On Saturday the Rev. Canon Mary Douglas Glasspool became the second woman elected as a suffragan bishop for the Diocese of Los Angeles. Pending consents by a majority of bishops and standing committees, she could become the second bishop of the Episcopal Church who is open about living in a same-sex partnership.

Delegates took seven ballots to elect Canon Glasspool, beginning with three ballots on Friday.

The bishop-elect, canon to the bishops of the Episcopal Diocese of Maryland since 2006, led from the first ballot, but there was also growing support for the Rev. Irineo Martir Vasquez, vicar, St. George’s Church, Hawthorne, Calif.

Fr. Vasquez peaked on the fifth ballot, when he had won a majority in the lay order but still trailed among clergy.

View the original post

The first question to ask is how will the fact that this is a suffragan affect the thinking of people in regards to consent.

Why would being a suffragan bishop be a different issue in people’s minds?  A Bishop is still a bishop. 

Charlie Clauss - 05 December 2009 10:33 PM

The first question to ask is how will the fact that this is a suffragan affect the thinking of people in regards to consent.

I note that ACNS has a statement from Rowan Williams already indicating the seriousness of this election for the Communion.  He rightly comments that this is subject to confirmation. I also see in the statement a suggestion (classic English nuance) that he hopes that she is not confirmed - or else!  I suggest that this will be about as successful as his request of General Convention last summer which was not just ignored but solidly rejected.  I believe that Ms. Glasspool will be confirmed.  The results of that will then cause more problems for the Communion but TEC will just shrug its shoulders and say effectively - “So what! We are autonomous and we are baptised.”

Here is the ACNA statement from the ABC -

Archbishop of Canterbury’s Statement on Los Angeles Episcopal Elections

Posted On : December 6, 2009 9:54 AM | Posted By : Webmaster
ACNS: http://www.aco.org/acns/news.cfm/2009/12/6/ACNS4674
Related Categories: ACO Lambeth

The election of Mary Glasspool by the Diocese of Los Angeles as
suffragan bishop elect raises very serious questions not just for the
Episcopal Church and its place in the Anglican Communion, but for the
Communion as a whole.

The process of selection however is only part complete. The election has
to be confirmed, or could be rejected, by diocesan bishops and diocesan
standing committees. That decision will have very important
implications.

The bishops of the Communion have collectively acknowledged that a
period of gracious restraint in respect of actions which are contrary to
the mind of the Communion is necessary if our bonds of mutual affection
are to hold.

__________________________________

Amazing that he can diddle in our affairs with 15 minutes notice, but cannot seem to find the time to intervene in the scandalous and reprehensible actions of numerous Ugandan Bishops with respect to the proposed law to more seriously criminalize homosexuals and anyone who might know or support them.

No wonder he is trampled by the right and ignored by everyone else.

I anxiously await the ACI statement on the the Rev. Ms. Glaspool’s election.

I am not convinced that he is diddling on Uganda - there was a piece in the London Times by Ruth Gledhill to the effect that he is working intensely behind the scenes which is meant usually to be more effective than what the PB has recently done with her utterances - which will only antagonize and further polarize.

Ian Montgomery - 06 December 2009 02:28 PM

I am not convinced that he is diddling on Uganda - there was a piece in the London Times by Ruth Gledhill to the effect that he is working intensely behind the scenes which is meant usually to be more effective than what the PB has recently done with her utterances - which will only antagonize and further polarize.

I take Ruth Gedhill’s report as an indication that the Archbishop is working behind the scenes. I am not sure that public statements are counter-productive and think they may make the behind the scenes work more effective.

I did not see the Archbishop’s statement as diddling, but as a straightforward reminder of how many in the AC view the LA election. I don’t share that view, but I have no problem with seing it articulated so clearly.

“Working behind the scenes” is a euphemism for tiptoeing around to avoid being direct and transparent.  He seems comfy enough pronouncing directive to Bishops and Standing Committees in the US, let him be as directive in Africa. What might he be promising behind the scenes?  Who knows.

