|
|
If any action is taken to inhibit their ministry, it will come after months of fitful negotiations between the priests and Bishop Andrew Smith, the head of the Episcopalian Diocese of Connecticut, a process both sides contend has been painful and trying.
The dispute between the individual parishes and the bishop stems from the Episcopal Church of the United States of America's (ECUSA's) decision to accept the ordination of a practicing homosexual, the Rt. Rev. V. Eugene Robinson, as New Hampshire's bishop.
Bishop Smith confirmed that decision much to the chagrin of many in the Episcopal Church, including the six dissenting clergymen whose parishes in Bristol, Darien, Groton, East Haven and Watertown are all part of the American Anglican Council's national network of conservative parishes.
According to Karin Hamilton, the director of communications and media for the Episcopal Diocese of Connecticut, the differences of opinion over matters of the church's policy towards sexuality are nothing unusual.
"There were, and there are, a number of clergy and lay persons in parishes that think it was the wrong position for the church to take. Some churches thought it was great. There is a wide range of opinion in the Episcopalian Church," she said.
Ms. Hamilton said it was what happened next that led to the standoff.
In response to the controversy over the confirmation of Bishop Robinson, the church instituted a policy under which individual parishes could request shared oversight that involves a bishop whose own ideology more closely mirrors the parishes' views-if church leaders took issue with their bishop's ideology.
Knowing that his position made some parishes in Connecticut uncomfortable, Bishop Smith decided to offer the program, called Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight, or DEPO for short.
The six aforementioned parishes accepted the offer.
Under DEPO, Bishop Smith would still have ultimate authority over parishes, but would delegate some of his normal duties to another bishop.
This, Ms. Hamilton said, is where the impasse began.
"The six parishes wanted to meet as a group with the bishop," she said earlier this week. "They had additional conditions that they wanted added to what was offered, and they didn't want delegated oversight, they wanted alternative oversight. They did not want the oversight of the bishop at all."
This difference led to rounds of negotiations, which ultimately came to a standstill this winter and led to the bishop charging that these priests had violated church canon law by not allowing the bishop to visit their parishes, not contributing the standard 12.5 percent of their operational revenues to the diocese and not continuing to engage in talks with the bishop about resolving the disagreement.
In March, Bishop Smith's charges were upheld by the church's Standing Committee, a group of elders whose authority supercedes the local authority and who act as a quasi-judiciary body. That action led to the threats of inhibition.
According to Ms. Hamilton, Bishop Smith set a deadline of April 15 for the priests to resume negotiations or face inhibition, which is equivalent to suspension. If no progress is made, Bishop Smith could then dispose, or defrock, the priests completely.
For his part, the Watertown priest, Mr. Benedict, takes issue with the bishop's office's version of events.
"First, we have never refused to meet with the bishop. We have sought to do exactly the opposite," he said.
"We have asked to meet all together as we have common concerns," he continued. "In fact, each rector has also met with [the bishop] personally and privately at his office in Hartford within the last six months."
He does acknowledge, however, that it has not exactly business as usual between the bishop and the parishes, but contends that the parishes are not be willfully disobedient.
"During this time there had been, by mutual agreement, a suspension of the normal Episcopalian visits to our parishes, but that is by mutual agreement," he commented.
"No church in this group of six churches has ever denied the bishop access to our parishes," he said emphatically.
By way of example, Mr. Benedict said that the bishop has "been down to Darien to meet with parishioners there-it just wasn't a normal Episcopal visit, which would usually happen during a service."
Not acknowledging disobedience, Mr. Benedict insinuated that Bishop Smith was the one whose actions were out of line with church doctrine. "That [abandonment of communion] canon is in place for people who abandon the Episcopal Church and who go over to the Roman Catholic Church, and it makes no provision for a hearing or trial," he stated.
"These canons have never been used this way before in the Episcopal Church with parishes that are otherwise in good standing and with priests who are otherwise in good standing and who have not otherwise expressed themselves to be out of communion," he said.
Mr. Benedict said he feels further emboldened by a communiqué issued by the churches Primates in Ireland, which affirmed an internal report that "declared the ordination of active homosexuals as incompatible with scripture," but also called on all church disciples to "love and respond with sensitive pastoral ministry to persons who believe themselves to be homosexual."
"There's an important point there," Mr. Benedict commented, "ECUSA is itself, by definition ... a constituent member of the Anglican Communion. And our bishop's actions and teaching have taken us in a direction that will lead every parish in this diocese out of communion with the Anglican Communion."
