Summary of the Decision in the Righter Trial
THE PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH
IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
IN THE COURT FOR THE TRIAL OF A BISHOP
James M. Stanton, Bishop of Dallas, et al., )
)
Presenters, )
)
v. )
)
The Rt. Rev. Walter C. Righter, )
)
Respondent. )
May 15, 1996. Summaries of the opinion of the Court, the Concurring opinion and
the Dissenting opinion are included in this document. These summaries are not the opinions
themselves and should not be referred to as such.
This is a summary of the opinion of the Court in which Edward W. Jones, Bishop of Indianapolis, Robert C. Johnson, Jr., Bishop of North Carolina, Donis D. Patterson, Bishop of Dallas (retired), Cabell Tennis, Bishop of Delaware, Douglas E. Theuner, Bishop of New Hampshire, Arthur E. Walmsley, Bishop of Connecticut (retired), and Roger J. White, Bishop of Milwaukee join. In this summary the Court presents excerpts from its full opinion spelling out the Court's approach to the Presentment before us, the decisions of substance we have made and our reasoning in reaching these decisions
We begin by announcing that we are not giving an opinion on the morality of same-gender relationships. We are not deciding whether life-long, committed, same gender sexual relationships are or are not a wholesome example with respect to ordination vows. We are not rendering an opinion on whether a bishop and diocese should or should not ordain persons living in same gender sexual relationships. Rather, we are deciding the narrow issue of whether or not under Title IV a bishop is restrained from ordaining persons living in committed same gender sexual relationships. The conclusions reached in our opinion are based upon our understanding of the Core Doctrine of this Church; how this is related to traditional teaching; the ordering of the Church's discipline; and the authority of General Convention and House of Bishops resolutions. The Court includes within its opinion pastoral concerns which confront the Church as it continues to face difficult and important issues.
The Presentment alleged that the Respondent, Bishop Righter, voted against a resolution in the House of Bishops disassociating from the ordination of a homosexual person living in a public avowed relationship with a person of the same sex; that he signed "A Statement in Koinonia," which states 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;" and that he ordained to the diaconate Barry L. Stopfel knowing that he was a practicing homosexual, living in a sexual partnership with a person of the same sex prior to ordination and intending to continue in that relationship after ordination.
Count 1 of the Presentment alleged that the Respondent, Bishop Righter, violated Canon IV.1.1(2) for teaching a doctrine contrary to that held by this Church. Count 2 alleged that he violated Canon IV.1.1(6) for violating his ordination vow to "conform to the Doctrine ... of the...Church."
The Presenters, Respondent and the Court have agreed that the basic issue in this case is the doctrine of the Episcopal Church. The Court gave permission to the parties to submit and cite additional published resources that would guide the Court in deciding the question:
"What does and does not constitute the doctrine of the Church, particularly as it is binding on what a bishop may or may not teach?" The Court gave careful consideration to the arguments, submissions and published resources of the parties as well as to the Court's own understanding of the doctrine of the Anglican Tradition. We begin by examining the scope of doctrine in relationship to the Church's teaching and discipline.
In the case before us the Presenters have argued by submissions and oral argument that doctrine includes the Church's teaching as well as its Creeds. In their view, all doctrinal teaching comes under the weighty purview of Title IV especially Canon IV.1.1(2) (1994) (cf. Canon IV.1.1(c) [1996]) for "holding and teaching publicly or privately and advisedly any doctrine contrary to that held by the Church." The Court finds that this is overreaching the Anglican understanding of doctrine. We are not a confessional church which has carefully articulated and identified the entire scope of its teaching and the disciplinary consequences for the violation of its teaching. The Court is bound not to extend this Church in that direction without explicit authority from General Convention of the Church, which is the Church acting corporately.
On the other hand the Respondent makes a sharp distinction between doctrine and discipline. Respondent relies heavily on the close reasoning of the Preface of the Book of Common Prayer which states:
. . . that in his worship different forms and usages may without offense be allowed, provided the substance of the Faith be kept entire; and that in every church what cannot be clearly determined to belong to Doctrine must be referred to Discipline; and therefore by common consent and authority, may be altered, abridged, enlarged, amended, or otherwise disposed of, as may seem most convenient for the edification of the people, according to the various exigency of times and occasions.'
