episcopal bishop Defrocks priest Over homosexual Ordination

Kollyvas · Post by **Kollyvas** » Mon 16 January 2006 3:00 pm

dogmatic liberalism...

http://www.nynewsday.com/news/local/ny- ... rint.story

Episcopal bishop removes priest in dispute over homosexual clergy

By STEPHEN SINGER
Associated Press Writer

January 14, 2006, 4:50 PM EST

HARTFORD, Conn. -- The bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Connecticut on Saturday removed a priest from his duties in a clash over the elevation of a homosexual bishop in New Hampshire.

Connecticut Bishop Andrew D. Smith stripped Mark H. Hansen, formerly of St. John's Church in Bristol, "of the right to exercise the office of priest in the Episcopal church."

Smith acted six months after Hansen's "inhibition," or suspension, that began July 13.

"It's a very sad day," Smith said in an interview Saturday.

Diocesan officials said last year that Hansen was suspended because he took an unauthorized sabbatical and St. John's had stopped making payments on a loan for its building. Hansen maintained he notified Smith about his plans.

Smith said it was his duty to remove Hansen because the priest failed to meet conditions including recanting his behavior or statements that led to the inhibition. Hansen also could have denied the basis on which the inhibition was imposed and the bishop would have decided if the denial was in good faith, Smith said.

Hansen, who resigned his priesthood in September, refused to meet with Smith, the bishop said.

A message was left with St. John's Church. There was no home phone listing for Hansen.

The conflict stems from Smith's support for the Rev. V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire, the church's first openly homosexual bishop. Robinson's consecration in 2003 has divided the U.S. Episcopal Church and expanded the rift over homosexual issues among churches in the global Anglican Communion.

"The controversies are still there. This is not about the controversy," Smith said. "This is about his abandonment of the relationship he has as a priest with the bishop. People disagree with me (over Robinson) and do not abandon their relationship with the bishop."

A diocese committee of clergy and lay leaders determined last March that Hansen and five other priests abandoned communion of the church and referred the matter to Smith, he said. He has not yet decided on action against the five other priests, who have been threatened with suspension.

"My hope is for reconciliation," he said.

The other priests are the Rev. Christopher Leighton of St. Paul's Church in Darien, the Rev. Allyn Benedict of Christ Episcopal Church in Watertown, the Rev. Ronald Gauss of Bishop Seabury Church in Groton, the Rev. Gilbert Wilkes of Christ and the Epiphany Church in East Haven and the Rev. Don Helmandollar of Trinity Church in Bristol.

The six parishes sought last May to be supervised by a different bishop because of their dispute with Smith over Robinson.

In addition, six parishes and five of their priests _ excluding Hansen _ filed a federal lawsuit last September alleging that the priests threatened with suspension were fraudulently charged with abandoning communion and denied due process because they were not tried in religious courts.

The plaintiffs also contend that diocesan officials violated state law when they took over St. John's Church in July and appointed a priest to fill in for Hansen.

Smith said Saturday his decision removing Hansen was not related to the lawsuit.

CorpusChristi · Post by **CorpusChristi** » Mon 16 January 2006 7:34 pm

this is there current website,
http://stjohnsinexile.org/

Kollyvas · Post by **Kollyvas** » Mon 16 January 2006 11:26 pm

http://directionstoorthodoxy.org/mod/ne ... le_id=6746

Guildford Group sets out proposals for women bishops in Church of England

ACNS 4094 | ENGLAND | 16 JANUARY 2005

A Church of England group is proposing a way forward aimed at both permitting women to become bishops - should General Synod vote in favour of this - and of preserving the maximum amount of unity within the Church.

The group, chaired by the Bishop of Guildford, the Rt Revd Christopher Hill, was set up by the House of Bishops to assess a range of possible options first put forward in 'Women Bishops in the Church of England?' a report produced by a group chaired by the Bishop of Rochester, the Rt Revd Michael Nazir-Ali in November 2004.

Today's publication of the Guildford Group's report follows a vote in General Synod in July 2005 to set in train the process for removing the legal obstacles to the ordination of women bishops.

Having reviewed the options over the past 12 months, the Guildford Group is recommending a way forward known as Transferred Episcopal Arrangements.

Transferred Episcopal Arrangements (TEA) are intended to meet the essential needs of those who could not accept that women should be bishops, while avoiding the creation of any new jurisdiction, diocese or province within the Church, according to Women in the Episcopate: the
Guildford Group Report, which will be debated by General Synod in February.

