Bishop Walter Righter, forced out of retirement to become perhaps the most famous person in the Episcopal Church, said he felt like a guinea pig. The retired Bishop of Iowa had sat quietly in the Cathedral of St. John in Wilmington, Del., as the Court for the Trial of a Bishop dismissed charges against him.

"It's been a very invasive procedure," Bishop Righter said after the court's announcement May 15. "I know that some of the presenters have said that they did not intend to have a trial, but the trial occurred. And all the stuff that goes before and around it has certainly invaded my life and the life of my wife and kids."

Bishop Righter had been charged with teaching false doctrine and violating his ordination vows when he ordained the Rev. Barry Stopfel, a non-celibate homosexual, to the diaconate in 1990. Ten diocesan bishops brought presentment charges against Bishop Righter, who was Assistant Bishop of Newark when he performed the ordination. The announcement, made before about 150 persons, brought the 17-month process to an end without the court having to hold a trial.

Seven of the court's nine judges agreed that the ordination did not violate the Episcopal Church's doctrine or discipline. Bishop Andrew Fairfield of North Dakota issued a dissenting opinion, and Bishop Frederick Borsch of Los Angeles withdrew as a judge before the court's decision was announced.

Two of the seven judges who formed the majority - Bishop Roger White of Milwaukee and Bishop Donis Patterson of Dallas, retired - raised an additional issue.

"I feel relief and gratitude and hope that General Convention will now have a chance to talk this through and that people will listen to each other as well as speak," Bishop Righter said.

Fr. Stopfel, now rector of St. George's Church, Maplewood, N.J., said he felt vindicated by the decision.

"I feel hopeful and I feel very proud of our church today," he said. "I think you've made a lot of space for gay and lesbian people in this church. You've opened the way for dialogues that are healthy."

The summary issued by the court, read by Bishop Cabell Tennis of Delaware, acknowledges that the presenters, the respondent and the court agreed that doctrine is the basic issue at stake. The court studied the question, "What does and does not constitute the doctrine of the church, particularly as it is binding on what a bishop may or may not teach?"

The majority opinion stated that "The court is not giving an opinion on the morality of same-gender relationships." It also said the court was not deciding whether such relationships are a wholesome example with respect to ordination vows, or whether a bishop and diocese should or should not ordain persons living in same-sex relationships.

The court made references to "core doctrine" of the church found in the New Testament proclamation about Jesus and in the Nicene and Apostles' Creeds.

In dismissing the first count, "the court holds that the protection afforded by the disciplinary canons of Title IV to matters of doctrine is limited to what we describe as core doctrine. The court finds that there is no core doctrine prohibiting the ordination of a non-celibate homosexual person living in a faithful and committed sexual relationship with a person of the same sex and therefore the court dismisses Count 1."

The statement in which Count 2 is addressed: "We hold that for a violation of a doctrinal or traditional teaching to be 'an act which involves a violation of ordination vows,' the proscribed act must have been so specified by the full and unequivocal authority of General Convention. The court finds that there is no discipline of the church prohibiting the ordination of a non-celibate person living in a committed relationship with a person of the same sex, violation of which would constitute a violation of respondent's ordination vows."

A number of pastoral concerns were addressed in the 12-page summary, including:

’Ä¢ There are sharp disagreements among theologians and ethicists in this matter.

’Ä¢ On both sides of the issue (homosexuality) there must be mutual respect and understanding.

’Ä¢ The court is sensitive to those who seek greater clarity of the issues.

’Ä¢ The court is aware that this decision may be difficult for members of other Christian communities.

The issue raised by Bishops White and Patterson, read by Bishop White, is that "all church teaching must be supported by holy scripture, must be found, interpreted, and fixed by the whole church in its corporate capacity and must be supported by the Book of Common Prayer. There is no scriptural support of commendation in holy scriptures for the ordination of non-celibate homosexual persons." They added that the prayer book also contains no specific teaching to support such ordinations.

Bishop Fairfield read his one-page dissenting opinion in which he found the "respondent's minimalist treatment of doctrine to be untenable. His argument was not logically consistent, and could not stand up to textual evidence."

Others who signed the majority opinion were Bishops Edward W. Jones, Indianapolis; Douglas B. Theuner, New Hampshire; Robert C. Johnson, Jr., North Carolina; and Arthur Walmsley, Connecticut, retired.

Bishop William C. Wantland of Eau Claire, one of the presenters, said, "While the decision of the court is most disappointing, it is totally expected. Three of the five majority judges have themselves done or advocated doing what Bishop Righter has done. The opinion of those bishops, even though serving as trial judges, does not determine what the catholic faith teaches."