From the Episcopal Church’s Office of Public Affairs:

The Office of Episcopal Church Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori has notified the Diocese of Los Angeles that the canonical consent process for Bishop-Elect Mary Douglas Glasspool has been successfully completed.

As outlined under Canon III.11.4 (a), the Presiding Bishop confirmed the receipt of consents from a majority of bishops with jurisdiction, and has also reviewed the evidence of consents from a majority of standing committees of the Church sent to her by the diocesan standing committee.

In Canon III.11.4 (b), Standing Committees, in consenting to the ordination and consecration, attest they are “fully sensible of how important it is that the Sacred Order and Office of a Bishop should not be unworthily conferred, and firmly persuaded that it is our duty to bear testimony on this solemn occasion without partiality, do, in the presence of Almighty God, testify that we know of no impediment on account of which the Reverend A.B. ought not to be ordained to that Holy Office. We do, moreover, jointly and severally declare that we believe the Reverend A.B. to have been duly and lawfully elected and to be of such sufficiency in learning, of such soundness in the Faith, and of such godly character as to be able to exercise the Office of a Bishop to the honor of God and the edifying of the Church, and to be a wholesome example to the flock of Christ.”

Glasspool was elected Bishop Suffragan on December 5, 2009. Her ordination and consecration is slated for May 15; Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori will officiate.

A recap of the process

Upon election, the successful candidate is a bishop-elect. Following some procedural matters including physical and psychological examinations, formal notices are then sent by the Presiding Bishop’s office to bishops with jurisdiction (diocesan bishops only) with separate notices from the electing diocese to the standing committees of each of the dioceses in The Episcopal Church. These notices require their own actions and signatures.

In order for a bishop-elect to become a bishop, Canon III.11.4 (a) of The Episcopal Church mandates that a majority of diocesan bishops AND a majority of diocesan standing committees must consent to the bishop-elect’s ordination and consecration as bishop. These actions – done separately - must be completed within 120 days from the day notice of the election was sent to the proper parties.

If the bishop-elect receives a majority (at least 50% plus 1) of consents from the diocesan bishops as well as a majority from the standing committees, the bishop-elect is one step closer. Following a successful consent process, ordination and celebration are in order.

View the original post

So much for gracious restraint!

The “gracious restraint” was neither “gracious” nor was it “restraint”, in that “we won’t do it till we do it, and we will do it whenever it is convenient to us” was never “restraint”.  We will now hear the predictable murmur of displeasure from the usual suspects, and the main question will be what the Global South primates gathering in another couple of months do in response vis a vis the Covenant, Rowan Williams’ presumed inaction, and the status of TEC, the ACoC and the ACNA.  And with regard to the last question, I would direct everyone to Dan Martins’ recent post about skating to where the puck will be, not to where it is right now.

And how exactly is the CP going to bring renewal to these people as the bishop and priest wrote in their essays in The Living Church?

Can you put in the link Tony?
This was of course predicted and is just more proof of walking apart, doing a new thing, being prophetic and creating facts on the ground.  All of which is proof too that TEC is no longer a part of the Church Catholic.  All smoke and mirrors.

Tony Seel - 17 March 2010 05:22 PM

And how exactly is the CP going to bring renewal to these people as the bishop and priest wrote in their essays in The Living Church?

I understand that this ordination will be painful for many, and even for those who are in favor there may be pain as relationships with long-time friends becomeeven more strained. I am, however, disturbed by the apparent scorn of some of the responses. The passage of B033 was very painful for many LGBT members of TEC, a pain which few straight white men like can even imagine. Perhaps the restraint was neither gracious nor restraint, however there is no escaping the simple fact that no partnered LGBT person has been ordained to the episcopate since Bp Gene Robinson was. In all that time, as TEC was complying with the requests of the Windsor Reprt, the villification of TEC and its leaders by many has gone on with no signs of gracious restraint. Not here, but in other forums I have been maligned for my convictions, accused of denying the faith,and told that I would burn in hell. I am thankful that on this forum I have, with few exceptions, been treated with respect by those who disagree with me, which is why I find the tone of some of the responses here unexpected and disturbing.

Daniel, pecusa has feigned restraint while bishops have looked the other way on SSBs.  pecusa has put up a number of lbgt candidates - they weren’t elected.  Was this restraint or was it that the dioceses chose people whom they deemed more suitable for the episcopate?  No, pecusa has not been complying with the WR.  Not on SSBs nor on the episcopate.  Glasspool is only the first instance because other candidates were not elected before her.  We all knew there would be a Glasspool, it was only a question of when.  The consents demonstrate that pecusa is not capable of gracious restraint, which many of us knew years ago.

Ian, I don’t know that the two essays are online; they were published in the print edition.

I’m new in this space though I’ve been writing on this topic in TLC and elsewhere for some time.  I know Mary Glasspool to chat with (she’s currently in my diocese) and like her just fine though I am unimpressed with her theology do not believe that, as a woman, she can be validly ordained into the Apostolic Succession either as a priest or a bishop.  Nevertheless, TEC’s presumption of doing so with the full knowledge of her publicly proclaimed sexual activities places TEC outside any meaningful continuity with the Church Catholic.  This will no doubt occasion some anguished responses and, I think, rightly so.  It also seems to these eyes to mean that the only plausible response TEC can make to the Anglican Covenant is to reject it and willingly enter the next stage of the life of the Anglican Communion in second tier status.  I’m curious as to what others in this space think this will mean and how should those of us interested in Catholic continuity respond.