Let the Ugandan leadership feel the full weight of opprobrium for their choices.  The Human Rights community is not going to back off, and the ++ABC flatters himself if he believes he can make a difference “behind the scenes.”  When something happens he can claim responsibility with no visible proof he actually did anything.

Please remember our comments policy, folks. Nobody can know his interior life, and it’s the better part of Christian charity to assume the best rather than the worst.

[quote author=“Daniel Weir”  I am not sure that public statements are counter-productive and think they may make the behind the scenes work more effective.

I think these kind of statements such as hers are of no value and often hinder because of how she is regarded in Uganda.  Episcopal Bishops, particularly Presiding Bishops, are not well respected generally in East Africa (probably true of West Africa too) due to the actions of TEC over the last few years.  Given the polarization that already exists this type of statement (I read it as hugely condescending) succeeds only in concretizing that polarization.  It may of course satisfy those at home, which is another matter.  As you know I am unlikely to be impressed by anything she does unless it be public repentance and resignation. 
Meanwhile I have no doubt that Ms. Glasspool will get her assents.  I am interested in what then happens in the Communion.  I wonder if ++Williams will finally get to his tipping point and respond with some vigor and castigate TEC.  I do expect some provinces further to declare broken and/or impaired Communion.  There again I believe that the TEC PB could not care less.  Unless some kind of Covenant happens with a meaningful section four then the Communion will further break into West and South.  Meanwhile TEC shrinks ever more as it continues its descent into whatever. 
For my part I am inexpressibly sad.  This is a huge step away from the Anglican Communion.

Why would being a suffragan bishop be a different issue in people’s minds?  A Bishop is still a bishop. 

“People’s minds” are an opaque thing, but it is clear that:

a) In the first place, many people don’t understand bishops, let alone the distinction between diocesan, suffragan, co-adjuder,  etc.

b) There will be spin, and one direction that spin can take is that some how the office of suffragan is “not really” covered by the moratorium.

Charlie Clauss - 06 December 2009 06:19 PM

Why would being a suffragan bishop be a different issue in people’s minds?  A Bishop is still a bishop. 

“People’s minds” are an opaque thing, but it is clear that:

a) In the first place, many people don’t understand bishops, let alone the distinction between diocesan, suffragan, co-adjuder,  etc.

b) There will be spin, and one direction that spin can take is that some how the office of suffragan is “not really” covered by the moratorium.

Moratorium? What moratorium?

Moratorium? What moratorium?

Are you being ironic? Or do you not know about this:

The Primates gathered at Dromantine in February 2005 adopted three specific requests to the Episcopal Church from the Windsor Report:

  * first, a request that the Episcopal Church should express its regret that the proper constraints of the bonds of affection had been breached in the events surrounding the consecration as a bishop of a person whose lifestyle contradicted the standard of teaching enshrined in the Lambeth Resolution 1.10 (see paragraphs 18-23 below);
  * second, a moratorium on the election and consent of any candidate for the episcopate living in a same-gender union until some new consensus emerged in the Anglican Communion (see paragraphs 6-12 below); and
  * third, a moratorium on public Rites of Blessing of same-sex unions (see paragraphs 13-17 below).

As I understand it, the Archbishop of Canterbury has no status in the TEC beyond historic courtesy. I don’t see what Archbishop Williams could possibly achieve by, to use an Australian expression, ‘doing his banana.’ I see no obvious reason why an autonomous Anglican province should feel any obligation to listen to the views of a foreign individual over and above those of its own decision-making bodies.

As a very senior British public servant the Archbishop of Canterbury is limited in his international role by diplomatic and political conventions. I don’t think the British Government would encourage public alienation of what many foreigners perceive as an influential group of Americans. Archbishop Williams will, I am sure, be saying plenty in private to various folk in the TEC who are prepared, and that is the key dimension, to listen to what he has to say.

Thirdly, I remain hopeful that American Episcopal bishops do have a ‘decent respect for the opinions of mankind’ and may pause for quite some time before bringing about the collapse of the Anglican Communion as presently constituted.

