Odd that the Diocese of Rochester is not on Integrity’s list of dioceses that conduct Same-Sex Blessings.
The Diocese of Rochester has been by many accounts at the forefront of advocacy for GLBT issues. It’s where Integrity is headquartered after all. And there has been an active and determined inter-faith push for Same-Sex blessings etc. in the city of Rochester.
Many in Rochester seem proud of their diocese’s lead on same-sex blessings an GLBT issues. A newspaper article published at the time of Gene Robinson’s consecration in 2003 highlights Rochester’s lead role in GLBT issues in ECUSA:
The Episcopal Diocese of Rochester, part of the larger Anglican tradition, has been a national leader on gay issues. So it’s natural that local Episcopalians would focus on the November 2 “consecration” of a gay man, the Rev. Gene Robinson, as Bishop Coadjutor of New Hampshire. […]
In any case, Robinson has been a rising star in the church. In 1999, he sought election as bishop of the Rochester diocese and came in second, says the Rev. Canon Carolyn Lumbard, head of diocesan communications. “This diocese,” she says, “is interested in gifts and talents.”
“It’s going to be an interesting time in the Episcopal Church,” says Neil Houghton, a local Episcopalian who attended Robinson’s consecration.
Houghton is active in the church in several ways. He’s the senior warden at the church where he’s worshipped with for 20-plus years, St. John’s of Honeoye Falls. And he’s the Northeast Regional vice president of Integrity USA, a national not-for-profit group for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered persons that has organizational counterparts in Canada, Australia, and Uganda.
Armed with this experience, Houghton brought back some indelible impressions from New Hampshire. The consecration, he says, was “a holy sacrament, but also a celebration.” He acknowledges the event drew protesters and advocates. But he says “there were also everyday people from New Hampshire, kids and families.” He saw around 250 students from the University of New Hampshire there, with T-shirts reading, “Gay? Fine With Me!” On the other hand, he watched a tiny group — followers of Pastor Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kansas — proclaiming “Sodomites Die in Hell.”
“I hate that [the consecration] will cause grief and pain to some, but it was an absolutely glorious experience,” says Houghton. But how is this playing in Honeoye Falls? Houghton says the congregation at St. John’s recently met to discuss the issue. “There was almost unanimous support for what the church is doing,” he says. “This,” he says, “is a very liberal, tolerant area in the Episcopal Church, and even the Roman Catholic Church.” (Local members of Integrity share weekly services at St. Luke and St. Simon Cyrene Episcopal Church downtown with Catholics who belong to Dignity, a similar religious support group.)
According to Houghton, there have been “blessings” of gay unions in the local diocese for around 30 years. Indeed, says the Rev. J. Brad Benson, chair of the diocesan Committee for Gay and Lesbian Ministry, the diocese has had a gay ministry “for education and to dispel harmful stereotypes” for more than 20 years. Benson notes that some local Episcopalians are “concerned” about what’s happening in their church. But that’s nothing new, he says in effect. Some people, he says, left the church during the civil rights era — “because they didn’t want to share a pew with a person of a different color.”
Rites are central to the Anglican tradition, of course. So are local Episcopal churches developing liturgies for blessing gay relationships? “Officially,” says Neil Houghton, “there is no adopted liturgy in the Episcopal Church.”
Spokesperson Lumbard says the diocese will be looking at what to offer as “resources” in this regard. “It’s coming,” she says, without giving a timeframe. Bishop McKelvey, she says, “would support the blessing of lifelong, monogamous, committed [same-sex] relationships.”
But she emphasizes that what’s under discussion here is not gay marriage.
Wow, performing SSBs for 30 years and not on Integrity’s list. Looks like you need to try a little harder, Integrity. Or be a bit more honest?
And what’s this about no officially approved liturgies? More word games, apparently. Thanks to a Canadian publication from 2003, we can all read a liturgy that’s been developed in the diocese of Rochester. See pp. 12-15. And don’t miss the article on page 11, as well, which confirms the leading role the diocese of Rochester has played in GLBT issues in ECUSA.
