The formal letter from Bishop O’Neill to the clergy of Colorado has been transcribed by someone and put online. It provides the best “official” explanation of what happened, what the bishop’s done about it, and where things currently stand that I’ve seen. My biggest regret is that it was issued as a letter to the clergy, and not as a communication to the laity (or, more specifically, to the congregation at our parish), and I’ve sent a letter to the bishop to just that effect.
A dissenting opinion offered by some of the more conservative Colorado clergy, referenced below, can be found here. I think they overlook the issues of what the past practice has been in the diocese — which practice has been a mare’s nest of contradictory compromises, to be sure, but which the bishop has committed to not changing (it cuts both ways) for this six month period, while his task force on the matter is in operation.
Once that task force issues its report, and the bishop starts establishing his own policy and interpretations of things, I expect to see the feathers flying again. In the meantime, I expect the local brouhaha to die down a bit now (thank God), while those concerned with the issue look toward what’s going on in Canada.
By stating that the actions do not violate the canons is to say that ipso facto they do not violate Scripture. Thus, the bishop is prejudicing the procedings as to what the appropriate interpretation of Scripture should be prior to the results of his commission.
This bishop had little choice in the matter (hence his irk in the affair), whichever way he ruled. And the third alternative of doing nothing until the commission completes its work would itself send a message.
That said, the “appropriate interpretation” being put in place here is what has been the past practice in the diocese. That’s what the bishop has declared he will adhere to, regardless of it being unsatisfactory to folks on either side of the fence, and regardless of whether it is logically or theologically consistent (which, from what I’ve seen, it isn’t).
I think you need to separate practice and doctrine here. The constitution provides the following oath taken by all priests:
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 Episcopal Church. [emphasis mine]
The official defintion of doctrine is as follows:
Doctrine As used in this Title, the term Doctrine shall mean the basic and essential teachings of the church. The Doctrine of the Church is to be *found in the Canon of Holy Scripture as understood in* the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds and in the sacramental rites, *the Ordinal and Catechism of the Book of Common Prayer*.
From said catechism:
Q. What is Holy Matrimony?
A. Holy Matrimony is Christian marriage, in which the *woman and man* enter into a life-long union, make their vows before God and the
Church, and receive the grace and blessing of God to help them fulfill their vows.
By declaring that no canon was violated was to declare that the Doctrine of the Church as found in Scripure and as understood in the catechism above was conformed to in keeping with her ordination vow.
Here are the two options:
1. The bishop made such an implicit doctrinal declaration prejudicing his commission. He said he PERSONALLY reviewed the canons and came to the conclusion that she didn’t violate them. Here he is declaring that a commitment ceremony is sufficiently different from marriage to not consitute a breaking of vows. But, that is precisely the work of the commission and thus he is prejudicing it. Net net, previous bishop off hook, current bishop on.
2. The previous bishop made an explicit doctrinal declaration that commitment ceremonies are consistent with the doctrine of the church as found in Scripture and as understood by the BCP. The current bishop was thus maintaining the status quo as promised. Practices are irrelevant, but official statements are relevant here because, again, because we are talking about doctrine and not practice. I don’t think such a declaration has occurred. If it did, please let me know. Net net, current bishop off hook, previous bishop on.
Let me explain the conservative problem in a nutshell. It has very little to do with gays or gay marriage. Rather — if I could use a little pomo jargon here — it is the deconstruction of the Faith of the Church. In short, they are concerned that the following preamble to your constitution is no longer true:
The Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America,
otherwise known as The Episcopal Church (which name is hereby
recognized as also designating the Church), is a constituent member of the Anglican Communion, a Fellowship within the One, Holy, Catholic, and *Apostolic* Church, of those duly constituted Dioceses, Provinces, and regional Churches in communion with the See of Canterbury, upholding and propagating the *historic Faith* and Order *as set forth in the Book of Common Prayer*. [emphasis mine]
I would say that #2 is closer to the case than #1, but it is, as you’ve noticed, a policy/practice matter trying to dodge the doctrinal one. But no decision could be made in this case without such a dodge.
