Bishop-elect Glasspool’s election comes two days after Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori told an Atlanta radio station that there were no contradiction between the Episcopal Church’s 2006 pledge to abide by the Communion’s ban on consecrating gay bishops and actually electing gay bishops.
The 2009 vote by the Church’s General Convention was not “a reversal” of the moratorium, she said, as the canons had “for a long time said that the discernment process is open to any baptized person,” she told National Public Radio.
“The door has been open for many years” for gay and lesbian bishops, the presiding bishop said, confirming that she would go ahead with the consecration of a lesbian or gay bishop.
During the debate on resolution D025 at the July General Convention, the bishops noted there was a distinction between intentions and actions, with the moratorium being broken when the Episcopal Church consecrated a new gay bishop. Bishop Jefferts Schori said that was “my understanding of it. We have been asked to exercise restraint, and we have done so.”
“Effectively a moratorium remains until it is ended,” she later said on July 18.
[blockquote]The 2009 vote by the Church’s General Convention was not “a reversal†of the moratorium, she said, as the canons had “for a long time said that the discernment process is open to any baptized person,†she told National Public Radio.[/blockquote]
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in a rather a scornful tone,”it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice,”whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master— that’s all.”
What flavor Kool-Aid is the PB drinking?
“Effectively a moratorium remains until it is ended,†she later said on July 18.
It has ended ……..
After taking a small sip of water, clearing her palate, the PB said she was a vegetarian. Then she proceded to finish the bacon cheeseburger she ordered.
Grady
The moratorium as I understand it was in offering consents.
BO33 from 2006 reads
[blockquote] That this Convention therefore call upon Standing Committees and bishops with jurisdiction to exercise restraint by [b]not consenting[/b] 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.[/blockquote]
That is the only point at which the wider Episcopal Church has a say in a local diocesan election. In fact, a diocese could elect anyone and the only point at which the wider church would have a say would be during the consent process.
Whether or not the necessary consents will be gained will remain to be seen. I would guess that Glasspool may receive the necessary consents given the two resolutions at GC last summer. Then again, it was widely stated by the PB and other bishops that the statements did not overturn the moratorium on consenting to the election of one whose manner of life presented a challenge to the wider communion. So it remains to be seen what the moderate dioceses across the church (of which there are many more than the far left) will do given BO33.
The question has now been called. By late spring, Canterbury, the Communion, the ACNA, and the rank and file Episcopalian will have the answer.
paxetbonum-
The moratorium is the one outlined in Lambeth 1.10- until such time (if any) that there is consensus in the Communion to allow such ORDINATIONS (TEC was already in violation when Lambeth 1.10 was voted in- having knowingly, and at the time non-canonically, ordained partnered gay clergy). So each and every ORDINATION since has been a violation of the moratorium. The stuff about “episcopal ordinations” or “consecrations” is from later documents in which the ABC and JSC tried to “massage” the language of 1.10 to say something it actually doesn’t say.
B033 is a resolution of GC that never met the Lambeth 1.10 moratoria on either ordinations or ssbs (since it does not address ssbs at all). Equating B033 with the moratoria is just 815 spin- no one else in the Communion looks at the moratoria that way.
Yes, chips, the chips are down and the revisionists have all the strongest cards showing. The dealer has already played his queen of hearts. Soon the consents will be in, which might be closer than we think based on the cards shown thus far.
Then there will be the call not to consecrate, as if the winner could be dissuaded from scooping up his chips. The call not to consecrate will be for show only, in advance of the “Shame! Shame!” proclamations to come 30 seconds after the consecration.
Then all eyes will be on the dealer………
The “moratoria” in question were the ones requested in the Windsor report — specifically in paragraphs 134, 144, and 155. B033 was intended to be a response, however adequately or otherwise, to the first request: “to effect a moratorium on the election and consent to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate who is living in a same gender union.”
B033 (which may or may not have been repealed at GC this year) never attempted to effect a moratorium on “electing” such bishops, but it did call for “restraint” in consenting to their elections. We’ll find out over the next 120 days what force, if any, that call for restraint now has.
Whatever good this word parsing exercise may be, it is more autopsy that triage.
Peace,
-ms