Episcopal News Service: Press Release # 96-1401

Court Holds Hearing to Determine Church Doctrine on Ordination of Gays

Episcopal News Service. March 7, 1996 [96-1401]

(ENS) For the first time in 75 years, and only the second time in the Episcopal Church's history, a court of bishops gathered February 27 to consider charges that a colleague had taught false doctrine.

Packed into the Great Hall of the Cathedral Church of St. John in Wilmington, Delaware, amidst a crush of media and observers, the nine bishops of the Court for the Trial of a Bishop heard a full day of arguments on the doctrine of the church as it relates to the ordination of non-celibate homosexuals.

The hearing, a first step in the trial of Walter Righter, retired bishop of Iowa, sought to establish whether there is a doctrinal basis for charges brought against Righter of "holding and teaching... doctrine contrary to that held by this church" and of violating his ordination vows.

Long path to trial

The path leading to the trial began in 1990, when Righter, while serving as an assistant bishop in the Diocese of Newark, ordained Barry Stopfel as a deacon. Stopfel, who has since been ordained as a priest, is a homosexual who was living in a relationship with another man.

In January of 1995, 10 bishops filed charges against Righter, claiming that the ordination of a non-celibate homosexual was at odds with the doctrine of the Episcopal Church. A necessary one-quarter of the House of Bishops subsequently agreed that the charges should go to the court.

In a pre-trial hearing in Hartford, Connecticut, last December, the court granted a motion calling for a discussion of whether the church had a doctrine on the ordination issue sufficient to move to a full-blown trial of Righter.

Media interest in the so-called "heresy trial" has been great. Almost a hundred reporters, photographers and video camera operators swarmed around the Wilmington cathedral as the hearing commenced. But once Bishop Edward Jones of Indianapolis, president of the court, opened the session, cameras were banished and the makeshift courtroom was cleared of all but the 150 observers and accredited press. In an atmosphere of dignity touched with occasional flashes of humor, the opposing attorneys and the nine bishops proceeded to pick their way through the thicket of Episcopal doctrine.

A trial about doctrine

"This case is about the doctrine of Christian marriage... and it is about family values," said A. Hugo Blankingship, Jr., the retired chancellor of the Diocese of Virginia who served as Church Advocate, or attorney for those bringing the charges. "This case first and foremost is about authority, it is about the authority of Holy Scripture and the role it will play in our church," he said in the opening statement of his two and one-half hour presentation.

Blankingship said that the church has consistently upheld "the traditional teaching of the church on marriage, marital fidelity, and sexual chastity as the standard of sexual morality." And he argued that candidates for ordination "are expected to conform to this standard." That is why "we believe it is not appropriate for this church to ordain a practicing homosexual, or any person who is engaged in a heterosexual relationship outside of marriage," he said, quoting a 1979 General Convention resolution that is a major point of contention in the trial.

Blankingship argued for a broad definition of the church's doctrine, one that is supported by Scripture, the historic creeds of the early church, and the Book of Common Prayer, but also including resolutions and statements of the church's General Convention and the House of Bishops.

He said that the trial was "a matter of last resort" by those who saw the "seeds of anarchy" in the actions of bishops who act as "Lone Rangers" in their dioceses, without regard for the opinion of the rest of the church. Stressing the importance of the trial for the future, he warned, "History will judge how relevant the Episcopal Church was in its hour of trial."

Does doctrine change?

Bishops on the court took an active role in questioning the lawyers for both sides. "Suppose I agree that there is a doctrine of marriage," Bishop Cabell Tennis of Delaware said, interrupting Blankingship. "The question I'm struggling with is whether doctrine is fixed or whether it changes."

Tennis pointed out that the Episcopal Church has liberalized its own position on divorce and remarriage and he suggested that such an action could be interpreted as a change in its doctrine.

The church has changed its policy and its discipline but not its doctrine, Blankingship responded. It still teaches that sexual expression should be limited to life-long, monogamous marriage between a man and a woman.

"Scripture clearly says remarriage is adultery, so there seems to be a strong reinterpretation of those Scriptures," observed Bishop Frederick Borsch of Los Angeles. He asked if all teaching by the church would be considered doctrine. "Insofar as those teachings incorporate Scripture and are grounded in Scripture, then the answer would be yes," Blankingship responded.

