“It does not happen in my diocese with my permission”: Bishop Bruno, to the New York Times reporter

Thanks for posting this. It gives a good perspective on the mindset of some bishops. Its like saying to a child, “You can’t have a cookie.” Then you turn your back while they take one and eat it. But you reassure yourself you are a good parent because you told them not to take one, and you pat yourself on the back for a parenting job well done. The instruction (or resolution) is only as good as the enforcement.

I like your analogy Festivus, but I an tempted to take it a step further (and as a lifelong Episcopalian, of course I will give in to the temptation).  What bishop Bruno is doing is to put out a bunch of cookies on the table, then puts his head out the back door, yells to the kids “it’s snack time.” Then leaves the room, but peeks through the door smiling as the kids come in to eat the cookies.  But he can “honestly” say, “I never gave them permission to eat a cookie.” 

The statement by Bruno is both a sham and a shame, and I hope even the progressives recognize the cowardice in his position.  If there is “blame” he will let it fall on the priests who performed the SSUs, if their is credit, he will take all of it.

TJ

Can any Stand Firm readers with psycholinguistic training shed light on Bp. Bruno’s tone and body language as he responds to the NYT reporter’s questions?

To my eye he looked very relieved and pleased with himself after delivering his whopper. He certainly understood the importance of the question.

I AM A BISHOP!
EVERY WORD I SAY IS TRUE!
LOOK INTO MY EYES!
(repeat)

If Bp. Bruno played Inspector Renault in the film Casablanca, he might say:

“I have never authorized gambling in Casablanca.
Yes, Rick Blaine’ cafe has a busy roulette table.
I visit his cafe several times a day.
Yes, he pays me large bribes to keep that table.
But I have NEVER ‘authorized’ gambling in Casablanca.
Only the French government could do that.”

Bruno’s statement is truly this crabbed and legalistic.

Irenaeus said: “Can any Stand Firm readers with psycholinguistic training shed light on Bp. Bruno’s tone and body language ... To my eye he looked very relieved and pleased with himself after delivering his whopper. He certainly understood the importance of the question.

I have, unfortunately, seen this look on Bp. Bruno’s face from about 10 feet away - in 2001 at a Cursillo reunion in Southern California, where he gleefully (IMHO) told us all that he was not what the people who voted him in thought they were getting - and that in fact he was pro-gay-rights and had withheld his opinions until after he was elected.

You can make of that whatever you like - I know I felt as if something evil had crept into the room.

I don’t need to say anything.  Jesus said it all.
Matt 23

NancyNH, I recall when Beisner was elected bishop in Northern California, some folks were unaware he was on his third marriage when they voted for him.  At least one member of the presiding bishop nominating committee was unaware that Schori had invited Spong to her Nevada clergy conference.  To be sure, those voting should have done more research, but I think they were operating in trust, under the assumption that all the facts had been presented to them.  How many more times has trust been broken?

NancyNH is speaking the truth; he did hide his true stance. Jon Bruno was not on the official slate for bishop, but a write-in. The conservatives in the L.A. Diocese backed him because they thought he would support the orthodox.  I know that my rector was quite surprised at his subsequent behavior.  I also remember his first visit to my parish. During a forum, he candidly described his divorce and remarriage, as well as his killing of a suspect when he was a police officer. At the time, both actions seemed justifiable to me.

in 2001 at a Cursillo reunion in Southern California, where he gleefully (IMHO) told us all that he was not what the people who voted him in thought they were getting - and that in fact he was pro-gay-rights and had withheld his opinions until after he was elected.

NancyH,
So Bruno does know how to tell the truth, but only in the time that he deems fitting for his great pleasure to see the looks on peoples faces after he sheds the light of his intentional deception upon them. How evil is that? And people keep asking, “How did these guys and gals get to be clergy?”  Look in the mirror people and you will see your answer.

Be sure to listen to the last few seconds of the video, after the press conference had ended.  A reporter speaking with a distinctive New Zealand accent confronts Bruno with the names, dates and serial numbers of a blessing that had been publicized that weekend in the New York Times.  It was that question that prompted the reply, “I’ll have to look into that.”

Mark—actually there was another person who first brings it up after the press conference.  But that reporter had a quieter voice . . .

...that reporter had a quieter voice…

peace-loving and dolphin-like?

