Wednesday, December 9, 2009

Canonical Absurdities on the Left

I have decided to start a virtual trophy room, in which I shall mount the stuffed quotes which display the canonical ignorance of those on the left who ought to know better, but who manifestly do not. Thus, welcome to the first edition of "Canonical Absurdities on the Left." (The trophy room for those on the right will also be set up at an appropriate time, but its specimens will not, from my experience, be as numerous.)

Illustrating yet one more time his tendency to reinvent the canons to his liking, Bishop J. Jon Bruno of the Diocese of Los Angeles has given us in this quotation our first mounted trophy (for some reason, these specimens all turn a sickly green during the taxidermic process):
If by chance people are going to withhold consents because of [Bishop-elect] Mary [Glasspool]'s sexuality, it would be a violation of the canons of this church.
Oh, really, Bishop Bruno? I take it you must be referring to Canon III.1.2, which reads:
No person shall be denied access to the discernment process for any ministry, lay or ordained, in this Church because of race, color, ethnic origin, national origin, sex, marital status, sexual orientation, disabilities or age, except as otherwise provided by these Canons. No right to licensing, ordination, or election is hereby established.
Do you see those two words "discernment process", Bishop? And do you see that last sentence? "No right to . . . ordination or election is hereby established."

So Canon III.1.2 cannot be the one to which you are referring, Bishop Bruno. Let's take a look at Canon I.17.5:
No one shall be denied rights, status or access to an equal place in the life, worship, and governance of this Church because of race, color, ethnic origin, national origin, marital status, sex, sexual orientation, disabilities or age, except as otherwise specified by Canons.
Perhaps a vote against Canon Glasspool on the grounds you describe would violate this canon? Not so fast: despite its superficially broad language, this paragraph is part of a Canon entitled "Of Regulations Respecting the Laity", and the marginal description of section 5 itself states: "Rights of Laity." And in case there were any doubt, there is that last clause to make things explicit: "except as otherwise specified by Canons." That language would, among other things, incorporate the qualification in Canon III.1.2 that no right of ordination or election was thereby established.

Well, let us try one more time. How about these provisions in Canon III.9?

From Canon III.9.3(a)(3):
If the Ecclesiastical Authority is satisfied that the person so elected is a duly qualified Priest and that such Priest has accepted the office to which elected, the notice shall be sent to the Secretary of the Convention, who shall record it. Race, color, ethnic origin, sex, national origin, marital status, sexual orientation, disabilities or age, except as otherwise specified by these Canons, shall not be a factor in the determination of the Ecclesiastical Authority as to whether such person is a duly qualified Priest.
And similar language recurs in section III.9.6(a):
No Priest shall preach, minister the Sacraments, or hold any public service, within the limits of any Diocese other than the Diocese in which the Priest is canonically resident for more than two months without a license from the Ecclesiastical Authority of the Diocese in which the Priest desires to so officiate. No Priest shall be denied such a license on account of the Priest's race, color, ethnic origin, sex, national origin, marital status, sexual orientation, disabilities, or age, except as otherwise provided in these Canons.
There is just one problem: while this language is found in Canon III.9, entitled "Of the Life and Work of Priests," there is no equivalent language found in Canon III.12, "Of the Life and Work of a Bishop." Could that have been intentional, Bishop Bruno? Moreover, both of the passages just cited have that qualifier again: "except as otherwise provided in these Canons."

I am afraid it's a "no go", Bishop Bruno. We have exhausted the provisions of the Canons to which you could have been referring. Those diocesan bishops and standing committees who choose to withhold their consent to the election of the Rev. Canon Mary Glasspool cannot be charged with violating any of the Church's Canons.

And one more thing, while I am at it: each of the passages quoted above forbids discrimination based on sexual orientation, not on sexual practice. I am not aware of any single bishop or standing committee who has declared their opposition to the ordination to the ministry of a gay or lesbian person who was celibate. The Rev. Canon Glasspool, however, does not fall into that category. So not only do you read into the Canons prohibitions which are not there, but you cannot even interpret the language that is there.

