Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Gay Episcopal bishop-elect passes first hurdle

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
DrBB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-03-03 05:41 PM
Original message
Gay Episcopal bishop-elect passes first hurdle
My wife is at the Episcopal Nat'l Convention in Mpls, and just callled to report that Gene Robinson's election has been ratified by the House of Deputies, by 2/3s vote. He still has to be ratified by the House of Bishops. Will update as soon as I get word.

But he has passed the first hurdle. Deo gratias.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-03-03 06:00 PM
Response to Original message
1. Dr. BB.....what about his divorce of his wife? That was against
Edited on Sun Aug-03-03 06:02 PM by KoKo01
the doctrine and beliefs of the Episcopal Church's teachings.

Is he Henry VIII? Above the church.........

I could have had more sympathy for an Episcopal Candidate for Bishop who openly declared...."I am gay....I live in a relationship which I've had for years....and I want you to know that my commitment is so strong to this relationship that it is the SAME as what God asked us to commit to in the "Rites of Marriage" for Males and Females......and I challenge the church ruling body to deny that my totally committed relationship is less valid than that between a man and a woman"

If he had said that.....I could have more of an understanding of his position. BUT he didn't. He divorced his wife and he has two children....which is against the Epicopal Churches declared church policy that it does not support divorce.

So, Robinson is allowed to divorce his wife of some years with two children and defy what the Church's tenants are.....and then declares that his "current" relationship is his true ones in the eyes of the Lord.

What about his former commitments? The vows he took when he commited to the woman he married? What about the other Episcopalians who had to deal with this....(and the Church laws have not been re-written to allow divorce....yet) but Robinson is maybe going to be given a "free pass?"

If he was sincere in his total commitment to his gay relationship and this was his first commitment and only commitment....I would have more sympathy.

Robinson is not the best "test case" for the Episopal Church to change it's doctrines and teachings........

Unless he's Henry VIII........REDUX! Which may be where Robinson is going with this......Turn the church on it's ear for his own glory.

Edited: for adding a I to Henry....he wasn't his poppy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LibProf Donating Member (8 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-03-03 06:28 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. Marital history in itself is not
what qualifies or disqualifes one from being a Bishop. There are divorced and remarried Bishops in the Episcopal church. One qualification is that they set a "wholesome example" and this is probably what concerns many about his election. He has been in his current relationship for 13 years. Some consider that a wholesome example; that it is a gay relationship likely leads others to see it as not a wholesome example. I don't think his divorce matters but to a few.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
newyawker99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-04-03 06:53 PM
Response to Reply #4
23. Hi LibProf!!
Welcome to DU!! :toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xchrom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-03-03 07:25 PM
Response to Reply #1
6. can't you give the guy and all gay people a break
too long it's been the straight way or the high way -- give somebody else a chance for god's sake!
the guy has served the church for a long time -- and by all accounts served it well. you could do better?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-03-03 07:40 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. Why does he get a "pass" when he was divorced against the rules?"
If he didn't have that mark against him going against the church with the divorce of his wife and leaving two daughters.....then I could say..okay...let's look at him.

Instead..he wants to be a Bishop of a Church which does not sanction divorce.

You didn't read my post......
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-03-03 07:42 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. X chrome......this isn't a "contest" to root for the underdog here. The
guy has some bad baggage to overcome......you make it sound like you're "cheering, rooting" for him just because he's gay.

I want a gay with the best credentials possible to be the "groundbreaker" who will ordained. Not a guy that has defied the rules the first time and now want's "glory."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jonnyblitz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-03-03 08:52 PM
Response to Reply #9
15. i thought u didnt like him because he WAS gay.
Apparently you changed your mind. interesting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-03-03 09:01 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. x-Chrome..if you're referring to my post yesterday about struggling
over the ordination of gays.....I'm struggling and trying to deal...but Robinson is not the best person to put forward to help me in my struggle....and if one is going to be a "test case" or an example of why gays should be accepted as priests in the Episcopal Church then I would want him to be the best candidate. He's divorced with two children which is already against the teachins of the Episcopal Church....and now he wants to be ordained because he is in a commited gay relationship.

