Bishop takes issue with term used in debate over gay bishops

From Reading PA-

When is a moratorium not a moratorium? When the presiding bishop says it's not.

Presiding bishops are expected to put the best face possible on denominational developments.

So I did not expect any earth-shaking comments from the leader of the Episcopal Church, Katharine Jefferts Schori, when, during her recent visit to Lebanon, I asked about what I presumed was the recently ended three-year moratorium on ordaining gay bishops.

What I didn't expect, but got, was a denial that a moratorium had ever existed.

Afterward, I told her that when the dean of the National Cathedral invited me to lunch in the spring, we talked moratorium.

"Well," she conceded, "some have called it that."

The some would include the bishop of West Texas, who favored its continuance, and the bishop of Ohio, who did not; both used the "M" word in speeches at the triennial General Conference in Anaheim, Calif., in July.

It also would include the official Episcopal News Service, which reported that the 2006 convention's action, which was under review, "was widely regarded as a moratorium on ordaining gay bishops."

Award-winning religion writer John Dart, in the Christian Century, also said that resolution had called for a moratorium. Dart, though, did add that professor Ian Douglas of Episcopal Divinity School and some bishops have said the word was a misnomer.

Jefferts Schori insisted that nothing has changed, that the discernment process for ordination remains open to all, but that's trying too hard for a good face. The difference between the '06 and '09 resolutions is the absence of the '06 phrase urging "restraint" on gays' ordinations. The absence is as noticeable as the absence of "public option" in a health care reform bill.

More here-

http://readingeagle.com/article.aspx?id=174283