News from the C of E: Bishop comes out

As you may know, our friends across the Pond are having a bit of a wrestle about Teh Gayz.  Although marriage equality is the law of the land, the Church of England (which is established by the State) has managed to get legislation that actually prevents them from recognizing, performing, or participating in same sex marriages, and that inoculates them against accusations of bias for this. Priests and bishops are "allowed" to be gay as long as they are celibate, and under no circumstances can they marry a same sex partner. 

There have been a few cases where priests have married, and been fired, or lost their licenses.  I understand that a letter is forthcoming where a number of gay priests will out themselves as being married.

And, in a reflection of the schism that happened here, some conservatives have started making plans for a shadow synod, a possible break away. That would suggest they know they are going to lose.

Perhaps their fear was inspired by a comment from  Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby (my emphasis)

Welby talked of an "incredible clash that is so important to so many people and goes to the heart of the identity of so many people". He added: "There isn't a simple solution... I haven't got a good answer." To applause, he said "I am constantly consumed with horror" at the way in which the Church has treated the gay community.

But the big news today,  the first C of E Bishop has outed himself, before he was outed by a journalist.

The bishop of Grantham has become the first Church of England bishop to publicly declare that he is gay and in a relationship. In a move that will be embraced by campaigners for equality but is likely to alarm conservatives who fear the church is moving away from traditional teachings, Nicholas Chamberlain said there had been no secret about his long-term – albeit celibate – relationship with his partner. ...

Chamberlain was consecrated last November, and all those involved in his appointment – including Justin Welby, the archbishop of Canterbury – were aware of his personal situation. ...

Chamberlain said he adhered to church guidelines, under which gay clergy must be celibate and are not permitted to marry. In the appointments process, “We explored what it would mean for me as a bishop to be living within those guidelines,” he said.

The celibacy thing allows people to pretend that a gay man isn't actually gay.   But relationships are about much more than sex.  And, as  Bishop Gene Robinson has said, when this celibacy policy in the C of E was first promulgated,

I have to tell you this infuriates me and disappoints me. Let me try to say why. I don't care whether any couple, gay or straight, has sexual intimacy or not. That's not my business. That's their business. But to require someone to give up this piece of one's life, which is so central to who each of us is as a human being, just seems, it seems cruel, and it also, it bespeaks something that I think is not talked about enough around the issue of gay sexuality, which is that gay is not something you do, it's something we are.... 

I laughingly will say to a more conservative audience, you know, OK, so if it's OK to be gay but not act on it, could two men live together? Could we sleep in the same bedroom if we slept in twin beds?

Well, could we sleep in the same bed if we didn't touch each other? Well, could we touch each other as long as we only held hands? I mean, at what point, at what point is it gay? Do you know what I mean? It just doesn't make any sense. And it comes out of what I think is a very male understanding of sexuality, which is you're only being sexual when you're making love.  

But the fact of the matter is we are sexual all the time, and this bifurcation of, you know, being gay versus acting on it just seems to me ludicrous at best and cruel at worst.

Meanwhile, expect heads to start exploding in the C of E in any minute....

First woman bishop appointed in C of E

The big news is that the Rev. Libby Lane has been appointed as the suffragen bishop of Stockport serving under the Bishop of Chester.

A little-known vicar from a Lancashire village will become the first woman to smash through the stained-glass ceiling when she becomes Bishop of Stockport in January.

The Rev Libby Lane, 48, was announced yesterday as the first woman to become a bishop in the Established church. Her appointment comes just a month after church leaders made a historic vote to allow women into the episcopate. 

Ms Lane, who is currently Vicar of St Peter’s church in Hale, Greater Manchester, and St Elizabeth’s church in Ashley, Cheshire, was an outsider for the landmark Church of England job. She was not among the bookies’ favourites and has been a dedicated local clergywoman rather than a public figure.

An important note made by the Guardian:

As a suffragan bishop, Lane could be appointed without passing through the tangle of committee meetings required to choose a diocesan – one who has their own cathedral and may sit in the House of Lords.

This may explain why the Rev. Libby Lane is unexpected.  I bet some of the heavy favorite names, such as the Very Rev. Vivienne Faull, Dean of York Minster, will be more likely to be considered as Diocesans.  And as Thinking Anglicans tells us, that may come with a seat in the House of Lords, with the introduction of the Lords Spiritual (Women) Bill:

Currently, the Archbishops of Canterbury and York and the Bishops of Durham, London and Winchester automatically take seats in the House of Lords. The remaining 21 seats are occupied by Bishops in order of seniority (length of service). Under the current system, it would be many years before women bishops were represented in the Lords. 

The Government’s Bill, which is supported by the Church of England, proposes a modification of this rule for the next ten years, so that if a female bishop is available when a Lords Spiritual seat becomes vacant, they will automatically be appointed to the House of Lords. If no female bishop is available, the vacancy would be filled by the next most senior male bishop, as currently happens…

Not everyone is reacting well. One anti-women group called Reform wrote a very mean comment.  On a public facebook page, the new Bishop's husband the Rev. George Lane commented,

I have read some horrendously unkind comments directed at my wife from complete strangers who know nothing about Libby, her family, her friendships, her ministry or her character. (She's already had homophobic abuse on the grounds that she has short hair and must therefore be a lesbian!)

That's sad, but hardly surprising, given the hang-ups over women .  Indeed, it's no coincidence that the ire against including women is similar to that against including LGBT.   Of course, there are no open LGBT bishops in the C of E, and gay clergy there are forbidden to marry.  Inclusion remains a work in progress. 

Let's hope that most C of E members can agree to disagree civilly, as necessary, and wish the new Bishop much luck.   Congratulations!  And Merry Christmas!

Catholic blogger calls out the Bishops

From Bob Waldrop .  Read the whole thing, he NAILS the bishops on multiple levels.  (Are you listening, Abp Cordileone?)  And he's not even a supporter of marriage equality.

... instead of a loving proclamation of the Gospel towards gay people, our Bishops are running up and down the land crying out with loud voices that gay marriage is somehow a threat to the sacrament of marriage. ...To suggest that a secular political issue “threatens” a sacrament is hubris and shows a marked lack of faith. That in itself is disturbing coming from our own bishops.