He's asking to be a Bishop. If he is ordained we are supposed to follow his example.

What if I was a gay minister, and decided I didn't like the relationshi I was in because I had discovered I was really a heterosexual.....So I leave my gay partner get married and have two children and then say....I should be ordained as a Bishop (the highest office in my church because I think I'm the right person for the job..because I've lived both lifesyles.

Sorry.....unless the Epicopal/Anglican rules change.....it just doesn't fly......If the congregation has to follow one set of rules while the leadership follows another......what does that say about the fundamental teachings of my Church?


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-03-03 09:21 PM
Response to Reply #15
18. I'm working on the gay factor....but it's his flip/flop that I don't think
makes him a candidate for ordination in my Church. The gay part.....I'm trying to deal with.

If he was an "exemplary candidate for Bishop but happened to be gay....I would have to work on this.....and think about what my Church decided......just as I'm agonizing now about the Gay Church Ceremonies. (I approve of the civil ceremonies if it gives legal rights to both parties).

Robinson....is just not the best candidate for me to have to agonize over.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DrBB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-03-03 07:46 PM
Response to Reply #1
11. This is BS Koko
Edited on Sun Aug-03-03 07:49 PM by DrBB
If the church's policy on divorce was as fundamentalist as you say it is, I wouldn't be married right now. My wife, a lifelong Episcopalian, was divorced--I am her second husband, and we have been married for 23 years. {on edit, to be clear: we were married in the Episcopal Church after full consultation and agreement of the priest.)

If you want HIS answers to these questions, I suggest you visit Terry Gross's website and listen to her interview with him--

http://freshair.npr.org

He addresses your questions, as well as some exceedingly ugly and fallacious innuendo about "abandoning" his family, directly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-03-03 09:11 PM
Response to Reply #11
17. Oh yes.....there are many ways around divorce, but Robinson's divorce
pushes the envelope.

Here's the history.

Holy Matrimony, Divorce, and Remarriage

According to the Canons of The Episcopal Church

by

Kenneth E. North

This article presents the current Episcopal Church canon law pronouncements on the issue of Holy Matrimony,
Divorce and Remarriage. It concludes by tracing the historical development of this topic through various canonical
changes.

Current Canon Law

Canon I.19 addresses “Regulations Respecting Holy Matrimony: Concerning Preservation of Marriage,
Dissolution of Marriage, and Remarriage.” Section 3 contains the prohibition against remarriage:

No Member of the Clergy of this Church shall solemnize the marriage of any person who has been the husband or wife
of any other person then living, nor shall any member of this Church enter into a marriage when either of the contracting
parties has been the husband or the wife of any other person then living, except as hereinafter provided:

So, the canon imposes a prohibition on members of the clergy from solemnizing any remarriage, and prohibits any
member of the Church from entering into a remarriage.

Any exception to this prohibition requires compliance with the following:

1. the member of the clergy must have adequate evidence that the prior marriage was annulled or dissolved by final
judgment of a civil court,

2. the member of the clergy must instruct the parties to the proposed marriage of required continuing concern for the
well-being of the former spouse and children, and

3. the member of the clergy must consult with and obtain the prior consent of the bishop of the diocese in which the
member of the clergy is canonically resident, as well as affirmation of that consent from the bishop of the diocese in which
the marriage is to be solemnized.

Thus, the Church permits remarriage after divorce if there has been a civil judgment of divorce or annulment, and the
bishop consents to such remarriage.

The canon concludes with the incorporation of all provisions of Canon I.18, “Of the Solemnization of Holy
Matrimony.” Section 4 of that canon provides: “It shall be within the discretion of any Member of the Clergy of this
Church to decline to solemnize any marriage.”