Finished -- that trophy is now fully mounted. Let us pass on to trophy No. 2, in the form of this quotation provided to us by one Lisa Fox (courtesy of Kendall Harmon):

Recent, fervent comments from Kendall Harmon and Mike Malone make me wonder: Can the bishop and Standing Committee of the Diocese of South Carolina vote on consent to Bishop-Elect Glasspool and still remain within their canons?

You will recall that the Diocese of South Carolina voted on this resolution . . . "to begin withdrawing from all bodies of the Episcopal Church that have assented to actions contrary to Holy Scripture, the doctrine, discipline and worship of Christ as this church has received them, the resolutions of the Lambeth Conference which have expressed the mind of the Communion, the Book of Common Prayer and our Constitution and Canons, until such bodies show a willingness to repent of such actions . . ."

If they indeed passed this resolution, withdrawing from all bodies of TEC, how can they vote on any action of the Episcopal Church, including the election of Bishop-Elect Glasspool?
Here we have a lay person trying to reach canonical conclusions, so I shall give this specimen only a light treatment. (I note in passing, however, that a certain Canon Doctor of the Church has added this uninformed comment to the post just quoted: "So they can't. Vote. But they will. Sigh." My specimens grow apace.)

The process of voting to consent to the election of a bishop (when there is no General Convention due to meet within 120 days) is spelled out in Canon III.11.4, and includes this language:
Each Standing Committee, in not more than one hundred and twenty days after the sending by the electing body of the certificate of the election, shall respond by sending the Standing Committee of the Diocese for which the Bishop is elected either the testimonial of consent in the form set out in paragraph (b) of this Section or written notice of its refusal to give consent.
To refuse to give consent, in this context, has the same practical result as declining to participate in the election altogether. True, the Canon does mandate some response from each standing committee (although not, please note [in this most "hierarchical" of Churches], from the diocesan bishops), but it would certainly do the Standing Committee of the Diocese of South Carolina no harm to reaffirm its unwillingness to participate in actions contrary to Scripture by sending a notice that it withheld its consent to the election of the Rev. Canon Glasspool. (Contrary to Scripture? See Titus 1:6: "A bishop must be blameless, the husband of one wife . . ." It's not difficult to read scripture written as plainly as that.)

That finishes my second trophy: it is now mounted in the trophy room, too. Before leaving the room, however, I shall remark on a potential problem which, given the language of consents to the election of a bishop, might affect the conduct of Bishop Lawrence of South Carolina in this matter (along with other Bishops who have announced they will, or may be expected to, withhold their consent). The language in question (from Canon III.11.4[a] again) reads (with my emphasis added):
The Presiding Bishop, without delay, shall notify every Bishop of this Church exercising jurisdiction of the Presiding Bishop's receipt of the certificates mentioned in this Section and request a statement of consent or withholding of consent. . . If a majority of the Standing Committees of all the Dioceses consents to the ordination of the Bishop-elect, the Standing Committee of the Diocese for which the Bishop is elected shall then forward the evidence of the consent . . . to the Presiding Bishop. If the Presiding Bishop receives sufficient statements to indicate a majority of those Bishops consents to the ordination, the Presiding Bishop shall, without delay, notify the Standing Committee of the Diocese for which the Bishop is elected and the Bishop-elect of the consent.
What we have here is a two-step process. The standing committees send their written consent forms (or their withholding of consent) to the standing committee in the diocese of the bishop-elect; the diocesan bishops, however, communicate their consents (on no prescribed form, again please note [how "hierarchical"!]) directly to the Presiding Bishop. So we have this canonical question: does the phrase "a majority of those Bishops" refer just to those Bishops who return some sort of vote to the Presiding Bishop, or to "every Bishop of this Church exercising jurisdiction"?

If the Presiding Bishop were to be consistent with her parliamentary ruling in the deposition of Bishop Duncan, then the phrase would refer only to those Bishops who actually send something back to her. In that case, a non-response by Bishop Mark Lawrence of South Carolina, or by others who intended to indicate thereby that they were withholding their consent, would not count in the final tally. That, in turn, would have the effect of reducing the required number of overall consents to confirm the election. Thus, in this case, the better practice for such non-consenting Bishops would be to send the Presiding Bishop a letter to that effect.

