{"id":5542,"date":"2013-10-27T20:39:26","date_gmt":"2013-10-28T03:39:26","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.pnwumc.org\/news\/?p=5542"},"modified":"2013-10-27T20:39:59","modified_gmt":"2013-10-28T03:39:59","slug":"top-court-says-texas-bishop-must-rule-on-process-question-for-lesbian-clergy-candidate","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.pnwumc.org\/news\/top-court-says-texas-bishop-must-rule-on-process-question-for-lesbian-clergy-candidate\/","title":{"rendered":"Top court says Texas bishop must rule on process question for lesbian clergy candidate"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Judicial Council for the 2012-16 Quadrennium pose for a group photo during the 2012 United Methodist General Conference in Tampa, Fla. Seated, from left: Belton Joyner, J. Kabamba Kiboko, N. Oswald Tweh Sr., and Kathi Austin Mahle. Standing from left: Ruben T. Reyes, Dennis Blackwell, Beth Capen, William B. Lawrence and Angela Brown. A UMNS photo by Kathleen Barry.<\/em><\/p>\n

\n

A UMNS Report by Linda Bloom*<\/b><\/p>\n

BALTIMORE (UMNS) \u2014 The denomination\u2019s top court has decided that a United Methodist bishop in southwest Texas must rule within 60 days \u201con the merits\u201d of a process-related question regarding the elimination of a lesbian clergy candidate, Mary Ann Kaiser, from the ordination track.<\/p>\n

The\u00a0United Methodist Judicial Council<\/a>\u00a0also declared that a petition adopted by the 2012 Western Jurisdictional Conference suggesting a light penalty for bishops convicted of ordaining\u00a0 self-avowed practicing homosexuals is \u201cnull, void, and of no effect.\u201d<\/p>\n

Those were among the decisions reached during the Judicial Council\u2019s Oct. 22-26 fall meeting in Baltimore.<\/p>\n

The Rev. Timothy K. Bruster, first clergy alternate, filled in for the Rev. Dennis Blackwell, a Judicial Council member, at the October meeting. First lay alternate Sandra Lutz and second clergy alternate John Harnish also participated in parts of the meeting.<\/p>\n

Southwest Texas ordination ruling<\/h3>\n

Bishop James E. Dorff ruled in June<\/a>\u00a0that a question about the decision by the board of ordained ministry of the Southwest Texas Annual (regional) Conference to drop Kaiser from the ordination process was \u201cas presented, moot and hypothetical.\u201d<\/p>\n

Although\u00a0The Book of Discipline<\/a>, the denomination\u2019s law book, bans \u201cself-avowed practicing homosexuals\u201d from \u201cbeing certified as candidates, ordained as ministers, or appointed to serve in The United Methodist Church,\u201d Kaiser and her supporters\u00a0say due process was not followed<\/a>in her case. An elder raised that point during a clergy session of the 2013 Southwest Texas Conference.<\/p>\n

The top court reversed Dorff\u2019s ruling that the question \u201chad nothing to do with the discussion, consideration or business of the annual conference.\u201d The bishop is now required to issue a new ruling on the question\u2019s merits within 60 days.<\/p>\n

While taking up the specifics of the Southwest Texas case in\u00a0Decision 1244<\/a>, the council also considered a constitutional issue that applied to several of the October docket items.<\/p>\n

This concerned an amendment to Disciplinary Paragraph 2609.6, which requires one fifth of the annual conference present and voting to make an appeal of a bishop\u2019s decision of law for Judicial Council review. The council found, effective immediately, that the amendment is unconstitutional \u201cand therefore, null and void and of no effect.\u201d<\/p>\n

Paragraph 2609.6 gives Judicial Council the authority to \u201cpass upon and affirm, modify or reverse the decisions of law made by bishops in central, district, annual or jurisdictional conferences\u2026\u201d<\/p>\n

The court found the amendment, adopted by the 2012 General Conference, the denomination\u2019s top legislative body, \u201cunconstitutionally vague,\u201d restrictive and limiting to the council\u2019s constitutional authority. General Conference cannot modify a constitutional process and procedure without amending the constitution, the decision says.<\/p>\n

Western Jurisdiction resolution<\/h3>\n

The 2012 Western Jurisdictional Conference adopted a petition stating that \u201cthe sense\u201d of the jurisdiction \u2014 based on its welcoming attitude to people regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity \u2014 was to impose only a 24-hour suspension on any bishop convicted of ordaining or appointing a self-avowed practicing homosexual.<\/p>\n

A lay member presented a question of law to Bishop Robert Hoshibata, who was presiding, over the resolution\u2019s legality but the question was ruled \u201cmoot\u201d because of a typographical error. At its April 2013 meeting, the council, which previously has said such an error in a question does \u201cnot necessarily negate the legitimacy of the questions,\u201d\u00a0remanded the question of law back to the bishop.<\/a><\/p>\n

Hosibata then ruled that resolution is aspirational in nature and \u201cdoes not legally negate, ignore or violate the penalty provisions of Para. 2711.3 of the Discipline.\u201d<\/p>\n