Historical Development

The first pronouncement of a General Convention on the solemnization of Holy Matrimony was a joint resolution
passed at the Convention of 1808. That joint resolution provided:

Resolved, That it is the sense of this Church, that it is inconsistent with the law of God, and the Ministers of this Church,
therefore, shall not unite in matrimony any person who is divorced, unless it be on account of the other party being guilty
of adultery.

The Convention of 1868 enacted the first canonical legislation on the subject. That canon provided: “No minister
of this Church shall solemnize Matrimony in any case where there is a divorced wife or husband of either party still living;
but this Canon shall not be held to apply to the innocent party in a divorce for the cause of adultery, or to parties once
divorced but seeking to be united again.” This 1868 canon was repealed by the Convention of 1877 and replaced with a
new canon that was binding not only on the Clergy, but also upon the offending parties. The 1877 canon was essentially
the same as the 1868 canon, except that it did, for the first time, permit remarriage after divorce if the cause of the
divorce arose prior to the marriage, i.e., in those instances wherein the marriage was a nullity.

The next revision was enacted by the Convention of 1904 and contained the Matthean exception. This
continuing exception permitted the innocent party to a divorce ended due to adultery to remarry within the Church. The
exception is grounded in Matthew 5:32, but was not followed by Western canon law generally, or the canons of the
Church of England. However, while continuing the Matthean exception, the revision inserted a one-year waiting period
after a divorce due to adultery before remarriage was permitted. It also required that satisfactory evidence regarding the
facts of the case be submitted to the Ecclesiastic Authority, which was required to take legal advice to confirm that the
situation of the applicant conformed to canonical mandates. It also permitted remarriage in those instances in which a
marriage was annulled, i.e., the cause of the divorce arose prior to the marriage, by a civil court.

The Convention of 1922 amended the canon by adding language which forbade members of the Church, in
addition to a clergyman who solemnized the marriage of a divorced person, from remarrying contrary to the Church
canons.

The next round of change activity regarding remarriage began with the Convention of 1931. It maintained the
essence of the canon adopted by the Convention of 1904, as modified by the 1922 Convention. However, it added a
new provision that specified grounds upon which a former marriage annulled or dissolved by a civil court could be
declared null and void by a bishop. The listed Impediments to marriage were:

1. Consanguinity,

2. Lack of free consent,

3. Mistake as to the identity of either party,

4. Mental deficiency sufficient to prevent intelligent choice,

5. Insanity of either party,

6. Failure of either party to have reached the age of puberty,

7. Undisclosed impotence,

8. Venereal disease in either party, and

9. Facts which would make the marriage bigamous.

The amended canon went on to provide that:

"Any person whose former marriage has been annulled or dissolved by a civil court and pronounced null by the Bishop,
may be married by a Minister of this Church as if he had never previously been married.”

The Convention of 1937 amended Impediment 2 to read “Lack of free and legal consent of either party.” Impediment 7
was also amended to read: “Impotence or sexual perversion of either party undisclosed to the other.” The Convention of
1943 followed by separating the solemnization of Holy Matrimony and the regulations respecting Holy Matrimony into
separate canons.

The Convention of 1946 expanded the list of Impediments, which now constituted a bar to first marriage, as well as a
basis for permission to remarry. The additional Impediments were: “Concurrent contract inconsistent with the contract
constituting canonical marriage,” and “Attendant conditions: error as to the identity of either party, fraud, coercion or
duress, or such defects of personality as to make competent or free consent impossible.” The Matthean exception was
not mentioned. This Convention also amended the canon pertaining to remarriage by imposing a one-year waiting period
after any civil court annulment or dissolution. In the case of a prior marriage, the bishop was tasked to determine whether
the parties to the proposed remarriage “intend a true Christian marriage,” and whether any of the canonical Impediments
are shown to exist or to have existed which manifestly establish that no marriage bond as the same is recognized by this
Church exists,...."

The 1973 Convention removed the canonical prohibition against the remarriage of members of the Church
whose former spouse was still living, and whose prior marriage was valid from its inception.

Sources

1. Constitution & Canons For the Government of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America
Otherwise Known as The Episcopal Church as Revised by the 1997 Convention.