Note that the same is not true of the standing committees, under the language just quoted. The standing committee of the diocese with the bishop-elect is required to return to the Presiding Bishop, in order for the election to be confirmed, evidence of the consents by "a majority of the Standing Committees of all the Dioceses." So the bishop-elect's standing committee will not bother with the non-consents; what counts are the consents, and there must be 56 of them (given the fiction that ECUSA currently maintains -- that it has 110 "dioceses" with standing committees) to send to the Presiding Bishop before the election can be confirmed. The standing committee of South Carolina, therefore, does not have to send in its non-consent to ensure that it will be counted -- on penalty that if it did not, the total number of consents required might thereby be lessened.

But the observation just made serves to point up, once again, how there is absolutely no textual support, in any of the Canons involving votes which affect the life of the Church, for the Presiding Bishop's reading of the language "a majority of the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote" in Canon IV.9 to allow the deposition of a bishop of the Church on the vote of just a few dozen bishops (a majority of the minimum quorum needed to be present in order to transact business). Under the way she interprets the Canons, far more bishops are needed to elect a colleague than to depose one.






26 comments:

  1. With respect to both of these. It matters not what cannon law says or how the consents of the Bishops are counted, her eminence Popess Katherine I of The Episcopal Church will decree whatever she wants to have happen. I therefore believe that even if the standing committees vote against and the Bishops vote against, Ms. Glasspool will still be made a Bishopess of TEC because Kate says so.

    ReplyDelete
  2. While Bp Bruno hardly needs me to defend him, when he spoke of the Bishop-elects "sexuality" it was obvious, at least to me, that he was speaking about her sexual orientation. That makes his reference to the canons reasonable. Bishops with jurisdiction and standing committees should look beyond the question of sexual orientation and determine, on the basis of all that they know of Canon Glasspool, whether or not they can consent to her election.

    I think deck is both wrong in his predictions and rude in his use of language. If he spke that wat about anyone in my house, I would ask him to leave.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Father Weir, no defense of Bishop Bruno along those lines is necessary. It was obvious to me as well that Bishop Bruno had reference to the canons' words "sexual orientation." But you have missed my point: people who object to the ordination of men and women who are in partnered same-sex relationships do so not on the ground that they object to such people's sexual orientation, but on the ground that they are in a relationship which is outside Christian marriage as defined by the BCP. How, they ask, can the Church make someone a bishop, one of whose chief functions is to defend the Church's faith and doctrine, if they are living together, but are not married in the eyes of the Church? Would you elect as a bishop a man who lived with a woman to whom he was not married? Suppose he regarded her as his "common-law" wife?

    ReplyDelete
  4. A.S. - re your response with example of a Bishop living with a woman...I think that it wouldn't matter to TEC, afterall, a man living unmarried with a woman, oh how old fashioned is that! That's old news. Now-a-days we (speaking for TEC) are into same sex live ins and hey, next will be the first transgendered bishop. So, in the case of a man living unmarried with a woman, TEC would just find another reason to not elect him (or her).

    ReplyDelete
  5. You might wish to elect to delete and repost that comment, DavidJ. The last sentence contradicts the first three. Did you mean to put the word "not" into that last sentence?

    ReplyDelete
  6. deck, I rejected your last comment, because of its last line. This is a moderated blog -- we reply to other people's comments substantively, and not descriptively. Thank you for staying within the rules.

    (I allowed Father Weir's initial comment because it was mostly substantive, and although he took offense and replied descriptively to yours, he did not use any offensive words. There are no arguments ad hominem here, but only civil discourse. I trust you will see the difference.)

    ReplyDelete
  7. You write,

    "each of the passages quoted above forbids discrimination based on sexual orientation, not on sexual practice. I am not aware of any single bishop or standing committee who has declared their opposition to the ordination to the ministry of a gay or lesbian person who was celibate."

    Forgive me, but wasn't Jeffrey John celibate and he was denied the role of bishop. Also, Jon Bruno himself is divorced and remarried and many conservative bishops are divorced and remarried. This is explicitly forbidden in Scripture, apart from in the case of an unfaithful spouse. Why are remarried bishops not rejected on the basis of their "sexual practices"?

