In Response to Rick

Dear Rick,

You misunderstand my point about "Hate the sin; love the sinner." I am not suggesting a simple converse, i.e., that if you love the sinner you must love his or her sin. That is a straw man. What I am saying, based on careful observation of the history of the practice, is that those who say they are merely critiquing the sin quite often end up attempting to take the role of God in judging the sinner, and punishing her. Certainly we are called to work against sin, but Jesus' sole advice on the subject is to work against it in ourselves, not in others.

As to desires, it is perfectly appropriate, as you suggest, for the Buddhist to see all of her desires as something to be suppressed and denied, or even better ignored, as the Zen school might say -- desires need not be wrestled with because they do not exist. ("no mirror, no dust.")

The Christian tradition, beginning with Augustine, appears to make a similar claim -- perpetuated in Anglican formularies -- that concupiscence is itself a partaker in sin. (The Jewish tradition, on the contrary, asserts that desire, while it may be "evil," is actually crucial in building up the world; a notion not unlike that found in Greek mythology and philosophy, in which Eros is the beginning of creation.)

Jesus' counsel is that we work on our own desires rather than trying to fix others; in fact he singled out that one desire -- the urge to "fix" others -- for condemnation. His harshest critique was directed against those who, while not entering the kingdom themselves, obstructed others by establishing a system in which people who were unable to abide by the rules so imposed gave in to despair. To cause despair in others, leading them to come to think they cannot live a Christian life, is a very serious matter. From Christ's standpoint, the most serious. By establishing and perpetuating (on very slim evidence) a tradition that proscribes the fulfillment of human desire in morally analogous ways (faithful, monogamous, permanent), to a large portion of the population (larger than many believe), on the basis of unproven concepts of natural law or the cultural traditions of a pre-scientific world, thereby leading to despair or separation from the Church for many who would seek to live a moral life on the basis of what Christ actually taught, is, as I say, a perilous and un-Christ-like course.

I do not deny that natural law has its uses. But if one is to employ it, one must be very careful that the "nature" informing the conclusions be accurate. Sound principles of logic must come into play. This is where science and human reason come in.

The problem with the Vatican's pronouncements that same-sexuality be singled out as "objectively disordered" is that it assumes to know the "order" or "purpose" for which sexuality exists, and state that same-sexuality of its nature does not fulfill that order.

Science (and human reason) challenge that claim. Leaving aside language of "purpose" (end, or goal) it is at least clear that sex does not in fact have a sole function; and that these various functions are separable in nature and, if you will, by "design." The Roman position, deriving from an inherited faulty understanding of human anthropology and biology (that the male is the "active" principle in human reproduction and the female a passive vessel, to cite only one aspect of the erroneous basis for the so-called natural law tradition), is logically incoherent, and morally flawed. Science will not tell us the "purpose" of a given phenomenon, but it can tell us when there is clearly more than one "function" possible, and logic can then open other possibilities for discussion as to purpose, end, or goal. (Of course, the tradition actually acknowledges multiple "ends" or "goods" for sexuality; but then arbitrarily says they cannot be separated from one another. As I have already shown in my previous articles, not only can they be separated, but they are -- by nature! The mouth is used for eating and speaking, and it is well not to do both at the same time. The male sexual organ also has multiple uses, and I dare say is also best used for one or the other. You see -- there is no logical basis for an "inseparability" of functions.)

I have, as I say, spelled this all out in great detail in the other articles I have posted. I have pointed out precisely why it is logically incoherent to hold that the "purpose of sexual acts is procreation." (When sex was wrongly understood as the planting of a seed in fertile soil, male homosexuality was seen as a grave fault, and female homosexuality went unmentioned -- this in itself reveals a major flaw in the "moral" understanding of sex.) You have responded to these with the same reassertions again and again, never once offering any clear evidence for the truth of the traditional and flawed "natural law" argument other than its mere restatement. I'd be glad just for a simple answer to the question, "Why can the various functions of sexuality not be separated?" or "Why is a same-sex relationship more culpable than an infertile mixed-sex relationship?" I have yet to receive an answer.

By the way, have you noticed how the very notion of "purpose" is itself an instance of concupiscence? A Buddhist, at least of the Zen school, would say that purposefulness is itself a result of desire, and hence flawed. Given we are not Buddhists, I have articulated the "purposes" of same-sexuality as the establishment of stable relationships, the care of children (though the Vatican thinks this impossible, too), the gift of one person to another (also denied by the Vatican, which sees same-sexuality as inherently "selfish" -- though without explanation) and so on. These are all functions and/or purposes. Who is to say these functions or purposes are less "moral" than mere breeding -- which, when separated from these other purposes is hardly commendable in and of itself. (It has long been noted that in elevating procreation to a position of prominence, the tradition inadvertently assigned moral weight to a biological function we share with animals. It is the human capacity for love, fidelity, and self-giving that has moral value, not the capacity to breed. More questions for you: Does breeding gain a moral value when carried out by persons? If so, what is the moral value? What is moral about it?)

Speaking of the Vatican, I reviewed the document "The Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons" yesterday. It is full of logical fallacies and begged questions; assertions dressed as truths. It also indulges in some very questionable theology. (The relation of the society of persons in marriage to the inner life of the Trinity is, for example, a wild notion when applied to sexuality. One would think the suggestion of linking sex with the relationship of the Father and the Son would send up red flags all over the place! Yet this is blandly suggested in the document. The notion that the image of God resides in the society of male and female, also advanced by John Paul II, is a direct contradiction of orthodox doctrine, as spelled out in Aquinas. This is the phenomenon I have noted before: the tendency to do bad theology when seeking to bolster an argument against same-sexuality -- and a sure sign the argument is faulty.)

So, Rick, that is the lay of the land. I reject the Roman teaching on this subject as logically incoherent. That does not mean you and others are barred from accepting it; but you must do so on the basis of faith in the Magisterium rather than on the basis of reason -- unless you can provide a reasonable argument that stands up to examination and doesn't beg the question. If you would like to assay a response to any of the questions I raised above (in boldface), I'd be glad to see what you have to say.

Tobias Haller BSG

God’s Judgment on Heterosexuality

and the Church’s Caring Response

Saturday Satire

by Tobias Haller BSG

[This satirical piece made its first appearance on my Geocities website nearly 15 years ago. Since then it has appeared in a number of forms around the web, including translations into Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, and what I think must be Hungarian. A shorter version also appeared in the "Marriage" issue of The Witness in December 1995. It has occasionally been plagiarized. I thought now might be an appropriate time formally to introduce it to the blogosphere. And so, here it is, along with its original short caveat:]

Caveat lector: The following is intended as a work of irony. The author is particularly anxious that readers not impute to him any of the opinions expressed therein. While he agrees with some premises and conclusions advanced, many are far from consistent with his attitude or opinions. The author does, however, feel that what follows is no more selective in its use of Scripture, casual in its logic, condescending in its attitude, erroneous in its conclusions--nor less guilty of asserting bare notions as if self-evident truths--than countless similar essays prepared by the committees, congregations, curiae, and theologians of the numerous scattered members of Christ's church.