I can certainly understand the conservative concern as you state it. The question of how to deal with the “historic Faith” — and what that means — in the face of a changing (to use a value-neutral term) belief regarding God’s will and teaching among at least some members of teh Episcopal Church, is not a trivial one.
Oddly…
It seems that the clergy might be the only work enviroment where in is not easier to get forgiveness then it is to get permission.
I’m just glad that Bonnie and Catherine have you all at good shepard as a congragation.
In the relationship between clergy and God, I imagine forgiveness is is perhaps as easily had. Between clergy and their ecclesiastical (and lay) leadership, though, I agree it’s a lot more difficult. “With great power comes great responsibility.”
Here my Presbyterian bias will show through, but there is enough similar to be applicable to Episcopalian polity. Both churches are historic and confessional churches. That is, they believe in both Sola Scriptura and in an historic confession. The confession is subordinate to Scripture and its authority is derived from the consonance with Scripture. Both churches also acknowledge that they can and do err. So, both have mechanisms whereby their confession can be modified. There is built-in inertia with these mechanism and this inertia is caused by being an historic church. So, you do not assume that church has erred you have to prove it and prove it overwhelmingly by Scripture. Yet, it is still possible to do and has happened in the past.
So, the steps are as follows:
1. The error is discovered
2. The error is proven to the church and she changes her confession
3. The practice is changed
If you follow this out of order, it will be viewed as discarding the authority of Scripture for personal preference. Since Scripture is the Word of God, this disobedience is viewed as being against God Himself. Thus, liberal positions are not merely viewed as a different interpretation of Scripture but a repudiation of it. That is why the Global South is “this close” to excommunicating the American and Canadian churches. It is also why the issue over gays is bigger than over women in the priesthood because a Scriptural argument has been made with respect to this issue.
As for the forgiveness issue, there are different doctrinal standards for leadership and laity — at least for Protestant churches. A leader must not only be a Christian but also is bound by oath to uphold the teachings of their church. If they can no longer do it in good conscience then they are to remit their office. This brings up the issue with respect to Catholicism. Catholic doctrine includes the concept of implicit faith. Thus, it is perfectly allowable within their system to do what the bishop in Colorado is doing. Namely, witholding communion from those who would vote for candidates in favor of abortion, gay marriage, etc. If you don’t want your conscience bound by something other than Scripture, you should be neither a Roman Catholic or a leader in Protestantism. I really wonder if people who want to be church leaders realize they have less and not more freedom than the the just plain folks. BTW, I am speaking as someone who in the past has been in a leadership position, so I am speaking from experience here. If people held me to the standard I took by oath it is not at all a sign of a lack of forgiveness. If I violated my oath in ignorance, the loving thing to do is to bring it to my attention or not allowing me to transgress in the first place.
The big problem with Bishop Michael J. Sheridan in the Springs is that he and Chaput in Denver are being selective in the “all-life-is-sacred concept” that they are trying to inforce. If they were really following the Holy Fathers teachings they would have added Death Penalty and the support for the Iraq War to the list of non-communion activities. Both of these things Pope John-Paul II are against.
Though the easiest way to overcome the issue is to stop tithing.
In this morning’s Post, Sheridan stated he will deal with those issues in a later communication. We will have to wait and see. BTW, witholding money is what is being done by the conservatives in mainline Protestant denominations. Actually, diverting would be a better description. The money is being given and spent, just not by the denomination headquarters. The big winners here are Third-World churches as these are the biggest recipients of the diverted funds.
I was just thinking, if you have to vote for someone who held to all the classical Catholic positions I would have to vote for Pat Buchanan. Ew.
Stan, I agree there’s a certain degree of selectivity, though the Catholic Church position on both war and capital punishment is less absolute than it is on abortion.
Rich, ew, indeed! 🙂