Archives

By Jan Nunley 3/25/2004 [ENS] The Rt. Rev. Neptali Larrea Moreno, Bishop of Ecuador Central, has been deposed from the ministry by a unanimous vote of the House of Bishops, meeting at Camp Allen, Texas, on March 23. According to the resolution, the deposition was made on the ground that Larrea abandoned the communion of the Episcopal Church by "an open renunciation of the Doctrine, Discipline and Worship" of the church under canon IV.9(1). On January 21, Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold inhibited Larrea from functioning as a bishop, but Larrea failed to contest the inhibition or demand a trial by the House of Bishops, as canon law provides, within two months from the original notice. Bishop Clayton Matthews, executive director of the church's Office of Pastoral Development, said that the action was taken with the full support of the Standing Committee of the diocese and the bishops of Province IX. The Provincial Synod of Province IX will be meeting in Quito next week. Financial irregularities Matthews said that complaints about financial irregularities under Larrea's management of the diocese go back at least to 1997, when the treasurer's office for the Episcopal Church made "multiple attempts" to complete audits of the diocese. Because Larrea refused to cooperate with the audits, the matter was taken to Griswold in 2001. In September of that year, a special committee of bishops with particular knowledge of South America was appointed to gather further information. The committee included Bishops Onell Soto of Alabama, Victor Scantlebury of Chicago, William Skilton of South Carolina, John Lipscomb of Southwest Florida, and Frank Gray of Virginia. Soto was later replaced by Bishop Lloyd Allen of Honduras. After months of negotiation without cooperation from Larrea, said Matthews, the committee requested that Griswold send the matter to the Title IV Review Committee--which, after further investigation, concluded that presentment charges were in order against Larrea. The charges were filed January 16, and Larrea was notified. Consent to the charges was obtained from the three senior bishops of the House: Peter James Lee of Virginia, William Swing of California, and Leo Frade of Southeast Florida. In the meantime, though, Larrea—still under inhibition according to the canons—called a diocesan convention in the fall of 2003, and then in December declared that the diocese was "independent" of Province IX and the Episcopal Church. Matthews said that Larrea also refused to cooperate with Bishop Telesforo Isaac, retired bishop of the Dominican Republic and assisting bishop of Southwest Florida, who had been asked to provide pastoral care for congregations in Ecuador. The action means Larrea is no longer a bishop and cannot function as such. The House of Bishops and the standing committee of the diocese is now in the process of obtaining the services of an assisting bishop until an election for a new bishop can be held. The Rev. Jan Nunley is deputy director of Episcopal News Service.

March 15, 2004 A Letter to the Clergy of the Diocese of Oregon My Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ, As you well know, many churches and communities in our diocese continue to struggle with issues coming out of our recent General Convention. In recent weeks, the Massachusetts state legislature and the Multnomah County Board of Commissioners here in Oregon have made it possible for persons of the same gender to be married. Both of these prescriptive actions continue to be disputed in our courts and have caused considerable disagreement among legislators and members of their constituencies. I do know that as clergy on the front lines of conversation and discussion, some may have sought your advice, counsel, or opinion on this topic of current discussion. Please know of my support for your ministry, especially during these trying and somewhat difficult times. I am writing not only to express my thanks for your leadership during this time, but to clearly articulate the position of our church on the subject of marriage. As noted in our canons (Title 1, Canon 18, 19) and as reflected in the content and context of our liturgy of Holy Matrimony, we continue to uphold and honor the sanctity of marriage and recognize this as a union between one man and one woman. As a church we view, marriage in deeply spiritual terms in a manner that signifies the sacred mystery of union between Christ and his Church. Marriage in the Church is not simply a contractual relationship of union as prescribed by civil law; it represents a solemn and public covenant between one man and one woman in the presence of God in the context of a Christian community. Our theology of marriage, as reflected in our liturgy notes: "The union of husband and wife in heart, body, and mind is intended by God for their mutual joy; for the help and comfort given one another in prosperity and adversity; and when it is God's will, for the procreation of children and their nurture in the knowledge and love of the Lord. Therefore marriage is not to be entered into unadvisedly or lightly, but reverently, deliberately, and in accordance with the purposes for which it was instituted by God." At this point, the Episcopal Church does not formally recognize any other form of marriage; nor does it formally recognize any liturgy that is contrary to the teaching or canons of the Episcopal Church. As members of the clergy we are all bound to uphold and follow the teachings of the Church and follow those guidelines as prescribed in our canons. Given the charged climate in which we find ourselves, I hope that this guidance is helpful, particularly in your conversations with others on this subject. I do hope that in the months to come we can prayerfully continue conversations on this subject and other issues that define us as a people of God. I wish you and all the members of your church-family a holy and blessed Lent. Faithfully, Yours in Christ, Itty, PhD Bishop Episcopal Diocese in Western Oregon. 11800 SW Military Lane Portland, Oregon 97219-8436. Phone: 503-636-5613 / 800-452-2562. FAX: 503-636-5616 http://www.diocese-oregon.org