Introduction

The church is faced today with a pastoral problem of significant gravity. It has become more and more apparent that many heterosexuals have come to consider themselves to be faithful members of the church, while committing acts at variance with the church's solemn teaching. The problem is far from new; both the Scriptural witness, and the unbroken tradition of the church attest to the ongoing nature of this tragic discontinuity. The matter has only come to the renewed attention of the church in recent years due to the efforts by some heterosexuals who seek not only to defend but to justify their behavior.

Origins in Creation

The inability of heterosexuals to form lasting, stable relationships has long been noted. A survey of the biblical material provides a sad witness to this inability -- and one explanation for its source -- in God's judgment upon Adam and Eve. This judgment provides a climax to the creation account in Genesis (3.16) and may therefore be taken as substantive testimony to God's eternal plan for humanity. This passage explains the tragic inability of heterosexuals to work together as equals: the female is cursed by being placed under male rule, rather than coexisting as the full and equal partner that a healthy and life-giving relationship requires. This divinely mandated order or hierarchy -- which has institutionalized a veritable "civil war of the sexes" -- fosters the incapacity for mutuality that renders stable heterosexual relationships nearly impossible -- a fitting punishment for the failure to act in obedience to the God who welcomed his creatures into a relationship based on mutual trust and responsibility.

The rest of the biblical material portrays the unfortunate consequence of this constitutional incapacity. Even the patriarch Abraham, who in all other respects was a model of fidelity, was willing to deny his wife and turn her over as a potential concubine. (Gen. 12.13) The overwhelming majority of heterosexual relationships portrayed in Scripture are devoid of any appearance of human care, affection, mutuality, concern, or love. Few of the heterosexual relationships that do evince a degree of personal commitment are monogamous. For example, Elkanah shows real fondness for his barren wife Hannah, but not enough to refrain from having a second wife to bear him children. One is hard pressed to find even a handful of faithful, loving, lifelong, monogamous, heterosexual relationships in the whole of Scripture.

We must remember, however, that God's power is perfected in weakness. The people of Israel departed from the true path time and again, yet were capable of repentance and redemption. So too, God will be patient with erring heterosexuals who repent of their sinful behavior and return to God. The analogy between Israel's corporate misbehavior and the personal behavior of heterosexuals is firmly and dramatically linked in Scripture: heterosexual adultery and prostitution are types of idolatry on Israel's part throughout the prophetic and poetic literature, so much so that at times it is difficult to determine if the acts under condemnation are cultic or sexual in nature. The heterosexual activity (real or figurative) is almost always paired with a call to repentance, and an offer of divine forgiveness. A striking example of this in the New Testament is Jesus' forgiveness of the woman taken in adultery. The Lord forgives her, while making it clear he considers her behavior to be "sin." This is one of the few times the Gospel directly and specifically designates any behavior by the title of "sin." Indeed, of all specific individual acts identified in the Gospel as "sin," half are heterosexual in nature; the others relate to the denial and betrayal of Jesus himself. It is a sign of God's great mercy that the former sins are forgiven while the latter are retained: this fact should serve as a reminder of the gravity of heterosexual sin in God's eyes as well as God's patience with the sinner.

Disease and the other consequences of heterosexual acts

It is incumbent upon the church to avoid suggesting that the high frequency of infant mortality, death in childbirth (which until the introduction of antiseptic procedures was common worldwide), and sexually transmitted disease represent in some way God's specific punishment of individual heterosexuals for their sinful behavior. All human beings share in common mortality, fall prey to disease throughout their lives, and ultimately suffer death. Disease and death may therefore be seen as a tragic consequence of Original Sin rather than of the particular sins of any individual or group.

However, we would be negligent in our task were we to fail to note the biblical witness on this matter. The "knowledge" of good and evil that results from tasting the fruit of the forbidden tree is intimately linked with the shame in nakedness that leads to the effort to conceal the secondary sexual characteristics that distinguish heterosexuals. The taking of the fruit of knowledge leads almost immediately to Adam's first heterosexual experience after the Fall, in which he "knows" his wife. The Fall also results in God's double curse upon Eve: sexual longing for her husband coupled with submission to his domination, rendering a mature love based on equality virtually impossible.

In God's judgment upon Eve, travail in childbirth is singled out as a means to punish womankind for having led mankind astray (Gen. 3.16). It is true that this judgment is partially deferred in the Deuteropauline literature, where it is promised that a woman believer will be "brought safely through childbirth"; that is, a woman's faith will preserve her through this difficult trial, her faith serving as a balance to Eve's primal infidelity. (1 Tim. 2.12-15) Finally, though we refrain from making any direct connection at this point, it must also be acknowledged that at least one instance of child mortality is explicitly related to heterosexual sin: the death of the child born of the illicit heterosexual liaison between David and Uriah the Hittite's wife. (2 Sam 12.14)

Thus procreation, while necessary for the continuance of the human species, is forever tinged with shame, imbalance, and danger as a result of the actions of the first heterosexuals. Heterosexuality is shot through-and-through with mortality, and in the New Testament becomes a type for the world that is passing away. Jesus affirms, in Luke 20.34-35, that heterosexuality -- "marrying and giving in marriage" -- belong to this age, and that those who are worthy of a share in the life of the world to come do not become entangled in the snares of this sort of behavior. While the church has not gone so far as to take Jesus literally at his word on this point, a degree of caution is nonetheless prudent. Jesus' preference for and counsel to celibacy is both a choice and a sign of the Kingdom in which heterosexuality will cease to exist, and, in his words, those worthy of resurrection will be like angels, freed from the mortality for which heterosexual procreation was the remedy. (Luke 20.36)

Moreover, it would be irresponsible of the church not to warn heterosexuals of the dire medical consequences their behavior might cause. When medical conditions (childbed fever, sexually transmitted disease, ectopic pregnancy, cervical cancer, and so on) can clearly and directly be linked with a preventable form of behavior the church is obliged to provide at least warning and counsel to avoid such acts, if possible.