Just one more example of the fundamental deceit and dishonesty occurring in TEC on the matter of SSBs. A diocese performing such ceremonies for 30 years is not officially recognized as conducting public rites. WOW. Words fail.
—-
P.S., and lest anyone think this is some kind of un-intentional oversight, how about the fact that the Diocese of Newark is not listed. Nor is Los Angeles listed.
But maybe Elizabeth Kaeton is hallucinating about this SSB that occurred in the middle of a Sunday morning worship service? And maybe Susan Russell is exaggerating a tad when she states:
“Same-sex blessings occur in the Diocese of Los Angeles all the time,” she said listing several parishes including her own of which she was aware. “We don’t ask for permission because Bishop Bruno has told us that he cannot give it until General Convention approves an official liturgy. He has told us that we are free to exercise appropriate pastoral care for our presbyters.”
You think they’re lying? Nah. Kaeton, Russell, and +VGR are the honest ones. It’s TEC that’s lying with it’s claim that only a few dioceses allow SSBs.
We could also easily add Massachusetts, and Olympia, and perhaps Chicago, Missouri and Minnesota (see p. 15’s sidebar), …, oh and did we mention New York? How about Atlanta? It’s a quickly growing list! I’m sure with more effort we could expand this.
Let me provide a bit more detail for a few of the dioceses thrown into my PS list so readers don’t have to wade through too much text in each link to find the relevant quotes.
First: Chicago, +Persell said in a response to the Dar es Salaam Communique:
As bishop of Chicago I will not sacrifice the gifts we enjoy as an inclusive church so that we might conform to a doctrinal uniformity that is antithetical to our historic identity and experience. I will continue to invite gay and lesbian Christians into the full life and ministry of our diocesan community, and celebrate their gifts of ministry and covenanted relationships.
For Missouri:
A same-sex blessing occurred on March 4, 2007 at Christ Church Cathedral, St. Louis, in the Diocese
of Missouri; other same-sex blessings that have taken place have not been well publicized and thus are unknown to the AAC at this time
For Minnesota:
A priest presiding over a wedding in St. Paul, Minn., noticed that the Diocese of Minnesota parish, St. Paul’s on-the-Hill, has recorded at least one same-sex union over the past year as a “marriage.†In addition, the diocesan secretary,
when asked on the phone about how to obtain permission for doing a wedding in that diocese, replied to the priest calling by asking, in a routine fashion, whether the wedding would be between two men, two women, or a man and a woman
+Kentucky is less clear, but his words in this [url=http://www.americananglican.org/site/c.ikLUK3MJIpG/b.564003/apps/s/content.asp?ct=3845295]March 2007 interview[/url] certainly suggest there are “unofficial blessings” happening and that he’s ok with that. But no explicit info is given for Kentucky. I guess it all depends on what +Gulick means by “our reality” in the quote below: ECUSA? or Kentucky?
[blockquote]About same-sex unions, the same reality that pertains to the Episcopal Church pertains to the Diocese of London. There is no official permission or official liturgy in the Episcopal Church that has been developed,
… In my mind, basically our reality is very parallel to the reality in the Church of England. For example, I found out that a very large parish in the Diocese of London has developed rites of the blessing of the civil unions, which are a matter of law in the England. …. I don’t think any bishop in the Church of England has approved the rites but I know they have been informed that they are going on. Functionally, on a day to day basis, the same reality is in our church that exists in the Church of England … so that is a matter easy to clarify.[/blockquote]
More background on +Gulick and Kentucky is here:
http://www.americananglican.org/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=ikLUK3MJIpG&b=675589&ct=2360331
http://www.thewitness.org/article.php?id=1068
Atlanta:
[blockquote]In his charge to the committee, Bishop Alexander stated that it is his understanding that the Canons of the Church do not permit him to authorize a liturgy for regular use unless and until the General Convention of the Episcopal Church has authorized such a liturgy. In the discussion, [b]the Bishop and the committee recognized and affirmed that pastoral acts of blessing are taking place in various places in the Church (including the Diocese of Atlanta)[/b] and that General Convention 2003 recognized such pastoral acts as taking place within the normal and legitimate life of the Church.[/blockquote]
Yup, that’s a “Yes” no matter how they spin it.
