Censured by the Club

The House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church is rather like an old exclusive men's club. In normal times it goes through its business in sedately fraternal style. But these are not normal times. The ordination of women to the priesthood has developed into the most divisive Episcopal issue since the "high church-low church" wars of a century ago. Last week at their annual meeting in Portland, Me., the bishops voted 118-18 to censure three of their retired or resigned members for ordaining women priests in violation of church canons.

It was the strongest action the House of Bishops had taken against any of its members since 1966, when it assailed the late Bishop James A. Pike of California for "irresponsible" doctrinal statements. In the Portland discussions, some prelates fumed about the "total lawlessness" of their three colleagues. Retired Bishop William Moody of Lexington, Ky., a traditionalist, remarked that if any more women receive illegal ordinations, he would seek permission to bestow holy orders on Secretariat. "We already have parts of the horse," he allowed. "Why not the whole thing?" Before the vote, one of the two rebel prelates present, retired Bishop Edward Welles, 68, of west Missouri, said he had deliberately disobeyed the law to "get justice" for women.

In effect, the censure was both the most and the least that could be done. The House of Bishops had inherited the case after a board of inquiry decided that church courts had no jurisdiction. The House could have ordered a trial, but Presiding Bishop John Allin pleaded, "No trials--we don't have time for trials." At the same time, most of the bishops wanted to oppose strongly their colleagues' defiance of canon law.

Pricklier Problems. The censure of the trio, however emphatic, has no effect on their rights to preside over church ceremonies. But Bishop Robert Rusack has banned from his Los Angeles diocese a fourth prelate, George Barrett, the resigned bishop of Rochester, whose ordination of more women last month was "decried" at Portland. Meanwhile, many of the 14 women with disputed priestly credentials continue to celebrate Holy Communion in defiance of local bishops.

The House of Bishops could soon face far pricklier problems. Despite the censure, a majority of bishops favor the idea of women's ordination. A change, however, must also win approval from the House of Deputies (priests and laity) at next year's bicameral church convention. With substantial priestly opposition expected, next year's decision looks "nip and tuck," said Washington, D.C.'s Bishop William Creighton, who favors the change.

There is already impassioned talk of schism, whether the convention says yes or no. If ordination wins, the bishops may propose a local-option solution like that adopted by the Anglican Church of Canada, where each diocese has the right to decide whether to ordain women as priests. Chicago's Bishop James Montgomery says he would not bar ordinations in his diocese, but he might refuse to conduct them himself.

Many bishops are concerned about the Episcopal Church ordaining women on its own, rather than moving in concert with fellow Anglican churches, Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism. Two bishops, back from Rome, added greatly to that worry. They reported that the head of the Vatican's ecumenical office had informed them that although women's ordination would not halt the continuing official talks that are being held between Anglican and Catholic theologians, it would introduce a "serious new element" of tension. Meanwhile, an editorial in the Orthodox Church in America's monthly suggests that Episcopal approval would be "an act of obvious factionalism and separateness."

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.