This story about the hopeful final (or at least climactic) chapter the brouhaha at our parish is relatively accurate, if still in error in a couple of particulars.
Colorado Episcopal Bishop Rob O’Neill said his warning to an assistant rector who took part in a commitment ceremony with her lesbian partner could help the diocese’s efforts to navigate divisions over sexual orientation.
O’Neill told the state’s clergy Friday that the Rev. Bonnie Sarah Spencer of Good Shepherd Episcopal Church in Centennial did not violate church canons, diocesan ethics guidelines or its sexual misconduct policy.
However, O’Neill issued Spencer a “Godly Admonition” – “a written, solemn warning” that includes teaching and direction. Spencer, who wrote a letter of apology to her colleagues, will begin a six-week leave of absence Tuesday, it was decided.
All of which is true so far as it goes. The gist of the bishop’s conclusions was that there had been no wrong-doing, but that in proceeding with the “commitment ceremony” without explicit, unequivocal permission from the bishop, Bonnie had exercised poor judgment in the broader context of the overall state of the church. The “Godly Admonition” can be considered a letter of reprimand in her file, something that is usually handled in private between bishop and priest but, because of the public nature of the matter, it, and Bonnie’s apology, had to be made known.
To my understanding, though, the six week leave by Bonnie is not directly tied to any sort of punishment, but was mutually agreed upon between her and the bishop. She’s clearly exhausted by the whole brouhaha (not just the last month or two, but the several months (and more), leading up to it).
It’s notetworthy, again, that the bishop’s concern, from a diocesan perspective, was how this episode brought to the fore some of the conflict over this general subject that has been brewing in the diocese for some time. I can clearly understand how this cause him troubles, since it was during a period when he’d committed to everyone that, while his task force was working on what the common ground was between those accepting of same-sex blessings and those not, he’d make no changes in diocesan practice and policy (which have been similarly conflicted).
It’s an odd situation, because while I can understand his big-picture concerns here …
“I think one of the issues this holds up is the need for all of us to be particularly attentive to our corporate life – our life as a community – recognizing our individual decisions do have an impact on the life of the larger body.”
… I also understand (and cannot condemn) the personal aspect of why Bonnie moved forward with this at this time. I think both are right, in their own ways and in their own contexts, and it is part of the tension between one’s personal spiritual life and health, and that of the community about one.
I found the conclusion of the article pretty interesting, too.
The Rev. Don Armstrong of Colorado Springs, a conservative leader, said O’Neill focused not on sexuality but on unilateral actions at a time when the church’s Lambeth Commission is working toward solutions. “I think what he’s done is struck the right chord for the moment,” Armstrong said.
And if Armstrong’s on board with it, perhaps the situation might be defused for the moment after all.
My take is the wrong person is in trouble. Correct me if I am wrong but the Denver Post reported that your interrim rector approved the use of the church. If the Rev. Bonnie Spencer was a lay person would there have been issue? Yes, but it would have been a smaller one. If the “ceremony” had been in someone’s home, it would be even less of issue. Add to this that the Rocky Mountain News reported that the Rev. Lou Blanchard, overseer for your region, was informed before the fact as a matter of courtesy.
If the “sin” is poor judgment, then your rector, Lou Blanchard, and Bishop O’Neill failed in their oversight responsibilities. The shepards are sheep also and given that all knew this before the fact, then they should have counseled their sheep concerning her “poor judgment”. Maybe the Post’s synopsys didn’t include it but I would have liked to have seen some note of regret concerning this failure. Also, the use of the word “unilateral” strikes me as just factually false.
As for the Rev. Armstrong his concern is that no such actions occur until the issues are settled. There is a parallel going on at the worldwide level. Note this from a letter from Archbishop Gomez to Archbishop Eames:
Now, Archbishop Eames responded as follows:
Saying sorry rather than asking permission may be easier at first. But, in this case it could end up splitting churches. Bishop O’Neill and Archbishop Eames should have seen this coming and given their wise counsel in advance because it may be too late now.
There was, evidently, miscommunication between Bonnie and Bishop O’Neill as to what had been permitted. You are correct (and this has only been lightly touched on thus far) that there has been discussion whether the rector’s judgment was also, in this context, flawed in granting permission to use the building — though, again, that stems from what misunderstanding might have started things off here.
Let me get this straight. Bonnie asked for permission and received what she thought was permission. It was later determined that she ought not to have received permission. How is that unilateral? Now I happen to agree that she ought not to have received permission. That being said, blaming an underling for an upper-level screw up strikes me as tacky and decidedly unpastoral.
Without going into too many specifics, it appears that there was legitimate miscommunication (hence, no willful disobedience) as to what Bp. O’Neill was forbidding vs. what Bonnie thought he was permitting. The Godly Admonition refers to Bonnie’s poor judgment in acting, regardless of what she thought was permitted, in a way and time that was focused on her situation vs. that of the diocese and denomination as a whole.
There was an article in this morning’s Fort Collins Coloradoan about what I think is a similar situation in Los Angeles. But there, the Bishop apparently participated. I can’t find the story in the Coloradoan’s web site, but I did find it at KTLA and The San Diego Union. It’s also on the LA Times website, but that requires a subscription, so I won’t point you there.
Te LA situation you mention is quite more of a big deal than what happened here — as a formally sanctioned and episcopally-participated-in ceremony. I don’t expect to see that here in Colorado, for a while at least.