(Book of Common Prayer, 9). Standing alone this language would seem to deny the force of doctrine to anything other than creedal formations. Indeed Respondent argues that doctrine is limited to statements about God and not about human relationships. (Transcript of the Record, February 27, 1996, 131, 134-35). Making this sharp distinction ignores the broader context of Anglican thought and practice.
The Court is guided by what we understand to be a broader Anglican tradition. In doing so, we follow a more flexible course. We hold that doctrine involves more than creedal affirmations, and that it involves a spectrum which includes not only faith and belief, but morals and practice. In affirming this, the Court understands that the issue before us is not a general definition of doctrine and its scope, but rather the question of what doctrine is protected by Title IV.
Within Anglicanism there is a long tradition of appeal to fundamental doctrine as supplying a basis for reckoning a Church to be a true Church. This "Core Doctrine" of the Church arises out of the Gospel itself, and is rooted and grounded in Holy Scripture. It is the story of God's relationship to God's people, and has been entrusted to the Church as the people of God, the bearers of God's mission to "restore all people to unity with God and each other in Christ." (See "An Outline of the Faith commonly called the Catechism," Book of Common Prayer, 855).
The Court holds to the ancient distinction between the Core Doctrine which is derived from the Gospel preaching, kerygma, and the Church's teaching, didache, of those things necessary for our life in community and the world. The kerygma is found in the life and teaching of Jesus and the preaching and evangelistic action of the Church revealed in the New Testament and other early Christian documents. Sound and trustworthy biblical scholarship has identified the basic contents of the kerygma. See, for example, C.H. Dodd, The Apostolic Preaching (New York and London: Harper & Bros., 1936). They are:
Anglicans have important grounds for viewing the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral of 1886, 1888 (see Book of Common Prayer, 876) as a reflection of this understanding of Core Doctrine, one which sets forth what we hold as essential to the restoration of the unity of the Church. This Quadrilateral describes not only articles of belief but a way of life. The use of scripture and the creeds in worship, the centrality of the dominical sacraments of Holy Baptism and the Eucharist, and the practice of episcopal government represent elements which seek to ensure the transmission of orthodox apostolic doctrine, not solely to propound it. We are guided by the Anglican understanding of lex orandi, lex credendi, (the law of prayer, the law of faith). Worship, when faithful to Holy Scripture, expresses the kerygma as the living dwelling place of the Church's Core Doctrine. It is this tradition of "continu[ing] in the apostles' teaching and fellowship" which we pledge to continue in the Baptismal Covenant. (See ibid., 304).
It is this Core Doctrine, and not the broad definition urged by the dissent, which is protected by the Canons of the Church, particularly Canon IV.1.1(2) (1994) (cf. Canon IV.1.1(c) [1996]) which we have before us today. Teaching contrary to this Core Doctrine is constrained by this Canon.
We also agree with the 1924 holding in the Bishop Brown Case that doctrine in the Anglican sense is to be established by the whole Church acting in its corporate capacity. Doctrine is not to be confused with "theology" which is prayerful reflection on scripture and Core Doctrine in the light of the Christian experience. While such reflection has helped to form doctrine, theology may also offer diverse understandings of Holy Scripture and doctrine. It is a reflection upon and guidance for Christian life and practice. The Anglican tradition has encouraged theological diversity and supports faithful exploration in developing theology rather than a confessional definition. Nevertheless, all theology is in the end to be subordinated to the Core Doctrine of the Church's faith.
Accordingly, the Court holds that the protection afforded by the disciplinary canons of Title IV to matters of doctrine is limited to what we describe as Core Doctrine. The Court finds that there is no Core Doctrine prohibiting the ordination of a non-celibate, homosexual person living in a faithful and committed sexual relationship with a person of the same sex and therefore the Court dismisses Count 1.
Alongside the Core Doctrine through the ages has stood the Church's teaching, the didache. Various sources, including documents submitted to the Court, call this teaching "doctrine," "doctrinal teaching," and "traditional teaching." The terms are frequently used interchangeably. For instance, we speak of the Church's "doctrine of marriage;" sometimes this "doctrine" is referred to as the Church's "traditional teaching." In every instance, it is intended by the Church to be an expression of the contours by which faithful Christian marriage is to be lived. As another example, we speak of the "just war doctrine" in attempting to offer ethical and moral standards to guide us in deciding whether or not to go to war. Doctrinal teachings as illustrated by these examples are used by the Church to guide its members in living the faith day by day in the Church and the world. Doctrinal teachings, grounded in Holy Scripture, seek to interpret the Holy Scripture, the Core Doctrine described above, and the Church's tradition, that the people of God may understand and faithfully live out the mission entrusted to us. As the dissent points out, there are other examples of teachings that are referred to as "doctrine" such as the "doctrine of episcopal collegiality."
