The reactions to the news that consents for Mary Glasspool’s consecration as bishop suffragan of Los Angeles and first lesbian bishop has followed the expected lines. Here is a round up of reactions since our last
Mary Glasspool, elected by delegates in 2009, has cleared the final hurdle on the path to ordination as suffragan bishop of LA
From the Guardian (UK)
The Episcopal church has confirmed that Mary Glasspool will become an Anglican bishop. Usually the choice of a suffragan (assistant) bishop of Los Angeles would be of mainly local interest. But Glasspool is lesbian and in a long-term relationship. So her appointment is being met with joy in some quarters, protests and threats to split the Anglican Communion in others.
Canon Mary Glasspool was one of two candidates elected by lay and clergy delegates in Los Angeles in December 2009. Within the family of churches that makes up the Anglican Communion, there are different processes for choosing bishops. In the Episcopal church, local members elect their bishop, but a 120-day process then begins in which the majority of diocesan bishops and of standing committees in other dioceses must consent if he or she is to be consecrated. By 10 March Glasspool has been accepted by over half the standing committees. A week later the presiding bishop’s office announced that enough consents had been received from bishops, and the service of consecration will go ahead on 15 May.
From the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams
Quoted on Episcopal News Service
…a March 18 statement e-mailed to ENS from Lambeth Palace, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams’ London residence, said: “It is regrettable that the appeals from Anglican Communion bodies for continuing gracious restraint have not been heeded,” referring to calls in late 2009 from the communion’s Standing Committee and its Unity, Faith and Order commission….
Father Jake reflects on the Lambeth statement:
That restraint enjoined by resolution B033, gained by the emotional manipulation of the House of Deputies, is the only “existing moratoria” recognized by the Episcopal Church. The Windsor Report is a report, nothing more. Canterbury, the Primates and the ACC are free to make recommendations, but they are not able, under our polity, to define what constitutes appropriate “gracious restraint” nor to establish Communion-wide “moratoria.” They do not have that authority.
The “existing moratoria” in TEC, defined by B033, was never the mind of the House of Deputies. It is questionable if it was even the mind of the House of Bishops. Reports of the discussion that led to the Bishops passing it suggests that there was some serious arm twisting being employed by Presiding Bishop Griswold. That B033 was never representative of the mind of TEC meeting in General Convention in 2006 became quite obvious at the next Convention in 2009, when resolution D025 passed both Houses with very little debate.