2. Annotated Constitution and Canons for the Government of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of
America otherwise known as The Episcopal Church, 1981 Edition.

http://www.canonlaw.org/article_matrimony.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DrBB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-03-03 10:14 PM
Response to Reply #17
20. In the face of which I can only point
...to the fact that these canons are not interpreted as rigidly in practice as you imply they should be--thank god. I'm currently on a rector search committee, and we have at least three candidates I can think of who are divorced. Should I be rejecting them on the basis of your interpretation of the canons?

Again, I'd urge you or anyone interested in this to listen to Robinson's own account of his divorce, and the history of his marriage, which he discusses quite directly in the Fresh Air interview.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
roughsatori Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-03-03 08:24 PM
Response to Reply #1
13. Koko01 didn't you post the other night that you were against
ordination of gays in your church? That you might leave your Church if they were to ordain gays. Now you say you want the best test case to go forward. Perhaps, I am wrong, I just looked and could not find that post from Fri. If I am correct, what changed your mind?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ramsey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-03-03 08:48 PM
Response to Reply #1
14. Would Robinson be the first bishop who was divorced?
I don't know the answer to this question, but I'd assume not. Plus, as an Episcopalian myself, I know plenty of people who have divorced and remarried within the church. I am not aware of the strict proscription on divorce that you describe. Episcopalins aren't Catholics after all.

And by the way, Henry VIII founded the Episcopalian (Anglican) church so that he could divorce one of his wives when the pope wouldn't let him. So I'd say the whole church was founded on the premise that divorce is OK.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-03-03 10:09 PM
Response to Reply #14
19. Well, Ramsey, Doing research shows our Bishops have been busy!
Since, I put myself on the line here......I thought I'd better back my facts up....and while I was down here in NC in my little Episcopal Church which hasn't kept us up-to-date about policy in the weekly bulletin......our Bishops have been busily divorcing and remarrying.

So, given what I just found it seems that Robinson isn't the scurrulous fellow I thought he was for divorcing his wife and entering a new relationship where he decided he wanted to be the first ordained Gay Bishop. He's pushing the envelope, as I said, IMHO, but it seems church policy has been very lenient with our Bishops as this Rutgers Study shows:

Nine Bisops currently in the House of Bisops have divorced and remarried while being Bishops. While our local ministers are giving some folks a hard time urging marriage counseling our leaders are giving each other "annulments, dispensations or whatever," so that they can "fulfill" their interests. I had no idea this was going on.........so I apologize for my cluelessness. But, I posted the current Episcopal Canonical rules for Re-marriage and Divorce in another article on this thread and I don't understand how these Bishops are getting away with this. It doesn't change my personal opinion of Robinson.....but he apparently isn't "out of the mainstream" by divorcing his wife and probably not by being gay either, if the article below, is any example.

Thanks for asking that question, because the research is an eye-opener for me.

Excerpt:http://newark.rutgers.edu/~lcrew/bpsprof.html
----------------------
Marital History

Most bishops are married. Check here to see the names of their spouses. Nine bishops currently in the House have divorced
and remarried while being bishops. Another, a dicoesan, annulled his wife and three children and remarried. At least three other
diocesans were divorced and remarried before being elected to the episcopacy.

According to White & Dykman, 2nd ed. General Convention in 1946 amended I.18 to provide for application by persons
whose marriage had ended in divorce (or who wished to marry someone whose marriage had ended in divorce) "to the Bishop
or Ecclesiastical Authority of the Diocese...for a judgement as to his or her marital status in the eyes of the Church, or for
permission to be married by a Minister of this Church..." 2:418.

The Episcopal Church did not allow clergy to remarry until the 1960's.

To date, The Rt. Rev. Otis Charles, retired Bishop of Utah, is the only ECUSA bishop has openly affirmed that he is gay.