Doctrinal teachings are of vital importance for the life of the Church. They are the deposit of the Church's tradition from age to age, understood and expounded by the gift of reason which integrates the lived experience of the people of God in particular times and places, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. "Doctrine" in this sense consists of "communally authoritative teachings regarding belief and practice that are considered essential to the identity and welfare of the group in question." (See George A. Lindbeck, The Nature of Doctrine [Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1984], 74).
Traditional teachings give guidance to the Church and focus its life and that of its members. They contain the patterns of interpretation and ethics that guide us amid the challenges and decisions that pull and tug at the disciples of Jesus the Christ. The history of Anglicanism has from the sixteenth century to the present been marked by an effort to understand the relation between traditional teaching and the demands of life within changing social, political, and theological understandings and realities.
It is significant that both Presenters and Respondent have sought support for their position in the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity of Richard Hooker (1554-1600), a work which has shaped Anglican theology to the present. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, Folger Library Edition of The Works of Richard Hooker, 1977-1993). Hooker is at pains, in the controversies with Puritan elements in England, to shape and defend a church polity within which there is a unity of vision linking scripture, tradition, and reason. No church polity is good, he argues, unless God is its author. But God is present as author either by light of the scripture itself, or by the natural light of reason guided by the Holy Spirit. Although scripture is the source of many laws, there are "laws for the Polity of the Church [which] may be made by the advice of men . . . those Laws being not repugnant to the Word of God are approved by his sight." Thus, there are matters for which the scripture hath not provided by any law, but left them unto the carefull discretion of the Church: . . . and what is so in these cases, partely scripture and partly reason must teach to discerne.
(Ibid., vol. III, intro. and ch. ix. 1.). For our purposes, it is enough to note that Hooker's effort at comprehensiveness has shaped a tradition extending through such figures as Frederick Denison Maurice and Charles Gore in the last century, and William Temple and Michael Ramsey in our own. In From Gore to Temple: The Development of Anglican Theology between Lux Mundi and the Second World War (London: Lonmans, 1960), 27, Ramsey wrote:
There is . . . a distinctive witness still to be borne by Anglican theology out of the depths of its own tradition. . . . There is here a task that Anglican theology can yet perform, by keeping alive the importance of history in the manner of its great divines of the past, by strenuous attempts to relate Biblical revelation to other categories of thought in the contemporary world, by striving to integrate dogma with spirituality in the life of prayer, by presenting the Church as the effectual sign of the supernatural in the midst of the natural order.
The Court understands that doctrinal teaching in the broad sense includes belief, practice, faith, and morals. Stability of doctrinal teaching is important for the order and unity of the Church. Nevertheless, the context in which we live, worship and carry out our ministry does change. As the context changes, the Church's teaching may also change in order to guide us in living the Christian life as we face new circumstances and understandings. Changes in doctrinal teaching must always seek to be in conformity and obedience to the Core Doctrine as interpreted by the Church in its corporate capacity.
The Court notes that development and change in the Church's doctrinal teaching has occurred in various aspects of the Church's life. For example, for most of its history the Church understood slavery as normative in society and acceptable within Christian life and practice. Gradually, we have come to accept that the enslavement of human beings violates the Gospel's gift of freedom and dignity to every human being. The continuing struggle to understand and overcome the effects of racism in contemporary culture indicates that this work has not yet been completed, nor have we fully grasped its implications for faith and morals.
Similarly, the Church for generations also interpreted New Testament passages on divorce and remarriage as a fixed and unchangeable law which prohibited remarriage in the Church after divorce. We have come to see and understand that marriages can die and even be places of destruction which may justify their termination. Furthermore, as the Episcopal Church now recognizes, remarriage in the light of the Gospel can be a new beginning grounded upon God's forgiveness and reconciliation. Again, as revisions in the Book of Common Prayer make clear, the Church has changed its teaching on the emphasis placed on the several purposes of marriage. With a dramatic decline in infant mortality, greatly extended life expectancy, and a worldwide population explosion, the focus on procreation of children has been subsumed in many places by a heightened emphasis on marriage as a union of husband and wife for their mutual joy and support. This shift has been accompanied by a strong acceptance of family planning and the use of contraception, views strongly resisted within the Anglican communion a generation earlier.
