The Diocese of San Joaquin responds to House of Bishops’ Meeting

The clear message of the September 25th House of Bishops (HOB) statement is that they are determined to stay on the exact same course that they have been on all along.

Although promising “not to authorize public rites for the blessing of same-sex unions” sounds like a prohibition, in reality it is a “don’t ask; don’t tell” policy in practice. This has been demonstrated by Bishop Bruno’s recent comments that he has not authorized such blessings, while priests in the Diocese of Los Angeles do so without hesitation. If this were a prohibition, priests who conduct such blessings would be inhibited by Bishop Bruno. To date, this has not happened. Not authorizing “a public rite” means that The Episcopal Church (TEC) will not authorize and publish an official prayer book service for same-sex unions. In other words, clergy in dioceses who wish to perform same-sex unions may continue to do so, so long as it is not an official public rite. This is neither prohibition nor restraint. It is simply turning a blind eye.

Likewise, the promise 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” is a proclamation of intent that falls far short of repentance, and is no guarantee of cessation. At best this is a pause, not a change in direction. Were this a change in direction, a lesbian candidate for the Diocese of Chicago would be removed from the list. What did the HOB statement say about ordaining practicing homosexuals to other clerical orders? Nothing.

Read it all.


Posted in * Anglican - Episcopal, - Anglican: Primary Source, -- Statements & Letters: Bishops, Episcopal Church (TEC), Sept07 HoB Meeting, TEC Bishops

8 comments on “The Diocese of San Joaquin responds to House of Bishops’ Meeting

  1. Cennydd says:

    If Tracy Lind is elected in Chicago, and if she receives the required consents, this will be regarded as further proof that The Episcopal Church will not backtrack. It will backfire on them as far as the primates are concerned, and it will guarantee the coming final schism. They might win in the short run, but the end results will be the same………the end of the Anglican Communion as we’ve known it, and the birth of a new and separate Anglican Communion under another archbishop. May God be with us and bless us all!

  2. Gator says:

    If not Lind, then someone sometime will be elected to test the consents process, even though this is a big risk financially with all the expense of a bishop search. But the point now is that any smart high schooler could figure out that HOB is just stalling for time. When the tea party with the Queen is over, they will push it. Integrity has promised they will go all out again at the Disney Land Convention (Anaheim ’09) on this. With Common Cause moving forward, count on TEc saying, “Damn the torpedos, full speed ahead.”

  3. Gator says:

    I just had a lightbulb experience. They will time it so that a bishop-elect is brought to the GC for confirmation, ala V.G. Robinson. There will be much anguish, but it will pass.

  4. Dee in Iowa says:

    Gator you are probably right, but there will be no anguish, for those who would anguish will either be gone or have been silenced….

  5. wvparson says:

    How on earth my a candidate be withdrawn from a diocesan list except by the nominating cttee which approved the candidacy and who has the power to make a cttee act in such a manner? It seems to me that the consent process alone provides a place where bishops may do as they promise and refuse consent.

  6. Gator says:

    Dee–The anguish will be for “moderates” (their word choice) who then will be in the position of appearing relatively conservative, because they will argue for Communion sensitivity (for what Communion is left for them).

  7. Bob from Boone says:

    “Autonomous dioceses,” eh?

  8. usma87 says:

    Isn’t that how +Bruno gets away with SSBs in “his” diocese. I know it is the “local pastoral provision”. Why do we always point to that or “incursions” at the absence of “homosexuality is not compatible with Scripture” part of AC documents?