I am afraid it’s a “no go”, Bishop Bruno. We have exhausted the provisions of the Canons to which you could have been referring. Those diocesan bishops and standing committees who choose to withhold their consent to the election of the Rev. Canon Mary Glasspool cannot be charged with violating any of the Church’s Canons.
And one more thing, while I am at it: each of the passages quoted above forbids discrimination based on sexual orientation, not on sexual practice. I am not aware of any single bishop or standing committee who has declared their opposition to the ordination to the ministry of a gay or lesbian person who was celibate. The Rev. Canon Glasspool, however, does not fall into that category. So not only do you read into the Canons prohibitions which are not there, but you cannot even interpret the language that is there.
Not so fast Mr. Haley. In TEC it is not neccesary to name a Canon that has been broken or even prove that it even exsists in order for one to be deposed for breaking it. It is really about the Holy Spirit you see.
Intercessor
I would think the reason for opposition would be that the candidate is living in a non-matrimonial, non-celibate relationship. This rationale would apply to men, women, or a man and a woman. It has nothing to do with sexual orientation.
Exactly, NoVA Scout. (Mr. Haley agrees with you — he made that same point in response to a comment by Father Daniel Weir.)
Opposition to the spirit of the age is adequate grounds for dismissing those who disagree with it. This is NOT canonical, merely the Prime Directive. Evidence for this abounds in TEc and the actions of the PB.