"When we started," says the Rt Rev Christopher Hill, who chaired the group that encompassed a wide range of viewpoints, "we did not know whether we would be able to produce an agreed assessment of the options. But the process of working and praying together has brought us closer to each other.

"It has also enabled us to identify a way forward which, we believe, has the potential both to permit the admission of women to the episcopate and preserve the maximum degree of communion across the Church of England."

In the introduction to the report, Bishop Christopher continues: "We do not minimise the difficulty of the choices now facing the Church. There is no course of action, including the status quo, that is free of pain and risk."

The other members of the Guildford Group are the Rt Rev Pete Broadbent, Bishop of Willesden, the Rt Rev Nicholas Reade, Bishop of Blackburn, the Rt Rev Dr John Saxbee, Bishop of Lincoln, and the Ven Dr Joy Tetley, Archdeacon of Worcester.

Some proposed options were firmly opposed on both sides of the debate and the Group decided to examine the three main options in depth. It considered a 'single clause' measure with a code of practice; transferred episcopal arrangements; and a third province of the Church.

The report argues that a 'single clause' measure would not address the central issue of conscientious non-recognition of women bishops, and that a third province would go too far in the direction of creating separate structures which could be seen as representing significant schism. This, says the report, leaves the Church with a 'stark choice' of not pursuing the ordination of women bishops for some considerable time or considering some form of transferred episcopal arrangements.

Under Transferred Episcopal Arrangements as illustrated in the report, parishes opposed to women priests and women bishops could opt, by resolution of a Special Parochial Church Meeting, for the Diocesan Bishop to request the Archbishop of the Province to arrange for episcopal ministry to be provided by a Provincial Regional Bishop (PRB).

The PRB would exercise jurisdiction over such a parish in certain matters, while the diocesan bishop continued to exercise jurisdiction in others. This is similar to the way in which area bishops exercise functions on behalf of their diocesan bishop. The PRB would be authorised to act in relation to pastoral care (including ministerial review), sacramental and disciplinary matters and to act on behalf of the diocesan bishop in respect of patronage, appointments and ordinands.
In other respects, the parish would be subject to the normal diocesan structures and procedures, including the faculty jurisdiction, and so remain for administrative purposes as part of the geographical diocese.

Jurisdiction, says the report, would be shared in a similar way to a priest sharing the cure of souls with the bishop. At the same time, TEA would incorporate the present provisions for parishes opposed to the ordination of women, allowing abolition of those provisions in their present form.

This would remove, in all parishes except those in TEA, all legislative discrimination that potentially exists where a woman priest is not now in post.

The question for now, the report acknowledges, is whether the disadvantages of TEA are outweighed by the potential the Group believes it offers.

They conclude that it could be made to work and that it merits serious consideration by the General Synod.

A majority of the House of Bishops has also agreed that the approach merits further exploration.

"In essence," says the report, "TEA recognise that communion in the Church always falls short of that fullness which will come only with the fullness of the Kingdom. It is complicated and untidy. But we believe this is how the Church really is. TEA is an honest acknowledgement of our frailty and division in this hugely significant area of our life. We believe TEA is the most inclusive and realistic way forward. It will allow a continuing inter-relationship between those for and against women bishops: at the same time, in its attempt to hold together as many as possible in the highest possible degree of communion, it does not compound the sin of schism."

The Report will be discussed at next month's sessions of the Church of England's General Synod. Women in the Episcopate: the Guildford Group Report, priced £6.00, is available from Church House Bookshop, 31 Great Smith Street, London SW1P 3BN, tel. 020-7898 1300, e mail
bookshop@c-of-e.org.uk , or on the web at: www.chbookshop.co.uk (mail order available). It can be read on the web at http://www.cofe.anglican.org/about/gens ... gs1605.rtf .