Relevance of biblical material

Many today would argue that the injunctions placed upon heterosexual contact in the Law of Moses are no longer relevant to a discussion of heterosexuality. We must point out, however, the general ritual opprobrium attached to heterosexual acts. All heterosexual acts render both parties unclean at any time, due to emission of semen (Lev 15.18), and abominable at other times, due to contact with menstrual blood. (Lev 15.24, 20.18) The continued fervent condemnation of the latter abomination in the prophetic literature (Ezek. 18.5-13; 22.10), and in church tradition down through the ages (e.g., the Didascalia, Jerome, Clement of Alexandria, John Chrysostom, and Thomas Aquinas) warrants our caution in discarding the Mosaic material as simply "cultural baggage."

Heterosexual Behavior vs. the Heterosexual Condition

Some argue that while heterosexual behavior is sinful, the heterosexual condition is not, and that heterosexuals are capable of leading normal, full, and happy lives within the moral framework determined by the church.

While this is to a large extent an accurate understanding, the church must also warn of the dangers of sin at the level of volition that precedes action. Both the Old and New Testaments warn of the insidious nature of such heterosexual sin. The Tenth Commandment (Exod 20.17) clearly places the mental act of coveting one's neighbor's wife in the same moral universe as outright adultery. Jesus repeats and emphasizes this connection in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5.28). Given this Scriptural witness it is difficult to see that heterosexual inclination is in any way less culpable than heterosexual action, unless involuntary and immediately rejected by an exercise of the will and moral judgment. Such an understanding must rule as sinful, therefore, all pornographic or semi-pornographic material so widely available in our society. (The latter includes much advertising that appears, at first, to be completely unrelated to heterosexuality, but uses a heterosexual subtext in order to market a product.)

The church may be informed, if not guided, by the findings of science on this issue. However, the scientific community is not yet in full agreement as to the etiology of heterosexuality, or the treatment of its more egregious manifestations. While it appears that heterosexual behavior is to a large extent genetically conditioned, and early environmental factors play a significant part in its development -- for neither of which an individual could be held responsible -- still the possibility to refuse to engage in heterosexual acts is always available to the adult person capable of exercising reasonable and free choice. Despite the intensity of the heterosexual inclination, the exercise of the will and moral judgment can assist all but the most clinically unstable heterosexual from committing acts judged to be immoral by the church. Because of this, there can be no question about the position the church must take when dealing with unrepentant, avowed, overt and open heterosexuals who not only commit such acts, but go so far as to brag about the number of their sexual liaisons (many of them made through contacts in such sordid institutions as "singles bars"). The danger to the young -- quite apart from the risk of becoming objects of predatory heterosexuals, and perhaps by this means being recruited to their ranks -- is multiplied by the bad example heterosexuals might present if their behavior were to be mistakenly considered worthy of emulation. For this reason, any toleration of heterosexuals or heterosexuality must be examined with great care and precise clarity, lest the wrong message be sent to our young people, who represent the future of the church and society.

The marriage of heterosexuals

Given the statistics on infidelity, divorce, abortion, rape, the abuse of spouses and the predatory assault upon children by heterosexuals, it would appear that few heterosexuals are capable of the fundamental, mutual self-giving required to support a lifelong, committed relationship. The biblical material on this matter is again unambiguous. When Jesus told the disciples that the only permissible exercise of heterosexual behavior was within the context of a lifelong, faithful, monogamous marriage, his disciples exclaimed that it was impossible. Jesus went on to assert that while not impossible, it was a supernatural gift only a few could be expected to accept. (Matt. 19.10-11)

The Pauline material does not forbid heterosexual marriage, but certainly does not encourage it. Paul's preferential option is for abstinence. Paul spent much of his ministry dealing with the weaknesses of heterosexuals in the early church, counseling them, if at all possible, to avoid entering marriages he knew few of them would be able to sustain, yet allowing it for those unable to control themselves. (1 Cor 7) At the same time, Paul warned against any heterosexual activity outside marriage. Clearly this creates a pastoral dilemma for the church, and an opportunity to exercise forgiveness for those incapable --through no fault other than the constitutional weakness that afflicts so many heterosexuals -- of achieving the highest standards of Christian behavior.

The ordination of heterosexuals

The question of the ordination of active heterosexuals is not a new one. While it appears that some apostles were married (Mark 1.30), Paul clearly regards the practice with unconcealed condescension. (1 Cor 9.5) The Deuteropauline material relents slightly, and allows bishops to be married "only once." (1 Tim. 3.2) The early church allowed married persons to be ordained, except those who had gone so far to marry twice, even after being widowed; and any ordained person who sought to marry was deposed. It was soon found that stricter regulation of heterosexual tendencies was required, and the catholic church, in its wisdom, determined within a few centuries of its institutional life that bishops (and in the West, all clergy) should permanently abstain from all heterosexual activity. Since the Reformation, some churches have decided once again to permit avowed, open and active heterosexuals to serve as ministers, often with disastrous consequences, as the natural tendency toward infidelity and instability evinced by so many heterosexuals emerges in socially and morally inappropriate ways.

The heterosexual agenda

Even considering the church's call to forgiveness and understanding, it would be highly inappropriate to support the so-called "heterosexual agenda" in the secular arena. The church was, to a certain extent, taken unawares when the greatest victory of the heterosexual special interest group was achieved: the liberalization of divorce laws in many parts of the world. Similarly, heterosexual lobbyists have been hard at work mounting efforts to decriminalize heterosexual acts still forbidden by statute in many states, to lower the age of consent for sexual activity between persons of the opposite sex, and to legalize prostitution and the distribution of pornography. Heterosexuals are also fervent in their efforts to retain the special rights that they have managed to secure, rights not afforded to other citizens.

The heterosexual lobby operates politically, but a more insidious influence may well be through the disproportionate heterosexual representation in the entertainment field and in the media. Heterosexuals hold tight control over almost every communications medium, and the proportion of content favorable to heterosexuality is overwhelming. Scarcely a television program or film is released to the public without at least one major heterosexual character, often the hero or heroine, and the effects of this culture-war are already becoming evident in moves towards greater toleration of heterosexual excesses. A sign of the influence of the heterosexual movement is the growing use of the term "straight" to describe heterosexuals. This novel meaning given to a perfectly ordinary word is an example of the attempt to "mainstream" the heterosexual lifestyle, and it is fundamentally misleading -- relationships as intricate, complicated and twisted as those of most heterosexuals would scarcely be called "straight" in the ordinary sense of the word.

The church and the heterosexual

The church is not only competent to forgive the moral error involved in heterosexual acts, it is also able to appeal to the state for mercy and some consideration of the broken condition of the heterosexual offender. The church should model its behavior on Christ, who while acknowledging the sinfulness of the woman taken in adultery, enjoined the crowd to remit the punishment justly due to her. However, it would be improper for the church to seek completely to prevent the exercise of secular law, which may serve--if not as a corrective--at least as a warning of the consequences of immorality.