Further, since when did we decide that the involvement of the State had something to do with the Sacrament of Marriage? We don’t get a Baptism License for our children, nor an Ordination license for our seminarians. And we don’t pay a tax to the State to go to Confession nor do we apply to a bureaucrat for the sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick. Our confirmandi do not require state paperwork to receive Confirmation and we celebrate the Eucharist without the permission of the state authorities.
....
I do not doubt we have problems within and without the Catholic Church in regard to marriage. But those problems are not the fault of gay people and gay marriage has nothing to do with our marital problems. About 1/3 of Catholic marriages end in divorce. With only 6% of the world Catholic population, the diocesan courts of the United States grant 60%+ of the Catholic world’s annulments. By some estimates, American Catholic dioceses have annulled more marriages than the entire Church has done since its founding.
....
But of course, let’s not talk about this gigantic I-beam proceeding out of the eyes of every Catholic bishop. Let’s ignore the catechetical failures of the Catholic clergy of these United States regarding marriage formation. Instead. . . let’s pick away at the specks in the eyes of others, over which we have no control, and sign up for a hysterical political agenda that conceals ulterior motives. 

Why would we do this if not at the behest of our political master manipulators in the Republican Party? 

This naked emperor should be publicly called out. The crusade against “gay marriage” is not about protecting marriage. It’s about getting votes for Republican politicians.

C of E Bishop recommends gay blessings are held in the closet

Well, not quite, but almost.  The Bishop of Dorking wants to tell everyone that really, they aren't anti gay.  Because a small, hidden prayer MIGHT be held for a gay couple, as long as it isn't in church and not formal, and no one knows.

Inevitably, the media have highlighted what is seen as the negative outcome rather than the many positive things which the Guidance has to say. ...a pastoral response of prayers is encouraged, where appropriate, to gay couples who may enquire about the possibility of some form of service. This would not be any fomal rite or liturgy but, as paragraph 22 of the Appendix states, a ‘more informal kind of prayer, at the request of the couple, might be appropriate in the light of circumstances’. My own view is that this might be best done in the couple’s home.

Dear Bishop:

When in a hole, STOP DIGGING.

(from Thinking Anglicans)

Employment Nondiscrimination and the Catholic Bishops

The Employment NonDiscrimination Act (ENDA) passed cloture last night and will be debated in the Senate.

The LGBT advocacy group Freedom to Work explains that ENDA “will make it illegal throughout the entire country for an employer to fire, refuse to hire, refuse to promote, or severely harass an employee simply based on his or her sexual orientation or gender identity.” Further, they explain, “ENDA exempts churches, religious organizations and religious schools.” (source)

In fact, this bill provides such generous provision for religiously-justified discrimination, that many advocates think it is more dangerous than helpful.

Cue Timothy Cardinal Dolan and his mendacious band of bishops. Amongst other things, they complain that ENDA

(2) lacks a distinction between homosexual inclination and conduct, thus affirming and protecting extramarital sexual conduct; (3) supports the redefinition of marriage, as state-level laws like ENDA have been invoked in state court decisions finding marriage discriminatory or irrational; (4) rejects the biological basis of gender by defining “gender identity” as something people may choose at variance with their biological sex; and (5) threatens religious liberty by punishing as discrimination the religious or moral disapproval of same-sex sexual conduct, while protecting only some religious employers.

Translated: they complain that secular employers cannot fire people like me: legally married, lesbian, and not working for a religious organization.

The Bishops want gay people to have no job security, because we might....MIGHT! ... be having sex. Look at (2) above: they want your employer to be able to quiz you about your sex life, regardless of what your job is, to find out if you are doing it.

Do the Bishops want to be able to investigate and fire people for having sex while unmarried, being married but having sex with someone to whom they aren't married, living in sin, using contraception, or remarried following divorce?

No. No, those forms of sexual immorality are no problem. This is about one thing: legalizing discrimination against gay people. The Bishops are saying, clearly, "gay people, whether or not they are Catholic, have no right to be employed."

It's wrong, and they should be ashamed of themselves. Alas, they have no shame left.

Gay Bishops in the C of E?

Reflecting on the latest lunacy from the Church of EnglandGiles Fraser nails it:

"So, bishop, are you having sex with your partner?" I can't imagine anyone asking that question with a straight face..... Yet the new line from the C of E – ludicrously, that gay men in civil partnerships can be bishops as long as they refrain from sex (or to put it another way, we'll have gay bishops as long as they are not really gay) raises the question: how on earth will the authorities ever find out? .... No, the only way the bedroom police could ever really know is if they ask and play a moral guilt trip about honesty on those being interrogated. So do sexually active gay priests or bishops have a moral responsibility to tell the truth? Actually, I think not. I'd go further: in this situation, they have a moral responsibility to lie.

....It is perfectly proper that ordinarily people should maintain a strong presumption in favour of truth telling. But the situation in which gay people in the church find themselves is far from ordinary. Physical intimacy is a moral good, the very incarnation of love. Those who enforce celibacy on the basis of sexuality are maintaining a system of oppression that brings misery and loneliness to many.

I believe all Christians have a moral duty to resist this cruelty. Lying to the church authorities, in these conditions, is a bit like disobeying an unjust order. It's a form of non-violent resistance.

If there is blame for all of this it must lie with the church itself. Through fear, it encourages people to live a lie, to build their whole identity upon untruth. Thus so many gay clergy have clandestine existences, lavender marriages and unexplained holidays....

This outward lie makes a certain sort of truth possible. After all, sex between partners is, at best, a precious communication of truth. And this is the greater truth here, a truth that is as much about our relationship with God as everything else. For the love that dare not speak its name is love itself. This is the truth that needs protecting – by a lie if necessary.

When Bishops are Afraid

From PinkNews, an update about the Church of England's response to the UK government's effort to lock them out of performing same sex marriages  (my emphasis):

The Telegraph now reports church officials have acknowledged that they could potentially “live with” the government’s proposals and its specific legal safeguards..... 

Meanwhile, the House of Lords heard claims that several bishops secretly support the principle of equal marriage but are afraid to speak out because it would contradict the official policy of the church. 

Lord Harries of Pentregarth, the former Bishop of Oxford, said that many bishops not only accept the protections the government proposes but would actively support equal marriage.
He said many church members “warmly welcome” the government’s plans, adding: “A fair number of individual bishops in the Church of England also support it, but are not able to say so publicly at the moment because of the political situation in which the Church of England now finds itself.” 

The Bishop of Salisbury and the Bishop of Buckingham have so far openly supported marriage rights for gay couples.

That's a sorry state of affairs, leaving Bishops of Salisbury and Buckingham on their own.

Now, some will say that because Bishops are in it for the long haul, collegiality in their body is important.  But surely it's possible to disagree politely.  Surely it's worth it to explain to the public that not EVERYONE in the C of E hierarchy is stuck in an Angela Thirkell novel ca. 1935.

It's of a piece with the essay I wrote here  back in 2011 on the need for C of E bishops to come out as leaders.  And those who are gay should come out, period.  It's time to get out of the closet and stand in the light.

