Diocese Says: "We Can Discriminate"

The Rev. Glen Michaels from Trinity Church, Plattsburg, has provided us with an interesting exchange of emails regarding his inquiry to the Diocese of Albany about a possible candidate for ordination.  The candidate happened to be a partnered gay man.  Michaels+ was mistakenly copied on an exchange of emails between the Rev. Peter Schofield and The Rev. Robert Haskell (both of the Diocesan Commission on Ministry) relative to his inquiry.  The Rev. Michaels has given us permission to post his notes and the related email exchange:

Dr. Bones & Openly Episcopal,

Our AM readers may want to see how the Diocese treats certain of those in this Diocese who believe they may be called to Holy Orders.  Canon Haskell's response to Fr. Schofield below was inadvertently sent to me after I had inquired regarding a member of my parish.

Canon Haskell's is an interesting approach.  Perhaps it can be used by "really historically orthodox" bishops who don't want to ordain women:  "We don't discriminate against Christians because they ARE women.  No... we discriminate against them because they TEACH that women are called to ordained ministry in the Church.  Say... it might even work to exclude people of color and all other heterodox undesirable who hold the radical notion that in Christ there is no longer Jew or Greek, slave or canfree, male or female....

(The Rev.) Glen Michaels, Priest Associate, Trinity Church, Plattsburgh, NY

                                                            ....................

The email exchange alluded to is given below:

March 21, 2008

Holy Orders Question

Dear Fr. Schofield,

I have an individual in my parish who I believe has a call to Holy Orders and have met with him to discuss his vocation.  He is interested in further discernment.  Does the Commission on Ministry have a blanket rule, either by formal rule or de facto, against accepting gay men in civil unions?  If not, does the Commission have a working arrangement with another diocese to whom it will refer such persons?

Sincerely,

(The Rev.) Glen Michaels

                                                           ....................

March 21, 2008

Re: Holy Orders Question

Peter-

We cannot state we have a rule against accepting gay men or women, because the canons of the Episcopal Church say that we cannot discriminate against people in the ordination process based on their sexual orientation.

What we can do is discriminate against people who teach that sex outside the marriage of one man and one woman is acceptable.  We want people who have historically orthodox views on sex and marriage.

However, I would ask you not to reply to Fr. Michaels yet.  I think Bishop Love should have a chance to think about how we handle this.  I am copying him with this email.

-Bob

                                                           ....................

April 14, 2008

Bishop Love, Fr. Schofield,

I am disappointed that you have chosen not to respond - other than accidentally (see Canon Haskell's remarks) to my query, made more than 3 weeks ago, about a member of my parish whom I believe has a call to Holy Orders.  I sent a follow-up email to Fr. Schofield on March 31.  The meeting on Holy Orders is this Saturday.  But still no reply.  I will communicate Canon Haskell's responses to my parishioner and others.

(The Rev.) Glen Michaels

                                                           ....................

Subsequent to this, Michaels+ did receive a reply from the Bishop.  His reply is printed below:

Dear Glen+,

Thank you for your email concerning a parishioner at Trinity Church, Plattsburgh, who is interested in Holy Orders.  The policy in the Diocese of Albany is that for a person to be eligible to be considered for the ordination process, he or she must live within the covenant of marriage between one man and one woman, or be celibate and abstinent.

If the individual you are counseling is living in a lifestyle other than that mentioned above, he may pursue the ordination process through another diocese that has different standards.  It is important for him to realize that the same standards mentioned above apply for clergy seeking to come into the Diocese of Albany from another diocese.  We do not have a working arangement with any other diocese to assist individuals outside of the standards mentioned above.

Faithfully Yours in Christ,

+Bill

                                                         ....................

I leave the last word to The Rev. Glen Michaels:

As much as I disagree with Bishop Love's theological stance on homosexuality, I believe that he does have the right to reject candidates for Holy Orders who hold theological positions which he believes to be outside the bounds of acceptability within the Episcopal Church.  However, it is an act of hubris for the Bishop to deny that there are many other bishops in good standing within the Episcopal Church who find such positions acceptable, and would welcome otherwise qualified candidates for ordained ministry.  As a pastoral matter, I believe we need to assist such persons in their discernment by connecting them with other Episcopal mentors.  Bishop Love's non-response to my suggestion is unfortunately indicative of his pastoral care toward such persons.