    ReplyDelete
  8. A.S.H - but gay people are not allowed ( by and large) to "marry" the people to whom they have dedicated their lives with the same commitment as is found in a marriage. Actually the male gay candidate in the recent election is legally married to his partner ( California allowed this for a short while and marriages contracted then remain fully legal.) Yet I am sure you would say that this is not a "marriage" in God's eyes. So, gay people are caught in a cleft stick. There is hardly an "equal playing field" when it comes to marriage for straights and gays, so it is unfair really to cite, "they are not married" as the basis for your rejection.

    ReplyDelete
  9. A.S: I meant to say that in the case of an unmarried Bishop-elect living with a woman, that TEC would not take that into consideration as that is so old these days and find another reason to not elect him. However, it could work as well without the "not" in that sentence also. I guess what I'm trying to say is TEC is beyond heterosexual relations now, they are going way beyond and it will only get worse.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Suem, thank you for commenting here. I shall do my best to answer your questions.

    First, Jeffrey John was not celibate in 2003 as that term is most commonly understood. Here is a link to a news article describing his civil marriage in 2004 to his "partner of 30 years."

    You take up a common line when you claim that the Church's teaching on divorce is inconsistent with Scripture. Actually, it is not, as I have tried to explain in detail in this earlier post. Scripture requires, as I cited, that a bishop be the husband of one wife. It does not forbid a person from entering into a second marriage after proper counseling and full repentance for the sins and errors committed in the first marriage. Persons who have done so are not disqualified from being a bishop by the passage I quoted.

    You are correct that marriage is allowed to same-sex persons only in a few States. But even such civil marriages are not Christian marriage, or Holy Matrimony: the Book of Common Prayer is explicit in defining Christian marriage as between a man and a woman, and that definition is once again in full accord with Scripture. I do not see how the Church could vote to change the BCP without throwing out the Bible as well; and if it does that, then it may be a happy place for people in same-sex relationships, but it will not be a Church.

    Viewing marriage -- especially Christian marriage -- as a "civil right" is a mistake. There are no such things as "civil rights" before God; we are all fallen sinners, and can only ask for His mercy and hope for His grace. I have written at greater length about the problems of treating marriage as a "right" in this post.

    ReplyDelete
  11. One point in clarification about Jeffrey John: he signed a personal undertaking that his relationship with his long-standing partner was "celibate", but at the same time he declined to declare that homosexual practice was contrary to Scripture; the ensuing row caused the ABC to ask him to withdraw. He is once again a candidate to be a bishop, by the way -- in Rowan's old back yard of Wales.

    ReplyDelete
  12. A.S.H you know as well as I do that scripture explicitly forbids divorce and remarriage in Christ's gospel ( which is silent on the subject of homosexuality.) Adultery is also expressly prohibited in the ten commandments. Your posts and links do not deal with these passages!

    Shame on you! You wink at adultery because it is a heterosexual sin. There is no "equal playing field" in your thinking, there is one rule for straights but another for gays!

    ReplyDelete
  13. I am glad Jeffrey John is in the running to be a bishop. Barry Morgan is a decent man and will elect according to gifts and abilities. There are many closeted gay bishops, JJohn should not be debarred for honesty when others are rewarded for lying.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Suem, I cannot carry on a discussion with someone who chooses to ignore what I wrote. In the earlier post to which I referred you on the unchanging truth of the Church, I said: "In other words, grounds for divorce used to be accepted as necessary, even though that did not allow the divorcees to consider themselves as free to marry someone else without committing adultery (Mt 5:32, Lk 16:18)." (Emphasis added.)

    Contrary to what you say now, I not only cited the passages that refer to remarriage as adultery, but I went on to discuss them as well. I showed how the Church, in its compassion for those who have sinned, was never prevented by Jesus from accepting the genuine repentance of a sinner -- that, after all, was a key point of Jesus' mission! A person may remarry without committing adultery only if he/she has fully repented and atoned for the sins of the earlier marriage that led to divorce.