It's called leadership.

It's called honesty.

And it's the right thing to do.

Separate, not equal, and slapped in Dio GA

The Lead is all over the story that the Bishop of Georgia has decided, grudgingly, to allow same sex blessings in his Diocese.  But not using the Rite approved in GC:  oh, no.  Not THAT.  Something altogether different, a paragraph of unwilling prose shoved into a regular service and hopefully no one will notice if the rector races through it in one breath.  Which he could.

As if that's not bad enough, the hoops any couple must leap through are large. (PDF)

And if that's not bad enough, they must also sign the following: (PDF)

"We, ________________________________________________________,
desiring to receive the blessing of God in the Church and having committed ourselves to
a life-long relationship characterized by fidelity, monogamy, mutual affection, respect,
and holy love, acknowledge and understand that this Rite bestows upon our relationship
God’s grace-filled blessing. It does not bestow upon our relationship any legal status in
civic life or from any civil authority. The Canons of the Church state: “Holy Matrimony
is a physical and spiritual union of a man and a woman, entered into within the
community of faith, by mutual consent of heart, mind, and will, and with intent that it
be lifelong” Canon 1.18.1(2)(b). We understand that this Rite is not Holy Matrimony.

Because we wouldn't want you homos CONFUSED that you are actually MARRIED or anything like that.  Just admit that you are second class scum of the Church and be thankful we are letting you get noticed.

You know, at some level, it's more honorable just to say, "Nope.  Not in my Diocese."  Because to do it like this, with the Rite de-emphasized into almost nothing, and the "signing statement" to boot  makes it a slap on the face.  It is not something grace-filled or welcoming.  It is making it clear LGBT couples are to use the back door, and the separate glass.  Probably sit in a back pew, too.  Because you really aren't wanted here.

I hope there's a more gracious Diocese within reach where faithful couples can actually receive a real blessing, rather than a statement of their otherness.

A tale of two bishops: a snub, and a welcome.

It's inevitable that contrasts will be drawn between Episcopal and Roman Catholic Bishops because of conflicting views. We've done that here at FoJ on several occasions,

For example after the passage of Prop8, we contrasted the crowing triumphant op/eds written by the RC bishops with the op/ed of San Diego's Episcopal Bishop James Mathes, who lamented the pain and unnecessary hurt this wrong caused. (That was before BP had left the RC church for TEC, and well before we met Bishop Mathes).

Then there was the contrasting response of two NY bishops to marriage equality in that state, with (then) Archbishop Dolan (RC) going ballistic that marriage equality was a loss of HIS freedom, while Bishop Provenzano (TEC) called for equality while protecting true religious freedom.

WE didn't highlight the recent example in Newark, where RC Bishop Myers called for gays and supporters of marriage equality to be denied communion, while TEC Bishop Mark Beckwith called for churches to work together to end poverty.

I also did not draw an explicit contrast between incoming San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone's remarks in which he excommunicated "active" gays:

in a recent interview at the headquarters of the Oakland diocese, where he has served as bishop for three years, Cordileone was more direct: Gays and lesbians who are in sexual relationships of any kind, he said, should not receive the sacrament of Holy Communion, the central ritual of Catholic life.

and the comments of Episcopal Bishop Marc Andrus, in which he identified many points of agreement with the incoming Archbishop on which they could work together, and one disagreement:

In working together with the Archdiocese of San Francisco, however, I will not change my course with regard to the full inclusion of all people in the full life of the church. I hope that public disagreements can be handled respectfully and that criticisms of public statements may be met with mutual respect. Some Catholics may find themselves less at home with Salvatore Cordileone’s installation and they may come to The Episcopal Church. We should welcome them as our sisters and brothers.

Stating the obvious. And not really any different than the Pope's "ordinariate", Anglicanorum Coetibus , which offers the same welcome to disaffected Anglicans, as outlined here by an Episcopal Bishop.

But that sets the stage for the installation of Abp Cordileone yesterday in San Francisco. Bishop Marc reports he arrived earlier than requested, and chatted with the Greek Metropolitan while waiting to be seated.

An archdiocesan employee attempted to escort me upstairs with the Greek Orthodox group, but was stopped from doing so by the employee to whom I had first identified myself. This person, who appeared to be in a superior role, instructed another employee to stand with me.

At this point no other guests remained in the downstairs area. The employee and I chatted while waiting. I began to wonder about the time holdup. I checked my phone; it was 1:50PM. I asked the employee standing with me if the service indeed started at 2, which she affirmed.

At 2PM, when the service was to begin, I said to the employee, "I think I understand, and feel I should leave." Her response was, "Thank you for being understanding." I quietly walked out the door.

The Archdiocese tells another story to the AP,

San Francisco Archdiocese spokesman George Wesolek chalked it up to a misunderstanding. Andrus had arrived late and missed the procession of interfaith clergy who were to be seated up front. Church staff were looking for an opportunity to bring the bishop in without disrupting the service, according to Wesolek. When they went to retrieve him, he had already left.

You know what? I believe Bishop Andrus. I think Archbishop Cordileone's people may have been merely stupid, or misguided, to deny seating to Bishop Andrus. But they wanted to snub him in retaliation for daring to disagree with Abp Cordileone, just the way the Pope has snubbed San Francisco Roman Catholics by seating the "father of Prop8" as their Archbishop.

I hope that what this does is identify TEC as a welcoming church to the Roman Catholics whom Abp Cordileone and his Newark colleague have excommunicated, and those dismayed at such heavy handed tactics. I hope that those RC will try out one of their local Episcopal Parishes this weekend.

My wife swam the Thames, and hasn't looked back. It wasn't easy.  It conflicted with her strong identity as a cradle Roman Catholic.  But as she says, she's still Catholic--just with a Celtic style.   She agrees with the late John Cogley, who described moving from Rome to Canterbury thusly: "I do not look upon this move as a 'conversion' since I have not changed any of the beliefs I formerly held," he said. "Rather, it is a matter of finding my proper spiritual home."

Hey, Roman Catholics:  The Episcopal Church welcomes you home.

May I sit here with you?

Over at the Lead, there is a spirited conversation going on based on this new policy by Bishop Edward Little in N. Indiana

First, the provisional liturgy entitled “The Witnessing and Blessing of a Lifelong Covenant” is not authorized for use in the Diocese of Northern Indiana. There will be no exceptions to this policy.

Second, priests of the Diocese of Northern Indiana who, for pastoral reasons, wish to use “The Witnessing and Blessing of a Lifelong Covenant” may travel to a neighboring diocese to do so. …

And of course, for many of us it brought to mind this recent report

[Charles] Wilson and his bride Te'Andrea were to be married at the First Baptist Church of Crystal Springs [MS] on July 21. But after their rehearsal two nights before, the church's pastor sought to move the service, saying some congregants didn't want two black people to get married in the orange-brick sanctuary.