Judicial Council disagreed, reversing the ruling and voiding the resolution. \u201cThe Discipline grants to the trial court the exclusive power to set a penalty in a church trial which results in a conviction and the full legislated range of options must be available to a trial court in its penalty phase,\u201d the court states in\u00a0Decision 1250<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\u201cA jurisdictional or annual conference may express disagreement with other bodies of The United Methodist Church, but it is still subject to the Constitution, the Discipline and the decisions of the Judicial Council,\u201d the ruling says.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe current controlling principle is that a conference \u2014 jurisdictional, central or annual \u2014 resolution may express disagreement with the current language of the Discipline and may express aspirational hopes, but a conference may not legally negate, ignore or violate provisions of the Discipline, even when disagreements are based upon conscientious objection to those provisions.\u201d<\/p>\n

California-Pacific and New York resolutions<\/h3>\n

That principle was applied to the decisions of two other bishops before Judicial Council.<\/p>\n

A 2013 resolution by the California-Pacific Annual Conference prompted a request for a bishop\u2019s decision of law, resulting in an automatic review by Judicial Council.<\/p>\n

The California-Pacific Annual Conference adopted a resolution on \u201cBiblical Obedience\u201d that supports the call from the Western Jurisdiction, in its 2012\u00a0Statement of Gospel Obedience<\/a>, \u201cto operate as if the statement in Para. 161F does not exist.\u201d That disciplinary paragraph prohibits the ordination of homosexuals.<\/p>\n

Bishop Minerva G. Carca\u00f1o ruled July 15 that the resolution \u201cdoes not violate the legal authority of the Book of Discipline in that it does not require any person, office or body within the church to violate the Book of Discipline.\u201d<\/a><\/p>\n

Judicial Council affirmed the ruling while not specifically addressing the content of the 2012 Western Jurisdictional Conference resolution, which it has not been asked to review.<\/p>\n

Decision 1254<\/a>\u00a0notes the bishop\u2019s focus on the fact that the church\u2019s Social Principles are not considered church law \u201cbut a prayerful and thoughtful effort\u201d to speak on human issues.<\/p>\n

The decision points out that individual United Methodists and organizations choose to ignore the guidance of the Social Principles on various issues, such as health care and gun control, and that \u201cwhile doing so might theologically imperil or weaken the church,\u201d such action is not illegal under church law.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe request for a decision of law asked simply, \u2018Is it legal\u2026?\u2019 In essence, the bishop said, \u2018It is legal.\u2019 We concur.\u201d<\/p>\n

In a dissent, three Judicial Council members \u2014 N. Oswald Tweh, the Rev. J. Kabamba Kiboko and Ruben T. Reyes \u2014 noted \u201cthat the Social Principles is the foundation of most, if not all, legal requirements of church law in respect of sexuality. Therefore, ignoring the Social Principles undermines all the corresponding requirements of church law, as stipulated in the Discipline.\u201d<\/p>\n

A New York Annual Conference resolution,\u00a0upheld by Bishop Martin McLee<\/a>, commended both named and unnamed clergy, laity and congregations \u201cwhose bold actions and courageous statements help to provide for the pastoral needs of same-sex couples within The United Methodist Church.\u201d<\/p>\n

In\u00a0Decision 1255<\/a>, Judicial Council affirms that ruling: \u201cThe resolution as adopted is permissible because it is primarily a historical recounting of actions by others, is aspirational, and does not call for action that is contrary to The Book of Discipline.\u201d<\/p>\n

Greater New Jersey disaster ministry<\/h3>\n

Decisions 1256-1259 from the October Judicial Council meeting relate to\u00a0A Future with Hope<\/a>, the nonprofit organization created by leaders of the Greater New Jersey Annual Conference in the aftermath of Superstorm Sandy \u201cto handle the long term recovery of people in need in New Jersey.\u201d<\/p>\n

The council disagreed with the Bishop John Schol\u2019s decision allowing conference leadership to establish A Future with Hope as a nonprofit corporation and elect a board of directors without prior annual conference approval.<\/p>\n

\u201cTo rule that A Future with Hope corporation is null, void and without effect is impractical and probably impossible as it is now a separately incorporated entity meeting a great humanitarian need,\u201d states\u00a0Decision 1257<\/a>.<\/p>\n

But the decision \u201cserves as a pronouncement\u201d to the conference regarding the importance of maintaining the role of the annual conference in making such decisions.<\/p>\n

Concern over clergy triad process<\/h3>\n

Although Judicial Council upheld two rulings of law from the Texas Annual Conference regarding a question on a pastoral appointment,\u00a0Decision 1251<\/a>\u00a0notes that the matter raises \u201clegitimate concerns\u201d over a process used by the conference known as the \u201cclergy triad process.\u201d<\/p>\n

A concurrence written by the Rev. William B. Lawrence, a Judicial Council member, refers to a document submitted by the conference describing the design and procedures of the triad process.<\/p>\n

He points to \u201ca substantial imbalance of power\u201d in the process design; concerns over how the triad honors boundaries defined by the Discipline and possible confusion over how it handles pastoral appointments.<\/p>\n

Judicial Council members signing on in agreement with the concurrence were Beth Capen, Katherine Austin Mahle, Angela Brown and Bruster.<\/p>\n

Other business<\/h3>\n

In other business, the Judicial Council<\/p>\n