Jones suggested that there might be "different levels of truth in the church," different types of doctrine, some more important than others.

"Who determines what is doctrine?" asked Bishop Arthur Walmsley, retired bishop of Connecticut. "What is the authoritative body?"

Blankingship said that doctrine can only be changed by the church itself and must stand the test of Scripture. He said that "very few" resolutions of General Convention involve doctrine. Later he referred to a Church of England report that contended there was "evolving convergence" and "ultimate biblical consensus" that sexual activity outside of marriage was wrong and that homosexual behavior was "especially dishonorable."

When asked about the 1979 resolution, Blankingship said, "This court has to decide if this is an enforceable resolution." In the absence of a Supreme Court, the General Convention becomes the arbiter of its own decisions, he added, underscoring the assumption that the issue will be on the agenda for the 1997 General Convention in Philadelphia.

Narrow definition of doctrine

"Doctrine is the most overused and misunderstood word in our church," asserted Michael Rehill, chancellor of the Diocese of Newark, attorney for Righter. Arguing for a narrow definition of sources of doctrine, what one judge called a "minimalist" approach, he included the Bible, the Book of Common Prayer and the historic creeds. "Everything else is a matter of discipline," he said.

"Doctrine deals with our relationship to God, discipline deals with our relationships with each other," Rehill argued. He called the charges against Righter and the trial "curious and baffling." In fact, he said, "this case trivializes doctrine. It says that doctrine is whatever the General Convention or the House of Bishops vote at a given meeting." That would mean that doctrine could "change from meeting to meeting and year to year," he said.

Rehill claimed that the 1979 resolution of General Convention is "unenforceable because it doesn't say anything about enforcement, because it is not a law, it is not prescriptive, it is advisory." He contended that, if the church intended to prohibit the ordinations of non-celibate gays and lesbians, it could "do so easily by changing some of the canons, if that were the will of the Episcopal Church." He pointed out that efforts to change the canons "have failed again, and again, and again." And he said that the church had confessed that it was "not of a single mind" in its understanding on the issue.

Walmsley asked pointedly where the middle ground was in the church's attempt to find its mind on issues that clearly have doctrinal overtones or doctrinal basis but are not part of a doctrinal core of beliefs.

Where's middle ground?

"Most of our church is in the middle, wrestling with these issues" of sexuality, Rehill responded. "That's the middle ground." But he said the court was not being asked to deal with all other sexuality issues, as important as they might be, but only with ordination. And there is no doctrine on the ordination issue, Rehill asserted. "It doesn't exist, you can't find it anywhere.... I may not know what doctrine is, but I know this isn't doctrine."

According to Rehill, those who brought charges against Righter did so because of "a sense of frustration that we haven't been able to stop ordinations which the presenters believe are contrary to the will of God."

In a closing session, Tennis asked a hypothetical question. If the court agrees that Righter is guilty, "would that mean that all homosexual priests in this church who are living in committed relationships ought to be deposed -- and that bishops who did not act to depose them would themselves be guilty of violating the doctrine of the church?" Blankingship, clearly uncomfortable with the implications of the question, said that it was "essentially a diocesan problem and not a national canon."

In suggesting possible middle ground, Blankingship said that, in determining what is "best for the church," the respondent, Righter, should yield by admitting that the Episcopal Church "has a moral doctrine by which we stand." And perhaps the presenters should yield by not seeking a harsh judgement against Righter.

Sally Johnson, chancellor of the Diocese of Minnesota and a lay assessor for the court, said after the hearing that the canons seem to make it possible to appeal the decision of the court on doctrine.

Further clarification

On March 1 the court notified the two attorneys that it would like them each to prepare a memorandum addressing the key issues: Do actions of the church "constitute disciplinary authority, as distinct from doctrine," that could lead to a presentment? And also, "With particular attention to the issue of discipline, does the ordination of a non-celibate homosexual person constitute a violation of the ordaining bishop's Oath of Conformity?"

The court set a deadline of March 25 for the memoranda and each side can file a reply by April 9. No decision is expected until the memoranda and replies have been received and discussed by members of the court.