The media firestorm has begun on the resolutions passed at General Convention. This always happens - General Convention passes resolutions that are crafted pieces that are very nuanced and usually represent multiple points of view and the secular press distills it down to the sexiest and most provocative headline they can find, such as the New York Times', "Episcopal Vote Reopens a Door to Gay Bishops."
Of course, it doesn't help when the Episcopal News Service's Convention Daily publishes such a headline, which the secular news services pick up. Bishop Ted Gulick of Kentucky and Fort Worth weighs in on the matter:
Statement of the Rt. Rev. Edwin F. (Ted) Gulick Jr, bishop of Kentucky and provisional bishop of Fort Worth, regarding Resolution D025, which addresses the Episcopal Church's stance on the ordination of gay and lesbian persons and includes their consecration as bishops. The resolution was adoptedby General Convention yesterday (July 14).
July 14, 2009
Since The Daily put out by Episcopal Life at Convention online and in the print edition has so misrepresented the reality represented by Resolution D025, I feel the need to make the following statement. I look forward to making a full report on General Convention to both the Diocese of Kentucky and the Diocese of Fort Worth.
I asked the presiding bishop during debate and before the vote on D025, “Would you see the moratorium enjoined upon us by the Windsor Process would not be lifted until a diocese elects a gay or lesbian person to the episcopate and that person is consecrated?”
Her response was definitive that the moment of a lifting of a moratorium would be that act and not this resolution.
I would add on a personal note that given the Episcopal Church's understanding of our commitment to our mission projects in the Anglican Communion and our deep bonds of affection with the Communion that it would be impossible for us not to consider our brothers and sisters in the Communion in a discernment process in an episcopal election. There is nothing in this resolution that would preclude such a consideration in that discernment.
What this resolution does is remind the Church of the reality in our canons that the discernment process toward ordination is by canon open to all the baptized and states that this continues to be our canonical reality.
To say the print issue was a misrepresentation is a bit of an understatement. The Presiding Bishop made a public apology to the bishops the next day and this retraction was printed in The Daily, "Correction: The page one headline in the July 14 issue of The Daily, describing action in the House of Bishops on Resolution D025, was misleading. The headline should have read 'Bishops affirm openness of ordination process.' The Daily regrets the error."
This resolution deals with access to the ordination process, not ordination itself, and does not address B033 (The so-called moratorium) at all.
Of course, the cat is out of the bag, so to speak. It's very unlikely that the secular press will reprint the retraction, so we are left with a lot of misinformation out there.
I expect the firestorm will reignite when the deputies (likely) pass the resolution tomorrow that deals with the realities of our church in states that have legalized same-sex marriage. It reaffirms that bishops IN THOSE STATES have pastoral discretion to respond in creative ways. Note that this is not new. While a bishop cannot revise or amend the liturgies in the Book of Common Prayer, they have the canonical authority to devise liturgies for situations not covered in the BCP for local use.
In both these cases involving people in same-sex relationships, the resolutions simply reaffirm the canons that already exist.
Now why, may you ask, do we have to legislate to reaffirm things that are already in canon law when we know it will cause a media firestorm? That is a really good question and will probably be the subject of a post in the not-too-distant future.
David+
Comments