I’m glad I’m not the only one who thought of Inspector Renault and Monsieur Rick concerning this statement and the recent letter from All Saints, Pasadena.

I’m shocked, I tell you.

I agree with Matthew 23.  And I would add that a man who has killed another (note I do not say “murdered” but “killed”) is unsuited to serve at the altar in any capacity according to the ancient canons of the Church, although I can’t quote the source out of my head.  I don’t want to conflate my emotional response to our comments with what Bruno says in this video but “Wow”.

#14, monologistos, I was as also disturbed by the comments of +Atlanta Alexander.
I am aware of the practice of the ancient church of Constantinople of excluding soldiers from the Eucharist. Please research the source and report.  Many have killed in combat, have been shriven, and have served at the High Altar.
The comments of Bruno were not surprising.

Bruno lies like a rug.

I was there and, even though I knew what his position was, I was shocked by both his words and his smirk. Eight months later, I am still shccked yet again. +Jon will never live this down.
The Rabbit.

I blame this sort of intentional obfuscation for the slow death of the Episcopal Church probably more than anything. We have had and have an awful lot of bishops and priests who have grown comfortable with using words to obscure their true beliefs and practices rather than practising clarity of thought and speech.

The Bible (Matt 5:37) is clear about how we ought to speak. As an attorne, I can appreciate that some things need to be said using scholarly language. But done properly, the big words convey a more precise meaning. That isn’t what has been going on here.

This is why I feel I can no longer trust my bishop, my Presiding Bishop and really almost everyone associated with the Episcopal Church in an official capacity. I can not believe what they say. I get paid to construe complex written thought and determine meaning. It’s not something I want to do in my spare time and for free.

I fear His Justice. I pray for His Mercy.

The conservatives in the L.A. Diocese backed him because they thought he would support the orthodox

Are there actually any conservatives left in TEC:LA?  Any ACN, AAC or FiFNA parishes?  Of have they all left?  Anyone have a tally on how many parishes have left the LA Diocese, when they left, and where they went?  What about attendance and membership numbers for the diocese over the last few years?  Dropping, steady, or increasing?

Did you notice that Bruno talks about staying at the table, then when a hard question comes to him he stands up ready to leave?

#19, Well, I know of one, Fr. Baumann of Blessed Sacrament, Placentia. Below is what he said to the Diocesan Convention in December of 2006. It’s so poignant and heart-breaking, I saved it. Please note that Bishop Bruno gave him very little time to speak, so he omitted much of what he had prepared. What he did say is printed in blue on his website.

http://johnonefive.blogspot.com/2006/12/winner-take-nothing.html

Later, Blessed Sacrament had a “40 Days of Discernment” and DID NOT LEAVE. Fr. Baumann himself took a sabbatical, and is back. 

What I quote below is still a good analysis of the situation in the Los Angeles Diocese.

My voice is now a whisper in this diocese, but the few voices like mine that are left are not the minority. My voice is still the voice of the overwhelming majority of Anglicanism. If you continue on the path you have chosen, there will come a time when the voice of moderation will speak here for the last time. I suspect we are not far from that time now.

When the voices such as my own have finally disappeared, do not think that you have finally won. You will, in fact, have suffered immeasurable loss. You will have ignored all appeals and put yourselves apart from Anglicanism.

When my voice, and those few remaining who could speak as I speak, have gone, the only voice left to speak for moderation and true comprehension will be one of your own. When those who are left all agree with one another and you look around and see that there is no one who thinks differently, I hope someone will say, “My God—what have we done?”

Maybe then you will finally begin really to listen to your brothers and sisters in the Anglican Communion. And only when that happens will they begin really to listen to you—and all will benefit. But so far you have been deaf, and so as of now, all suffer. I fear that only a few in this room understand that yet. If my words are prophetic, a time will come when everyone here will realize that all are suffering. On that day, then maybe the Church will indeed be changed instead of broken.

As I recall reading, he spoke at the very end of the convention, and few delegates gave him the courtesy of even listening to him.