The Rev. Stan Weatherford married the Wilsons as scheduled in another sanctuary….. Weatherford says the relocation was a request meant to avoid conflict. The Wilsons say it was a demand, with Weatherford saying the congregation would fire him if he married the pair in his church.

The parallel seems obvious, doesn’t it?  I'm sure  all of us find it reprehensible that a church would deny a couple a wedding based on their race. But the wedding did occur, with the same minister, just in a different church. Does that ameliorate it? Of course not. The pain of rejection is there.  And, just so for a gay couple in N. Indiana.  That is the same thing.

(Aside:  One commenter at the Lead brought up the fact that being black is not like being gay. To which I would respond, no, it’s not like being gay. Nor is being a woman, or being a Jew. The experience of people in each of these groups is distinct from those in every other, and indeed unique. But at another level, they are the same, in their experience of being treated as “less than” in a variety of contexts. Each group may experience discrimination in a different way, but what is common is that they experience discrimination, based on who they are—whether that is classified by race, sex, orientation,  religion.....)

The conversation at the Lead is divided between two factions: those who know Bishop Little, find him to be an honorable man, and consider this a reasonable effort to accommodate (since he allows his priests to travel without sanction), and those who find this a cop-out, so “because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I spit you out”. Let it be noted that both sides include passionate supporters of marriage equality.

Bishop Little goes on (again, via the Lead )

I have attempted in this two-point policy to find a solution that will honor the conscience of all. ….. In recent years, I have been both vocal and quite public about the importance of creating a “safe space” for people of divergent theological convictions. This policy is an attempt to do just that. While the solution is far from perfect, it will – at least in the short term – provide space for everyone to exercise conscience, and will require no one to act in a way that violates the deepest convictions of heart and mind.

My initial response was “why not just let the parishes decide if they want to do it?” which is the reasonable solution in many dioceses. But is that really any different? If you are a gay person and your parish and vestry are not willing to use this liturgy, you still must travel elsewhere. The injustice, the rejection continues.

My next response is to think this is an example of via media, and while imperfect, may be inevitable if you are to maintain a big tent and really respect honorable differences. Because I am quite sure there are people (and it seems Bishop Little is one) who agonize over this issue but can’t in good conscience move forward. I happen to think they are wrong, but I can, indeed I MUST respect their conviction firmly held, as long as they do not engage in lies and hate.    I must work to educate them, not vilify them.  I must keep the conversation open.

I have also thought of this as I’ve seen responses to the Skyline Church event in San Diego, where right-wing Evangelical Jim Garlow hosted a “conversation on marriage”. By most accounts, this wasn’t really a conversation: the anti-marriage equality representatives Robert Gagnon and Jennifer Roback Morse gave the same lectures about the Bible, evil gays and sex, while the pro-equality side of John Corvino and Bishop Gene Robinson focused on real people—the reminder that “we are all beloved children of God”, not pieces on a chessboard. The initial reaction of some advocates is “this was just another opportunity for them to bash us.”

The Blog of St Paul’s Cathedral, aptly called “All Our Voices”, is running a series all week long with individual responses to the event.  And, there are strong responses taking on the theology of Robert Gagnon, and rebutting the comments of Roback Morse, as there should be.

But what’s REALLY becoming interesting to me is less what went on up there on the platform, than the fact of people being there in the chairs.  Many people have commented that it was significant to be seated in the same room, civilly listening to one another, even if disagreeing passionately. One attendee commented on the concept of hospitality and that this requires something from the host AND from the guest. Indeed, apparently Garlow received threats over the event. (I sure hope those weren’t from “our side”. ) And Bishop Gene was, as ever, gracious and loving. (I put him in the same category of Desmond Tutu – would that more Christians modeled themselves on those two Bishops!)

At the end of the event, Garlow apparently remarked that he didn’t think any minds were changed. Perhaps not. But perhaps some hearts were, simply by virtue of sitting in the same room.  And I wish that people like Bishop Little, the lukewarm bishop, could have attended.

And so, although I share the frustration with Bishop Little, I will recognize that his statement is an effort to move forward, one that opens a door where none was before.  Even it's a back door.    Even if he's lukewarm. 

Because a thoughtful host can learn something from a gracious guest.

A049 aftermath: the Indianapolis statement, and a bit of irony

Twelve Bishops are dismayed at the passage of the liturgy for blessing same sex couples and have released "The Indianapolis Statement" disagreeing.  The arguments are the old, familiar ones saying that sex is only for men-women (and presumably, requires the Missionary position.)

The most annoying statment?

We are committed to the gay and lesbian Christians who are members of our dioceses. Our Baptismal Covenant pledges us to “respect the dignity of every human being” (BCP, p. 305), and we will continue to journey with them as together we seek to follow Jesus.

Bishops, with all due respect, you cannot be committed to someone whom you view as a pathology (despite modern science), and to whom you would deny the essential human needs of companionship and love, including, yes, physical love--but not limited to that (any more than your own marriages are only "about" sex!)   You see us as driven by sexual expression, fail to acknowledge that is only a small aspect of our complete personhood, and are so clueless that you consider LGBT incapable of keeping vows. The only thing you offer the LGBT people in your dioceses is a bleak future of rejection, self-loathing and loneliness.   Thanks, but no thanks.

The irony? The Bishops insist that

The liturgy entitled “The Witnessing and Blessing of a Lifelong Covenant” is for all practical purposes same-sex marriage. It includes all of the essential elements found in a marriage rite: vows, an exchange of rings, a pronouncement, and a blessing.

although officials of TEC are adamant that it's not a marriage:

[T]he liturgy includes many of the elements of a marriage rite, said the Rev. Ruth Meyers, a liturgist who oversaw the development of the same-sex blessing over the last three years as chairwoman of the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music. 

“There are a lot of similarities,” she said in an interview. “The couple give their consent to being joined in lifelong commitment, they exchange vows. There’s the possibility of exchanging rings, or, for couples who have been together for some time and already have rings, to have their rings blessed. There is a blessing over the couple. 

“But we’re clear at this point that this is not a marriage,” she said, “because the Episcopal Church is not in agreement in its understanding of marriage.” (NY Times)

And

The service is not considered a marriage ceremony, media affairs representative Nancy Davidge said. "We have authorized a blessing, and a blessing is different than a marriage," she said. "A blessing is a theological response to a monogamous, committed relationship." Marriage requires the additional involvement of civil authorities, and many states do not allow gays to marry. (CNN)

And of course, gay couples themselves are WELL aware that this is not marriage, but is separate, and clearly not equal.  Which doesn't mean it's not a welcome step, just that it's not the last one.