This reshaping of the doctrinal teaching of the Church in the face of new historical contexts and in the light of reason and faithful reflection on experiences was at the heart of the Report of the Advisory Committee of the Episcopal Church chaired by Bishop Stephen F. Bayne, Jr.. (See "Report of the Advisory Committee on Theological Freedom and Social Responsibilities," reprinted in Journal of the General Convention of the . . . Episcopal Church [New York: General Convention, 1967], app. 6 [hereinafter "Bayne Committee Report"]). The Bayne Committee Report was a response from within the House of Bishops to the controversial teachings of Bishop James A. Pike. The Court included in its opinion the summary from the Bayne Committee Report believing that it provides sound guidance for the Church of this day as well.
The Court recognizes that while this Church has reaffirmed traditional teaching
concerning human sexuality in various Resolutions of General Convention (see Resolution
A-53s, Journal of the General Convention of the . . . Episcopal Church [New York: General Convention, 1979], C-89; Resolution A-104sa, Journal of the General Convention of the . . . Episcopal Church [New York: General Convention, 1991], 746), this teaching is being tested by what some believe are new understandings about human sexuality, especially homosexuality. These developments place vexing questions before the people of the Church. Some wish to hold very firmly to traditional teaching and resist its reinterpretation, especially to the ordination of persons to the sacred ministry of the Church who are openly living in same sex relationships. At the same time there are voices in the Church who would expand the traditional teaching concerning Christian marriage to include persons living in life-long, committed, same sex relationships and develop ethical understandings which embody Christian values of faithfulness, compassion, love and forgiveness in those relationships. Times such as these call upon the people of the Church, in the spirit of the Bayne Committee Report, to be "the community of those who know, have accepted, and mean to show the love of God and His supporting grace for all who mean to bear honest witness for Him."
Some doctrinal teachings of the Church have been found to be so important to the ordering of the life of the Church that they have been made mandatory, with disciplinary consequences defined in canon law for failure to conform. Some of these understandings, as for example what constitutes eligibility for ordination, are incorporated in the constraints found in Title III of the Canons concerning age, gender, and prior ordination, and which are binding upon bishops, standing committees, commissions on ministry, vestries and presbyters. No such written constraint is contained in the Canons that forbids the ordination of persons because of homosexuality, in orientation or in practice. In light of the controversy concerning the Church's teachings about homosexuality over the past decade and a half, it is significant that no Canon, positive or negative, has been passed by General Convention with respect to such ordinations. We do not find a constraint in the Canons that proscribes Respondent's action as charged in Count 2.
Although it is clear that the Constitution and Canons are part of the "discipline" of the Church, as are their diocesan counterparts, there is very little, if any, guidance or precedent of what constitutes disciplinary authority which is binding on bishops. The Court recognizes that some traditional or doctrinal teachings are likely enforceable under Title IV as disciplinary authority even though not explicitly incorporated in the Canons. It is possible that where a traditional or doctrinal teaching has not been seriously questioned or challenged, it may be enforceable under Title IV in the absence of a canon or resolution purporting to state or establish the teaching and its disciplinary authority. While the Court affirms that the act of ordaining a person who is practicing immorality, such as adultery, theft, or assault is itself immoral and subject to the discipline of the Church, this accountability does not obtain unless the moral teaching is expressed by the full and clear authority of the Church. We do not find that full and clear expression at this time and in this case. When, as in this case, a traditional teaching has been subjected to lengthy, serious, and widespread questioning and challenge, the Court believes that the authority to hold persons liable for presentment and trial for violation of a traditional teaching must be full and clear.
Presenters argued that the Resolutions of General Convention constitute just such full and clear authority. We have made a full and thorough examination of all the offered Resolutions including Resolution A-53s, Journal of the General Convention of the ...Episcopal Church (New York: Episcopal Church Center, 1979), C-89, adopted in 1979, which expressly reaffirms the traditional teaching of the Church and states, "we believe it is not appropriate for this Church to ordain a practicing homosexual or any person who is engaged in heterosexual relationships outside of marriage." We find that this Resolution is not binding on its own terms, that it is recommendatory only and does not set forth a clear constraint which allows for canonical disciplinary action. The Court holds that the Church may forbid what has been done here but not by a recommendatory Resolution.
The Court examined other Resolutions of the House of Bishops, a statement by the Presiding Bishop and his Council of Advice and find that none of them establish the doctrine of the Episcopal Church nor command the Church's obedience and discipline.
