I support discernment on anyone’s part as to just how the Holy Spirit is moving in their lives—no exceptions. This postulant has my personal commitment to do all I can to support that discernment.

AND

I have decided not to move forward with this postulant in the ordination process until this diocesan effort is conducted and the results are collected

???

Sophistry!

One CANNOT both "do all I can to support that discernment" of an individual *AND* hold that individual's discernment captive to externals which ONLY apply to that individual (or a singular class).

It's one or the other, Bishop Johnston. Which will it be?

JC Fisher

With all due respect to the bishop, this is a specious argument. The "no right to ordination" clause should be read as saying that no individual has a right to ordination. The intent of the canon seems to be to say that no one can be denied access to the ordination process simply because they are a member of a protected class of persons. It is an attempt to spell out in canonical language the clear implications of Holy Baptism. To paraphrase what a former colleague used to say about women in holy orders, if you don't want to ordain at least some partnered LGBT folk, then stop baptizing them. An argument like the bishop's seems to be made up after the fact to justify a decision he has already reached. I take some comfort in that he is at least willing to test the waters, though I think this kind of thinking falls short of what we should expect of a successor of the apostles. This is a worse argument than the one often offered by more conservative bishops that orientation may be protected but partnered status is not. Neither is convincing, and both are attempts to circumvent the non-discrimination canons.

Bishop Johnston of Virginia voids the notion of equal access in the canons by saying that it only means equal access to discernment. Discernment only without ordination is his policy. Is anyone surprised that church people don't mean equal access when they use the term? This is the equivalent of a politician preventing a bill from coming to a vote. LGBTs have been tabled, in the American sense.

He says there is no "right" to ordination but fails to show how this principle applies to the exclusion of a whole class of people from ordination.

Is there a way to sue him for flouting the law of the national church? He seems to be saying that the Windsor Report, which has no canonical authority, trumps the canons of the Episcopal Church. Even if the Windsor Report said anything about ordination, it would have no authority in TEC.

It seems as if the national church needs to clarify what the canons mean and what happens when a bishop deliberately ignores them. A right to discernment without any possibility of ordination is a cruel joke, in effect setting up each diocesan bishop up as a little Pope. If the canons permit this, then General Convention needs to rewrite them.

Gary Paul Gilbert

Gary

"...the language and the intent of the Canons, guaranteeing equal access to the processes of discernment for all ministries in the Church, whether lay or ordained.

Just as pointedly, that very same canon clearly states that no “right” to ordination is established by that provision."

I would disagree (and fight for a change), but still understand the bishop's position if he declared he does not think that same-sex relationships are holy, and that he would not allow anyone who were lgbt, non-celibate and partnered to go through discernment.

However, knowing the costs of psychological and medical exams, plus the whole cost associated with moving, paying tuition of a seminary in the midst of an economic crisis, rearranging your life, and even more, the manifold fears and expectations a postulant goes through every time s/he meets the ministry commission, I think it's cruel to let anyone go through all of that and then not be ordained. Why not just say upfront "I won't ordain partnered lgbt postulants right now, so don't even consider going through discernment here" and let the aspirant reflect on what s/he can do, including, maybe, move to another diocesan jurisdiction.