Episcopal Press and News

Search the Episcopal Press and News

Year

All 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962

Enter search query

Preliminary Hearing Held in Trial of Bishop Who Ordained Non-celibate Homosexual

Episcopal News Service. December 12, 1995 [95-1322]

(ENS) On a cold, blustery day in Hartford, Connecticut, December 8, the Episcopal Church's Court for the Trial of a Bishop convened to consider pre-trial motions in the case of a bishop accused of teaching false doctrine and breaking his ordination vows.

The nine bishops on the court met in an upstairs lounge at Christ Church Cathedral to establish the guidelines for the historic trial of Bishop Walter Righter, 72, the retired bishop of Iowa, who is charged with "holding and teaching...doctrine contrary to that held by the church" for signing a document supporting the ordination of non-celibate homosexuals, and with violating his ordination vows for ordaining a non-celibate homosexual as a deacon.

The trial is only the second such "heresy" trial involving a bishop in the church's history. In 1924 a retired bishop of Arkansas was deposed for teaching that communism had superceded Christianity. After introducing himself at the beginning of the day as "Walter Righter, the heretic," Righter sat quietly at the table of his attorney, Michael Rehill, the chancellor of the Diocese of Newark. His wife, Nancy, sat by his side, knitting.

While the court bishops made only one ruling -- not to disqualify four of the their members who signed the same statement as Righter -- they withdrew at the end of the day to consider several motions brought by the attorneys arguing the case that could affect the shape of the trial. Rulings in those other motions are expected to be announced in about two weeks.

Before withdrawing, however, the court announced that the site of the trial was being moved from Hartford to Wilmington, Delaware. Bishop Clarence Coleridge of Connecticut later reported that he had requested that the site be changed because the prospect of a trial had become "too intrusive" in the life of the diocese.

The change of venue to the Cathedral of St. John in Wilmington will not affect the originally announced schedule of the trial, reported Sue Reid, canon to the ordinary of the Diocese of Indianapolis, who is serving as clerk of the court. The court will next convene for the trial hearing, February 27-29, she said.

Court denies motions to disqualify four judges

The court spent most of the morning considering a motion from the prosecution that sought to disqualify four of the bishops on the court for signing a document called "A Statement in Koinonia" at the 1994 General Convention. Signed by 71 bishops, that statement said that "homosexuality and heterosexuality are morally neutral," that faithful, monogamous same-sex relationships "are to be honored," and that homosexuals in committed relationships should be considered for ordination on an equal footing with heterosexuals. The four bishops cited were Bishop Edward Jones of Indianapolis, president of the court; Bishop Frederick Borsch of Los Angeles; Bishop Arthur Walmsley, retired bishop of Connecticut; and Bishop Douglas Theuner of New Hampshire. Other bishops on the court are Andrew Fairfield of North Dakota, Robert Johnson of North Carolina, Donis Patterson of Dallas, Calvin Cabell Tennis of Delaware, and Roger White of Milwaukee.

Hugo Blankingship, former chancellor of the Diocese of Virginia who is serving as church advocate or prosecuting attorney, claimed that the "The Koinonia Statement" challenges the church's teaching authority. Drawing on both scriptural and common law sources, he said that judges should disqualify themselves if there is any cause for a reasonable person to question their impartiality. "In the end it is a question of perception," he said.

Rehill countered that "this is not a secular court," charging that "what is happening here is an attempt to frame a court that will follow the view of the presenters," those who brought the charges against Righter. He contended that the judges were making a political statement, not a doctrinal one, when they signed the Koinonia Statement. "Everything is political -- and that's okay. It's the way we attempt to discern the truth in the body of Christ," he said. "But we don't change doctrine based on majority vote."

After the nine bishops held a 90-minute private session, Jones emerged to say that the motions to disqualify "were seriously considered but the court has decided to deny the motions."

What is the doctrine?

The afternoon session dealt with attempts by Rehill to separate the two counts against Righter -- one based on the so-called "heresy canon" for holding and teaching doctrine contrary to that held by the church, and the other for alleged violation of ordination vows. He argued that the court did not have jurisdiction on the second count because canonical procedure had not been properly followed.

Though coming from very different perspectives, both sides clearly agreed that it was necessary for the court to determine whether the church has a doctrine on the issue of non-celibate homosexual ordinations. While Bishop William Wantland of Eau Claire, author of the original presentment and co-counsel with Blankingship, argued for a different approach to dividing the trial, he was adamant that "the question of doctrine is the threshold issue that must be decided before you can proceed."

"You must decide whether or not there is a doctrine in this church that it is wrong to ordain a non-celibate homosexual," Rehill said. "But even if it exists, it's not clear that this bishop is guilty," he added. "You must establish that he acted 'knowingly and advisedly,' contrary to the church's teaching." According to Rehill the court was required to establish that a doctrine exists, that Righter knew and understood that doctrine, and that he deliberately chose to defy it.

Rehill suggested that the court meet in January for a full-blown discussion on that crucial issue, based on the original briefs in the case, a suggestion the court apparently has not followed. Wantland countered that such a discussion could not be limited to the original documents, that there was an obligation to lay before the court all relevant items.

Diocese is brunt of misunderstandings

The decision to move the site of the trial came as a surprise to most observers. Bishop Clarence Coleridge of Connecticut admitted in a statement that he was surprised by the negative reaction from members of the diocese. Many expressed anger over the waste of church resources for the trial and questioned the role of the diocese in hosting the trial. Published estimates of the cost have run as high as $1 million, and the bishop reported that diocesan leaders faced a further misconception on the part of some callers that "the diocese was spending the money."

Coleridge added that the media attention the trial was attracting also disturbed him and many of those who expressed criticism. "This was really drawing attention, in a negative way, to the trial and away from the real issues of the church," he said.