Conclusion

After all is said and done, we continue to affirm that heterosexuals, despite the sinfulness of their behavior, are children of God, and worthy of our care and pastoral concern. They are more to be pitied than censured. With the pastoral care and counsel of the church, firm in its resolve that there will be no outcasts, they may grow to that "full stature of mature manhood in Christ" promised to all faithful believers.

Promulgated by the Sacred Congregation for the Defense of What I Say is True is True Because I Say It

Copyright © 1994 T. S. Haller BSG

A New Deacon

On Saturday the 15th, I was honored to serve as a sponsor for Mark Robin Collins' ordination to the diaconate at the Cathedral Church of Saint John the Divine. Mark has been doing his seminarian field placement (from The Seminary, ahem) at my parish, St James Fordham in The Bronx. (And doing a superb job of it, I might add.) I'm the short one on the left, in case my avatars aren't hint enough, Mark is marked with the diaconal diagonal, and to his left are two parish stalwarts, Monica Stewart and Pearline Bashford.

It was a great day, with a superb sermon by the Rev Charles Colwell, an old friend and colleague. There were six other ordinands, and they were all glowing with diaconal élan at the end of the liturgy — which was also splendid in that great and newly cleaned space. (And I was just reminded that I got to lead the singing of the Veni Creator Spiritus from the lectern 1/8 mile away from the rose window! What a venue for a Veni!)

The folks at Saint James will be sorry to lose Mark when he graduates and is no doubt called to productive service. God bless him!

Tobias Haller BSG

September Midday Mass

The tall old priest entered the half-lit sacristy,
fresh from his usual Tuesday morning studies.
The fair-haired acolyte with the bad complexion
was ready, vested, standing in the dimness
quietly. The old priest noticed he was sniffing
and his eyes were red. A failed romance,
he thought; but keeping his own rule on chit-chat
in the sacristy, vested silently.
The old familiar motions and the prayers
displaced whatever thoughts he might have had;
the only dialogue to break the stillness was
the rote exchange of formal preparation.

Then, in one motion as he slipped his hand
beneath the pale green veil, the other hand
upon the burse, he lifted vested vessels,
turned and followed in the sniffing server’s
wake. Eyes lowered to the holy burden
in his hand, he failed to notice that
the chapel for this midday feria —
on other days like this with one or two
at most — was full of worshippers; until
he raised his eyes, and saw the pews were filled —
but undeterred began the liturgy:
the lessons and the gospel from last Sunday,
his sermon brief, but pointed, on the texts.

It wasn’t till the acolyte began
the people’s prayers, and choked out words of planes
that brought a city’s towers down, and crashed
into the Pentagon, and plowed a field
in Pennsylvania, that the old priest knew
this was no ordinary Tuesday in
September —
not ordinary time at all,
that day he missed the towers’ fall.

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG
March 8, 2008

---

Friday Cat

Could you have found nowhere else to store these palms?

She lost her sister, twice

She lost her sister, first — a blood clot
smaller than her little-fingernail
lodged in an artery. Sudden, swift,
and some said merciful,
death kindly came and stopped for her,
as the Amherst spinster said.

But these were folk from warmer latitudes —
“The Islands” or “Back Home,” and she would see to it
her sister’s body rested with her kin.

And so began the tedious task
of paperwork and plans,
till loaded on a transport,
one more crate among the others,
not the only body there to find
its place with freezers, air conditioners
and TV sets, purchased with hard-earned
US dollars, headed “Home” by air.

A sudden squall, a storm — whatever —
the black box undiscovered, told no tales;
but — long and short — the transport ditched at sea;
the crew now numbered with the packaged dead —
and all the crates — appliances and her body —
plummeting to an unintended burial at sea.

And so she lost her sister, twice. The family
would still put flowers on the empty grave,
in memory — as memory was all
that still remained.

Tobias Haller BSG

March 7, 2008

---

Quote(s) of the Day 03.05.08

...At the time of the massacre, Archbishop Peter Akinola was the president of the Christian Association of Nigeria... When asked if those wearing name tags that read “Christian Association of Nigeria” had been sent to the Muslim part of Yelwa, the archbishop grinned. “No comment,” he said...
— Eliza Griswold in The Atlantic Monthly, (hat tip to Fr Jake)

...one may smile, and smile, and be a villain.
— Wm. Shakespeare, Hamlet I.v

Feet of Clay

Bishop Sisk’s letter to the Diocese of New York, in the wake of Honor Moore’s book about her father, has generated a lot of comment in the diocese and the blogosphere. Some seem to think the primary concern was Bishop Moore’s sexuality, and I guess for the wider public interested in such things that will be the titillating revelation.

But Bishop Sisk’s primary concern was certainly not Paul’s sexuality, nor his infidelity, but much more importantly, his misconduct, described in the fifth paragraph of Bishop Sisk’s letter. The misconduct complaints were reported to the PB, and dealt with “quietly” but dealt with, over a decade before the present bishop took up his office. I know this because, although I did not know the nature of the charges, it was easy to see at the time that “something” had happened, for Bishop Moore was a member of my parish, and the scuttlebutt was that he was under some kind of discipline.

In retrospect (which is always 20/20) it would have been better for all if the matter had become public, and Bishop Moore openly sentenced, either to suspension or deposition. This would have been very painful, but it would have lanced the wound. We’ve learned a lot in the last twenty years. But people should realize how very much Paul Moore himself was responsible for imbuing a culture of evasion and concealment in the church. While he led the Diocese admirably, it could not help but reflect his own conflicted life over his long service. The mark such leaders leave upon the institutions they serve will not always be discernible but by succeeding generations.

As it is, though, Paul is dead and whatever sentence a higher tribunal will make, in the earthly arena only his memory suffers. Those who hated him in life will feel vindicated; those who admired him will feel to some extent embarrassed or pained, and some of them have directed their anger at Honor Moore or Bishop Sisk.

But Paul himself is not subject to pain inflicted post mortem. Honor Moore might be held up for criticism for telling tales she knows full well her father did not wish to have exposed. But the anger against Bishop Sisk — and the extent to which that anger distorts perceptions of what he actually wrote — seems to me to be entirely misplaced.

This is difficult for all of us. It is perhaps most difficult for those who have canonized Paul Moore in their memories. I knew and admired Paul Moore in several different contexts: as my Bishop, as Visitor to my community, and as a fellow parishioner. I also know how, in spite of his moving the issue forward, he nuanced his support of gay and lesbian people, and distanced himself with distinctions about “orientation” and “practice” when the House of Bishops came down on him. If you want to see a poignant exercise in Paul’s inability to face his own and others’ realities, and what he knew or didn’t know, read his address to the House of Bishops. He did not want to know of others that which he didn’t want known of himself. He helped us to move forward incrementally; but I wonder how much more he might have done so, had he chosen either the hard task of self-discipline, or the even harder task of self-knowledge and revelation.

