Episcopal Press and News
Clarification of Canons on Women's Ordination Leaves Church Divided
Episcopal News Service. June 6, 1997 [97-1791]
Carol Barnwell, Editor of The Texas Episcopalian newspaper of the Diocese of Texas
(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.
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.
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."
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."