    This has been the teaching of the Church for hundreds of years -- I am not making up anything new. Nor am I "winking" at adultery! You, on the other hand, seem to be taking the very un-Christian position that a person who has once sinned may never be forgiven, even if he/she fully and completely repents. I cannot go there with you, because Jesus gave his apostles the power to forgive the sins of others in His name, and to do so is of the very essence of the Church.

    ReplyDelete
  15. You write,

    "A person may remarry without committing adultery only if he/she has fully repented and atoned for the sins of the earlier marriage that led to divorce."

    Excuse me - where does it actually say that in scripture? Also, it is the leaving the marriage for someone else that is "the sin" - not any imperfections in the earlier marriage ( all marriages have imperfections!)

    Of course people can repent and be forgiven but they cannot carrry on with the sin for which they are asking forgiveness! As Claudius says of his sinful marriage to his brother's wife in Hamlet,

    " can one be forgiven and retain the offence?"

    Jesus said to the woman caught in adultery that she was not condemned but that she must "go and sin no more." He didn't say, "after you have fully repented and atoned for your sins, you can go off and be with this new man."

    Sorry, you can use all the specious arguments you like but this will not wash.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Suem -- you write (first quoting my earlier comment):

    "'A person may remarry without committing adultery only if he/she has fully repented and atoned for the sins of the earlier marriage that led to divorce.'

    "Excuse me - where does it actually say that in scripture?"

    Let’s begin with Deuteronomy 24 (is that old enough for you?):

    1 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. 2 And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s wife.

    Also, Ezra ch. 10 shows the Israelites engaging in a mass divorce of their foreign wives so that they could marry proper (Jewish) wives (see also Neh. 13).

    And now let us skip forward to the New Testament -- in Paul’s teaching on divorce and remarriage, we find this (1 Cor. 7:15):

    But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved (i.e., is free to remarry).

    Thus neither the Old nor New Testament provides support for your rigid position that a divorced person may never remarry under any circumstances.

    Next, you say:

    "Also, it is the leaving the marriage for someone else that is 'the sin' - not any imperfections in the earlier marriage ( all marriages have imperfections!)"

    The leaving of a marriage for another may well be the sin -- in cases of adultery; but that does not cover all the cases for the breaking up of a marriage. Paul, again, urges each partner to love and honor the other; when one neglects the other, or abuses the other, that is more than just an “imperfection”!

    ReplyDelete
  17. Suem, to continue with your last comment, you then drag in a huge red herring:

    "Of course people can repent and be forgiven but they cannot carrry on with the sin for which they are asking forgiveness! As Claudius says of his sinful marriage to his brother's wife in Hamlet,

    'can one be forgiven and retain the offence?'"

    Your example of Claudius is completely off the mark. Claudius murdered his brother in order to marry his wife! And the Biblical provision which the marriage of his brother’s widow violated was not some non-existent prohibition against remarriage, but the requirement to marry a brother’s widow if she had borne him no children (Deut. 25:5).


    You continue to misunderstand when you claim:

    "Jesus said to the woman caught in adultery that she was not condemned but that she must 'go and sin no more.' He didn't say, 'after you have fully repented and atoned for your sins, you can go off and be with this new man.'"

    The woman was caught in adultery, for heavens’ sake! That means she was still married! No passage in the Bible gives an adulterer the right to a divorce, but just the opposite! What Jesus was saying to the woman was: “Go back to your lawful husband (if he will have you), and sin no more.”

    You conclude: "Sorry, you can use all the specious arguments you like but this will not wash."

    I am afraid I am not the one who is resorting to specious arguments. However, this thread is now too far off topic to continue on this post. If you would like to continue it, add your comments to the post in which divorce was a principal topic.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Oh goodness, so if my husband discovers "uncleanliness"in me, or if he is a jew and I'm not, or if I lose my faith, he can divorce me!
    Thanks for setting us straight on that...

    Jesus said that moses allowed divorce because mens' hearts were hard, but that no man must divorce his wife except for adultery, nor anyone marry the divorced woman.

    I believe that Jesus came to redeem the old law,I'll stick to what Jesus says.

