10/07/2006

"Nevertheless, if any of you know ANY reason…" (caps mine)

There is always the hot seat question: it happens in ordinations, it happens at a marriage. Thank God it does not happen at baptism or in death.

In the Marriage Service the Celebrant asks “If any of you can show just cause why they may not lawfully be married, speak now, or forever hold your peace.” (US BCP, pg 424)

In the Ordination of a Deacon or Priest it is, “if any of you know any impediment or crime because of which we should not proceed, come forward now, and make it know.” (US BCP, pgs 527, 539)

In the Ordination of a Bishop it is, “Nevertheless, if any of you know any reason why we should not proceed, let it now be made known.”

Usually, following these hot seat questions there is a pause and then sometimes a quiet sigh of relief, and then things move on.

The sign is, of course, because just cause, impediment, crime, or reason, are words that tend to call up matters in the secret heart of each of us that sit there unresolved. Even when tended to by confession and or restitution there are tendrils of unsettled issues. They are there and they never quiet go away. So, when no one stands up and says something, we sigh quietly in relief.


Those being ordained bishop have been elected, with all the assumptions that in that process, and still the congregation is asked, “you have heard testimony given that N.N. has been duly and lawfully elected to be a bishop of the Church of God to serve in the Diocese of N. You have been assured of his suitability and that the Church has approved him for this sacred responsibility. Nevertheless…” (US BCP 514) Here, even with the trial by fire that constitutes the election process in most Dioceses, the background checks, the election itself, the consents of bishops and standing committees (or deputies), and even with the widest possible information available, “Nevertheless…”

The breath of field for questions to be raised grows from the question of lawfulness to, in the case of the ordination as bishop, the all inclusive “any reason.”

I was quite interested therefore in the reports of the ordination of the Rev. Canon Barry L. Beisner as Bishop Coadjutor of Northern California. When the hot seat question came in this service, there was someone ready to speak. According to The Living Church ,

“A priest tried in vain to read aloud a typed, two-page statement of protest, but was not heard. The Rev. James A. Wilson, who served most recently at St. Michael’s, Anderson, distributed the statement, saying that Canon Beisner’s consecration was deeply troubling to the church, according to an account by The Sacramento Bee. General Convention consented in June to the election of Canon Beisner, who was divorced twice before his current marriage.”

The Living Church report said that the priest tried "in vain" to read his protest but “was not heard.” When I first read that I understood it to mean that he somehow was ignored, snubbed or shouted down. If so that would have been a terrible breach of the whole reason for asking the questions in the first place.

However, further on in the Living Church story and throughout in the Episcopal News Service story, it was clear that (i) the priest “asked if he could read his objection aloud,” (ii) Bishop Bainbridge asked to see what he intended to read, took him, other bishops and counselors aside, and returned with their concurrence (iii) and determined to continue. In other words, Fr. Wilson was heard, and heard out, by the consecrators.

The Episcopal News Service’s report was clearer: “One priest objected during the consecration service to Beisner’s election as bishop. The Rev. James Wilson, former rector in Anderson, asked if he could read his objection aloud. Bainbridge asked to see what he intended to read and then asked Wilson to accompany him off the dais with other bishop "counselors." Bainbridge returned and said that Wilson had offered two unnamed objections.

"It is our intention to move ahead," he said. "We are people who practice mercy and believe in God's grace."

The Living Church also quoted a statement from The Rev. Canon Stephen N. Brannon, vice chancellor that confirms the ENS description:

“The objections presented were identical to those raised and dealt with thoroughly at the General Convention, at which time both the House of Bishops and House of Deputies consented to the election of Canon Beisner,” Fr. Brannon said in a written statement he provided to The Living Church. “Absolutely nothing new was raised in the objections presented by Fr. Wilson. It was the unanimous judgment of those taking part in the deliberations at the ordination, which included Bishop Bainbridge...Chancellor Miles Snyder, Vice Chancellor Charles Mack, and myself, that there were no constitutional, canonical or other reasons presented which would preclude the ordination from going forward.”

Fr. Wilson’s statement can be read HERE. It is a well reasoned, honorable and fine statement. I am glad the consecrators read it with him present. I am glad they proceeded. What was new in this statement was Fr. Wilson, and he was heard. He was heard by the bishops, not by the congregation. Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

In each of the occasions where hot seat questions are raised there are a variety of ways to deal with objections.

It would be quite surprising for there to be revelations of previously undisclosed or unconsidered impediments, illegalities or criminality at the ordination of a bishop. Barring such revelations what are the “reasons” that might be brought forward? And on what level might they stand?

At the ordination of Bishop Robinson and it appears at the ordination of the Bishop of Northern California the reasons that constituted the objections were all considered in depth in the run up to the ordination. The purpose in stating the objections once again was to affirm the continued opposition to the ordination of the persons being presented.

