Evidently not satisfied with Bishop O’Neill’s letter of reprimand (a/k/a “Godly Admonition”) to Bonnie, or interested in giving the bishop time to complete his policy review on such matters, the conservative clergy in Colorado are making threatening rumbles. demanding harsher action.
Conservative Episcopalians will ask Bishop Rob O’Neill to impose harsher sanctions against the Rev. Bonnie Spencer, an assistant pastor who participated in a same-sex ritual at Good Shepherd Church in Centennial.
In a letter sent to O’Neill last weekend, a conservative leader criticized the bishop’s handling of the matter, which was to impose a “godly admonition,” the lightest rebuke possible. In his decision, issued last week, O’Neill also authorized Spencer to take a six-week leave of absence.
The Rev. Don Armstrong, of Colorado Springs, warned in a letter to O’Neill that conservatives plan to demand that he consider defrocking Spencer and firing the church’s interim rector who approved the ritual.
“What Bonnie did . . . is clearly a same-sex blessing, and that must be stopped,” Armstrong said.
Now, given that the actual letter from Rev. Armstrong isn’t available, and given the through-a-word-processor-darkly nature of how previous letters from folks in this case have been somewhat mangled by the Rocky, I hate to draw too many conclusions here.
Still, it seems to me extraordinary that there be a demand to have Bonnie “defrocked” in this matter. And Rev. Armstrong would know as well as anyone else that our interim rector is actually hired by the parish, not the bishop; while I’m sure the bishop could, should he choose to do so, exert pressure on our parish to let Rev. Need go, I don’t believe he can actually “fire” her on our behalf.
I’m also not sure how this balances with Armstrong’s previous statement, in the Denver Post, apparently approving of the bishop’s actions (which had been communcated at that time): “”I think what he’s done is struck the right chord for the moment.”
I’ll wait until the apparently-leaked (if not CCed) letter to the bishop makes it online to make any further comment.
That can’t be true. A bishop cannot “defrock” a priest. There must be presentment and trial. Now, three priests in the diocese can present charges to the Diocesan Review Committee. Or, the bishop may inform the Diocesan Review Committee with the facts so that it may do an investigation. The letter may be warning the bishop that this is charges are forthcoming, or more likely they are requesting the bishop to present the facts to the Diocesan Review Committee. Here’s some relevant quotes from the Canons:
Possible charges: Title IV, Canon 1.1
(c) Holding and teaching publicly or privately, and advisedly, any
doctrine contrary to that held by this Church.
(d) Violation of the Rubrics of the Book of Common Prayer.
(e) Violation of the Constitution or Canons of the General Convention.
Who may file charges? Title IV, Canon 3.3
(b) by any three Priests canonically resident in the Diocese wherein the Respondent is canonically resident or canonically resident in the
Diocese wherein the Respondent is alleged to have committed the
Offense;
Note also the following canons (Title IV, Canon 3)
Sec. 5. Whenever the Bishop has sufficient reason to believe that any Priest or Deacon canonically resident in that Diocese has committed an Offense and the interests and good order and discipline of the Church require investigation by the Diocesan Review Committee, the Bishop shall concisely and clearly inform the Diocesan Review Committee in writing as to the nature of and facts surrounding each alleged Offense but without judgment or comment upon the allegations, and the Diocesan Review Committee shall proceed as if a Charge had been filed.
Sec. 7. Except as expressly provided in this Canon, no Bishop of the
Diocese shall prefer a Charge against a Priest or Deacon canonically
resident in that Diocese.
Sec. 8. Any Charge against a Priest or Deacon shall be promptly filed with the President of the Diocesan Review Committee.
Sec. 9. Upon the filing of a Charge with the Diocesan Review Committee, the Diocesan Review Committee shall promptly communicate the same to the Bishop and the Respondent.
The verb used in the Rocky article is “defrocked”. Anybody who knows the canons would use the word “depose”. As you can see the process does not allow for the bishop to unilaterally defrock a priest. I do not believe that Armstrong would make such a fundamental mistake. So, I agree with you the Rocky is probably not entirely accurate.
Still can’t find the quoted bits from Rev. Armstrong above showing up anywhere in Google. On the other hand, there’s some even less temperate bits attributed to him here.
You are personally understood by many of us to be part of the double speak; smoke and mirrors attempt to bring local option perversion into the church. Frankly, to do such is going to destroy the Communion, undermine the health of our Diocese, and diminish beyond repair our witness as individual congregations as long as we are in anyway under your authority. Why would you want walk down such a demon infested path?
Yeesh.
Granted, the site’s not exactly the most reliable source for info (I’m told, and by someone who’s pretty conservative), but, still … yeesh.