Albany Diocese Lays Down The Law

For those who have received the Pre-Convention Book of the upcoming Diocesan Convention of Albany (June 6-8), I want to point out a chilling coincidence.

In the same week that this website reported on Bishop Love's reply to The Rev. Glen Michael's inquiry regarding candidates to Holy Orders (See: Diocese Says We Can Discriminate), we read of two proposed resolutions to Convention.  One resolution mandates changes to the wording of the Diocesan canon On Marriage, and the other amends the Standards for Clergy.

As you remember, Bishop Love informed The Rev. Michaels that:

"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 to one man and one woman, or be celibate and abstinent."

Upon further consideration, the Bishop may have concluded that simply stating a policy is not enough.  Any policy worth enunciating is worth codifying into an inflexible statute, it seems.

Proposed Resolution #5, On Marriage, is in two parts.  Not sparing you any of the legalese, I quote Part 1, "Celebration of Blessing of Marriages by Clergy, verbatim:

Members of the Clergy resident in or Licensed to Serve in this Diocese shall not officiate at, nor facilitate, nor participate in, any service, whether public or private, for the Celebration or Blessing of a Marriage or any other union except between one man and one woman.  Unions other than those of one man and one woman in Holy Matrimony, even if they be recognized in other jurisdictions, shall be neither recognized nor blessed in this Diocese.

Part 2, regarding "Marriages on Church Property," states:

Properties owned, controlled, managed or operated by this Diocese, or any other parish of the Diocese, or any legal entity established by the Diocese or a parish of the Diocese, shall not be the site for any service, public or private, for the Celebration or Blessing of a Marriage or any other union except those between one man and one woman.

Mercifully, Proposed Resolution #6, "Standards for Clergy," is shorter, though again in two parts:

First, "To be eligible to be ordained to the Diaconate or Priesthood, or consecrated a Bishop, a person must live within the covenant of Marriage between one man and one woman, or be celibate and abstinent."

Second, "To be eligible to be elected, appointed or licensed to any position of ordained ministry in the Diocese, a member of the clergy must live within the covenant of Marriage between one man and one woman, or be celibate and abstinent."

The author of these resolutions, and it appears to be the same author, must be commended for efficiency.  Why waste time with a pastoral response, or be distracted by the complexity of individual cases, when a cleanly antiseptic rule can be applied without compassion in all situations?  But wait, didn't Jesus warn us against those who would again subject us to the burdensome demands of The Law?  Of course, that was a different time.  There are no longer any Pharisees in the Church, are there?

Comments

[Tom Pritchard]

Rev. Hartt,

Love the sinner, not the sin. At the risk of having to state the obvious, just because Jesus was or may have been silent on the particular foibles which I mentioned is not the point. He certainly would not have encouraged them and yet the Albany Diocese, in its infinite wisdom, seeks to specifically exclude those who practice what some may, but not all do, consider to be "sinful" activity and yet not enumerate other truly attrocious behaviors. One point of distinction is whether or not such behaviors are self destructive or hurtful to others; the particular activity under consideration is, as I generally understand it, mutually consensual and thus not triggering either of the contraindicators. I appreciate that the discernment process tries to select candidates of sufficient moral character and fortitude. If we're going to bother specifying taboos, let us try to be as thorough, scrupulous, and even more vigilent about the other behaviors, which truly are matters of choice and much more deleterious to the public good and social welfare.

We have seen, have we not, some of the high and not so high as well as the mighty and not so mighty fall under scrutiny. The R.C.C., being the largest of the Christian faith bodies, has the highest absolute numbers, although taking proportionality into account they may not be exceptional; not that the R.C.C.'s insistence on nominal celibacy has necessarily worked in their favor. One could also consider the parade of prominent American fundamentalist faith leaders who have experienced their own varieties of indiscretions, little and not so little. Why is it that the traditionalists that make the most noise are the ones we are least inclined to trust?

[Tom Rosenberger]

In reply to: But isn't the "talking point" that Jesus never said anything about these things, therefore he must be in favor?

To me, the fact that Jesus never said anything about an issue doesn't mean He is in favor. It means either He wasn't presented with such matters, He wasn't concerned with such matters, or the people who wrote the "words" of the Bible simply failed to include every last comment or suggestion Jesus spoke in regard to such issues. If it's not in the "words" we need to seek the answer by looking at the entire "word" and that is the "talking point" I follow. This is why reason is so important.

[Paul Hartt]

"One would presume, would one not, that while "they" are getting so particular and concise that they might also want to specify that spouse beaters, animal abusers, child abusers, elder abusers, drug and susbstance abusers, larcenists, arsonists, those who might choose to stray or pay for services considered illegal in most places are also not smiled upon and worthy of God's grace? I mean, why leave any stone unturned?"

But isn't the "talking point" that Jesus never said anything about these things, therefore he must be in favor?

[Robert Dodd]

For those readers who may wonder just what the Episcopal canons say about the substance of Resolution #6:

Title III, Canon 1, Sec 2: "No person shall be denied access to the discernment process for any ministry, lay or ordained, in this Church because of race, color, ethnic origin, national origin, sex, marital status, sexual orientation, disabilities or age, except as otherwise provided by these Canons. No right to licensing, ordination, or election is hereby established."

It seems perfectly clear to me!

[Rich Angelo]

One wonders how they will check to be sure someone is "celibate or abstinent"? Will there be celibacy checkpoints at each Ordination similar to those at airports?

[Tom Pritchard]

One would presume, would one not, that while "they" are getting so particular and concise that they might also want to specify that spouse beaters, animal abusers, child abusers, elder abusers, drug and susbstance abusers, larcenists, arsonists, those who might choose to stray or pay for services considered illegal in most places are also not smiled upon and worthy of God's grace? I mean, why leave any stone unturned? We wouldn't want there to be any confusion or room for misinterpretation now, would we?

My bad, we ALL sin and fall short of the Glory of God, do we not? There is nothing that we can do the earn our salvation, is there? As an Epicopalutheran I still pledge allegience to justification by faith, not works.

"Sir, is it true you've stopped beating your wife?" No good answer, eh? At least a simple 'yes' or 'no' will certainly not suffice.

[Robert Dodd]

What a relief! I feared that these resolutions or something like them would be dropped in on Friday of Convention like two earlier June surprises: 2005's rejiggering of the procedure for choosing a Bishop Coadjutor, and 2007's defining the limits of life and rejecting the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice.

At least parishes will have a chance to discuss these resolutions before their representatives vote on them. Let us hope they do so!