Blessings,

Glen Michaels (who prefers to follow Jesus' injunction to call no man father except our Father in Heaven)

Comments

[Paul Leduc]

First, many thanks to Glen for sharing this exchange and another round for Openly Episcopal for making the text available and providing a forum for discussion.

Our self-identified "orthodox" brothers and sisters often make a case that acts, not orientations, are sinful. I have a difficult time digesting the "you can be but not practice" argument, but I am more upset with the fact that I believe many of our brothers and sisters are being untruthful when they say they don't think orientation is sinful--their words and acts all point to this fact. Our Diocese still links our website to David Virtue, a man who uses the term sodomite to refer to people who are of a certain orientation (has he been in people's bedrooms??). Albany Intercessor is linked to the Diocesan page. If you look through their prayers they state that homosexuals (no mention of whether these are active or celibate) will not inherit the Kingdom of God. Our Bishop knows of this, hasn't acknowledged that their words are wrong, uninformed, incorrect or hurtful. He hasn't taken the opportunity to educate those individuals. And, the sites still remain linked to our Diocesan site.

Despite the fact I have heard the term "Windsor compliant" importantly bandied about in Diocesan circles, 1998's Lambeth Conference committed ALL provinces to a "listening process" and yet I have seen no attempt from our leadership in Albany to facilitate this process. It seems our leadership doesn't want to hear the voices of the GLBTQ faithful, doesn't think it is important to hear these voices, or perhaps is afraid to hear them.

PS No matter how you read the above email exchanges, the fact that Canon Haskell said "We cannot state we have a rule against accepting gay men or women, because the canons of the Episcopal Church say that we cannot discriminate against people..." suggests there is a rule that cannot be stated. How wonderful is that?

[Robert Dodd]

"The Diocese of Albany is a dissenting voice in the national Church..."

No sir, Fr. Brown. The DoA's present leadership, which evidently hears and responds only to sounds that come from its right, is a dissenting ENSEMBLE, but it in no way represents the rich variety of sounds that come from Albany's pulpits and pews.

To label this or any other diocese "Network," "Windsor," "Common Cause," or -- for that matter -- "Via Media," drains it of the varied hues that are the glory of the Anglican tradition. It reduces parishes and individuals to clones.

Is Albany a dissenting diocese? That 97 of its 116 churches (85%) appear on the Common Cause membership map (united-anglican.org) suggests that it is, but a definitive answer would require giving each parish a chance to decide whether it wants to remain Episcopalian or follow +Bob Duncan and his ACN/CCP comrades to Nigeria, Argentina, or some other offshore venue. The Dioceses of Vermont, Western Massachusetts, Connecticut, Long Island, Newark, and Central New York -- 815 parishes in all -- had that chance, and just 18 of them (2%) joined ACN. Are Albany Episcopalians really that different from those in neighboring dioceses?

If Bp. Love really wants to serve and represent the whole diocese and not just those who share his views, a courageous step would be to ask each parish to either endorse or repudiate the Network membership imposed on it in 2004. He might also ask parishes to approve or reject the Network's decision (by whose leave?)to sweep "its" parishes into the more multifarious but equally separatist Common Cause Partnership.

Albany Via Media has begun to encourage parishes and individuals to learn about Common Cause and decide for themselves whether they belong on its membership map. We can continue this work, but we'd be happy to defer to Bp. Bill. Getting the numbers right is really his job, and to his advantage.

[Tom Pritchard]

I apologize for misspelling attitude.

Were my comments caustic? As Martin Luther said, "sin boldly." If the shoe fits, as they say, wear it. As a dual membership worshiper in both the ELCA and ECUSA traditions I object not only to the conservative elements in the ECUSA and the wider Anglican Communion but wherever prejudice and discrimination hold sway. When "other" people are diminished rather than built up we have failed the great commission that was bequeathed to us.

