An Open Letter to the Bishops of Texas

By Muffie Moroney

July 18, 2003
The Rt. Rev. Don A. Wimberly
Bishop
Episcopal Diocese of Texas
3203 West Alabama Street
Houston, Texas 77098

Dear Don,

This is an open letter in reply to the June 11, 2003, message from the Bishops of the Diocese of Texas concerning the election of the Rev. Canon Gene Robinson as Bishop Coadjutor in the Diocese of New Hampshire. Because no names are attached to the document, I address my response to you since only you "exercise jurisdiction" (Constitution Art. II.2), and thus you alone are qualified to vote on Canon Robinson’s election, but please share this with the other bishops who joined in that message. Several statements you make have prompted me to respond.

You imply that matters of church politics, properly defined as the art and science of governing, are distasteful and that politics are somehow separate from, and inferior to, pastoral concerns. In the Church, the political and the pastoral cannot be separated.

Next, you say that Canon Robinson’s election "simultaneously funnels the creative energy of the faithful away from mission into internal conflict." Do you mean that because they made such a choice, the delegates to the diocesan convention in New Hampshire are not faithful? Or that they are purposely fomenting conflict to undermine the mission of the Church? Or that our internal disagreements have no place in fulfilling that mission? If so, I disagree vigorously as to all such contentions. I am confident the people of New Hampshire believed they were fulfilling their responsibility as faithful members of the Episcopal Church, that it was their prerogative to choose a bishop from their particular place in the Church, and that their choice would be honored as valid. That the Diocese of Texas might not have chosen Canon Robinson, or the Diocese of New Hampshire might not have chosen you, reinforces an essential aspect of our identity as a Church: our differences are a part of our strength, and it is in our nature not only to disagree but to accept and welcome disagreement. I am surprised and troubled that you do not acknowledge that fundamental — and defining — characteristic of the Episcopal Church.

Finally, you state that you "have consistently opposed the ordination of non-celibate homosexuals" and that therefore you oppose Canon Robinson’s confirmation. Your focus on celibacy raises a number of concerns about the propriety of asking that question generally and the circumstances under which it might be proper. Canon Jeffrey John, appointed by the Crown as a bishop in the Church of England, volunteered that he and his partner have not had sex for years, but that disclosure did not calm the hysteria of some people over his appointment (although the Crown apparently was not perturbed by their relationship). One lesson from Canon John’s experience is that the question of celibacy is not relevant to extremists who flatly oppose the ordination of gays and lesbians, whether they are celibate or not.

For anyone in the Episcopal Church to invoke the test of sexual celibacy against a gay or lesbian person — who at this point in time cannot be married — or to oppose an episcopal election on that basis, not only offends sensibilities but also violates canons prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation and marital status.

When might it be proper to inquire about a person’s sexual practices, or ask questions about a person’s marital status? If there is evidence of misconduct, or if abnormal psychological indicators appear, certainly these would constitute reasons for raising questions in these areas. But without evidence of impropriety or other extenuating circumstances, as a general rule it simply is not the business of the Episcopal Church to inquire about intimate details related to the adult, consensual relationships of its clergy.

I drafted the enclosed summary of my thoughts in response to your June 11 message as I prepared for a telephone interview with Richard Vara, religion writer for the Houston Chronicle. Although the interview has not made its way into print yet, I wanted you to have a copy of this document because I was invited to post it on the House of Bishops/Deputies internet listserve. These observations are grounded in our polity, our identity as a Church, and in the national canons. In Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold’s letter to all bishops, he said "we need to respect the action of the Diocese of New Hampshire." I believe our canons require that we defer to the Diocese of New Hampshire, not merely respect its action. In light of the clear meaning of the Episcopal Church’s canons prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation and marital status, there is no impediment to Canon Robinson’s confirmation.

Your message may have pleased some readers, but I assure you, it has outraged many others. It is not pastoral because it has inflamed division and will lead to unhealthy political/economic consequences. To be sure, you are entitled to your own opinion on the subject of Canon Robinson’s election in New Hampshire. But in your role as a bishop for the whole Church and for this entire diocese, you are not entitled to issue a divisive and hurtful a statement such as the one of June 11, which has caused damage that cannot be measured. I urge you to retract it.

Faithfully,

Muffie Moroney

Muffie Moroney is a lawyer who is a member of St. Stephen’s Episcopal Church in Houston, Texas. She is also a member of the board of directors of the Episcopal Church Publishing Company (publisher of The Witness magazine). Muffie may be reached by email at mmoroney@hal-pc.org

June 11, 2003

A Message from the Bishops of the Diocese of Texas

We believe that the New Hampshire election is unfortunate for everyone in the church because it forces a political rather than a pastoral resolution to our disagreements. It simultaneously funnels the creative energy of the faithful away from mission into internal conflict.

In terms of our position in this matter, we have consistently opposed the ordination of non-celebate homosexuals, and we oppose the confirmation of the New Hampshire election.

We ask your continuing prayers for the church.