Angry in the Great White North

In yet another twist on the Church and State dance, six Episcopal priests who argue that their Church has abandoned its own theology are looking to the State for legal relief:

(Hartford, Connecticut) Six Episcopal parishes at the center of a dispute over gay clergy filed a federal lawsuit Tuesday alleging that their civil rights have been violated by Connecticut's bishop, the head of the U.S. Episcopal Church and others.

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

The six priests had asked to be supervised by a different bishop because they disagreed with Smith's support for Robinson.

So being a practicing homosexual gets you ordained as a bishop, but suggesting that it is counter to explicit scriptural references earns you a different treatment:

One of the priests was subsequently suspended and five others have been threatened with suspension.

The plaintiffs also contend that the diocesan officials violated state law when they took over St. John's Church in Bristol, one of the six churches involved in the dispute. Smith used his power to "inhibit" the Rev. Mark Hansen and appoint another priest to lead the church.

So what are these priests hoping for?

The wide-ranging 67-page lawsuit alleges that the priests were fraudulently charged with abandoning communion and denied due process because they were not tried in religious courts.

What a mess.

This is tricky. I think these priests have been shabbily treated by a Church that is continuing to veer farther and farther away from Christian teaching.

Having said that, I think they path that they have embarked on is the wrong one. To invite the State to inject itself into the workings of the Church today is to allow them to enter uninvited tomorrow. The Episcopalian Church seems to have ignored its own rules, both theoligically and with regards to its own regulations. Unfortunately, by my reasoning, there is no compentent temporal authority to which to appeal.

These priests need to go to a higher authority. They need to pray and meditate and decide whether the Anglican communion is truly a body in communion with Christ. Clearly they believe it is not. But fear is preventing them from following through. They have been suspended or threatened with suspension. I am surprised they have not simply left under their own volition and sought out a faith that follows Scripture more faithfully.

Of course, they are worried about their congregations:

"We have been left with no choice but to seek intervention by the civil courts in order to protect our constitutional rights and serve our congregations without interference and harassment," said the Rev. Christopher Leighton of St. Paul's Church in Darien. "We are being punished for upholding Biblical truth as well as Anglican teaching, faith and practice, and our ability to proclaim the Gospel is being dramatically hindered."

If the Episcopalian Church is preventing them from serving their congregations, they need to consider whether the spiritual needs congregations are being served by the Church. At the end of the day, the best thing that these priest have the power to do is to make the same argument to the congregation too.

For what it's worth, they are not the only Anglicans who don't look to the Anglican Church for moral guidance:

As with all Protestant sects, Anglicans suffer from their rejection of the Church's moral authority. Even Queen Elizabeth II's biographer was forced to admit as much when he explained her invitation of Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O´Connor to preach at her residence:

"The majority of Englishmen still look, naturally, to the Church of England as a moral guide at key moments of life, such as marriage, children's education and national mourning. Yet, when questions arise on issues of bioethics, the BBC interviews the Catholic primate rather than the Anglican leaders, because on these issues, in the moral area, the Catholic Church has a more defined line."

The figurehead of the Anglican church, the "Archbishop" of Canterbury, holds no actual authority on issues of faith and morals, which can vary wildly from one "bishop" to the next. One Anglican "bishop" may support abortion, homosexuality or fetal experimentation while another may reject them. Somehow, they are all considered part of the same religion. No wonder the Queen of England turned to a Catholic bishop who (we hope) speaks for the Pope and the Church rather than any random Anglican "bishop" giving his opinion on matters.

Well, if Catholicism is good enough for the Queen...and then this from a convert from the Anglican Church:

The logic and coherence of the Catholic position appealed to me. It seemed to stand as a rock in a stormy sea—just as our Lord predicted. Yes, there were dissenting voices in the Catholic Church, but they could not capture the castle. The gates were locked by the keys given to Peter by our Lord. All I could see within Anglicanism and "mainline" Protestantism was a nightmare world of doctrinal change. This change was not only the monopoly of the liberal, as even some Evangelicals were advocating the remarriage of the divorced, contraception, and the ordination of women. In parts of the Anglican communion, the debate was moving to the acceptance of "faithful gay" relationships and lay celebration of the Eucharist.

Apparently, many more people find this intellectual and theological rigour appealing:

Conversions to Catholicism grew at a steady 10% to 15% per decade, stalled during the tumultuous '60s, then picked up again during the 24-year pontificate of John Paul II, says Matthew Bunson, editor of The Catholic Almanac. In 1973, nearly 80,000 adults were initiated into the Catholic Church in the USA; last year, 161,000 were.

I hope these priests and their families find a solution.