So the conservatives are angry because they think it's marriage, and the progressives are frustrated that it's not.  

I find that ironic.

Prophetic voices

I like what the (Episcopal) Bishop of Washington (state) said:

What [LGBT people] ask of us, the church and the government, is to put boundaries around their relationship, to hold them in the same regard and with the same respect, which would also mean that we expect the same from them.  They are not asking for special treatment.  They are asking for equal treatment.   They are asking to be accountable, as a couple, in community.  To me, this is a conservative proposal.  I am for it, and I hope we will finally make way for this to happen, not only in our society, but also in our church.

And also what the (Episcopal) Bishop of Washington (DC) said:

Many of us in the Episcopal Church, which I serve as a bishop, know same-sex couples whose relationships can only be described as holy, and thus we have come to support the blessing of such unions. They stand in stark contrast with many exploitative and casual patterns of sexuality that both heterosexual and homosexual Christians are right to reject. 

....Every generation, it seems, has struggled to include someone previously thought to be outside the realm of God’s grace and full humanity. In our time, we in the Episcopal Church have come to understand that God shows no partiality between straight and gay people. Not every same-sex couple is a paragon of holiness, but neither is every heterosexual couple. Life long relationships are hard, which is why the support of religious and societal institutions is so important. 

From the convictions of my Christian faith, and in support of my gay and lesbian friends whose relationships inspire me in my marriage, I urge Marylanders to join me in supporting the marriage equality legislation currently under consideration in their state.

A letter to Rowan

We talked previously about how the legal minds of the CofE have gone to great lengths to figure out how they can ask the right questions about sex in order to ensure no problematically gay bishop is appointed. (This works only as long as those who are already appointed keep to their closets. Which is why Gay Bishops Should Come Out.)

The LGBT-led Metropolitan Community Church scolds Rowan Williams for the hair splitting.H/T to Thinking Anglicans:

We understand that the legal advice suggests that there should be no bar, per se, to gay men serving as bishops provided that they repent of any same sex activity before they entered the priesthood, have lived by the requirement to be celibate since ordination and promise to continue to be celibate.

We feel that the spectacle of the Church of England trying to avoid complying with the law is unedifying and betrays a deep unease about the wonderful diversity of human sexuality. ...

We also think the policy of requiring celibacy will simply make the Church of England look even more ridiculous and open yourselves up to the most dreadful kind of casuistry as people wonder what, exactly celibacy requires. Could, for example, a gay bishop kiss his partner? Does the bishop and his partner have to sleep in separate rooms in the episcopal palace, or would twin beds in the same room suffice? If twin beds are acceptable what would be a “celibate” distance between the beds – 5 feet, 10 feet, or opposite ends of the room? Do any lapses in this celibacy rule have to be reported and, if so, to whom? The Archbishop of the Province? Her Majesty The Queen? The Prime Minister? The Diocesan Synod or just the local press? ....

We are an lgbt-led church, yet we talk far more about mission than we do about sexuality. We commend this approach to you.

Heh.

I have often said that I will be very happy to stop talking about sexuality as soon as other people stop making it an issue.

Catholics on the campaign against equality

Over and over again, polls tell us that Roman Catholic laity--that is, the people in the pews-- are amongst the most supportive groups when it comes to marriage equality.  But the Roman Catholic hierarchy, that is, the Bishops and up, are amongst the most intense opponents, funneling millions into the anti-marriage campaigns.

Why, in Minnesota, the Archbishop actually suggested that parents reject their children rather than the church.  Yeah, how's that workin' for ya?

And NOM, the most active, yet secretive opponent to equality, is run by conservative Catholics as a front group for Catholic money.

The laity have practiced a sort of don't-ask-don't-tell, managing to ignore this, but stories of denying funerals to parishioners who are gay don't sit well with anyone.

As this excellent piece in ReligionDispatches points out, it's as though being gay is a unique sin.

In their zeal to deny any form of legitimacy to same-sex relationships, the bishops have neglected more urgent pastoral duties. Catholic schools and parishes are closing by the dozen in dioceses across the country, yet somehow the hierarchy and its allies in the Knights of Columbus have found millions of dollars to spend in one state after another opposing marriage equality, or its weaker cousin, the civil union.

Many Catholics, though, still believe in their church as an agent of social justice.

...The Church’s teachings on social justice compelled us to act as advocates for fairness, justice, and individual dignity, that its teachings on politics instructed us to vote for the common good, and that in making moral decisions, we were to follow the promptings of our own well-formed consciences

There are times, it seems, when our hierarchy is so committed to cultivating political power, and deploying our Church’s resources in contemporary culture wars, that they expect us to forget all of this. We won’t..

And then, of course, there's the hypocrisy, such as expelling children of gay parents from Catholic schools.

The archbishop argued that parents must be able to cooperate with Catholic schools in the education of their children, and that those who do not embrace Church doctrine cannot do so.

This was not an argument he employed against Protestants, or non-Christians, or children whose parents had remarried after a divorce. It was employed exclusively against lesbian parents. Because in the theological universe that our bishops are constructing to support their personal biases, there is sin, and then there is gay sin, and gay sin is so much worse.

Remember, BP used to be Roman Catholic--until the day she visited an unfamiliar church prior to Prop8, and a priest spat bile and hatred over homosexuals in a vile screeching sermon. Her many, many supportive RC friends urged her to stay with her regular congregation, to practice Don't Ask Don't Tell with the priest. But how can you have a healthy spiritual life if you can't be honest? So BP is now Episcopalian, where she is welcomed as a total person and our marriage is, literally, blessed.

So while it's great that these individual Roman Catholics at Religion Dispatches are calling out the bishops, there's a problem. The Roman Catholic church is not a democracy. The institution is still actively harming gay people, and pouring money into anti-equality efforts. And while individual RC don't agree and don't support that, what are they doing--what can they do-- to stop the abuse?

The road to GC2012 goes through New York

New York is the most populous state to legalize same sex marriage, and serves as a microcosm of the broader Episcopal Church. The Lead points us to this NY Times article on the different responses of the various New York Dioceses of TEC to the legalization of civil same sex marriage.

[G]ay and lesbian Episcopalians will be allowed on Sunday to get married by priests in Brooklyn and Queens, but not in the Bronx or Manhattan or on Staten Island; in Syracuse but not in Albany.