For I am very weary of those who blame society for Paul’s double life in the closet, and even more those who blame the closet for his misconduct. He wasn’t “forced” — he made choices, choices which affected others than himself.

Hard as it may be for some to believe, there are celibate gay and lesbian people — some in the closet and some out. There are gay and lesbian people who marry persons of the opposite sex and who remain faithful to them — though this is a painful course I would not urge anyone to follow. There are gay and lesbian persons who remain faithful to their partners, again, some in the closet and some not.

Paul Moore was unable to follow through on his choice; he benefitted from the superficial protection it offered him. Had he been fully honest about himself, he would likely never have been a priest, certainly not a bishop — unless he chose the path of celibacy, or the virtual celibacy of the closet-with-benefits favored in his day in Anglo-Catholic circles, and still urged by some as a way to have avoided the present tensions in the Anglican Communion.

Paul Moore was a man admired by many, including myself. He is a reminder to us that not all great men are good and not all good men are great. Paul Moore did not just have feet of clay. He was, in fact, almost entirely clay -- as are we all. He was inbreathed by God, yet lived a fallible life. He is now dead. He will rise again. Christ died for Paul’s sins as he did for yours and mine, and at the judgment he will stand as we will, acquitted solely because the judge is also our only mediator and advocate.

Tobias Haller BSG

---

When 5'3" meets 6'5" — Tobias and Paul after a 1983 liturgy

Bread and Fuel

On NPR Weekend Edition this morning, a commentator told of his old school-teacher's maxim that a slice of pizza should cost the same as a subway token, and that until recently this has tracked rather well. Due to recent increases in the cost of flour, however, pizzerias (or is it pizzerie?) will now be forced to raise their per-slice cost to $3, while the Metrocard will still let you get away with a $2 subway ride.

This reminded me of a childhood awareness that a loaf of bread generally cost as much as a gallon of gas. I'm talking kinder and gentler times in the 50s when both cost about 29 cents. They have tracked rather well for the last half-century (at least for the premium blends like Pepperidge Farms, Arnold, and so on).

The interesting thing I learned from the news story this morning is that the reason for the recent increase in the cost of wheat flour is due to the decrease in acreage devoted to wheat, diverted now to corn being grown for -- perhaps you've guessed it -- ethanol!

So it seems in a spooky Borgian kind of "we are all connected" way that the cost of fuel and bread is somehow linked in an entangled state, and my childhood intuition reflected some deeper reality.

Oh... and "resistance is futile."

Tobias Haller BSG

Not about Food

I am becoming more than a little annoyed at people bringing up Paul's advice to the Corinthians (in the eighth chapter of his first letter to them) as if it had relevance to the present debates and tensions in the Episcopal Church and wider Anglican Communion. The analogy is most often made by casting the Episcopal Church in the role of the knowledgeable Corinthians who should refrain from exercising their liberty for the sake of the weaker brethren who might be led into sin.

In case you don't remember you might want to go back and reread that chapter. (You might also want to take a look at the last half of Chapter 10 where the theme returns.) The issue concerns people who, like Paul, know that there is only one God and that idols are simply dead statues. For such enlightened folk eating food that has been "offered to an idol" is no more problematical than eating anything else. It doesn't "mean" anything because an idol is "meaningless." But a less well-informed seeker from that pagan society, newly come to Christianity but still preserving some superstitious belief that idols might actually represent some secondary divinity or demon or other, seeing a full-fledged Christian eating food offered to an idol, might then themselves eat food offered to an idol in earnest --- that is, thinking that it is all right to actually eat food offered to one of these pagan deities or demons. Which is, of course, a sin of idolatry.

So the moral issue is twofold: first, on the question of idolatry, that it is sinful to eat food offered to an idol if you think an idol represents a real divine or demonic entity, but not sinful if you know there's no such thing as a secondary divinity or demon. The second moral issue, at the center of Paul's concern, is that although the "knowledgeable" Christians are not sinning, they may be leading their weaker brethren into committing sin. It is important to keep Paul's moral relativism in mind in this case: the act itself is morally neutral, only sinful or not depending on whether you believe in idols or not. Eating meat offered to idols is only sin if you believe in idols.

The analogy with the present state of the Anglican Communion fails on a number of counts. First, does this really extend to a general principle --- that is, once one gets beyond the immediate question of food offered to idols, is there some basic rule that one should always defer to the "weaker brethren" regardless of the moral issue in question? Did Paul "give in" to the weaker brethren on the issue of circumcision (which he admitted mattered "for nothing" yet was very exercised about in addressing the Galatians)? Of course not; so even Paul did not apply this principle to the things he felt strongly about. He told the Galatians not to give in to the "mutilators" because he thought they were wrong, and even if circumcision didn't matter, it was a symbolic act that to his mind undid a central Gospel concept: trust in Christ instead of in the Law. He never implied it would be all right to just go ahead and get circumcised — it counts for nothing after all — in order to keep the peace. This would have led others into getting circumcised thinking it was necessary to do so — the very position Paul is most eager to oppose.

Secondly, the parallel breaks down over the question of what sin the weaker brethren are being led into committing. In the present tension over sexuality we are not dealing with something that is held to be permissible if you think about it one way and not permissible if you think about it another way -- in the fundamental sense of the case it is not at all like food offered to idols. Saying that same-sex relationships that are mutual, faithful, and lifelong are capable of grace and of moral goodness does not lead anyone who doesn't agree with that premise to enter into a same-sex relationship while thinking it morally wrong. Rather, we are dealing with a question of whether a certain form of relationship is permitted or not, morally right or not. The present situation is simply not analogous to the one Paul is describing.

Finally, and most importantly, we are not dealing with such a trivial matter (as Paul maintained) as food offered to idols. We are dealing with the extent to which the church is causing harm by maintaining a teaching that is actually costing people their lives — and that includes people in Nigeria perhaps more than here in the US. To what extent are hate crimes fueled by religious belief? To what extent are such crimes in Nigeria and the West Indies given tacit support by church leadership -- the very so-called "weaker brethren" that some are trying to protect from the "scandal" of having to be in Communion with a church that -- as a whole, and through its legitimate process of decision making -- has come to disagree with them on this issue? Who are the "weaker brethren" and who is "puffed up with knowledge" in adopting a superior tone and telling the rest of the world what it must do? The loose structure of the Communion (up until now) was capable of providing adequate space for people to disagree without going into schism or requiring compliance by all to the belief of some. But that is not good enough for those insistent that all toe their line. TEC has not required anyone else to conform to its views; but voices from the "Global South," though they may dwindle in numbers, continue to insist that theirs is the only way forward. Who is acting in the spirit of deference to which Paul called us, and more importantly, in the Spirit of Christ, in this case?