So, we’re up to 21-22 dioceses that appear to allow SSBs. We’ve doubled Integrity’s list with little effort. Do any readers have info on other dioceses and public SSB’s you can document?
Please let us know either in the comments here, or by e-mail (T19elves@yahoo.com). Thanks!
–elfgirl
Dear Elves,
I have no axe to grind with you…I’m against SSBs. But I’m in the diocese of Atlanta, and in the past, +Alexander has inhibited any priest that was caught doing a SSB. Spin or not, he seems to follow the rules.
Shumanbean, certainly we welcome clarification and details from folks in the dioceses cited above. If we are wrong, we will gladly delete the reference to Atlanta and issue a public correction. But the excerpt from Atlanta is from an official publication of the diocese of Atlanta!
–From Diolog, the diocesan publication of the Diocese of Atlanta, September/October 2005 edition, an article written by The Reverend Roger H. Ard
It seems to be reporting Bishop Alexander’s OWN words:
[i]In his charge to the committee [note: a study committee to consider same-sex unions and the formation of a liturgy for a blessing of such unions], Bishop Alexander stated that it is his understanding that the Canons of the Church do not permit him to authorize a liturgy for regular use unless and until the General Convention of the Episcopal Church has authorized such a liturgy. In the discussion, the Bishop and the committee recognized and affirmed that pastoral acts of blessing are taking place in various places in the Church (including the Diocese of Atlanta) and that General Convention 2003 recognized such pastoral acts as taking place within the normal and legitimate life of the Church.[/i]
Surely the diocesan newspaper would not get something so important so wrong? If so, was a clarification issued? Until there’s proof that +Atlanta refuted this, we seem to have evidence that blessings have been taking place in Atlanta.
Based on an e-mail we received, Kentucky is definitely questionable. Gulick may be very supportive of SSB’s but seems to want to play by the rules… We’re looking for more info.
In the meantime, I’ll take Kentucky off the list in the PS, but will leave my earlier comment while we continue to seek further clarification.
If you are doing ssb’s, be proud and be honest. Say you are proud to do them!
My, the elves are testy today. I’ll double check the listings on our Integrity website but my recollection is the question was which dioceses had “official” policies on blessings. Rochester may, indeed, not be among them. I know my own diocese is … +Jon has declined to decree one. As I noted in an earlier comment on this site, “C051?” stands as the articulated position of the Episcopal Church on the issue of same-sex blessings and that position is that they DO occur and that “we recognize that local faith communities are operating within the bounds of our common life as they explore and experience liturgies celebrating and blessing same-sex unions.”
As a priest in the diocese of Rochester, I would like to respond to this. No, if one wants to follow the letter of the law, rites for same-sex blessings or covenants are not officially authorized in the diocese of Rochester. Yet as you correctly note, and as the article by our current Canon Steve Lane which you linked to makes clear, the diocese has had available a liturgy which has been seen as and used as a ‘private’ pastoral response to gay and lesbian members of our parishes until the day when a public rite authorized by General Convention might be made available. I am fairly confident that this diocese’s delegation would vote in favor of such a rite were it to come before General Convention.
Yet, as Canon Kendall has rightly pointed out in his comments on Bishop Robinson’s recent open letter following the New Orleans meeting of the house of bishops, many, including Bishop Robinson, are beginning to question the legitimacy of such a distinction between public and private. I myself share Bishop Robinson’s rejection of that distinction, and agree with him that it is unsustainable theologically and ecclesiologically.
To that extent, I would agree with both Gene and Kendall, who, as odd as it may sound, actually seem to agree that a forward movement for all of us will involve more boldness on the part of ECUSA bishops and dioceses in affirming openly public rites of blessing for gay, lesbian, and transgendered persons. That this will put us on a path of separation from the Anglican Communion (I’m tempted to call it a divorce, a word which as an Anglican, and not a Roman Catholic, I do not fear, but can see as having its own blessings and grace) is a consequence I think we need to accept.
Should such openness mean that ECUSA is not invited to Lambeth and is ‘disciplined’ as my friend Ephraim Radner has said, I for one would look forward to such discipline without shame or fear, and would walk boldly with Bishop Gene and others who will not shrink back from the decisions we have made toward full inclusion.
