(ENS) The Standing Committee of the Episcopal Diocese of Western New York has told a newly formed bishop search committee that they are expected to “honor the mind of the Episcopal Church regarding acceptable candidates for the episcopate as expressed through the General Convention.”
The Standing Committee said in a posting on the diocese’s bishop search website that the requirement referred to Resolution B033, passed by the Episcopal Church’s General Convention in June 2006.
In Resolution B033, General Convention called upon standing committees and bishops with jurisdiction to “exercise restraint by not consenting to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains on communion.”
Good for them!
Your post neglects to note the part of the release where the Standing Committee: “strongly recommends” that the diocese’s deputation to the 76th General Convention “should work for or support efforts at the 2009 General Convention to rescind Resolution B033.”
As I noted in to the ENS reporter on the story last week, “The Standing Committee of Western New York stands out as the tip of the iceberg of mainstream Episcopalians.”
“They are asking our bishops and deputies to release this church from the straitjacket B033 has imposed on the vocational discernment process of a diocese seeking the best candidates for their bishop — to end the era of de facto apartheid that restricts a percentage of the baptized from full inclusion in all orders of ministry. We will keep the Diocese of Western New York in our prayers as they seek and call a new pastor for their people — as well as the deputies of Western New York as we work together to end this blatant discrimination against the LGBT baptized.”
apartheid? hyperbole?
Ms Russell is absolutely correct. This is “honoring” in the loosest sense of the word. They will announce the bishop candidates AFTER general convention where they are pushing hard for repeal of B033, so they won’t be “shackled” by the resolution.
Ms Russell talks about “apartheid.” Hard to know whether to laugh or throw up at that word’s abuse.
To describe the provisions of B033 as “apartheid” is incredibly callous and disrepectful to those citizens of South Africa who had to live under real apartheid for 40 yeasrs
i think that wny’s is actually trying to honor tec and its decisions while disagreeing. as a resolution of gc06, b033 does have some influence over the current church politics, and while i personally disagree with b033, i think that it needs upheld as much as i think all other gc resolutions do. thus, wny is doing a faithful job of supporting the church in its polity decisions. yet they also appear to see that b033 is wrong; hence the call for its appeal. wny is both honoring the polity and decisions of tec, while at nevertheless striving to correct (rather than simply disregarding) those areas in which it sees the church as erring. working with views we disagree with — something we call could learn from….
Youngadult,
It looks like both your caps key and your enter key are malfunctioning, as neither were used in your latest message.
apartheid:
1 – An official policy of racial segregation formerly practiced in the Republic of South Africa, involving political, legal, and economic discrimination against nonwhites.
2- A policy or practice of separating or segregating groups.
The impact of B033 is the implementation of a policy and practice that segregates a group (AKA otherwise qualified candidates for the episcopate whose “manner of life causes concern to the wider communion”) from access to the episcopate.
Pointing out the interlocking nature of oppressions does not in any way diminish or disrespect the reality of any one margianlized population’s experience. Rather it calls all those with power to make changes in oppressive systems to come together and work to respect the dignity of EVERY human being.
The Diocese of Western NY has helped make that case. It will be the case we will make in Anaheim. Thanks for the opportunity to explore the background on this forum.
[i] Please do not go off topic with a discussion of the prior comment. [/i]
[blockquote]The impact of B033 is the implementation of a policy and practice that segregates a group (AKA otherwise qualified candidates for the episcopate whose “manner of life causes concern to the wider communion”) from access to the episcopate. [/blockquote]
Of course, otherwise-eligible persons could refrain from engaging in those acts deemed inappropriate of a bishop and thus again be acceptable for consecration. I don’t think black South Africans had the option of becoming white South Africans, Susan.
What the actions of the Diocese of Western New York have pointed out is the schizophrenia of church policies that promise full and equal claim to its gay and lesbian baptized in 1976, adds sexual orientation to the non-discrmination canons in 1994 and then in 2006 simultaneously passes A095 (reaffirm The Episcopal Church’s historical support of gay and lesbian persons as children of God) and B033 — institutionalizing discrimination (“for a season”) when it comes to the episcopate.
What Western NY is asking is for this church to be honest about who it is and end the two-steps-forward-one-step-back on LGBT inclusion. Whether or not gay people can “choose” to be straight has ceased to be a subject of debate in the mainstream Episcopal Church, I realize that’s a minority opinion on this site, but there it is.
All that said, I do continue to appreciate this site and its willingness to facilitate respectful sharing of differences in spite of the challenges of deeply held opinions to draw us into polemic and ad hominem attacks. The elves do a great job at what must sometimes seem a thankless and unending task.
So “thanks” … and onward to Easter!
That’s a straw man, Susan, and I suspect you know it is. What we’re discussing is behavior, not orientation. Are you suggesting it is impossible for gays, lesbians and the other sexual groups currently in political favor to remain celibate to be eligible for the episcopacy?
Elves? 🙂
RE: “Hard to know whether to laugh . . . ”
Oh come come, Rob Roy — laughter is surely the natural option — how could you resist? ; > )
Here — I’ll help you.
Why stop at apartheid to describe B033? Nay — not apartheid, but [i]murder[/i] — black hearted murder most foul of the souls of those who only wish to practice their sexual orientiation in peace.
And why just murder? Nay — but [i]genocide[/i]. Foul genocide of an entire and special class of people of a certain and special sexual orientation who wish to practice that certain and special sexual orientation in peace.
And not merely genocide — nay, the Most Horrible and Worst Crime Ever — Smoking & Littering and and . . . and . . . Sexism.
There.
I hope we have the proper names here to describe one of the more heinous immoralities that this church has ever propagated against, again, people who merely wish to practice their particular and very special sexual orientation in peace.
The fact that this church would forbid a particular sexual practice — well . . . it boggles my mind frankly.
Whatever someone’s prejudice about BO33, it strikes me that WNY, which hasn’t had reasserter episcopal leadership in a long, long time, won’t struggle very hard with the double-mindedness of TEC.
Moral of the story: Stick to the hit-and-run commenting from now on.
You’re sadly correct, Sarah. I have heard those very arguments: Because we aren’t consecrating homosexuals as bishops, we are promoting “hatred” of homosexuals and we are basically egging on people like the killers of Matthew Shephard.
Such is the abuse of the human language of the likes of Ms Russell. So with that perspective, she is showing restraint by saying today we are only proponents of “apartheid.”
Susan Russell, when we discuss homosexuality, we’re not talking about the orientation being abnormal. We’re talking about the sexual [b]practices[/b] as being [b]unnatural.[/b] They are condemned by virtually every society on Earth. Christ’s Church is no different in that respect.
[i]Elves?[/i]
Help, I’m losing the argument! Silence the opposition!!
Suddenly speech codes, the Fairness Doctrine, campus shout-downs and the Obama administration’s eagerness to ban books, movies, etc. all fits together in one seamless garment. Well done, Susan.
[i] Hit and run comments will be deleted… and this thread will be more closely watched. [/i]
Elf Lady
[i] Off topic comment deleted by elf. [/i]