Tobias Haller BSG

Paul Moore and a Thought for 02.27.08

Given that the church is not a society of the perfect but a hospital for sinners, it is good to remember that doctors and nurses too suffer with their own illnesses and injuries.

Tobias Haller BSG
I snapped the photograph of Bishop Moore in the fall of 1983

Thought for 02.26.08

It is a terrible thing to "call evil good and good evil," but it is only the latter that represents a sin against the Holy Spirit. So, if we are to err (as err we do), let us adopt the prudent practice of risking letting the guilty go free rather than making the innocent suffer.

Tobias Haller BSG

Thought for 02.23.08

Faith holds fast to what is past, hope looks for what is to come; love exists in the present, and only in the present can love exist. This is why love is eternal, for it is always now, always coming into being, always giving itself away, always dying to itself.

Tobias Haller BSG

Thought for 02.22.08

Given that "all of us make many mistakes" (James 3:2) — and that this applies to the church as much as to individuals (Articles XIX, XXI) — autonomy is preferable to hegemony, in order to encapsulate error while allowing opportunity for healthy developments to arise and be tested locally before being accepted globally.

Tobias Haller BSG

Presiding Bishop Defends Slavery

Here, therefore, lies the true aspect of the controversy, and it is evident that it can openly be settled by the Bible. For every Christian is bound to assent to the rule of the inspired Apostle, that "sin is the transgression of the law," namely the law laid down in the Scriptures by the authority of God -- the supreme "lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy." From his Word there can be no appeal. No rebellion can be so atrocious in his sight as that which dares to rise against his government. No blasphemy can be more unpardonable than that which imputes sin or moral evil to the decrees of the eternal Judge, who is alone perfect in wisdom, in knowledge, and in love....

With entire correctness, therefore, your letter refers the question to the only infallible criterion -- the Word of God. If it were a matter to be determined by my personal sympathies, tastes, or feelings, I would be as ready as any man to condemn the institution of slavery; for all my prejudices of education, habit and social position stand entirely opposed to it. But as a Christian, I am solemnly warned not to be "wise in my own conceit," and not to "lean unto my own understanding." As a Christian, I am compelled to submit my weak and erring intellect to the authority of the Almighty. For then only can I be safe in my conclusion, when I know that they are in accordance with the will of Him, before whose tribunal I must render a strict account to the last great day....

First, then we ask what the divine Redeemer said in reference to slavery. And the answer is perfectly undeniable: He did not allude to it at all. Not one word of censure upon the subject is recorded by the Evangelists who gave His life and doctrines to the world. Yet, slavery was in full existence at the time, throughout Judea; and the Roman Empire, according to the historian Gibbon, contained sixty millions of slaves on the lowest probable computation! How prosperous and united would our glorious republic be at this hour, if the eloquent and pertinacious declaimers against slavery had been willing to follow their Savior's example!

-- The Rt. Rev. John Henry Hopkins, Bishop of Vermont and Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church, writing in 1861 in A Scriptural, Ecclesiastical, and Historical View of Slavery, from the Days of the Patriarch Abraham to the Nineteenth Century, pages 5-12 passim

Not near so much like a Communion

In the preceding post but one, Jane R made a comment about how difficult some people find it to understand that Anglicans do not form a single world-wide church under a single government, but rather a communion of self-governing churches.

This is certainly true in our relationship with Roman Catholics. I was reminded of the comments of a Cardinal some years back, who complained, I believe to Archbishop Runcie, that they never knew where they stood with Anglicans, because the Americans could go ahead and have women bishops while England didn't. "We don't know who we're talking to" he said, or words to that effect. The implication is that if only Anglicans could learn to be a bit more organized and centrally governed, they would be much easier for Rome to work with than they are at present.

In the context of the present disagreements about the chaotic nature of the Communion as a whole, and the development of a Covenant to give it a firmer and more cohesive form of — government is too strong a word — rational organization, in which I perceive the influence of certain Romeward impulses at a number of levels, I was reminded of this wonderful interchange from Pride and Prejudice, by the inimitable Jane Austen:

"I should like balls infinitely better," she replied, "if they were carried on in a different manner; but there is something insufferably tedious in the usual process of such a meeting. It would surely be much more rational if conversation instead of dancing made the order of the day.''

"Much more rational, my dear Caroline, I dare say, but it would not be near so much like a ball."

We could well continue to strive to bolster greater centrality in the organization and governance of the Anglican Communion, which might please the Roman Catholics and other Carolines of this world, giving them someone to converse with without the need for fancy footwork; and at the same time transform Lambeth from a gathering for fellowship and prayer into a Synodical Body for the Purpose of Settling Issues — both would be ever so much more rational, but then neither would be near so much like the Anglican Communion.

Tobias Haller BSG

Thought for 02.15.08

A thought sparked by comments in a post of the Mad Priest:

Real Evangelicals know that God has forgiven all our sins through the blood of the Cross; False Evangelicals think that God is cross because of our sinful blood.

Tobias Haller BSG

RSVP Reçu

Five of the Primates of GAFCON have responded via Nigeria to the letter from twenty-one English Evangelical Bishops beseeching them to come to Lambeth.

So now there are five clear signatures (or names at any rate) on the Not Going to Lambeth For Sure (Maybe) List. Venables is now listed among them, joining Akinola, Orombi, Nzimbi and Kolini. Jensen is not listed, though perhaps this is because he is not a Primate.

The signatories say they will not feel "at home" and will find themselves beset by "activists" -- rather than being assisted by an Archbishop such as their "champion" George Carey, who helped them through their "great difficulty in making [their] case heard in the face of the process of the conference [in 1998]." Yes, we know how helpful the Archbishop was in 1998. I would say he helped them make their case very clearly indeed.

Once again it appears that sexuality is the sticking-point for these bishops, the one point of Scriptural interpretation upon which they seem unable to conceive a legitimate difference of opinion. That was their view in 1998, and so it is now. Nothing has changed. One hopes this will once again silence the blather of those who persist in saying "It isn't just about sexuality." On the contrary, yes it is.

I continue to hope that their absence will remain circumstantial and topical, and that they are not heading towards the establishment of an alternative "Anglican" Communion. While I believe in laissez-faire, I am also of the mind that institutions can take on a life or longevity of their own, and persist long after the reason for their coming into existence has faded. The "walking apart" of Windsor always seemed to me to imply a possibility of "coming back together" after a time. This is much more difficult once jurisdictions have been set up.

