wfn.org | General Convention: clarification o

[ENS.parti@ecunet.org]

June 6, 1997
Episcopal News Service
Jim Solheim, Director
212-922-5385
ens@ecunet.org

97-1791
General Convention: clarification of canons on women's ordination
leaves church divided

by Carol Barnwell
   (ENS) In an historic vote, the 1976 General Convention of the
Episcopal Church decreed that canons on ordination should apply equally
to men and women, officially approving the ordination of women to the
priesthood and episcopacy. 
   But that vote didn't leave everyone happy. In an effort to find a
middle ground, a special meeting of the House of Bishops in 1977
worked out a "mind of the House" agreement to recognize the right of
bishops to refuse to ordain women if their consciences prohibited it. 
   Twenty years later, bishops from four of the church's 113 dioceses
and jurisdictions still will not ordain women or recognize the validity of
ordained women's ministry in the church "as a matter of conscience."  
   The 72nd General Convention, to be held this summer in
Philadelphia, will
consider recommendations from a special committee to help implement
the canon in all dioceses.
   Established by the 1994 General Convention, the Committee for
Dialogue on
Canon III.8.1 (the canon guaranteeing both men and women access to the
ordination process) met twice to find ways in which women can be
ordained and carry out their ministries in every diocese, while protecting
the consciences of those who do not believe women's ordinations are
valid.

Bishops, Executive Council endorse report
   At its meeting in Portland, Oregon, in September, 1995, the House
of Bishops voted 122 to 17, with 18 abstentions, that equal access to
ordination for men and women is "mandatory" throughout the church and
endorsed the recommendations of the Committee for Dialogue for
canonical wording changes to clarify that understanding. Executive
Council joined the church's bishops, endorsing the committee's majority
report at its November, 1995, meeting in Birmingham, Alabama.
   The recommended changes would not require bishops to ordain
women, but would insure that the ordination process be available to
women in every diocese. The committee proposals do not add anything
new to the canon, but offer clarification to what has already been adopted
by the 65th General Convention. The following additions are
recommended:
   "No one shall be denied access to the ordination process nor
postulancy,
candidacy or ordination in any parish or diocese solely on account of
sex";
   "No member of the clergy shall be denied a license solely on account
of sex and letters dimissory [receiving an ordained priest from another
diocese] shall not be denied by a bishop solely on account of sex";
   "Sex alone shall not be a factor in any bishop's determination of
whether
such person is a duly qualified priest."
   Leaving little doubt whether the canons are "permissive" or
"mandatory," the resolution's explanation states, "The canons are
mandatory and applicable in all
dioceses."  
   In an additional resolution, the committee said that while individuals
are free to disagree on matters of theology, to express those beliefs and
seek change, they are not free to disregard the canons of the church. This
second resolution is intended to insure that no one be excluded from
vocational opportunities or from the life of the church because of his or
her theological beliefs.

Minority report issued
   Currently Bishops William Wantland of Eau Claire, John-David
Schofield of San Joaquin, Jack Iker of Fort Worth and Keith Ackerman
of Quincy refuse to
ordain women in their dioceses and read the canonical provision for
ordination "equally applicable to men and women" as permissive, but not
mandatory.
   In a statement presented to the Province VII orientation meeting for
General Convention, the deputation from Fort Worth said the proposed
canonical changes would "grieve our diocese," but also would "affect and
permanently alienate thousands of Episcopalians in other dioceses
throughout the church."
   The deputation held up the practice of their diocese, in which women
who begin the process toward ordination complete it in the Diocese of
Dallas, as one example of an alternative to blanket enforcement of the
rule.
   A minority report issued by several members of the committee,
including Wantland, claimed that there was not enough time given to
dialogue, and took exception with the appointment of committee
members, the format of procedure, "slanted" hearings and final
proceedings. "In short, the minority has experienced the true meaning of
the phrase, `tyranny of the majority,'" the report stated.  
   "The committee did not agree," said the Rev. Gay Jennings of the
Diocese of Ohio, a member of the committee. She said that she was
disappointed but
"not surprised" that the two sides reached an impasse.
   "There was a lot of dialogue about how to implement the canon,"
she said. "It was not intended to be dialogue about anyone's specific
theological position."  

No reconciliation in sight
   At an April 7 meeting at the Episcopal Church Center in New York,
called by Presiding Bishop Edmond Browning, three of the four bishops
who do not ordain women were present with several of the committee
members. The meeting was "cordial and gracious," said Jennings, "but
there were no changed minds. It was simply an opportunity to talk and
maintain relationships."  
   To date, there does not appear to be a reconciliation of the two
positions on
women's ordination. The House of Bishops has been clear in its vote as
has the Executive Council. Few express hope that the General
Convention can resolve the issue to everyone's satisfaction.
   Expecting the canonical changes to be approved at General
Convention, Wantland said he will resign following the convention.
Regardless of the additional proposed resolution specifically including
those who held theological beliefs in opposition to women's ordination,
Wantland said the 1995 vote by the House of Bishops left little doubt that
"those who follow the traditional Catholic understanding of holy orders
are not to be included in this church."
   But Sally Bucklee, former president of the Episcopal Women's
Caucus and a General Convention deputy and member of Executive
Council, stressed in a recent letter about the committee's work that the
time has come to fully implement "a canon adopted in 1976." 
   Even the decision of the last General Convention to establish the
committee that would discuss the canon for one more year represented a
painful delay, she said. "So it came to pass that 123 years after the
General Convention initiated the first of many studies on the roles and
functions of women in this church, convention resolved once again that
still further dialogue about women was needed," she wrote.
   "Clarity regarding women's roles and functions is imperative,"
Bucklee wrote. "It is time to let go and move on."

--Carol Barnwell is editor of The Texas Episcopalian newspaper of the
Diocese of Texas, and will cover General Convention for the Convention
Daily newspaper.