In my occasional travels inside and outside Australia, despite widely varied churchmanship, I really appreciated ‘belonging’ in churches where my religious identity was at one with strangers through a shared liturgy even when, as in China, Japan and other parts of Asia and the Pacific, it was not in English. In the US, UK, Italy and elsewhere, I have been able to worship in English as a guest at the Lord’s Table. I am sure many American Episcopalians have shared the same sense of catholic fellowship. In my own parish, Holy Communion is open to all who love the Lord in sincerity and I believe, no matter what some extremists may think, that will remain the case in Australia generally, no matter what the future may bring elsewhere. It is, I believe, totally out of the question that a new inquisition will build walls of exclusion.

However, it seems from remarks in this and other forums in the US that there is a sense within some quarters in the TEC that it is already a separate entity to the Anglican Communion operating in a parallel but distinct world. If that is really the case it would seem that the latest event in California signals something unhappily dramatic that will trouble many Episcopalian and I think I can assure you, Australian and other foreign Anglican hearts where affection for the US will remain firm if no longer fully within the international identity that we have shared for so long. 

Ian Welch, Canberra

Michael seems to be unaware that the situation in Uganda involves Ugandan bishops lobbying the secular Ugandan government as regards a proposed law versus TEC bishops and standing committees actually taking direct action themselves.  The comparison is simply apples to oranges. 

Michael believes that the Ugandan bishops are not lobbying the Ugandan government hard enough not to pass a proposed law.  Most Western commentators (regardless of whether they are liberal or conservative) would agree with the opposition to the proposed Ugandan law.  However, it seems a tad bit colonialist to presume to have a huge Communion dust-up over how the Church of Uganda should lobby its government representatives about proposed legislation.  There are many reasons why liberal American vocal political lobbying would be counter-productive right now in Uganda.  First, the actions of TEC have doubtlessly cut the credibility of the Church of Uganda bishops in Uganda on this issue.  Second, Uganda is not the open democracy that the US is, and liberal-chanting and sloganeering probably don’t work there.

The situation in TEC as regards Glasspool is a very different situation.  It concerns actions taken directly by TEC bishops and standing committees.  While there can certainly be room for disagreement on the most effective ways to lobby secular governments, there really is no room for disagreement when TEC bishops and standing committees explicitly vote to ignore Communion discernment.  Thus Rowan is quite right to speak out.  However, if Rowan had not consistently blocked action previously, he would not now be facing the almost certain reality that he will be completely ignored by most TEC bishops and standing committees.

Charlie Clauss - 07 December 2009 12:07 AM

Moratorium? What moratorium?

Are you being ironic? Or do you not know about this:

The Primates gathered at Dromantine in February 2005 adopted three specific requests to the Episcopal Church from the Windsor Report:

  * first, a request that the Episcopal Church should express its regret that the proper constraints of the bonds of affection had been breached in the events surrounding the consecration as a bishop of a person whose lifestyle contradicted the standard of teaching enshrined in the Lambeth Resolution 1.10 (see paragraphs 18-23 below);
  * second, a moratorium on the election and consent of any candidate for the episcopate living in a same-gender union until some new consensus emerged in the Anglican Communion (see paragraphs 6-12 below); and
  * third, a moratorium on public Rites of Blessing of same-sex unions (see paragraphs 13-17 below).

I was being sarcastic. If there ever was a moratorium, it has become a thing of the past as of Saturday. I have my doubts that any moratorium, in the sense of an intention by TEC to refrain from election and consent of any bishop living in a same-gender union or from public SSBs ever has existed. IMO, TEC has been trying throughout to have it both ways—to flout the desires of the rest of the Communion while still claiming to be part of it. I wish they (we) would just admit that autonomy, and specifically autonomy wrt the acceptability of non-celibate gay bishops & SSBs are of higher priority to TEC than interdependence with the rest of the Communion, and that we refuse to refrain as requested, so we withdraw. ISTM this is the only honest course of action left open to TEC, but I have my doubts about whether TEC is honest enough to take it.

I think it was last Sunday that the passage from Joel with the prophecy “I will restore the years that the locusts have eaten” was in the lesson. Maybe God still has something good in store for the future, despite of TEC’s seeming determination to self-destruct.

A six-year moratorium felt like a moratorium to me.