Because everyone already knows the nature of the opposition and had determined to proceed, it seems to me a matter of judgment by the bishop presiding at the service as to whether to have the objector read a statement out loud or have it considered in private.

Fr. Wilson did everyone a service, except himself, in having a prepared statement. Had he simply stood to deliver his remarks rather than asking permission to read his statement aloud (see the ENS article) there would have been little recourse except to let him proceed. As it was, Bishop Bainbridge was quite in order to review the matter with Fr. Wilson present and with the other consecrators.

Would it have harmed the proceedings in any way to let him return and read the document? No. But neither would it have served any particularly useful purpose. Indeed, not having it read has given it greater publication than it might otherwise have had.

Nevertheless…

6 comments:

  1. All well and good, Mark, except balony! As you said, Mr. Wilson raised nothing new, he knew he was raising nothing new, and he knew he had no hope of making any difference whatsoever in the proceedings. That means that the only possible reason for him to be there was to be pathetically rudely disruptive, even if he exercised a veneer of good manners is asking to be heard rather than simply prattling on unabated.

    There is no excuse for such ungracious behavior and, (you'd think the militants would learn) *nevertheless* reflects poorly on them, resulting in them being their own worst enemies in regards to their glorious cause virtually any time they open their mouths.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Marc...
    yes balony, except that it seems precisely what the "nevertheless..." invitation is about. People on one level or another can object like crazy, even at the last moment when it is "pathetically rudely disruptive,etc"

    What I thought was really useful was the way the bishop presiding took Wilson seriously enough to read what he wrote but did not subject the congregation to hearing it all over again.

    It is true, the stuff backfires all the time. But then, sometimes, so does right objections by those who are indeed in the last analysis right.

    I voted to consent to the Bishop at General Convention, thought we heard it all out there, had no interest in hearing it again. What I wanted to write about was that the "nevertheless" opportunity is not about new stuff, but about old stuff not yet let go of.

    On the other hand, I wasn't there and so the disruptiveness was not something I experience then.

    Ungracious behavior is what happens when the battle is over but the objectors are not. May grace be upon them.

    thanks for the note.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Richard III8/10/06 7:05 AM

    I didn't get the impression Mark was passing any kind of judgement on Canon Beisner but making an observation as to how the proceeding was handled when the question was asked. I've always been told that bishops usually say 'No' when asked to consent to the marriage of someone who was on their third go around. It would certainly make one ask themselves what the individual's difficulties were in maintaning a stable relationship after two failed marriages and is that something which might carry on with them in how they carry out their pastoral office. I know of a preist who abuses his wife and it always makes me stop to wonder what goes through his mind when he is doing pre-marital counseling - I doubt if he has ever made any connection between the two.

    ReplyDelete
  4. No, no - I wasn't suggesting Mark was passing any kind of judgement on Canon Beisner, and I both understand and agree with the point he was making about how the proceedings were handled. It'd be nice if it actually set something of a precedent, though this is the only place I've seen it get any attention, so I doubt that will happen. I just thought Mark was being too gracious (how's that for irony?) in regards to Mr. Wilson's intentions. Even though I'm sure he felt like he was making a stand for "orthodoxy", Wilson's actions were only rude and intentionally disruptive - typical Network schlock.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Someone elected to be a bishop of an ECUSA diocese is not supposed to work within ECUSA, but is supposed to help split it apart, as AMIA and the Network are trying to do?

    And working within the church in which you've been elected Bishop is supposed to be an impediment to being a Bishop?

    The ill/logic is just staggering.

    And Mr Wilson obviously doesn't know much of classical Christian spirituality. +Katharine is hardly the first person to refer to Jesus as Mother. I believe it was an English woman known as Julian who made that popular.

    ReplyDelete
  6. *bangs head against wall*

    I've said it before, I'll say it again: I've witnessed firsthand how +Beisner can mediate between two angry and upset factions within the Church and bring about a settlement that lets everyone save face and go home happy (and by firsthand, I mean the guy was two chairs down from me in the parish hall, drinking coffee I made while our vestry representatives laid out demands).

    This is the kind of prayerful guy we need in the leadership of the church right now. It's enough to make a fluffy bunny liberal Californian universalist like me believe in demonic attacks.

    ReplyDelete

OK... Comments, gripes, etc welcomed, but with comment moderation but with some cautions and one rule:
Cautions: Calling people fools, idiots, etc, will be reason to bounce your comment. Keeping in mind that in the struggles it is difficult enough to try to respect opponents, we should at least try.
Rule: PLEASE DO NOT SIGN OFF AS ANONYMOUS: BEGIN OR END THE MESSAGE WITH A NAME - ANY NAME. ANONYMOUS commentary will be cut.