Minds change faster than institutions; another of my reasons for not favoring a Covenant mechanism for brokering institutionalized agreement.

Tobias Haller BSG

Mercy and Sacrifice

Senior Sermon for the Friday after Ash Wednesday,
being Valentine’s Day
(Isaiah 58.1-9a; Psalm 51.1-10; Matthew 9.10-17)
Preached in the Chapel of the Good Shepherd
of The General Theological Seminary, February 14, 1997
by Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG

Happy Valentine’s Day, and please be seated!

Life, as Forrest Gump repeatedly and annoyingly observed, is like a box of chocolates. By this he did not mean that life is fattening, or that life is heart-shaped and gift-wrapped and presented to loved ones on days like today. No, the perpetually optimistic Gump meant that like a box of chocolates, life holds an element of surprise. A box of chocolates, whether a Whitman’s Sampler or an elaborately beribboned and lacy Valentine’s Day heart, is a box of mystery. Each individual chocolate — unless you use the crib-sheet in the lid of the box, or have memorized the candy shapes and colors that by unalterable tradition match shape with filling — each individual chocolate promises a small bit of excitement for the easily entertained. And even people more jaded and blasé than Mr. Gump generally find the experience to be a happy one.

What would you say, however, if upon opening the beautifully wrapped and ribboned heart-shaped box, and biting down on the first carefully selected and promising morsel, you were to discover that you had been presented with an extra-large assortment of chocolate-covered garden slugs — each one a soft-center — with a few shards of broken glass, tin-foil, and sprinkles of white lead paint for contrast? What would you say to the person who gave you this monstrosity, standing there with a coy grin, eyebrows raised with an eager look of expectation, waiting for you to dissolve in gurgling gratitude?

If you can picture this you will have a fairly good idea of how Yahweh feels in the passage from Isaiah appointed for today. The people have offered God their multitudes of sacrifices, fat beasts with the smoke of rams, then followed up by depriving themselves of food and drink, putting ashes on their heads, dressing up in sacks and crawling around in the dust with their foreheads to the ground. And all the while they apparently think that this is exactly the sort of thing God finds most pleasing. It’s as if someone has told them, “You know, God can’t resist a really well-burnt goat, and if you want to get on God’s good side, make sure you put ashes on your head. Oh, and God just loves it when people don’t eat and dress up in bags. It just makes the Lord’s day.”

The problem, of course, is that someone has told them just about that. Herein lies the dilemma, the heart of the tension between mercy and sacrifice. For when God thunders through the prophet Amos, “Did you offer sacrifice in the wilderness those forty years?” it is not entirely out of order for the people meekly to respond, “Well, yes, actually!” Of course, as seminarians well know, much of the law of sacrifice and fasting comes to us from the priestly redactor; let’s call him “Father P.” However, from a canonical perspective this is quite beside the point. There, for the vast majority of pious Jews including Jesus himself, through the bulk of Jewish history, there in the heart of the law is the divine mandate to sacrifice and penitence.

Moreover, penitence and sacrifice were not Jewish inventions. Both flow from deep within the human heart — from mysterious pools of mythic power. The impulse to sacrifice and penitence transcends religions and cultures, races, clans, and times. Human beings have found innumerable ways to offer up what they could have used for their own benefit, or to mortify themselves for the sake of many “gods.” And this is not just the stuff of primeval forest or windblown desert. Even today many willingly offer sacrifice to the god of their ideology, some cause or crusade; others pour out their wealth into building a monument to a heroic figure or a national ideal. Not only individuals, but whole cultures arise around such worship, which takes many forms. The human heart is not only, as has been said, a perpetual manufacturer of idols, but also a perpetual Standing Liturgical Commission churning out new supplemental rites with which to worship them.

+ + +

It is, of course, the ultimate insult to treat the God who made heaven and earth like an idol, to treat God not as the ultimate subject and source, but as the object of our attentive worship, as if God needed our worship more than we need to worship God. And when such worship leads to neglect of other duties, so much the worse.

So it is that countering both the deep need welling up from the depths of the heart, and the demands of the priestly code handed down from on high, there rings out the prophet’s voice, and in the Gospel Jesus echoes it: “I desire mercy, not sacrifice.” This call and challenge, in Jesus and the prophets, is not an abrogation of human need or of divine mandate, but an effort to restore a balance of both mercy and sacrifice. This is a challenge framed in the characteristic rhetoric of prophetic hyperbole, which, in order to drive its point home to hardened hearts, often says more than it means. After all, a number of the prophets were also priests of the cult, and Jesus ate the Passover with his disciples and observed the Jewish law of sacrifice. So the prophets and Jesus weren’t calling for an either/or, but for a return to the wholesome both/and in which mercy and sacrifice balance and strengthen each other.

The prophetic words are addressed to those who have come to see sacrifice or fasting or any of the external works of piety as a means to buy God’s favor, to remind them that God doesn’t need sacrifice. God is generous, but God will not be coerced. God will take, as one unfortunate translation has it, no bull from us. God intends sacrifice for the people’s good. How? In addition to supporting a priestly clan ministering amongst a priestly people, the sacrificial system reminds all of them — priests, Levites, and Israelites — that their blessings come from God and are owed to God. The sacrifice does not purchase God’s blessing; rather it reminds the people that they have been blessed, and invites them to share that blessing.

Unfortunately, as we heard in the reading from Isaiah, sacrifice and fasting became for many a transaction in which God was reduced to a kind of heavenly appliance, producing blessings-to-order in exchange for services rendered. And the people of Israel were not the only folk to drift into this mind set: the medieval church slid along the same groove as it shifted from penitence to penance — and the eucharist itself became a commodity, so many masses at a penny apiece to trim one’s term in purgatory.

Jesus and the prophets reminded the people of their slide into this commercial formalism, of sacrifice unseasoned with the salt of mercy; and so did the reformers of the church — catholic and protestant — through the turmoil of the mid-millennium, and the church has tottered between extremes and walked the tightrope even unto this day, even to this hour, even to this church, this chapel.

You have heard it said — I know I have heard it preached — that Christians shouldn’t be so involved in liturgy; that the “real work” of the church lies out in the world — and today’s texts are held up in support of that argument. However, this approach, if carried to its logical conclusion, would do away with all external worship whatsoever — which is impossible. It is impossible because the tendency to liturgical obsession is just as —if not more — insidious when a church imagines itself to be “non-liturgical” — the little inner Standing Liturgical Commission simply turns its attention to such matters as where the flag should go, or how the preacher holds his floppy bible. Press the envelope further with me — even the works of mercy themselves can become as formalized as the works of worship: the flip side of the coin with which I am tempted to buy or earn God’s favor rather than enjoying — and sharing — God’s freely given grace. Just as self-centered sacrifice can become its opposite, idolatry, so too mercy, if it is not seasoned with true self-sacrifice and the overflow of a compassionate heart, can become its shadow-self, patronizing benevolence, against which Jesus warned his disciples at the Passover meal he shared with them before he suffered.