Of the 103 ordinaries and coadjutors in domestic dioceses who are married:

57.86 Avg age now
33.02 Avg. length of marriage
24.84 Avg. age when married

All 103 have begat children:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Crowdance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-03-03 06:11 PM
Response to Original message
2. This will be good for the Episcopal Church
As a result of all of this debate, I'm considering visiting an
Episcopal church. I'm looking for a spiritual home that can live the love of God enough to welcome women and gays in leadership positions. These folks are so generous in showing us how to love one another, to accept one another, and how painful the process of getting there can be. I'm inspired, and want to know more about them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xchrom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-03-03 07:22 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. while some episcopal parishes are conservative
many practise ''all are welcome'' -- and wonderfully open.
you would have a wonderful experience -- especially if you like liturgy, mass and stuff like that -- i do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Crowdance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-03-03 07:45 PM
Response to Reply #5
10. Thanks, X
I'm going to look for a liberal parish. I always did enjoy the drama of catholicism (when I was a catholic).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DrBB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-03-03 07:51 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. As a former Roman Catholic
...I'd say, check it out. I was raised in the pre- and post-Vatican II RC church, as a direct consequence of which I was agnostic bordering on atheist for many years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Loki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-03-03 06:25 PM
Response to Original message
3. Sending prayers their way.
The American Episcopal Church has led the way before in it's ordination of women to the priesthood. There were naysayers then predicting the complete downfall of the church, and waddaya know, it didn't happen. I'm proud of my church - they are really trying to practice what they preach.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Orangepeel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-03-03 07:29 PM
Response to Original message
7. Woo-Hoo! I left the Episcopal church years ago...
but if he gets through, I might just go back! :-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-03-03 10:19 PM
Response to Reply #7
21. Come back Orangepeel, because many Episcopal Churches are Welcoming....
Edited on Sun Aug-03-03 10:41 PM by KoKo01
I'm in a conservative part of the South......so my particular church has never acknowledged this or the fact that I found in research above that nine of our presiding bishops have been divorced and remarried while they were serving as Bisops. So you will be okay if you search for one of these churches. http://www.beliefnet.com/story/69/story_6906_1.html

BTW: I mean this sincerely....this isn't a sarcastic remark....... Some on this thread seem to think I'm a "gay basher," because I don't want Robinson Ordained and don't feel the same Episcopal marriage ceremony for hetero's should apply to Gays.....but I would come to your civil ceremony and congratulate you if I was invited.

------------------------------------------
Years ago, the Episcopal Church passed a paper opposing homosexual
behavior, but in practice it allows bishops to ordain actively gay and lesbian
clergy, and parish clergy to perform wedding-like ceremonies for same-sex
couples.

Last July's annual church convention made it clear nothing will be done to
change that situation.

Griswold told reporters the conservatives' continuing emphasis on sexual
morality ``implies that sexuality is more important than salvation in Jesus
Christ, which is idolatry.''

He also found it ``curious'' that conservatives accepted the Episcopal Church's
past shift to allow remarriage of divorced members with little resistance. On
that issue, he said, ``the church has set aside what Jesus has actually said
without causing any concern.''
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Paschall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-04-03 01:49 AM
Response to Reply #21
22. Koko, you need to keep up with church business better
<snip> Resolved, the House of Deputies concurring, That the 71st General Convention direct the Standing Liturgical Commission and the Theology Committee of the House of Bishops to prepare and present to the 72nd General Convention, as part of the Church's ongoing dialogue on human sexuality, a report addressing the theological foundations and pastoral considerations involved in the development of rites honoring love and commitment between persons of the same sex... </snip>

That was approved by the General Convention almost a decade ago, in 1994. You must really be out of touch with the church if you aren't aware that a good number of clergy are divorced and remarried.

Also, in 1997, the Convention passed this resolution: <snip> Resolved, That this Convention direct the Standing Liturgical Commission to continue its study of theological aspects of committed relationships of same-sex couples, and to issue a full report including recommendations of future steps for the resolution of issues related to such committed relationships no later than November 1999 for consideration at the 73rd General Convention. </snip>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun May 05th 2024, 05:44 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC