A controversial legal process that threw an international spotlight on the Episcopal Church's struggles over the place of homosexuals in the ordained ministry came to an apparent conclusion on 15 May as an ecclesiastical court ruled that retired Bishop Walter Righter violated no Church law or "core doctrine" when he ordained a non-celibate homosexual man as a deacon.

Because Bishop Righter signed a statement supporting the ordination of non-celibate homosexuals and ordained the Revd Barry Stopfel, now Rector of St. George's in Maplewood, New Jersey, as a deacon in 1990, 10 bishops charged him in January, 1995, with "holding and teaching . . . doctrine contrary to that held by this Church" under the so-called 'heresy' canon, and with violating his ordination vows.

A seven-to-one majority of the bishops sitting on the Court for the Trial of a Bishop ruled, however, that there is "no core doctrine prohibiting the ordination of a non-celibate, homosexual person living in a faithful and committed sexual relationship with a person of the same sex."

Likewise, the court stated that it did not find "sufficient clarity in the Church's teaching at the present time concerning the morality of same sex relationships" to support the charge that Bishop Righter violated his ordination vow to uphold the discipline of the Church.

At several points in the decision, read before an audience of nearly 200 in the sanctuary of the Cathedral Church of St. John in Wilmington, Delaware, the bishops made it clear that they were throwing the issue back to General Convention, the Episcopal Church's chief legislative body.

And the court took pains to address what they called the pastoral concerns related to their decision, calling for "mutual respect and understanding" by those holding different opinions. It urged other Christian communions--many of whom face the same difficult issue--to realize that the decision was not establishing policy for the Church.

What is core doctrine?

At issue in the case was exactly what Church doctrine is protected by the Church's canons on clergy discipline, the court stated, as the bishops in the majority took turns reading sections of a summary of their 27-page decision. The majority ruled that only "core doctrine" relating to the central salvation event of Christ's crucifixion and resurrection is automatically protected by the canon on teaching false doctrine. While other Church teachings might be enforceable under the canon, that protection has to be specifically spelled out, the majority stated.

Without clear General Convention action one way or the other, the court indicated that "this issue will not be resolved and the Church unified in its faith and practice by presentments and trials, nor by unilateral acts of bishops and their dioceses, or through the adoption of proclamations by groups of bishops or others expressing positions on the issues."

The court was also clear in limiting the scope of its decision. "We are not deciding whether life-long, committed, same gender sexual relationships are or are not a wholesome example with respect to ordination vows," the court stated. "We are not rendering an opinion on whether a bishop and diocese should or should not ordain persons living in same gender sexual relationships. Rather, we are deciding the narrow issue of whether or not under Title IV a bishop is restrained from ordaining persons living in committed same gender sexual relationships."