That is because the church has not taken a firm position nationally on same-sex marriage, leaving local bishops with wide latitude to decide what priests may do when the law takes effect in New York State. In the state, with six Episcopal dioceses, the bishops are split: two have given the green light for priests to officiate at same-sex marriages, one has said absolutely not, two are undecided and one has staked out a middle ground, allowing priests to bless, but not officiate at, weddings of gay men and lesbians.

Rather than re-hash what I've written before, I'm going to point you at a couple of previous posts. As always I have strong opinions on the subject.

A review of where TEC is and the concept of "wide pastoral latitude". In this, I agreed with those who are willing to let the process unfold--pushing it, of course, but letting the process happen.

The question of how do you bless a marriage that isn't, yet. In this post, I pointed out the problems caused by a patchwork of legal recognitions of LGBT couples, who may be married in one state, but not recognized in another; who may be recognized if they are civil unioned, but not if they are married; who may have no legal recognition whatsoever. It's why I think TEC should advocate for legal civil marriage in all states, and the overturn of DOMA, as a justice issue

In thinking about the SCLM consultation, I reflected on the argument about complementarity--and not for the first time, remarked on the REAL redefinition of marriage, which is that both partners are equal now.

I have argued quite a lot for the importance of recognizing same sex marriage as marriage, at least ecclesiastically.

A lot rides on GC2012. My continuing concern is that it will end up with what I call a "gay ghetto": a liturgy specifically for gay partnerships, regardless of whether they are marriages, or DPs, or … nothing legal. My reason for this concern is the comments to this SCLM blog, e.g.

will the same-sex blessings the SCLM are tasked with designing be added to the “list” of sacraments– becoming, as it were, the Eighth Sacrament– or will they merely exist on a lesser plane than marriage as currently understood in the Prayer Book?

Note the explicit assumption that Gay will be Different (and probably lesser).

I think it may be interesting for the task group to consider (1) whether the theology developed through this process could equally justify the creation of a liturgy for blessing non-marital life-long commitments by opposite-gender couples, and (2) whether there are life-long committed same-gender relationships for which the Commission’s to-be-completed liturgy might be inappropriate.

again, the idea of something different and lesser -- gays and not-so-committed straights can have something OTHER than marraige.  (Whether DPs should co-exist with marriage, and the idea of "marriage lite",  we discussed at length here).

Then there is this summary of table comments from the House of Bishops C056 consultation. While many comments were positive, some were negative about gay people generally. But of greater concern is this idea that marriage is something different if the partners are gay, e.g.,

• Is this an additional sacrament?
• Will straight couples be permitted to use the new rite?
• Distinction between blessings and marriage (this comes up multiple times)
• Is this the sacrament of marriage, or something else? It needs to be something else, clearly.

As the Times article says,

Some gay and lesbian Episcopalians said they were content to allow the church to proceed slowly because they believed it was moving in what they viewed as the right direction. The issue of same-sex marriage will most likely be raised again at the church’s next national conference, next summer.

Make or break? Not quite that dramatic. But expectations run high, and not just for the folks in New York.

Wide Pastoral Latitude

There's been some discussion over at the Lead about the decision by Virginia Bishop Shannon Johnston to open the door to same sex blessings, with a number of hoops between here and there. I think Bp Johnston should be thanked, but other commenters felt the hoops are too restrictive.

So I thought it was worth reviewing what is the current status quo. At the last General Convention, the ground breaking resolution C056 stated the following.

Resolved, the House of Deputies concurring, that the 76th General Convention acknowledge the changing circumstances in the United States and in other nations, as legislation authorizing or forbidding marriage, civil unions or domestic partnerships for gay and lesbian persons is passed in various civil jurisdictions that call for a renewed pastoral response from this Church and for an open procession for the consideration of theological resources and liturgies for the blessing of same gender relationships

So, two issues are defined in the current point of time. One, a "pastoral response", and the second, "consideration of theological resources and liturgies".

Let's take the liturgy question first, shall we? Just what liturgy should apply? There are three relevant liturgies in the BCP: the celebration and blessing of a marriage, the blessing of a civil marriage, and an order for marriage. Probably the least complicated is a civilly married gay couple putting themselves forward for a blessing of a civil marriage. (And as an aside, there seemed to be some sense at the Lead that a "blessing" was less than... but as the blessing of a civil marriage shows, that 's an entirely appropriate response to a civil marriage and NOT an insult).

The only problem there is the language as written, which is full of exhortations about "joining of a man and woman/husband and wife". So the first problem is that at least some of the words need to change if they are to be applied to LGBT couples. Although the blessing of a civil marriage is pretty short, and should be to the point, it has not been explicitly approved for use by GC in the case of same sex couples.

More complicated is the language of the marriage rites, where the language is more prominently heterosexual. So as written, these don't really fit, without substantial tweaking.

The second issue is that, depending on geography, the couple in question may not be eligible for marriage. Remember, same sex marriage is currently legal in only 6 jurisdictions. Our culture currently conflates civil marriage with holy matrimony; therefore, you can't apply a marriage rite to a couple that cannot marry.

The third issue is civil unions/domestic partnerships. Do you require that the couple get one, if eligible in your state? What if they aren't eligible for legal recognition? Should they still be eligible for some form of recognition and affirmation?

As I've argued before, the only way to resolve some of these issues is to advocate forcefully for marriage equality nationwide. Individual bishops have been outspoken on this subject, but I'd like to hear the official church "evolve" on this issue, wouldn't you?

Meanwhile, to address some of the following issues, let's turn back to C056:

and be it further Resolved, That the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music, in consultation with the House of Bishops, collect and develop theological resources and design liturgies, and report to the 77th General Convention for further action;

and be it further Resolved, That the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music, in consultation with the House of Bishops, devise an open process for the conduct of its work inviting participation from provinces, dioceses, congregations, and individuals who are engaged in such theological work, and inviting theological reflection from throughout the Anglican Communion;

Susan Russell has told us quite a bit about the SCLM work which has been open and transparent. I have commented at length that the best possible outcome in my opinion would be gender-neutral marriage rite, which could be used by gay or straight couples, and a rite for partnerships; the worst outcome would be a same-sex specific rite that is used interchangeably for all gay relationships. This would be a horrible example of separate and unequal and would, I think, be a setback. On the other hand, do you really want to wait half a generation for a revised BCP to address this issue? So it seems likely there will be an interim liturgy of some sort.

BUT, that said, the church isn't there yet. It's here, now, without an approved liturgy, in a country with a myriad of different views and laws governing same sex couples. So then, this bit:

and be it further Resolved that bishops, particularly those in dioceses within civil jurisdictions where same-gender marriage, civil unions or domestic partnerships are legal, may provide generous pastoral response to meet the needs of members of this Church, and be it further

Resolved that this convention continue to honor the theological diversity of this Church in regard to matters of human sexuality and be it further

Resolved that member of this church be encouraged to engage in this effort.

