The March 19-24 gathering of the House of Bishops turned its attention on the third day to the pastoral needs of congregations and clergy who, for theological reasons of conscience, are unable to accept General Convention decisions to permit same-sex blessings and to consent to the consecration of a sexually active homosexual person as Bishop Coadjutor of New Hampshire.

The house, meeting at Camb Allen in the Diocese of Texas, eventually produced two documents: a plan for delegated episcopal oversight titled “Caring for All the Churches,” and a statement concerning the March 14 confirmation service conducted in Fairlawn, Ohio, by five retired Episcopal bishops and one diocesan bishop from the Anglican Province of Brazil.

Four bishops of the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes (NACDP) — the Rt. Rev. Keith Ackerman, Bishop of Quincy; the Rt. Rev. Jack Iker, Bishop of Fort Worth; the Rt. Rev. Terrance Kelshaw, Bishop of the Rio Grande, and the Rt. Rev. John D. Schofield, Bishop of San Joaquin — chose not to attend the spring retreat, while Bishop Beckwith and the Rt. Rev. James M. Stanton, Bishop of Dallas, left before debate on the oversight plan began. Among diocesan network bishops, only the Bishops of Western Kansas, the Rt. Rev. James M. Adams, and the Bishop of Central Florida, the Rt. Rev. John W. Howe, remained for the entire meeting.

According to reports from Bishop Howe and other bishops who were present, a strong, but not unanimous consensus emerged among moderate and liberal bishops when they concluded that “oversight” can be delegated according to existing Episcopal Church polity, but “jurisdiction” cannot.

The document, which provides a process for seeking what it termed “Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight,” was approved by a show of hands. The Rt. Rev. Edward L. Salmon, Jr., Bishop of South Carolina, voted no and departed immediately afterward. The Bishop of Albany, the Rt. Rev. Daniel W. Herzog, left before the vote, as did network moderator, the Rt. Rev. Robert W. Duncan, Bishop of Pittsburgh. Reaction among the network bishops ranged from an endorsement by Bishop Howe, who described it as “workable,” to derision by Bishop Schofield, who said he wasn’t sorry that he had stayed home to make visitations in his diocese. After reading the DEPO plan, he called it “a sham” and said the meeting had been “four wasted days.”

Bishop Duncan’s reaction was cautiously optimistic. In a written statement released March 24, he said: “The Network Bishops will do what they can to enable the plan’s success. It will require tremendous generosity and charity on the part of the bishops and an extraordinary new level of trust on the part of the people and clergy — a trust that I am not sure is there. Our commitment is to Alternative Episcopal Oversight as the Primates understood it in their Oct. 16, 2003, statement. The question is whether there is the will in the Episcopal Church to make this into that.”

Only bishops Howe and Adams remained to represent the network as a statement of censure against the Episcopal clergy and bishops who participated the Ohio cluster confirmation service [TLC, April 4] was drafted. Speaking by telephone, Bishop Howe called it “a kind statement” that took no action against the priests, while the bishops were invited “to meet with the Presiding Bishop’s Council of Advice to discuss what happened.”

The Rt. Rev. Catherine M. Waynick, Bishop of Indianapolis, said the bishops decided to take no punitive action for the March 14 transgression, but noted that similar action “will not be tolerated in the future.” She said the House of Bishops sought to characterize for the record the unauthorized episcopal visitation as “secretive, discourteous, disruptive, and a willful violation of the constitution and canons. We expect all bishops to be models of reconciling behavior and accountable for the good order of the Church,” she said. The five Ohio priests, she added, “will be dealt with on the diocesan level.”

Suzanne Gill