Women in the Episcopate - the Guildford Report

Presentation by the Bishop of Guildford

January 16 th 2006

The Guildford Group all ended up in a different place from where we began. And though we were a group chosen by the House of Bishops we included from the beginning the Archdeacon of Worcester, Joy Tetley, as it was essential that the Group heard the voice of a woman - herself in
a senior ministry of oversight - from the 'inside'. Our churchmanship (I note the male language!) was, of course, deliberately broadly based with the Bishop of Blackburn, Nicholas Reade, a 'traditional' catholic; the Bishop of Willesden, Pete Broadbent, a definite evangelical and the
bishop of Lincoln, John Saxbee, articulating a liberal voice. I shall be asking the General Synod to Take Note of our Report in February. We shall have earlier discussed the Ecumenical Responses to the Rochester Report. Then the Archbishop of Canterbury will invite the Synod to give 'further exploration' to the Guildford proposals by means of a further statement for the July Synod on the theological, ecumenical and canonical implications of our suggested way forward. So nothing is set in stone. Critics will have the chance to demonstrate where we have gone wrong and the Synod will then have the opportunity to weight both the merits and objections to our proposals. All this is essential before a legislative drafting committee begins its work, otherwise years will be wasted in drawing up legislation and Codes of Practice which do not embody what the Church wants. This would also risk the failure of the final proposals as at that stage, not before, the process requires two-thirds majorities in the three Houses of Bishops, Clergy and Laity as well as a majority of diocesan synods. So much for the process properly proposed by the House of Bishops, for this important debate affects the faith and order of the Church, a special responsibility of the episcopate. What does the Guildford Report propose?

We ask the Church to explore a form of Transferred Episcopal Arrangements (the jokes about Tetley Tea - and others - are unending!). It has some similarities with the present arrangements by Act of Synod as well as important differences. People may well judge our proposals by their own experience of the system of Provincial Episcopal Visitors. There are pluses and minuses here. As the Church offered that system when women were ordained priests it is at least arguable that in faithfulness to the minority something similar ought to be provided at
the ordination of women to the episcopate.

In TEA a parish would be able to petition their diocesan bishop - if they are not able to recognise and accept women's priestly and episcopal ministry and authority - for episcopal ministry from what we have called for the time being a Provincial Regional Bishop. The Diocesan Bishop
would request the Archbishop of the Province to provide a Provincial Regional Bishop for the parish concerned. The PRB would be the bishop for that parish much as an Area Bishop is in the larger dioceses which have Area Schemes. The Provincial Regional Bishop would exercise
pastoral care, sacramental and disciplinary functions, including appointments, ministerial review, sponsorship of ordinands and ordinations. The oath of canonical obedience would be taken to the
Archbishop, through the PRB. Nevertheless for more administrative matters such as churchyards, faculty jurisdiction, clergy housing, church schools and stipend the usual diocesan arrangements would be administered by the Diocese. We do not propose separate 'provincial' structures for such matters, though the Province, through the Archbishop and the PRB would provide all the ministry such priests and people are unable to accept either from a woman bishop or where acceptance of women bishops makes this impossible.

But, and this is important, the rest of the Church of England would be entirely clear of all that can be called discriminatory against women's ministry at all levels. So Resolutions A and B, potentially against acceptance of a woman priest in any parish of the Church of England at the moment, would be abolished. We have also spent some time pondering on the role of the Archbishop of Canterbury and this will need to continue. There are also important questions about communion in the Church of England and the collegiality of the bishops which are raised whichever way we go forward. These questions are wider than the TEA proposals but do need further urgent attention.

The Guildford proposals fall short of what some opponents of women in the episcopate have asked for; for example, Forward in Faith in Consecrated Women?, where a separate Third or Free Province is articulated in some detail. Equally, those strongly in favour of moving forward without any restriction, such as WATCH, may argue that we have gone too far. Within the House of Bishops there are those who have doubts as to whether we put at risk the territorial integrity of the
diocese as they see it.

We say that we want the Church to test our proposals. The Report is 'illustrative' rather than definitive. Detail is important but can be argued and changed - it will be in the legislative process where matters are always open to revision and amendment.

We believe that some 'structural' provision ought to be made for those who cannot assent. Almost everyone believes that some provision ought to be made - though many have argued that this ought not to be in legislation. We understand their argument. But we have been realistic: unless something providing for those opposed is in a Measure opening up the episcopate to women a Code of Practice by itself cannot have teeth. We have explored this with the Church's Legal Advisor, who has been a consultant to our Group. There is a continuing question as to how much
is provided for in a Measure and how much in an associated Code. The balance here is still a matter for debate.

What we have tried to do, with necessarily sophisticated proposals, is itself very simple. We have identified a way forward which, we believe, has the potential both to permit the admission of women to the episcopate and preserve the maximum degree of communion across the Church of England.

We have tried to make a space, to make a room, for those who cannot accept women in the episcopate. Even if some want wholly open-plan arrangements, while others want a semi-detached, or even a separate house, we believe the Church of England should have enough rooms - with interconnecting doors - in our traditionally inclusive household of faith.