    Claudius was not referring the "offence" of murder ( although he is repenting that) but to the "offence" of an improper marriage, one in which an inconvenient spouse has been disposed of to marry another.The point is the same, you can't be forgiven for something you fully intend to continue doing.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Suem,
    You state in one of your postings that “(…which is silent on the subject of homosexuality). Please don’t tell us that you believe that the lack of the actual word ‘homosexual’ in scripture (as per KJV) means that it isn’t a sin and should be accepted? The Bible specifically refers to fornication as being a sin [fornication being an illicit sex act of unmarried persons]. Since gays are not married, then any sexual act between is indeed fornication and forbidden [see 1 Corinthians 6:9]. Homosexuality, or the act of, is mentioned using other words. However, it us understandable that those who wish to support the lifestyle will refuse to see the scriptures for what they say. Most progressive liberals try to rewrite their version of the Bible to support their own lifestyles and therefore claim that they are not sinning. Scripture mentions in no confusing words that man shall not lie with man as with a women [Lev. 18:22] and if a man lay with another man life a woman, they both commit an abomination [Lev. 20:13]. I know, I’m sure you and others have a prepared response to these and many other Biblical passages regarding homosexuality. God did not create man to be with man, rather he created man and then a woman for him, for companionship and for the procreation of the human race, something homosexuals cannot in any way shape or form do. Regarding your comments about divorced persons remarrying – the Church has made exceptions for those person who are divorced to remarry on a case by cases basis. For me personally, my wife left me for another man. A divorce was the obvious outcome. Was I then to remain single for the remainder of my days?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Dear David,

    If your wife left you for another man you are free to marry whether a. you are a liberal and believe the bible should be looked at in the light of the context and the understanding of the time it was written or b. If you are a strict biblical fundamentalist.

    Christ quite clearly says a man who divorces his wife because of her unfaithfulness is free to marry and no one has any grounds to say otherwise in your case.

    I am a liberal (if you guessed)- though this does not mean "anything goes"- and believe in compassion and a sense of our current knowledge, sense and reason being applied to complex human situations.

    What I object to is the inconsistency of fundamentalists who are willing to waive scriptural edicts for heterosexuals but not for homosexuals.

    I am sorry for the pain your wife leaving must have given you and wish you well in your new marriage. I am sure the realisation of how difficult it would be to live your life alone has given you at least a compassion for gay people, even if you think same sex relationships to be wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Suem, I do not want to put words in your mouth, but I cannot reconcile this statement to me:

    "Jesus said that Moses allowed divorce because mens' hearts were hard, but that no man must divorce his wife except for adultery, nor anyone marry the divorced woman."

    with your (very humane) response to David:

    "Christ quite clearly says a man who divorces his wife because of her unfaithfulness is free to marry . . ."

    And then, still earlier, you said:

    "A.S.H you know as well as I do that scripture explicitly forbids divorce and remarriage in Christ's gospel . . ."

    Do you see the inconsistency in your claims about what Jesus said?

    ReplyDelete
  22. I believe in a humane response and not in scriptural literalism. I believe in a humane response to both divorcees and gays. You believe in a humane and liberal response for heterosexuals but an unrelenting, scripturally literal response to gays. It is your inconsistency and double standards I take issue with.

    ReplyDelete
  23. But, in any case, David is covered. I have never said that even the most extreme fundamentalist is justified in saying divorce is not allowed when a spouse has committed adultery ( read my posts and you'll see this is true.)

    ReplyDelete
  24. Suem, you are all over the map. When the words of the Bible don't suit you, you just ignore them. My response for heterosexuals is not any more "liberal" than Christ allowed, as you concede in David's case. And it is a response that applies only to heterosexuals because that is how Jesus (and the Bible) defines marriage.

    Thanks again for commenting here. How about we give this thread a rest, since it does not relate to the main topic.

    ReplyDelete
  25. "I am not aware of any single bishop or standing committee who has declared their opposition to the ordination to the ministry of a gay or lesbian person who was celibate."

    Two words: Jeffrey John.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Göran Koch-Swahne, eight words:

    Read the comments before you add your own.

    ReplyDelete