The recent election in the Diocese of Los Angeles of a partnered lesbian as bishop suffragan raises the questions of covenant and communion within The Episcopal Church (TEC) and the Anglican Communion once again. Leadership in the Diocese of Texas has consistently adhered to the request for gracious restraint and a moratorium put forth in the Windsor Report and supports the ongoing process of a Covenant within the global Communion and will continue to do so.
The Diocese of Los Angeles and the Rev. Canon Mary D. Glasspool, elected on December 5, must now follow a consent process. The implications of this vote are far reaching and it remains to be seen if more than half of TEC’s 109 diocesan standing committees and more than half of the diocesan bishops will approve her election. It may take up to four months for the consent process to unfold.
The Windsor Report, written following the election and consecration of the Rt. Rev. Gene Robinson, NH in 2003, requested a moratorium on the consecration of gay bishops and in 2006, The Episcopal Church agreed to refrain from electing additional actively gay bishops. This summer, the Church’s General Convention acknowledged there is great diversity of opinion within the Church on the issueof sexuality, marriage and ordination.
The Diocese of Texas is a diverse diocese and opinions among our clergy and our laity vary on the issue of sexuality. We have many gay and lesbian members across the diocese and week after week they join with the rest of our Church as faithful communicants to worship and work on behalf of Jesus Christ. We acknowledge the blessing of diverse opinions on scripture and sexuality, while as a whole the Diocese of Texas has continued and continues to offer a clear response to the wider Communion through a traditional teaching on marriage and ordination.
Even so, the Diocese of Texas has always supported both the Windsor Report and the Covenant Process which seeks to realize a Communion where everyone across the globe has a voice in the common life of the Church. We cannot isolate ourselves by listening only to the voices of any one province, or even the voices of any one diocese within our province. In the Diocese of Texas we are interested in our relationships locally and abroad, believing we are stronger when we listen to and partner with diverse cultures around the world.
As bishop of the Diocese of Texas I will continue to honor the request of my brother and sister bishops across our province and the Communion, and the leadership of the Archbishop of Canterbury, and will not consent to the Rev. Glasspool’s election.
While I will not vote to consent to this election, I am unified with others throughout the Anglican Communion around the issues of safeguarding human rights everywhere. We reject the pending Ugandan legislation that would introduce the death penalty for people who violate portions of that country’s anti-homosexuality laws.I believe that “efforts to criminalize homosexual behavior are incompatible with the Gospel of Jesus Christ” (General Convention 2006, Resolution D005). This has been the position of Anglican bodies, including several Lambeth Conferences.
The Primates’ Meeting noted that, as Anglicans, “we assure homosexual people that they are children of God, loved and valued by him, and deserving of the best we can give of pastoral care and friendship” (Primates’ Communiqué, Dromantine, 2005). Recently, our Presiding Bishop has spoken out and our Archbishop has been meeting intensively with the leaders of Uganda to insure the dignity of every human being is honored as a creature of God.
–(The Rt. Rev.) C. Andrew Doyle is Bishop of Texas
I have this from several sources; i tried in vain to find it on the diocesan website if anyone out there can help me with a link there i would be grateful.
Look, over there! It’s a distraction! It’s that nasty Ugandan anti-homosex law! (Pay no attention to the bishop-elect behind the curtain)
If Doyle is going to gush about what a blessing open immorality is in his diocese, he ought to stop the fraud of claiming a “traditional teaching on marriage and ordination.” The truth is, he is adhering to traditional rules – for now – on those matters, but his teaching is quite different, as reflected in this letter.
At the risk of the elves censoring me, in the monthly Diocese of Texas newsletter, there is an advertisement for the monthly Integrity Eucharist proudly displayed. A bishop that would not consent to an election of a non-celibate suffragan bishop would not allow this in a newsletter….
He had an integrity chapter at Saint Francis, College Station while he was the rector there in the late 90s. This man hasn’t changed one bit.
[i] Edited by elf. [/i]
It appears several folks are making comments about the Bishop of Texas himself and not the communique. I am well aware of his reputation as a theological liberal, but I don’t see why we should blast him when he goes on record AGAINST the consecration of Canon Glasspool. If this is true, and if it really does indicate the will of the Bishop and his Diocese then we have our first “No” vote already.
The anti-Ugandan law, and the usual quotes from past GC’s and Lambeth conferences seem to be bones thrown to the Integrity crowd as consolation for issuing an opinion he knows they will not like. It may also recognizes that the Bishop understands his outlook is to the left of most of his laity and possibly clergy.
In a sense, a “no” vote, is a “no” vote and just perhaps it might signal a rejection of Rev. Glasspool similar to KTF last year. (My money is still on her getting the number of consents, but I also thought KTF was a shoe-in.)
much as i no longer pay attention to the texas diocese or its bishop, this wasn’t a bad letter and pretty honest, which is a surprise given my past dealings with them. however, i would rather they just all vote yes and get it over with. if she doesn’t get it, it will only prolong the pain. it is inevietable that this is going to happen, and its better to get it done sooner than later. perhaps this will be the final straw for RW to act and recognize ACNA and we can all move on. and yes, i can attest that they did indeed regularly advertise the integrity ‘eucharist’ in their paper.
billqs, read his letter again. He is not taking a side so much as he is jumping from one side of the fence to the other so many times in this letter that it’s dizzying to watch.
fatherlee, my understanding was that Bishop Andy was not rector of St. Francis but rather was its vicar. I believe one of the criticisms of his becoming a bishop was that he had never been a rector of a church.
Well, how curious – a man who has subsumed what are clearly his own views to that of his diocese, and their interests as part of the wider church. A bishop with some backbone [for this does take courage] appears to have made it through the election/selection process and to be growing in the role. I think he deserves considerable credit for his stand, although whether my endorsement will do him any good I don’t know, but I thought I would say it anyway.