EXCLUSIVE REPORT By David W. Virtue 3/20/2004 LONDON, UK- The Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church, Frank Griswold, has received a letter from Rowan Williams the Archbishop of Canterbury telling him to make significant compromises for ECUSA's orthodox, or face the possible of schism without his support. The letter, which Griswold received on the eve of the Camp Allen meeting of the House of Bishops was described by a Lambeth Palace source as "too hot to leak". The strongly worded message to Griswold has yet to be read to the House of Bishops, but it is thought that Griswold will drop a paragraph or two during the HOB meeting. A source told Virtuosity that the letter appears to support what the five retired bishops did in recent confirmations in the Diocese of Ohio.

By Robert M. Moody To the Clergy and Laity of the Diocese of Oklahoma: On Sunday, March 14, 2004, five retired bishops of the Episcopal Church and a bishop of the Episcopal Church of Brazil, in the words of the Presiding Bishop, "arrogated to themselves the right to perform episcopal and sacramental acts without the permission of the diocesan bishop." In an act of Constitutional and Canonical disobedience planned by the American Anglican Council, Bishops C. FitzSimons Allison, retired Bishop of South Carolina, Maurice Benitez, retired Bishop of Texas, William Cox, retired assistant Bishop of Oklahoma, Alex Dickson, retired Bishop of West Tennessee, William Wantland, retired Bishop of Eau Claire, and Robinson Cavalcanti. Bishop of the Diocese of Northern Brazil, confirmed and celebrated the Eucharist in an Orthodox church in Akron, Ohio, without the knowledge or permission of the Bishop of Ohio. Because two of the bishops who were involved in this event reside in the Diocese of Oklahoma, I believe that it is appropriate for me to make the following statements. Bishop William Wantland is an attorney and a respected expert on Church Canons. I am sure that he fully appreciates the seriousness of his actions. He is not licensed to exercise episcopal ministry in this diocese, but I have given him permission to accept invitations to celebrate, preach, and lead retreats whenever he has been asked to do so by Episcopal congregations and brotherhoods in Oklahoma. Until this matter is resolved, I urge you to keep him in your prayers and pray that he will take no further covert actions that will cause deeper divisions within our Church. Bishop William Cox served as an assistant bishop of Oklahoma for eight years. He presently serves on the staff of St. John's Church in Tulsa. He is well known for his ministry in Christian Healing. He is a beloved individual to many. His decision to participate in an event that has created a constitutional and canonical crisis is a surprise to both me and to the Reverend David Fox, the Rector of St. John's. He said nothing to either of us abo ut his intention to do this. I do not know if he appreciates that his actions reflect upon both the Diocese of Oklahoma and the Parish of St. John's. I ask your prayers for him that Christ's spirit will lead him to be a healer of the Church's wounds. The House of Bishops will meet at Camp Allen in the Diocese of Texas from March 19-25, 2004. I believe that an appropriate response to this action of defiance and disobedience on the part of those bishops will be on our agenda. That response could be a censure of these bishops or a presentment that could lead to an ecclesiastical trial. I ask your prayers for the bishops and for our Church. I will be communication with you upon my return from the House of Bishops. Faithfully, +Robert M. Moody Bishop of Oklahoma