+ + +

So how do we keep the delicate balance between mercy and sacrifice? As with many dilemmas, the solution lies at the heart of the problem. The liturgy itself, capable as it is of being misused, is a God-given means to help restore this balance. The record shows that the church is most effective in its social action when it takes its liturgy seriously but not obsessively: and this is true whether that liturgy be conducted in chasuble or Geneva gown, as a High Mass or a Quaker Meeting. For the liturgy is the school of love; the heart of sociability from which effective social action flows; the rehearsal for the wedding of the Lamb. In this school, at this rehearsal, we can be serious, without ever being somber — serious with the deep and joyful seriousness of children at play, children who alone know the way to heaven. We can enjoy our worship as loving service we perform for each other, in which our service mirrors the divine love.

After all, God is not, as someone once said, “a nice old man who likes to be read to.” I am told that God is completely indifferent as to whether we use Rite One or Rite Two, so long as we speak in the accents of love. The God who set the Pleiades in their place, who shows the Great Bear its way, and orders the planets in their march is not terrifically impressed by our processions or our liturgical choreography — but these acts can order and join our hearts and focus our attention on Jesus, the one who did the greatest balancing act of all, up there on the cross, perfect mercy and perfect sacrifice all in one.

Thus is the habit of mercy learned at the heart of sacrifice. And if we cannot learn it here in the shadow of the cross, we will not be able to learn it or practice it anywhere else.

We gather here in this place to hear the word, to break the bread and share the cup. The Holy Spirit descends upon us and upon the gifts we offer in a sacrifice of thanksgiving in and for and through the mercy of Christ, in which we partake of that holiness, and are made holy and one, even as God is holy and one — and then we are equipped to go forth for service to the wounded world.

This is what we do when we gather at this table to share our daily rations, our fast-like feast, the pilgrim food we feed to one another until the bridegroom comes. Do you know what will happen then? Let me tell you a mystery. Our present fast is over and the Bridegroom returns. We have nothing with which to welcome him, nothing but ourselves, our souls and bodies; even our oil lamps are almost burned out. He’s been a long time coming.

But the Bridegroom comes and brings a wedding gift in his own hands. And — wonder of wonders — the gift is for us. For by a turnabout compared with which all the happy endings of all the Cinderella stories ever told are but dim shadows, we bridesmaids and waiters and caterers and stewards — and wedding guests called here from the highways and byways and dark corners of terrible cities — we gathered here and throughout the world have been transformed into the Bride.

And the Bridegroom holds out his gift to us. It is not a heart-shaped box, all satin and lace. It is his heart, a human heart, pierced by a human spear. And from that heart there flow two streams — of water and of blood. And the stream of water is deeper and broader than the Red Sea, and colder and purer than the River Jordan. And the stream of blood is more eloquent than the blood of all the sacrifices spilled from the day of Abel on; and it speaks more clearly and more powerfully than the blood of the prophets shed by those who would not let their hearts of stone be turned to hearts of flesh.

For the water from the wounded heart of Christ is the water of mercy in which the Bride has washed herself, and the blood is the blood of the sacrifice with which he bought her, the one sacrifice of himself once offered for the sins of the whole world.

When the Bridegroom comes the wedding feast will begin. Our fast will then be ended. I cannot begin to describe the heavenly banquet that this our present fast on word and water, bread and wine, sharpens our hunger for. All I can say is this: Christ in perfect mercy is sacrificed for us; therefore let us keep the feast.

---

The image at the head of this sermon is from a series of visual mediations on Genesis 3:1-7 by members of the Brotherhood of Saint Gregory. This was my contribution to the exercise.

$.02 on San Joaquin

While I would not use, as some have, the word stink, the DSJ situation is a mess. It represents a situation unconceived-of in the canons and constitution. I am of the opinion that the Standing Committee did not cease to exist on the illegal actions taken by the Convention, or as a result of their failure to interpose an action in the Convention’s or the Bishop’s path; in the absence of certain knowledge, I assume at least some members of the Standing Committee were elected at previous sessions of the Convention, not all of them at the “Robbers’ Synod” (a reference for all you church history buffs out there).

In any case, the duly elected Standing Committee has a canonical responsibility and is not merely a creature of the Convention, even though elected by it — any more than the Bishop is a creature of Convention because elected by it.

Moreover, I disagree with those who see this as being a “systems” thing. There are only, in this case, individuals, since a Diocese cannot, in fact, leave the Episcopal Church — there is no canonical way to do that apart from action of General Convention, and even then it is possible only in the case of Dioceses that are not part of the territorial United States. If you want the canons, that’s what the canons say. The “Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin of the Southern Cone of the Americas” is an “illegal fiction” with no standing whatever. There is only the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin, with a number of disobedient or disorderly members and clergy (who meeting in convention took an action they were not by law empowered to take) and one bishop (now awaiting deposition), together with a number of loyal and obedient clergy and members.

The question comes down to, and has been posed as: does casting an improper vote or failing to exercise due diligence in preventing improper actions by others cause one automatically to abdicate an elected office? I would say not, for there are canonical procedures in place to address these failings; there is no mere ipso facto deposition absent an action by those with the authority to impose such a sentence. Even if the charge is abandonment of the communion of this Church (which is well appropriate if one voted to leave it and join Cono Sur) this should properly be addressed by the use of the canon next after the one already applied to the errant Bishop.

The situation is complicated by the fact that it is the Standing Committee itself that normally brings charges in such a case. As the old Latin tag has it, Qui custodet ipsos custodes — who will guard the guardians?

My view, then, is that if the members of the former/existing Standing Committee can unambiguously reaffirm their allegiance to The Episcopal Church (the real one), they should be able to continue to function as members of the Standing Committee of the Episcopal Diocese, and serve out terms until the next elections by the diocesan convention. (I disagree, by the way, with the language suggesting that there is a need to “reconstitute” the diocese; some organization and reordering is needed, but the diocese still exists, and the illegal efforts to amend its constitution are void.) This may, in fact, be what is happening in the interplay of letters and conversations, and the continued hard work on the ground by a number of folks, not least of them the Presiding Bishop.

We can only hope for some greater clarity as time goes on. But to blame the present problem on Katherine Jefferts Schori is not helpful: she is attempting to deal with a novel situation created by Bishop John David Schofield’s hubristic folly, “L’eglise, c’est moi.”

Tobias Haller BSG

---