Honesty requires that we affirm publically what we believe in our hearts privately and what we have acted upon in good faith. That is the very essence of integrity, and it is high time the rest of ECUSA take the lead from folks like Bishop Robinson, and our brothers and sisters in Integrity and step out of the numerous closets that are binding us. I for one would like to celebrate in the church with open joy the many public covenants of my gay and lesbian friends without fear of recrimination.
I should be clear that this is, of course, simply my opinion, not that of the diocese of Rochester, its bishop, nor anyone else in an official position. I share it with gratitude to Kendall for his recent words regarding Bishop Gene’s recent “Open Letter to the LGBT Community from Bishop Gene Robinson”, which I will quote for those who did not see them. Canon Harmon wrote about Bishop Robinson’s letter: “I applaud this truthful witness, and what I believe to be an accurate explanation that the bishops were misunderstood. Why can’t we have more people in this church who are willing to tell the truth?–KSH.”
Though I know Kendall’s position is diametrically opposed to Bishop Robinson’s, it is to his credit that he sees that the way forward for all of us, re-appraiser and re-asserter alike, relies on a willingness to stand by our actions with conviction and honesty, and not by trying to satisfy all by political church-craft, which ultimately satisfies no one and is further weakening the ties that will hopefully remain after a blessed ‘divorce’ takes place.
Of course there will be the complicated issues of the terms of separation (property, etc.), but first both sides must admit that due to their own sense of calling, the ‘marriage’ is no longer life-sustaining on either side. I for one am ready to admit this to be the case, and my gut tells me that I may not be alone. I pray that honesty and boldness may lead us all into a new birth, where we may no longer be as intimate as we once were, but will be able to once again see each other as beloved children of Christ, regardless of our divisions.
Your brother in Christ,
Clark West
Priest Canonically resident in the Episcopal Diocese of Rochester
Geneva, N.Y.
Thanks Susan for offering to check. If I (elfgirl) am testy it’s just from reading too many weasel words by bishops trying to have things both ways. In general, I appreciate Integrity’s honesty and clarity. Yes, I was nitpicking some about Integrity’s list not being complete, but wasn’t necessarily assuming that’s your fault. More likely it’s due to bishops not wanting to be “on the record” — as per the diocesan official who was so coy about whether Rochester had approved rites. They may not call them “approved rites” but if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck…
The real problem is that some (many?) of the bishops who allow and encourage SSBs are not willing to stand up and admit what they believe, what they are doing, and why.
I’m thoroughly sick of the word games. And I gather from some of what you and Liz K., and Gene et al have written that you are too.
—
P.S., Clark, thank you for your lengthy comment. For what it’s worth, this elf agrees.
PPS. Susan, I’ve reviewed what I wrote above and removed the line I had about Integrity’s being “complicit” with TEC deceit. I do mean what I write in the comment above. I don’t think Integrity has the primary responsibility for much of the game-playing or the whole private/public shenanigans. I’m grateful for your honesty and clarity by and from leaders on both ends of the theological spectrum. You speak and write clearly and honestly. It’s part of what makes your blog must reading. So thank you.
And lest anyone wonder, this is purely elfgirl speaking for myself, not for Kendall or elflady…
thank you, elfgirl. Sorry about the wordiness. Grad student disease! 🙂
Yours in God’s forgiving love,
Clark
I’ve just blogged here on this very same issue of deceit over same-sex blessings. Either they’re happening and that makes them part of the communal rhythm of life, or they’re not. It doesn’t matter if there is an official policy – if they go on without any sanction against them then they are part of the diocesan liturgical framework.
Once one diocese has allowed ssb, does it really matter if there are more? +Gene has openly stated that he allows them. I would think that one is enough for the GS Primates to be upset. Unless we are playing the game that Lot played with God…. “If I can find just 10 righteous dioceses…”
Bishop Curry in the Diocese of North Carolina has authorized SSBs. There is no other reasonable reading of his letter to the diocese of a few years ago. He has not withdrawn this authorization since the HOB meeting last month. Thus, the diocese continues to authorize SSBs. Nothing in the word “rite” requires that the specific text be approved by the bishop, as long as the bishop has authorized the priest to develop the rite.