Generous pastoral response-- there's a wide-open term. Theological diversity-- that means, you're still a big tent. And encouraged to engage--that means, keep talking!

In Virginia, Bp Johnston has said the following:

Until the General Convention specifically provides otherwise, there will be no officially authorized liturgy for general use. Liturgies would be locally produced and approved on a case-by-case basis. Also, I set three criteria to be met to my satisfaction before I would give permission for this local option: (1) A statement of where the congregation is with this issue. What preparation has been done? What program of teaching was followed? (2) Has this been discussed with the vestry or vestry committee? What is their position? (3) A substantial exposition of the theology of recognizing same-sex relationships. This must include exegesis of the relevant passages from Scripture, not neglecting those which are cited as speaking negatively about same-sex couples.

This prompted some outcry amongst some of the commenters that this seems restrictive and unfair. But what Bishop Johnston wants is not that far off what is done in other jurisdictions. He's not forcing any parish into the same response, and he's requiring that each parish do its homework--and the same from the couple, whom it is worth noting, are not eligible for marriage OR domestic partnerships in Virginia. ( In fact, secular Virginia is so very anti-gay that we gay folk call it "the State of hate" for its bad-natured treatment of LGBT citizens.) So, I take this as a very good step. This is not a final destination, it's a step in the journey. And when a process is in transition, as this is, we must be willing to take the extra steps to meet it.

Yes, in Massachusetts, Bishop Shaw has approved full-on marriage.

Bishop M. Thomas Shaw III granted permission to area clergy to sign the paperwork that accompanies the religious ceremony and makes the marriage legal in a civil sense. The decision came more than five years into the history of marriage equality in the United States, which first became legal in Massachusetts in 2004.

In New Hampshire, on the other hand, although same sex marriage is legal, Bishop Robinson prohibits the clergy from officiating civilly (and there is special paperwork). Instead, they can perform a blessing of a civil marriage. He wrote in 2008, "It is my hope that we will be able to provide for the private, pastoral needs of the faithful people entrusted to our care, while causing a minimum of further furor in the Church." 



In San Diego, same sex marriage is currently not legal, though many Californian couples married in 2008.  Now, there are Domestic Partnerships--and the married folks "grandfathered in". For same sex couples, Bishop Mathes requires congregations to study the issue and the vestry to approve, before they can move forward; the couples must also make a special request to the bishop and undergo all the usual counseling, etc. Not so far off what Bp Johnston has suggested. And, speaking as  a real-live-married-gay-couple, this was something we were willing to do, and gladly accepted the support of our many hard-working friends, and our Bishop, in the process.

Here's an analogy. When we decided to marry in 2008, we knew there was a possibility it would be overturned by Prop8 (it wasn't for months after prop8 that we could be sure that our marriage wouldn't be rescinded retroactively-- that was the sword hanging over our heads, think about that!!!) We knew that we would not have full federal recognition or full rights as a married couple nationwide. Should we have refused the opportunity, and waited (how long?) for full national marriage equality? NO! We knew the journey was not complete, but imperfect, risky, and different as it was, we still seized the opportunity in good faith to move forward.

When it was announced last year that blessings would be permitted in Dio San Diego, there was joy. We didn't complain that the rules were a little different at this early stage. It's not done yet.  The diocese is not uniform in viewpoint; lots of parishes aren't happy about same sex recognition, while others are joyful.  But  in our parish, we had the marvelous welcome of having our marriage blessed, one of the first couples to do so. After all, if we don't seize the opportunity when it's offered, then why would anyone think they should offer it to anyone else?

So, while I would love Bishop Johnston to open the gates all the way in VA, he's opened them enough for committed couples to get through, even if they have to push him.   And their witness, seizing the possibility, will be a great testament to open the doors further--not just in TEC, but also statewide. And who knows? Maybe some hearts too.  It begins with a step. I'd take that step. I have. Won't you?

Ohio moves ahead

From The Lead:

Bishop Thomas Breidenthal of Southern Ohio has issued a fifteen page document on "same gender unions," including theological rationale, policies, educational resources, and a trial liturgy.....

This group has gone far beyond my initial request in stating the theological convictions that underlie the policy, in developing a rite of blessing for trial use, and in providing web and print resources for congregational and individual study. I am extremely grateful for their work – not only for its outcome, which will contribute significantly to the Episcopal Church’s reflection on same-gender unions, but also for the charity, honesty and devotion to the Gospel that was so beautifully modeled in their conversations with one another.

Now, in contrast to the frankly offensive language of the Virigina diocese, which wanted to medically investigate homos for incest, the S.Ohio rules of procedures are very sensible, use gender-neutral language, and clearly apply to both gay and straight. For example,

2. For every proposed blessing, at least one of the two persons requesting the blessing must be a member in good standing of The Episcopal Church resident within the Diocese.

3. Prior to a priest’s officiating at the blessing, the couple must receive adequate counseling as determined by the priest.....

and

5. The priest-in-charge retains the right and responsibility to determine whether any union shall be blessed on church property or under the auspices of the congregation.

And just to make it crystal clear,

9. No priest of this Diocese shall bless the union of any person, except as hereinafter provided:

a) The priest shall be satisfied by appropriate evidence that any prior marriage has been annulled or dissolved by a final judgment or decree of a civil court of competent jurisdiction, and that the same is true for any union that was evidenced by a formal civil proceeding.
b) The priest shall have instructed the parties that continuing concern must be shown for the well-being of the former spouse or partner, and of any children of the prior marriage or union;
(c) The priest shall consult with and obtain the consent of the Bishop to officiate prior to, and shall report to the Bishop, the blessing; and
(d) If the proposed blessing is to be given in a jurisdiction other than the one in which the consent has been given, the consent shall be affirmed by the Bishop of that jurisdiction.

And of course, very sensibly

10. It shall be within the discretion of any priest to decline to bless any union.

There. That wasn't so hard, was it?

(Read the rite, it's very lovely. made BP cry.)

Update The first blessing in Ohio has taken place:

Warren MacPherson and Mike Harbin joined hands at the front of St. Stephen's Episcopal Church and vowed to love and care for each other always.

I will love and cherish you in prosperity and in hardship,
In health and in sickness, in joy and in sorrow,
Until we are parted by death.

I won't lecture you on theology if you don't lecture me on science

Now that the TEC Bishops' Super Secret Theology committee has released its report(or rather, its two competing reports), I'm sure there will be a lot of discussion.