Notes to editors

Since the General Synod voted in November 1992 to ordain women as priests in the Church of England, it has twice debated motions on the issue of women bishops. In July 2000, Synod debated a private members motion moved by the Ven Judith Rose, Archdeacon of Tonbridge, and called for further theological study on the episcopate in preparation for the debate on women in the episcopate. That study resulted in the Rochester Report, which informed the Synod's debate in July 2005, which itself prompted the Guildford Report (see full motions below).

The motion before General Synod in July 2000, which called for the Rochester Report was passed in the following form:

"That this Synod ask the House of Bishops to initiate further theological study on the episcopate, focusing on the issues that need to be addressed in preparation for the debate on women in the episcopate in the Church of England, and to make a progress report on this study to Synod within the next two years."

Women Bishops in the Church of England?, the report of the House of Bishops' Working Party on Women in the Episcopate, is a survey of the theological issues the Church needs to consider as it decides whether or not to ordain women bishops. It was published in November 2004 by Church
House Publishing, priced £12.99, and is available as above. It can be read on the web at
http://www.cofe.anglican.org/info/paper ... ishops.pdf .

The motion before General Synod in July 2005, which called for the Guildford Report was passed in the following form:

'That this Synod

(a) consider that the process for removing the legal obstacles to the ordination of women to the episcopate should now be set in train;

(b) invite the House of Bishops, in consultation with the Archbishops' Council, to complete by January 2006, and report to the Synod, the assessment which it is making of the various options for achieving the removal of the legal obstacles to the ordination of women to the episcopate and ask that it give specific attention to the issues of canonical obedience and the universal validity of orders throughout the Church of England as it would affect clergy and laity who cannot accept
the ordination of women to the episcopate on theological grounds; and

(c) instruct the Business Committee to make sufficient time available in the February 2006 group of sessions for the Synod to debate the report, and in the light of the outcome to determine on what basis it wants the necessary legislation prepared and establish the necessary
drafting group'.

Further information from:
Steve Jenkins or Peter Crumpler

Church of England Communications Office
Church House
Great Smith Street
London SW1P 3NZ

Direct Dial Telephone: 020 7898 1326
Out-of-hours Telephone: 07774 800212

Kollyvas · Post by **Kollyvas** » Sat 21 January 2006 1:12 pm

http://directionstoorthodoxy.org/mod/ne ... le_id=6813

Warning over plans for women bishops
Church of England Newspaper & Church Time report

Church of England Newspaper
Number: 5803 Date: January
By Jonathan Wynne-Jones

ONE of the leading traditionalists in the Church of England has warned that his constituency is not prepared to accept newly published plans for the introduction of women bishops unless their concerns are properly addressed.

The Bishop of Fulham, the Rt Rev John Broadhurst, accused campaigners for women bishops of trying to “bully” the traditionalist wing of the Church, but warned that they would not be marginalised and welcomed a delay in the plans going forward. The report, which was unveiled this week by the Bishop of Guildford, the Rt Rev Christopher Hill, recommends a system of Transferred Episcopal Arrangements (TEA), which would hand responsibility for parishes who are opposed to women bishops to a regional bishop. This would replace “flying bishops”, who were consecrated to provide oversight to parishes who objected to women’s ordination.

Presenting the report, which will go before next month’s General Synod, Bishop Hill said that the proposal could be a way forward if everyone wants it to work. However, at last week’s House of Bishops’ meeting, the bishops were so divided over the plans that they have asked for more time on the issue. “Some are not convinced by TEA, others are not sure about going forward at this time,” he conceded.

Bishop Broadhurst, National Chair of Forward in Faith (FIF), said that the current proposals were unworkable and would make it impossible for traditionalists to remain in the Church, unless they were altered to give adequate provisions. He expressed dismay at the report’s failure to respond to the recommendations made in a major report carried out by FIF. “They [the group chaired by Bishop Hill] have ignored our report, but we’re not insignificant and we won’t be bullied into accepting proposals without proper provision. Natural justice says that people shouldn’t be driven out.”

There are 315 parishes who have opted for the care of “flying bishops” and more than 1,000 have passed resolutions banning the appointment of a woman as their vicar. Proposals set out in the report raise the possibility of a woman Archbishop in the future, but Bishop Broadhurst said that this was unacceptable to traditionalists and some evangelicals, who would also struggle with the Archbishop consecrating women. He welcomed the delay to proceeding with voting on the controversial issue that the House of Bishops agreed upon at their meeting and expressed hope that there could be another postponement in the summer.