At all points here with TEC, we see duplicity and perfidy. Can there be any other conclusion? Why then do we continue to do nothing but talk? Why do you continue to listen to the Susan Russells? You know they are spiritual viruses, highly contagious, for which there are no antibodies. This is a clear case of acquiring fleas when you lie down with dogs, to quote the old saying again. What am I suggesting? That you turn your back on the Susans in this debate, tht you leave them out, for they have nothing to say to you that is not a vector. Has it occurred to you that “listening” is how the virus is transmitted? Why else do you suppose that we have heard this word ad nauseam if it is not to spread the infection? We quarantine cases of drug resistant tuberculosis until they are cured or until they die. Why is this different? Because “listening” is less deadly? But look how the disease has spread. LM
#18, LM, the point on listening in this thread, I believe, is to let the Primates know that the number of dioceses in which “local faith communities are operating within the bounds of our common life as they explore and experience liturgies celebrating and blessing same-sex unions” is more than just a few scattered and on – the – margin dioceses, but that ssbs are wide-spread in TEC “under the radar,” as that term is used in my own diocese of Atlanta. Ms Russell claims that C051 from GC 2003 gives approval and permission for ssbs. I agree. But many of those who voted for C051 did not and do not agree with that interpretation. The point is that the HOB and Bishops like Ms Russell’s own beloved Bp Bruno are trying to make a distinction without a difference, by claiming that no authorized or approved ssbs are occurring. They would like to leave these claims at just that, and in days past (before blogs), when they controlled all the communications, they could do that. But in today’s world, they are caught with the perfidy of these statements. Even the secular press laughed a Bruno in NO. And then Susan cut him off at the knees by carefully explaining to the world that Bruno knows and knew about ssbs occurring in his diocese and was complicit in them, while public saying he had not authorized them, because he said he didn’t need to authorize them. The Primates are very wise men. They will, I expect, be more put out by the perfidy than if the truth had simply been told – yes, we are allowing and doing ssbs in many of our dioceses and we aren’t going to stop, even though GC has not officially authorized us to do them.
Following up on my (elfgirl’s) speculation re: Kentucky…
A friend with contacts and friends in Dio. KY just e-mailed me:
[blockquote]+Gulick has not given permission for SSBs in the diocese of KY, but he recommended doing what he did as a parish priest which was to have a special Eucharist for the couple and their friends. It doesn’t sit well with the priest I know who wanted to do a real SSB for a lesbian couple in the parish.[/blockquote]
So there’s clearly “pastoral provision” occurring in +Kentucky…, and certainly it sounds more discrete than what goes on in many TEC dioceses, without more details it’s very hard to say. *Perhaps* it could even be considered “private.” But personally, I find it troubling if there is some kind of service of the Eucharist. That immediately makes it liturgical and *seems* (again viewed from a distance, without knowing the facts clearly) to provide some kind of sense of an “official” ceremony and recognition.
Billy, great comment, thanks. I suspect you might be right about the Primates’ preference for honesty, a clear declaration of “Here I stand, this is what I believe and we will accept the consequences” as opposed to fudge.
Certainly +Mouneer Anis offered an impassioned plea for such honesty:
[i]My friends, if you really believe that the truth revealed to you is different from that shown to the rest of the Communion, then you need to uphold that claim with boldness even at the risk of losing unity. If you think it is right and necessary to ordain and consecrate practicing homosexuals and that you should bless same sex partnerships or even marriages, you should be true to what you believe is right and accept the consequences.
However, if you appreciate being members of the global Anglican family, then you have to walk along side the members of your family. Those who say that it is important to stay together around the table, to listen to each other and to continue our dialogue over the difficult issues that are facing us are wise. We wholeheartedly agree with this, but staying around the table requires that you should not take actions that are contrary to the standard position (Lambeth 1:10) of the rest of the Communion.[/i]
Two years and a few months later, I guess we can say that Kentucky and +Gulick belonged on the list the elves put together.
See Sarah Hey’s research here for details:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/?/sf/page/25304/