I have read through the conservative's arguments against acceptance of GLBT people and my blood pressure is skyrocketing over the same old tired flat earth arguments.

I will leave it to others to dissect their theological aspect (Tobias Haller comes to mind) but I will point out one direct quote that I find breathtakingly outrageous.

...we are left with three fallacies that need correction: (1) that current science points to sexual orientation as basically innate; (2) that the attempt to change orientation is bound to cause harm; and (3) if homosexuality is something “given,” it cannot be considered in the category of “unnatural.” The rest of this section on scientific evidence will counter the first two points, and the section on natural law that follows will clarify what a theological notion of “unnatural” implies, and why this still applies.

Their discussion of genetics (a field I know a little something about) shows a complete failure to understand basic principles--what it means to say something is innate, and the fallacy of a single gene theory. They embarrass themselves. And rather than take your time here with lecture, I will refer you to Gay Married Californian, where tomorrow I will begin a series on Genetics. (This will also be permanently housed on its own page).

And meanwhile, they also justify "reparative therapy" thus flying into the face of the medical profession. Their citations are to religious texts and summaries, not to primary literature.

Basically their argument against recognition of GLBT people is the defect argument: it may be natural, but even if it is, it's sick, a pathology, like a birth defect. And of course, it interferes with good man on woman fertility since REALLY it's all about procreation.

A strictly Darwinian point of view would reduce the purposes of sex to the preservation and betterment of the species. To the reductionist social biologist, all the psychological and romantic aspects of courtship and....There is one procreative “purpose” to sexual relations, and all the romantic and pleasurable aspects are useful concomitants.

It's clear to modern scholars that Darwinian ideas of sexual selection acting on the level of the individual are insufficient to explain the behaviors of socially complex species, in which selection is rather more likely to work at the level of community or population which does not require that all individual reproduce. I will expand on this in later posts; meanwhile good sources for information are the books Biological Exuberance, by Bruce Baghemihl, and Evolution's Rainbow, by Joan Roughgarden.

[T]he inherent procreative purpose of sexual relationships must be respected and embodied in Christian marriage. This does not require the unnecessarily stringent requirement of respect for procreation in every sexual act (as implied in Humanae Vitae), nor does it imply that a marriage foreseen to be childless (e.g. when the parties to the marriage are beyond normal child-rearing age); but it does, at the very least, imply a marital partnership of a man and a woman.

BABIES! But only if you engage in man-woman sex, and want them? Am I the only one who finds this an inconsistency? Babies are the reason for marriage....unless you don't want them. And divorce is fine...regardless of the Bible....because we recognize a cultural need for it.

Traditionalists understand homosexual attraction as not following the intended order of creation.

Because they don't like it.

So what's a poor homo to do? What they suggest is complete sexual abstinence. But it's not so bad,

After all, learning to refuse to indulge sexual urges is part of the general spiritual discipline that needs to be developed in many other areas of life and is part of the way of the cross. This aspect of Christian discipleship applies, of course, not just to the homosexually inclined, but to all those not in a marital relationship: we think of the widowed and divorced, college students and other youth before marriage, and those whose circumstances involve long periods of separation from spouses.

And reparative therapy

.... a minority who experience unwanted same-sex attractions and might benefit from a course of counseling or treatment aimed at developing heterosexual inclinations.

And their final point against blessing of same sex unions? it isn't fair to celibate GLBT people if some of us can have sex "legitimately". Seriously. They make that argument.

The starkness of the conservative position is tempered by the reminder that it is our eroticized and materialist culture that creates the framework so inimical to chastity and self-control. ....We have the teaching of Jesus about the disappearance of marriage and family relationships in the kingdom of heaven, and we have the examples and teaching of both Jesus and Paul, who made clear that physical sexual needs, expressions, and relationships are temporary and secondary compared to our destiny as co-heirs with Christ.

In other words, so sorry about that cross you have to bear, homos. Really. Such a bummer, like being born with one leg, or missing your sight. Tough luck that you're defective.

I remind you of a post I wrote a while ago, called Curing the Variant. In it, I argued that it is not possible to find a compromise with people who consider me to be a pathology. There isn't a middle ground: either I'm a normal variant like left-handedness, or I have a congenital birth defect.

This argument will not change any minds. It will simply offer justification to the continued ignorance and bias against GLBT people. It solidifies their fear of sex. They are standing on the beach holding their hands up to stop the tide.

Glasspool receives consent from bishops

Canon Mary Glasspool, bishop suffragan-elect of Los Angeles has received enough consents to her election for Glasspool and Diane Bruce to be consecrated on May 15 in the Long Beach Arena. The Presiding Bishop will be preside and it is Pride Weekend in Long Beach!

read more at Episcopal Café.

Photo from Episcopal Life Online

News around TEC

In Washington DC, Bishop Chane will step down:

The Rt. Rev. John Bryson Chane announced today that he plans to retire as bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Washington after the consecration of his successor in the fall of 2011.

Chane, 65, became the eighth Bishop of Washington in June 2002. He is known for his passionate support for the full inclusion of gay and lesbian Christians in the Church, his commitment to interfaith dialog, and his outreach to Africa and the Muslim world.

“I love what I do and I deeply love this diocese,” Chane told delegates to the diocese’s annual convention at Washington National Cathedral. “When the time actually comes to turn over the crosier to another it will be a very emotional time for me. “

However, noting that he had been a priest for 38 years, Chane said it was “time to elect a younger person to lead what I consider to be the best and one of the most influential dioceses in the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion.”

In PIttsburgh, Bishop Duncan is told to give back the property:

Although Duncan, through his attorneys, argued that the stipulation does not mean what it seems to mean, Judge James disagreed and, in October 2009, issued an order that the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh should “hold and administer the real and personal property that is subject to Paragraph One [which deals with diocesan property].” That property was inventoried by a special master appointed by the court, attorney Stanley E. Levine.

Today’s order states that:

• The court accepts Levine’s inventory as a list of property...
• There is to be both a public and a confidential version of the court order. ...
• Financial institutions and repositories holding diocesan funds are to take instructions only from the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh. ...
• Real property listed by the special master is rightfully held and administered by the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh. ...
• Recipients of “altar artifacts”..may not sell, transfer, or move the artifacts to another location without the permission of the court.
• Persons or entities having taken out loans from the diocese are to take instructions for repayment from the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh.
• Defendants are to provide to the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh within 20 days financial and other records needed by the diocese to hold and administer the property covered by the order. They are to provide “ongoing cooperation” to implement the provisions of the order.

The order takes effect immediately, and the court “retains jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter to enforce the Stipulation and Order of October 14, 2005, the Opinion and Order of Court of October 6, 2009, and [the current] order.”