While there have been repeated reaffirmations of the traditional teaching concerning human sexuality, especially the practice of celibacy outside of marriage (see Resolution A-53s, Journal of the General Convention of the . . . Episcopal Church [New York: General Convention, 1979], C-89; Resolution A-104sa, Journal of the General Convention of the . . . Episcopal Church [New York: General Convention, 1991], 746), at the same time other resolutions have been introduced at General Convention seeking to change, as well as to relate, the traditional teaching to blessing same sex relationships and ordinations. Some have passed, others have failed to pass. We conclude that at this time the Church, in spite of its reaffirmations of traditional teaching, is in a period of indecision with respect to its moral doctrine concerning same gender relationships and we do not find sufficient clarity in the Church's teaching at the present time concerning the morality of same sex relationships to hold that ordination of a non-celibate homosexual person violates a bishop's ordination vow to uphold the "discipline" of the Church.
We hold that for a violation of a doctrinal or traditional teaching to be "an act which involves a violation of ordination vows," the proscribed act must have been so specified by the full and unequivocal authority of General Convention. The Court finds that there is no discipline of the Church prohibiting the ordination of a non-celibate person living in a committed relationship with a person of the same sex, violation of which would constitute a violation of Respondent's ordination vows.
The Court expressed a number of pastoral concerns including these:
The Court believes that having given a judgment on these matters we would not fulfill our full responsibility without speaking a pastoral word to the Church, the baptized in Christ Jesus who are bound together in the community of faith. The issues we have dealt with in these proceedings have proven to be quite controversial in our Church in recent years, and in other denominations and religious bodies as well as in society-at-large. We recognize that there are sharp disagreements among theologians and ethicists in this matter. In part this is true because there are devout and caring Christians who have different understandings about these matters. There is probably an even greater number of disciples who do not like controversy about them even while they are struggling to know what is right and good. We note in this regard that some of the differences among us do seem to reflect different cultural contexts. This in itself raises the question as to whether all Christian moral teaching, as distinguished from Core Doctrine, should be regarded as universal, or whether some aspects of it may be shaped by the contexts in which decisions must be made, as, for example, in a cosmopolitan urban area or a sparsely-settled rural one.
The Court believes that on many matters having to do with human sexuality, the Episcopal Church is of one mind. Thus, it would be difficult to find those who would defend adultery. Similarly, by resolution and sometimes by disciplinary action, the Church has left little doubt that sexually promiscuous, predatory and abusive behavior are wrong.
One place where the Church is not of one mind has to do with homosexuality and, more particularly, with the propriety of ordaining homosexual persons who are living in faithful and committed sexual relationships. Some members of the Church believe that homosexual relationships, even when faithful and committed, are not "a wholesome example to the flock of Christ." On the other hand, there are equally sincere members who believe that God is challenging the Church to reassess traditional views concerning homosexuality. Since devoted members of the Church hold such differing opinions, the Court believes that on both sides of the issue there must be mutual respect and understanding.
The Court is sensitive to those who seek greater clarity of the issues. The Court would remind the Church that there are ways we could order our life less ambiguously. General Convention has authority to pass Canons which are binding, and could, perhaps, adopt resolutions which clearly declare themselves to be mandatory, and which call for specific penalties when they are disobeyed. We remind the Church that this issue will not be resolved and the Church unified in its faith and practice by presentments and trials, nor by unilateral acts of bishops and their dioceses, or through the adoption of proclamations by groups of bishops or others expressing positions on the issues.
Finally, the Court is aware that this decision may be difficult for members of other Christian communions. This is especially so if they believe that we are deciding here whether or not the Church should ordain persons living in same sex relationships. In ecumenical charity, we ask them to understand that this opinion speaks only to the narrow issue of whether there is a constraint within the life of this Church that prohibits a bishop from so acting and which is enforceable under the Church's disciplinary Canons. We trust that with equal charity other Christians will see that the Episcopal Church continues to hold faithfully to the Core Doctrine of the Christian faith, which is the common treasure of the universal Church and necessary for salvation.
This is a summary of the opinion of Roger J. White, Bishop of Milwaukee, who concurred in the majority opinion but who filed a separate opinion addressing issues not reached by the majority. He was joined by Donis D. Patterson, Bishop of Dallas (retired).
