for their Presentment against Walter C. Righter, hereinafter called
Respondent, allege the following:
I.
At all times pertitent to this matter, Respondent was either the
Bishop of Iowa, the Assistant Bishop of the Diocese of Newark, or a
retired bishop in The Episcopal Church. All of the Presenters are
Bishops exercising jurisdiction in The Episcopal Church, that is, they
are Diocesan Bishops of Dioceses of The Episcopal Church. There are
ten Bishops exercising jurisdiction who have signed this presentment.
II.
On January 12, 1972, Respondent was consecrated as Bishop of the
Episcopal Diocese of Iowa. At that time, the Constitution of the
Episcopal Church provided, by virtue of Article VIII of said
Constitution, that ``No persons shall be ordained and consecrated
Bishop . . . unless at the time, in the presence of the ordaining
Bishop or Bishops, he shall subscribe and make the following
declaration:
``I do believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to
be the Word of God, and to contain all things necessary to
salvation; and I do solemnly engage to conform to the Doctrine,
Discipline, and Worship of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the
United States of America.''
Respondent made the vow to conform to the Doctrine, Discipline, and
Worship of the Church at his ordination and consecration.
III.
The House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church met in special annual
session in Port St. Lucie, Florida, from September 30 to October 7,
1977. Repsondent was in attendance at that meeting.
IV.
On the third day of the meeting of the House of Bishops, the Committee
on Theology presented a Statement which was adopted by the House of
Bishops with three abstentions and two negative votes. That
theological pronouncement contains the following language:
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.
V.
Following the approval of the statement from the Committee on
Theology, the House of Bishops 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.
VI.
The General Convention of The Episcopal Church met in Denver,
Colorado, September 9-20, 1979. Respondent was in attendance at that
Convention. During the Convention, Resolution No. A-53 (Substitute)
was adopted, which provides:
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.
VII.
On December 16, 1989, The Rt. Rev. John S. Spong, Bishop of Newark,
ordained to the priesthood The Rev. Robert Williams in the Diocese of
Newark, knowing him to be a practicing homosexual, living in a
partnership with one James Skelly. Subsequent to the ordination, The
Presiding Bishop, The Most Rev. Edmond Browning, and his Council of
Advice, on February 20, 1990, issued a Statement in regard to this
1989 ordination. That Statement declared:
We feel called to address issues raised in the ordination, by the
Rt. Rev. John S. Spong of Newark on December 16, 1989, of Robert
Williams, a homosexual person living in a public avowed,
relationship with a person of the same sex. This statement grows out
of extensive consultation, initiated by the Presiding Bishop,
throughout the Episcopal Church, particularly with respect to the
issues of the accountability of bishops and others in authority to
the theological tradition of the church and orderly process in
church life.
As bishops of the Province of the Pacific have said, ``We do not
believe any of us is being responsible with the duties of this
office and the polity of this church when one of us acts in such
public disregard.''
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
majority of the bishops and deputies affirmed the following . . .:
``. . . We reaffirm the traditional teaching of the church on
marriage, marital fidelity and sexual chastity as the standard of
Christian morality. Candidates for ordination are expected to
conform to this standard. Therefore, we believe it is not
appropriate for this church to ordain a practicing homosexual, or
any other person who is engaged in heterosexual relations outside
marriage.''
Not all members of the Church agree with this position, as they did
not when the resolution was adopted in 1979. Nevertheless, short of
action by the General Convention, it is the stated and authoritative
position of the church at this time.
Bishops are called to safeguard the unity of the church, a
responsibility the Newark ordination has seemed to disregard. As the
Presiding Bishop and Council of Advice, we disassociate ourselves
from the action of the Standing Committee and Bishop of Newark in
carrying out this ordination . . . We believe that good order is not
served when bishops, diocese, or parishes act unilaterally. We
believe that good order is served by adherence to the actions of
General Convention.
The Statement was signed by the Presiding Bishop and all nine members
of the Council of Advice.
On September 18, 1990, the House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church,
meeting in Washington, D.C., adopted its Resolution No. B-1a, which
stated:
Resolved, That the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church affirm
and support the Statement of February 20, 1990, made by the
Presiding Bishop and his Council of Advice in regard to the
ordination of a practicing homosexual by the Bishop of Newark on
December 16, 1989.
Respondent was present in the House of Bishops when this Resolution
was passed. However, he dissented from the Resolution and voted
against affirming the February statement.
VIII.
On September 30, 1990, Respondent (who was then Assistant Bishop of
Newark) ordained to the diaconate one Barry L. Stopfel, in the Diocese
of Newark. At the time of the ordination, Respondent knew that Barry
L. Stopfel was a practicing homosexual, living in a sexual partnership
with one Will Lecke, prior to the ordination, and the Mr. Stopfel
intended to contiue in that homosexual relationship after ordination.
On August 25, 1994, Respondent (who was then a retired bishop) was
present in the House of Bishops at General Convention meeting in
Indianapolis, Indiana, and joined in the signing of ``A Statement of
Koinonia'', made by The Rt. Rev. John S. Spong, in which Respondent
acceded to the following statement:
We pledge ourselves to ordain only those persons whom the testing
and screening process reveals to be wholesome examples to the flock
of Christ. But let there be no misunderstanding, our lives and our
experience and bishops have convinced us that a wholesome example to
the flock of Christ does not exclude a person of homosexual
orientation nor does it exclude those homosexual persons who choose
to live out their sexual orientation in a partnership that is marked
by faithfulness and life-giving holiness.
The public action and public teaching of Respondent is therefore:
(a)
A practicing homosexual can be properly ordained to the
ministry of The Episcopal Church.
(b)
Respondent will not be bound by teaching statements of The
Episcopal Church declaring it impermissible to ordain
practicing homosexuals.
IX.
Title IV, Canon I, Section 1 of the Canons of the Episcopal Church
provides:
A Bishop . . . of this Church shall be liable to presentment and
trial for the following offenses, viz:
* * *
(2) Holding and teaching publicly or privately, and advisedly, any
doctrine contrary to that held by this Church.
* * *
(6) Any act which involved a violation of his Ordination vows.
X.
Count 1:
Respondent is hereby charged with violation of Canon IV.1.1(2) in that
he is teaching publicly and advisedly that a practicing homosexual may
properly be ordained to the diaconate or priesthood, and has rejected
the doctrine of the Church that it is impermissible to ordain a
practicing and/or advocating homosexual. He is therefore teaching a
doctrine contrary to that held by this Church.
Count 2:
Respondent is hereby charged with violation of Canon IV.1.1(6) in that
he ordained a practicing homosexual to the diaconate, knowing the
ordinand to be a practicing homosexual, in violation of the teaching
of the Church, and thus committing an act in violation of his
ordination vows to ``conform to the Doctrine . . . of the . . .
Church,'' and in the face of the declaration of the House of Bishops
that ``no Bishop of this Church shall confer Holy Orders in violation
of'' the principle that ``In the case of an advocating and/or
practicing homosexual, ordination is inadmissible.''
XI.
All such acts charged against Respondent ocurred less than five years
prior to the filing of this Presentment.
Wherefore, Presenters pray that this Presentment be served by the
Presiding Bishop upon the Respondent, together with the Brief in
Support attached hereto, setting a date for Respondent to answer, that
upon such Answer being made, or the time therefore having expired,
that the matter may then be placed in the hands of the Bishops for
approval for trial or not, and upon approval for trial, that the
matter be set for trial before the Court for the Trial of a Bishop,
and upon conviction, punishment be imposed as provided by canon law.
_________________________________________________________________