To: Rectors and Vicars of the Diocese of Washington Dear Friends in Christ: I am writing to give you advanced notice that I have appointed a Task Force on the Blessing of Relationships. The Task Force will be meeting from now until the end of May when they hope to have a rite prepared for use in the Diocese of Washington for those persons for whom the Celebration and Blessing of a Marriage in the Book of Common Prayer is not appropriate or not available for optional use. In some cases these may be couples of the same sex, and in some cases these may be couples for whom marriage is not an appropriate or desirable step. Of these couples, those who are 65 years of age and older are 266,000 in number. As many of you know, our Diocese has a history of blessing relationships, and some of our congregarions and clergy have developed matierals that might enrich this effort. If you have such materials in your files, the Task Force would be happy to receive them. The Task Force is being chaired by the Revs. Susan N. Blue and Michael W. Hopkins….The Task Force welcomes your input, so I encourage you to be in contact with them. We are planning to inform the people of our Diocese in the next issue of the Washington Window. In Christ's peace, power and love, The Rt. Rev. John Bryson Chane, D.D. Bishop of Washington and Dean of the Cathedral

By the Associated Press 3/18/2004 The Episcopal Church's bishops begin a closed-door meeting Friday in Texas, where they'll try to quiet the discord that has torn at the denomination since the consecration of an openly gay bishop New Hampshire's Gene Robinson. Robinson is attending his first meeting as part of a hierarchy in which 41% of bishops who head dioceses voted against his consecration and 28 of the bishops have refused to recognize him as a colleague. Episcopal headquarters in New York City announced Wednesday that the gathering in Navasota, 60 miles northwest of Houston, is not a legislative meeting and no major policy decisions are expected. Rather, the schedule features speeches and discussions on "reconciliation" within the Episcopal Church and the international Anglican Communion of which it's a part. The bishops will discuss the current flashpoint, how to handle conservative parishes that don't want to quit the Episcopal Church but cannot accept the authority of local bishops who favor gay clergy. The proposed remedy is to provide dissenting parishes with special conservative bishops from outside their dioceses. At an emergency summit last October, world Anglicanism's top leaders urged the American church to grant dissenters "adequate provision for episcopal oversight." The U.S. church leader, Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold, and his Council of Advice then proposed a plan allowing outside bishops to work with conservative parishes though only with approval from the local bishop as required by church law, allowing for appeals to regional bodies in case of disagreements. Conservatives have rejected that. They don't want the local bishops to keep their veto power and claim liberals control the regional bodies that would hear appeals. Griswold will present a rewritten plan at Navasota. Conservative leaders complain that they weren't consulted, and bishops weren't given the text to study in advance. Griswold repeated Monday that any plan must honor local bishops' powers under existing church law. The leading conservative bishop is Robert Duncan of Pittsburgh, moderator of a "network" formed in January to unite Episcopal dioceses and parishes that insist upon the traditional Christian teaching against same-sex relationships. Duncan said some conservative bishops are boycotting the Navasota meeting, some will participate fully and some like himself will stay offsite and attend only sessions treating the church fracture. Duncan said the church must "come to its senses" and help conservatives because "the present course is a suicidal course, or at least a fratricidal course." Matters escalated last Sunday when five Episcopal bishops led a rebel confirmation service in Akron, Ohio congregations that spurned local Bishop J. Clark Grew II, a Robinson supporter. Maurice Benitez, retired bishop of the Texas Diocese and spokesman for the five bishops, said if the hierarchy produces an "acceptable plan" for visiting bishops, "these kinds of measures may no longer be necessary." The implication: If not, there will be further violations. Duncan said that if the Navasota meeting doesn't heed conservative appeals there will be "continuing chaos," not only Akron-type protests but congregations leaving the Episcopal Church. Griswold's Council of Advice said the five bishops broke church law, since Grew did not approve the confirmations, and appealed for unity against forces that "seek to sow the seeds of division." Grew said the Akron service might have been an attempt to "manipulate" the Navasota meeting while Griswold suggested the event was intended to "co-opt the bishops' agenda."