Bishop Hill defended the temporary delay in proceedings. “We’re trying to live with diversity so I feel we have a duty to look for a way through this and we we’re asking Synod for space. We want to give time for reflection on this and further proposals.” The Synod will be asked to invite the House of Bishops to produce a statement of the theological, ecumenical and canonical implications of TEA combined with a code of practice. He acknowledged though that the Church’s financial situation would make it difficult to pay out to clergy who would be certain to leave the Church if the Synod only provides them with a code of practice.

Campaigners for women bishops are exasperated at the setback to allowing the process to move on. Christina Rees, Chair of Women and the Church, said: “It is extremely frustrating to wait any longer in view of the fact that the Church of England is ready for women bishops.”

THE MAJORITY of the House of Bishops supports the exploration of a proposed "middle way" through problems the Church of England faces if it ordains women bishops.

The proposal has been made by the House of Bishops’ working group on women bishops, chaired by the Bishop of Guildford, the Rt Revd Christopher Hill.

A mixture of leak and rumour about the proposal has circulated since the autumn ( News, 6 January). Bishop Hill confirmed at a press briefing on Monday that "TEA" was indeed on the table: "transferred episcopal arrangements", for which parishes unable to accept women bishops would be able to petition.

It would leave the rest of the C of E, the Bishop said, "entirely clear of all that can be called discriminatory against women’s ministry at all levels. So Resolutions A and B, potentially against acceptance of women priests in any parish of the Church of England at the moment, would be abolished."

The General Synod will debate the Guildford report next month; and the Archbishop of Canterbury will move that it explore further, and decide the next steps in July.

Bishop Hill said that much attention had been paid to the canvassed alternatives of a third province or (from supporters of women bishops) a single-clause Measure with a code of practice. But his group and the majority of the Bishops wanted to test this "middle way" with the Church.

For opponents of women bishops, the Guildford report says, sacramental assurance and headship — "and therefore jurisdiction" — stem from a male bishop. "The essence of TEA is that the diocesan bishop would request the Archbishop (with special arrangements in the event that, at some future date, an Archbishop was female) to arrange for episcopal ministry to be provided, to those parishes that requested it, by a Provincial Regional Bishop (PRB).

"The PRB would exercise jurisdiction on certain matters (defined in a way not dissimilar to the functions which an area bishop may exercise on behalf of a diocesan), while the diocesan bishop would continue to exercise jurisdiction on others."

These would be "best not embodied in the Measure", but agreed between the Bishops, "possibly as part of an enforceable Code of Practice".

"Thus the PRB would be authorised to act in relation to pastoral care (including ministerial review), sacramental and disciplinary matters, to act on behalf of the diocesan in respect of the exercise of patronage and other aspects of the role of the bishop in appointments, and in relation to ordinands.

"In relation to Pastoral Measure issues, the PRB would have the power to initiate proposals for parishes where he had pastoral oversight, and have the right of full consultation and voting participation in all matters relating to the pastoral reorganisation of such parishes. Equally, the PRB would have the duty to co-operate with a diocese in any constructive planning for mission and pastoral care in a changing Church."

But the parish would remain for administrative purposes part of the geographical diocese.

The proposals maintain aspects of the existing provision. For example, parishes could change their minds one way or the other at any time. "It seems right that the new arrangements should continue to provide for a two-way valve between the two parts of the Church of England," says the report.

Parishes would still be required to review the arrangements every five years, and whenever there was a vacancy. But the group suggests that the vote would be taken by a special parochial church meeting (SPCM) rather than the parochial church council — although further discussion of this will be needed.

Where Resolutions A and B are in force, the group favours the avoidance of "a single Church-wide defining moment", and suggests that they could either lapse after a set number of years as provided in the legislation, or lapse at a date subsequently determined by the General Synod.

Although the report envisages that its proposals will reduce pressure for financial provisions for objectors leaving the Church of England, Bishop Hill said that the Archbishops’ Council was looking into the subject of discretionary support for "a small number of genuinely hard cases".

The working group was composed of Bishop Hill; the Archdeacon of Worcester, the Ven. Joy Tetley; the Bishop of Blackburn, the Rt Revd Nicholas Reade; the Bishop of Willesden, the Rt Revd Pete Broadbent; and the Bishop of Lincoln, Dr John Saxbee.

Kollyvas · Post by **Kollyvas** » Mon 23 January 2006 4:13 am

It's time for the Orthodox to cease relations with these protestants altogether and gather flocks in developing countries who don't want this mockery...R