This opinion concurs with the majority when it concludes that doctrine is that teaching which the Church has discerned from the Gospel -- kerygma-- through the Councils of the Church over time which the majority calls Core Doctrine. It agrees with the majority that no specific Core Doctrine has been taught or acted upon by Respondent. Similarly, it agrees with the majority that no specific teaching of the Church --didache-- discerned by the Church in its corporate capacity has been contravened by Respondent.
The issue not addressed by the majority is that Respondent's argument that the ordination of non-celibate homosexual persons is permitted is based on silence; the silence of Holy Scriptures, General Convention (the Church acting in its corporate capacity) and the Book of Common Prayer. This opinion finds no precedent in the tradition of the Church for a diocese, a bishop, a priest, a deacon, or an individual acting alone having the authority to change or propound the teaching of the Church without the whole Church first acting in its corporate capacity. To do so is contrary to the polity, nature and understanding this Church has of itself. The Bishop Brown Case is strong precedent for this conclusion. It stated:
The doctrine of this Church is fixed by the whole Church, acting in its corporate capacity, and not by the individual opinions or interpretations placed upon any documents supposed to contain the Church's doctrine, by any bishop, priest, or deacon speaking individually.
All Church teaching must be supported by Holy Scripture, must be found, interpreted, and fixed by the whole Church in its corporate capacity and must be supported by the Book of Common Prayer. There is no scriptural support or commendation in Holy Scriptures for the ordination of non-celibate homosexual persons. Similarly, General Convention has not, to date, declared in its teaching that such ordinations are permissible. In fact, various bodies of the Church have strongly recommended against such action by a bishop. Thus, the Church acting in its corporate capacity has not decided what is to be the Church's teaching concerning the ordination of non-celibate homosexual persons. The Book of Common Prayer contains no specific teaching to support the ordination of non-celibate homosexual persons.
To act without the support of Holy Scriptures, the corporate decision of the whole Church, and the support of the Book of Common Prayer is to preempt the corporately discerned and fixed teaching of the Church. Such action by a bishop threatens the unity of the Church. This opinion concludes that it is not permissible, if it is even possible, in our polity for a bishop to teach or act on teaching which is neither supported by the Holy Scriptures, the Church acting corporately, or the Book of Common Prayer. This opinion raises the important issue of teaching and acting based on silence. Instead of pursuing legal avenues, the Church would be better served if it clarified its doctrine and teaching so the unity of the Church may be preserved.
This is a summary of the opinion of Andrew Fairfield, Bishop of North Dakota, who dissented from the majority opinion.
The minority opinion differs from the majority in the basic definition of doctrine. The majority would limit the term "doctrine" to the original, core gospel preaching, or kerygma. This minority opinion sees doctrine more broadly as including the intentionally Scripture-based and Prayer Book-based teaching of the church about Christian faith and life. What the majority describes as "doctrinal teachings" outside of doctrine as that term is used in Title IV, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Book of Common Prayer, this minority opinion includes within the use of the term "doctrine." Further, this minority opinion affirms that the Episcopal Church has doctrine which proscribes ordination of non-celibate homosexual persons.
This opinion agrees with the Presenters' contention that the General Convention resolution of 1979 proscribing ordination of non-celibate homosexual people is a doctrinally authoritative statement of the Church.
This opinion finds Respondent's minimalist treatment of doctrine to be untenable. His argument was not logically consistent, and could not stand up to textual evidence.
This opinion considers the majority opinion limiting the term "doctrine" as it is used in Title IV to kerygma or "core doctrine" to be contrary to the meaning of the term "doctrine" as used in contemporary conversational, academic, canonical as well as archaic contexts.
This opinion goes on to affirm that the Episcopal Church does hold a doctrine proscribing ordination of an actively homosexual person, a doctrine based on Holy Scripture, the Book of Common Prayer, and pronouncements of the General Convention. It describes an integrated approach to human sexuality that the Bible sets forth as a norm (male/female, husband/wife), norm based on a doctrine of humanity ("image of God") which is in turn based upon a doctrine of God's complementariness and completeness (" . . . male and female he created them . . . good"). In the Book of Common Prayer, the instruction in the marriage service and the treatment of the seventh commandment in the Catechism are pointed out as normative for sexual relationships. The 1979 General Convention resolution proscribing ordination of non-celibate homosexual persons, with its strong foundation in Holy Scripture and the Book of Common Prayer, is affirmed as doctrine to which bishops (by their ordination promises) are expected to conform.