By David Virtue LONDON, UK--There is a sign in the London Underground subway (tube) that reads, "Delays expected on the Northern Line, there are unresolved problems, as a result of previous problems." In many ways this is a humorous, if not understated reflection on the current state of affairs in the Episcopal Church, (not to mention British Rail). The ECUSA's current problems are a direct result of previous problems not only unresolved, but continuing and growing and getting worse by the day. A quick fix is no longer possible. And the worse they become the more "gracious" and "conversation[al]" our Presiding Bishop becomes in his words as he walks his way through the jungle swamp hoping that the crocodiles gathering around him have already feasted on a Primate or two, and therefore have no interest in him. He is wrong, they do. The House of Bishops meets in Camp Allen, Texas shortly and you can be sure that the "gracious" gloves will come off and a lot of brow beating will go on, with less than "gracious" fist-shaking and "how dare you invade my diocese" by Bishop Clark Grew (Ohio) who will try and show the right amount of aggrieved pain, righteous indignation and "why don't you conservative bastards just admit you lost and get over it." It ain't gonna happen. There is a new resolve by the orthodox bishops that we have not seen before that was not present over women's ordination or the dumping of the '28 Prayer Book. Sodomy, or more appropriately the consecration of a divorced man to the episcopacy who had entered into a formal homoerotic relationship with another man, is a step too far that will not be washed away on clouds of cultural enlightenment or post-modernist understanding. That day too, is done. The 25 plus orthodox bishops showed they had the right stuff at General Convention and publicly said so most graciously (Griswold seems to have forgotten that), and from thence forward we have had a couple of Plano gatherings, the formation of the Network (NADCP), all with a view of saying to the Anglican Communion and Rowan Williams; "We are not going to take it any more, we are fighting back. Listen to us, pray for us, but we are in a war and there is no turning or running away. The commitment has been made to fight for the soul of the Episcopal Church." This, of course, is the last thing Griswold wants to hear, hoping that if we all talk long enough and "listen" (another favorite word of his), and keep endless "conversation" going we will meet in the muddy middle or on a plain with Sufi Rumi and sing a chorus of "blessed be the ties that bind." Those days now are long gone, and all eyes are turning on the Lambeth (Eames ) Commission in the hope that they will resolve the impasse for us all. But most British religious journalists on secular dailies I talked with this week think it will, at best, paper over large fissures that are no longer cracks, and that there will be an inevitable breakup of the Anglican Communion. Living in denial, noted one religion writer, is a splendid British pastime, until one has to call Winston Churchill to wield the big guns. And Rowan Williams, he reminded me, is no Churchill. But Anglican ecumenists remain hopeful that when the dust settles everyone will still be at the table even if battered and bruised by the experience. They might be whistling Dixie. One Anglican Communion Officer I spoke with believes that if all parties keep talking, the links can hold, even though he admitted that the church was not a democracy and that some basic principles have to be held onto if all parties were going to stay together at the table. (He opined that Virtuosity was a bit too strident and name calling, but recognized that its "voice" was necessary at such a time as this.) But there's the rub. No one can agree on what those principles are. Will it be the authority of Scripture, maintaining liturgical order (the Americans are better at that than the British), preaching sin and salvation, or will it be "inclusion", "diversity" and a multi-cultural grab bag of half digested ideas about God's promiscuous love for all people everywhere, a Heinz variety of sexual options available from an open buffet from which one can freely pick, with more to be added as the demand calls for. But the truth is, a yawning divide exists that even liberal/revisionist bishops now reluctantly admit. The statement, uttered by two ECUSA bishops that schism is worse than heresy, is a public admission that heresy DOES indeed exist and they want you to just live with it, because it is better than busting up the whole church! So rather than believing and upholding the 'faith once delivered', they want you to live with ambiguity, really heresy, because it is better than law suits, parish property fights, public mockery and more. But what the revisionists don't get is this - the final destination of the souls of hundreds of thousands of Episcopalians depends on a clear unequivocal message of salvation that cannot be tampered with, by talk of "inclusion" any more than Mel Gibson's 'Passion' can be watered down for a PG rating to satisfy blue-rinse Southern ladies or ECUSA liberals offended by the public scourging of the Messiah. Jesus did not die on a cross, between two thieves, to satisfy claims of "niceness" or to broker in "inclusion" or make the planet feel good about bio-diversity. He died because we were wretched sinners in need of a Savior and that fact is totally lost on ECUSA's revisionists even as we approach Easter. I have read at least a dozen stories by leading ECUSA's revisionists who have expressed hatred towards the Passion movie because it displays "hate" and not "love". They don't get it. Without the cross and the attendant 'hatred', 'pain, 'suffering' and more, there would have been no redemption for a lost humanity, and if secular Jews whine about anti-Semitism, try this God turned his back, literally turned his back on his (Jewish) Son and let him die precisely because atonement was the only way to deal with their sin and ours. It was His greatest act of love. So to say sexual sin doesn't matter, or what goes on in my bedroom is none of anybody's business, a claim this writer regularly reads on various liberal ECUSA chat rooms and Listservs, is to shake one's fist in the face of God and say "what I do with my body is none of YOUR business either." But what if God says it does matter, and that sin is sin and He doesn't wink , or says 'boys will be boys' and that God cares deeply how we treat our bodies as "temples of the Holy Spirit". And what if He has inviolable, holy standards that He wants us to keep because He says so. What if Pascal's Wager is true, what a (pardon the pun) hell of a risk to take, if the "inclusionists" are wrong! Would you wager your soul's destiny on a gamble such as that! Sixty-two ECUSA bishops are asking us to do precisely that, and the orthodox bishops are now saying, no. And can you blame them? There is a much bigger picture here than who owns the properties or invoking the canons and constitutions or General Convention resolutions, it is about the souls of Episcopalians, many of whom have never heard a salvific word from the pulpit in 40 years. They are dying without Christ and without hope, their brains addled by seminary graduates who don't know what they hell they believe in any more, as they ascend their pulpits each Sunday to deliver themselves on the evil of George Bush's policies while their parishioners souls cry out for a Word from God that will touch their hearts and change their lives. And that is more than a crying shame; it is a damned shame, and one that will truly damn many of them for all eternity.