While the words attributed to Jesus in the gospel traditions portray personality dynamics ranging from compassion to violent anger (that last week at the temple comes to mind, what kind of reactive consequences did he really expect from the entrenched hierarchy?) the overriding sentiment is in favor of compassion, not discrimination and marginalization.

Just because homophobia is traditional, we should endeavor, should we not, to lift ourselves above the fray and try not sustain antiquated, if cherished, notions of what is acceptable and proper.

In what way do the conservative tradionalists think they are honoring the spirit of Jesus? By maintaining and sustaining their posture of protecting their guild from sincere and qualified people of different physical and emotional inclinations?

If the conservatives want to hide behind their perception of tradition, then so be it. Let us get on with doing God's Work by extending our hands and hearts to those who are the most needful. Let us NOT push them further away. Jesus was not portrayed as having spent most of his time among the acceptably rich and famous; he spent his time with those who some now consider to be the dregs of society.

[Christopher Brown+]

1) I think that Glen has misinterpreted Bishop Bill. The Bishop is not saying that no Bishops in other dioceses will ordain gay and lesbians who are openly sexually active. Clearly they do, and have done so ever since Paul Moore ordained Ellen Barrett in the 1970s.

Bishop Bill is simply saying that the diocese has the same expectations of clergy coming into the Diocese of Albany from other dioceses, as it does of ordinands from within the diocese. This standard was explicitly articulated in a resolution that passed at the 1979 General Convention, though obviously the national leadership of the Episcopal Church, and probably the majority of the laity, no longer hold to this standard.

The Diocese of Albany is a dissenting voice in the national Church, and this appears enrage those in the diocese who embrace recent developments. Fair enough -- these are tough questions and not everyone is going to agree. But I have to say the vitriol and indignation (consider Tom Pritchard's message above) directed against those who embrace the classic Catholic and Biblical sexual ethic seems a bit over the top for those who claim to advocate tolerance, reconciliation, moderation, reason and fair play.

2) Fr. Haskell's distinction between "being" gay and "teaching" a particular line on sexual ethics is a bit different from the usual approach, which is to distinguish between sexual orientation and sexual activity. This latter distinction is the line expressed most articulately by the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church, and is basically the position of the diocese.

It has the virtue of affirming gay people as Children of God, with basic human worth and rights like everyone else. In this sense, we refrain from discriminating against gay people not because it goes against the Canons, but because it is wrong. The traditional Biblical teaching does, however, call gay people to a standard of holiness of life that admittedly goes against the grain of the culture -- and remains a criteria for ordination in the diocese (as it does in most of Christendom).

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (which, of course, has no ecclesial authority over Anglicans, but which simply has the virtue of being well-stated) puts it this way:

"Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved....Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection."

Nevertheless:

"The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect,compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition."

Clearly not everyone agrees with this teaching today, but it is an effort to maintain what traditional Christians take to be a revealed standard while exercising a pastoral sensitivity to human suffering.

So far as the question of "teaching" is concerned, this is a reasonable concern when we are dealing with those who will have the responsibility to teaching the Christian faith and pattern life in the parish.

Christopher Brown+

[Tom Pritchard]

I've said this before but will say it again. What do the "traditionalist" conservatives think they are protecting themselves and the rest of us from? God's mistakes?

Are they suggesting or acknowledging that God makes "mistakes" that require human correction (by way of proactive discrimination)? Do they really have the audacity to think that it is their responsibility to protect us from ourselves? That's a fairly "better than thou" additude to adopt.

Jesus said "unless I wash your feet..." What part of that model are they respecting? Discrimination indeed in, oh, so many forms: sexism, racism, sexual orientation, ageism, the mind just reels with the possibilities. What of the historical wink-wink tolerance of their predecessors? That's one elephant in the room that I never have heard addressed. British prep schools are notorious, are they not?

This diocesan leadership's consistenly stellar examples of championing "tradition" (whatever it may have been) almost leads me to suggest that they take "their kind" and go join the Southen Cone and let the rest of us get on with Christ's work while they myopically "play church."