Yes, the two essays are online at TLC:

“Who We Are in Communion Partners” by the Rt. Rev. D. Bruce MacPherson.

“The Vision of Communion Partners: Renewal” by the Rev. Charles D. Alley. Chuck is my rector, and I would follow him into battle, but I’ll not try to guess how he would address Tony’s question.

TEC exercised gracious restraint for three years.  It was met by the theft of properties and ongoing defamation.  My only disappointment is that we were not more bold last summer in declaring our appeasement of the so called orthodox as over.

Hi Daniel Muth,
Welcome. Long time no see or hear of - blessings - Ian M

To Michael and Dan.

This is the culmination of more and more and greater displays of arrogance as well as “in your face-edness” that we have so far experienced from the TEC leadership.  Some of us wonder if this will finally prompt the long awaited disciplining of TEC by the AC.  I am not holding my breath on the latter, just hoping.  We shall see - I expect the ABC to respond tomorrow.  Certainly the Global South will respond next month.  Certainly this will prompt a greater exodus from TEC congregations, further loss of income, and probably more lawsuits from on high at 815.  Maybe Bruno will start seeking the deposition of those bishops who voted no.  Maybe this nightmare will eventually cease.  The church I served for 35 years is now but a distant memory.  So sad.

Although I think the Windsor Report was very nearly dead on arrival, it is worth noting precisley what it requested of TEC, especially since there continue to be assertions that TEC did not comply with those requests. Here is the relevant section:

134. Mindful of the hurt and offence that have resulted from recent events, and yet also of the imperatives of communion - the repentance, forgiveness and reconciliation enjoined on us by Christ - we have debated long and hard how all sides may be brought together. We recommend that:
•the Episcopal Church (USA) be invited to express its regret that the proper constraints of the bonds of affection were breached in the events surrounding the election and consecration of a bishop for the See of New Hampshire, and for the consequences which followed, and that such an expression of regret would represent the desire of the Episcopal Church (USA) to remain within the Communion
•pending such expression of regret, those who took part as consecrators of Gene Robinson should be invited to consider in all conscience whether they should withdraw themselves from representative functions in the Anglican Communion. We urge this in order to create the space necessary to enable the healing of the Communion. We advise that in the formation of their
consciences, those involved consider the common good of the Anglican Communion, and seek advice through their primate and the Archbishop of Canterbury. We urge all members of the Communion to accord appropriate respect to such conscientious decisions
•the Episcopal Church (USA) be invited to effect a moratorium on the election and consent to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate who is living in a same gender union until some new consensus in the Anglican Communion emerges.

I have concluded, as did those who reported to the Anglican Consultative Council on TEC’s response, that TEC responded to these requests, which certainly wasn’t the case with the request for a moratorium on interventions. I recognize that there is no “moral equivalence” of the moratoria requested, and that one can, in conscience, ignore such a request. However, I think we need to be honest in our assessment of how the various churches of the Communion responded to WR. No one was asked to stop discussing these difficult issues, in fact WR recognized that churches in the Communion were “engaged in processes of discernment regarding the blessing of same sex unions” and urged them “to engage the Communion in continuing study of biblical and theological rationale for and against such unions….” What was true, IMV, in TEC during the past six and a half years was that many of us kept on discussing these issues and that, for many of us, our convictions did not change. With the election in LA, many of those who sahre my convictions about same-sex unions have had an opportunity to act upon their convictions.

I am aware that there are many reasons why no partnered LGBT priest has been ordained to the episcopate during the past six and a half years. Gracious restraint may have had nothing to do with it, but without a polling of every diocesan convention member who did not vote for a LGBT nomineee when there was one on the ballot, we can never know whether or not the request for restraint played any part in the decision. All we know is what happened - or didn’t happen - and we will never know with any certainty the reasons.

We can give the benefit of the doubt to TEC that the last 7 years have been characterized by gracious restraint.

But that would only make the Glasspool election that much more pernicious, in that it would represent a deliberate breaking of that restraint. The question is, what had changed now to make going forward with the election of a practicing lesbian bishop in the light of the moratorium? No one in the rest of the WWAC has said, “Okay, we’ve had a change of heart, go ahead.” The only thing then that could have changed is the attitude of TEC.

Fr. Montgomery, thanks.  I look forward to participating in discussions in this space. 

With respect to the topic at hand, I am in agreement with Mr. Clauss.  While 200 years of gracious restraint would look far more impressive to these eyes than seven, there can be little doubt that this action ends any possible claim by TEC of ongoing restraint, gracious or not and regardless of how long it has been in place.  The question would seem to be, “what now?” TEC’s leadership cannot possibly believe that a new consensus has been reached across the Anglican Communion and if they do, they will no doubt be quickly disabused of any such notion.  Regardless of TEC’s intentions - and I believe their intentions are the best, however low my opinion of their theology - they have definitively and knowingly broken catholic fellowship with this action.  How will/should this play out and how should we as thoughtful Christians respond?

For myself, I am not at all sure.  As my rector puts it (well, I think), I feel like a wife married to an unrepentantly serially adulterous husband.  I remain in the marriage because we are joined covenantally, not contractually and I have no authority to leave.  But that doesn’t mean that I have to sleep with the bum.  And I reserve the right to point out his error and faithlessness.  Not a happy situation, but one certainly worthy of contemplation and discussion.