The Ohio confirmations mark a turning point in the Episcopal Church’s internal crisis, signaling a shift from protest to structural defiance. Five retired U.S. bishops and one from Brazil crossed diocesan lines without permission—citing “impaired communion” with liberal leadership. Details reveal careful planning: the service was held at an Orthodox church to prevent Bishop Grew from blocking it; priests from the six parishes were excluded to emphasize episcopal authority; Bishop FitzSimons Allison preached on defending the faith, invoking 19th-century Ohio Bishop Charles McIlvaine’s warnings against rationalism. Reaction was starkly polarized. While conservatives hailed it as prophetic, liberals called it “defiant” and “troubling.” Observers note that enforcement is unlikely: retired bishops lack diocesan stakes, and the House of Bishops has historically avoided presentments—even against figures like John Shelby Spong. Meanwhile, statistics underscore systemic decline: ECUSA lost 36% of its membership (1966–2001) while ordaining 63% more clergy, reducing members per cleric from 343 to 133. Over 500 parishes closed or left between 1985–2001. This followed the resignation of revisionist Bishop Richard Shimpfley (El Camino Real), whose diocese shrank from 30,000 to 12,000 under his leadership. Also noted: Archbishop Williams’ recommendation that schools study Pullman’s His Dark Materials—a trilogy ending with God’s death—to improve religious literacy.

Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold and the Presiding Bishop’s Council of Advice jointly denounced the Ohio confirmations as violations of the Episcopal Church’s Constitution and Canons. Griswold emphasized that any provision for dissenting minorities “must be consistent with the constitutional and canonical structures of ECUSA.” Canon III.9 requires outside bishops to obtain explicit permission before exercising ministry in another diocese. Both cited the October 2003 Primates’ Meeting statement affirming “the autonomy and territorial integrity of dioceses,” and quoted Archbishop Rowan Williams’ plea for “generous and constructive ways forward… that will guarantee Episcopal care for all and avoid further fragmentation.” The Council of Advice—a bipartisan group—stressed unity in mission despite disagreement on General Convention decisions: “We are… completely one in our commitment to… proclaim[ing] the reconciling love of God… to a broken and divided world.” Griswold suggested the timing—days before the House of Bishops’ Texas meeting—was deliberate: “I can only surmise that their intention is to co-opt the bishops’ agenda and provoke a reaction…” Yet he expressed confidence that the “diverse center” would find a just, pastoral path forward.

Multiple traditionalist Anglican groups—including Anglicans United, Forward in Faith/North America (FIF/NA), and the American Anglican Council—expressed strong support for the Ohio confirmations, framing them as a necessary act of compassion amid decades of theological drift. Canon Kendall Harmon (Diocese of South Carolina) called the move “an act offered out of deep pastoral concern” for Episcopalians alienated by liberal leadership, adding: “Religious authorities often struggle with the offer of genuine compassion to those who are oppressed.” He urged bishops to provide “Adequate Episcopal Oversight,” as envisioned by Anglican Primates in 2003, warning that failure would deepen division. FIF/NA President Rev. Dr. David Moyer linked the Ohio event to a 2000 precedent in Pennsylvania, stressing that such actions “are not acts of provocation, but responses to the ongoing crisis of faith and authority.” Anglicans United’s Rev. Todd Wetzel argued that “ecclesiastical disobedience… in good conscience” is now morally justified—mirroring tactics long used by liberal factions to advance same-sex blessings and ordinations. He noted Ohio’s membership has fallen from 40,000 to under 24,000 in two decades and demanded “Godly oversight” for every traditional parish: “The old notion of diocesan boundaries has already been destroyed by the liberals.”

V. Gene Robinson, the Episcopal Church’s first openly gay bishop, stated it is “pretty clear” that five retired bishops breached their ordination vows by conducting a confirmation service in Ohio without local diocesan approval. The event, held at an Orthodox church in Akron and attended by ~800 people, confirmed 110 individuals from six conservative congregations opposed to Robinson’s 2003 consecration. These congregations rejected Ohio Bishop J. Clark Grew II, who had supported Robinson’s election. Though current canons require permission for outside bishops to perform sacramental acts, the retired prelates—joined by a bishop from Brazil’s Diocese of Recife—acted unilaterally, citing pastoral need. Robinson expressed openness to allowing visiting bishops in his own New Hampshire diocese—if he retains oversight and the visitor doesn’t undermine his authority or encourage schism. He received the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force’s Leadership Award shortly after the Ohio event, hailed as a national symbol of LGBTQ+ progress: “He is a hero to our community… for the way in which he has conducted himself in the face of vitriolic attacks.” Robinson remarked: “I have this double life. I’m not the gay bishop in New Hampshire. I’m just the bishop.”

Philip Pullman, the acclaimed children’s author and prominent atheist, revealed he might include Jesus in his next book during a high-profile debate with the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, at London’s National Theatre. Pullman, whose His Dark Materials trilogy famously concludes with the death of an aged, weakened God, declined to elaborate on Jesus’s potential role. Though some anticipated conflict over Pullman’s anti-theistic worldview, Archbishop Williams defused tension by recently recommending Pullman’s novels for inclusion in religious education curricula. Still, he criticized Pullman’s fictional Church as devoid of redemption—focused solely on control—contrasting it with his vision of Christianity as rooted in grace and transformation. When pressed on Christ’s absence in his books, Pullman noted only one passing reference to Jesus in the context of human wisdom—and confirmed no plans for personal conversion, asserting that morality does not require belief in God. Williams responded: “One of the intriguing things about the Church in your books is that it is a Church without redemption… Although that’s how a lot of people see the Church here, it is not how I see it.” He added wryly, referencing Anglican divisions: “Chance would be a fine thing.”