#15, here is some info on early canons.  I site the part directly relevant to my comment although there is a great deal on this and I’m no expert:

St. Gregory of Nyssa (395 AD) wrote late in the fourth century:

“Scripture not only prohibits inflicting the slightest wound, but moreover all foul talk and slander (Col. 3:8; Eph. 4:31) and similar things that proceed from the incensive power of the soul; yet only against the crime of murder our fathers have imposed canonical sanctions. With regard to this crime a distinction is made between involuntary homicide and premeditated murder. As voluntary, murder is considered, first of all, when someone dares to commit this act in a premeditated manner. Secondly those are considered as voluntary murderers who during a fight, while exchanging blows, strike in some dangerous place. For once overcome by wrath and giving way to the movements of anger, during their passion they will not accept anything into their minds that may prevent evil. Therefore a killing that results from a fight is attributed to the effect of compulsion, and not considered an accident. Involuntary homicide can be recognized by the feature that someone, aiming to achieve something else, by accident inflicts such great evil. For those who wish to heal the crime of premeditated murder by repentance, a triple lapse of time is required. Three nine-year periods of penitence are imposed, with nine years in each degree of penitence…
“Involuntary homicide is considered worthy of indulgence, although not praiseworthy. I say this in order to make clear that someone who has defiled himself with murder — be it involuntarily — is considered impure through his impure deeds and the canon considers such a person unworthy of the grace of priesthood.
(Canon V, The Canonical Epistle of St. Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa, to St. Letoius, Bishop of Melitene)
“Involuntary homicide is considered worthy of indulgence, although not praiseworthy. I say this in order to make clear that someone who has defiled himself with murder — be it involuntarily — is considered impure through his impure deeds and the canon considers such a person unworthy of the grace of priesthood.
(Canon V, The Canonical Epistle of St. Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa, to St. Letoius, Bishop of Melitene)

Here is the link to the site:  In Communion

Fr. Baumann’s statement, quoted by Sue Martinez [#21], is magnificent.

How emblematic of fallen humanity (and a faithless church) that Fr. Baumann’s words get squelched and ignored, while Bp. Bruno smirks, lies, and bullies.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

“+Jon will never live this down”—-Bre’r Rabbit

We should make sure he doesn’t.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Monologistos [#22]: Where’s the reference to killing as a soldier or police officer?

The terminology used in the quoted passage is a mess.
Looks like Gregory is smuggling some notions of justification and excuse into his notion of what is “involuntary.”

BTW, does he specify elsewhere what he means by “murder”? “Homicide” is a neutral term: the killing of one human being by another. Murder is homicide plus something else.

(In Anglo-American law, murder is homicide committed with one of four mental states known as “malice” (e.g., actual intent to kill or do serious bodily harm) and without justification or excuse.)

Irenaeus, I was asked for the ancient canons so I looked to see what I could find during a busy day.  I was gone by 6:30am for prayers.  You will have to take up your terminology quarrel with Gregory of Nyssa .. who probably was not a lawyer and definitely was not concerned with anglo-american law.  If you are interested further in canons pertaining to killing and the penances applied for the same, read the page for which I provided a link.  I grant you that what I provided above is not a knock-out blow for Bruno if that is what you wanted.

Monologistos [#24]: Sorry to offend. But unless there’s more to the Gregory of Nyssa passage than meets the eye, it seems too muddled to be the basis for taking swipes as Bruno.

#22,monologistos, thanks for the reply, it is edifying. Again, my experience in today’s church-actually, the church of the late 1960s-has been killing in war was forgiven by confession and absolution. Perhaps that is consonant with St. Gregory’s canon V.

#19 There is a website (TEC Arrivals and Departures) that lists congregation that have split or left since 2003. So far there are about 144 in TEC.
http://tecarrivalsdepartures.blogspot.com/2008/05/departures.html

Irenaeus, I was not offended by your comment but a bit frustrated.  I confess I don’t see your difficulties but then I was not referencing those canons to take a swipe at Bruno or “prove” that priests who have killed cannot serve but basically because somebody asked ... and because I have general interest in most everything and easily go off on tangents.  My personal “feeling” on the matter is a revulsion towards the smirking evidenced by Bruno and by his use of language as a cloak.  While I am not a pure pacifist, I think that Bruno’s previous profession, that apparently involved killing in the line of duty, disqualifies him to serve at the altar but my sentiments have been primed outside the Western tradition which incorporates “Just War theory.”  I grant you it didn’t prevent Moses from entering into God’s presence ... but Bruno is not leading his Episcopal troopers to the promised land but to the bottom of the Red Sea in wrathful pursuit of God’s people.  If the analogy holds any water, you who are fleeing Egypt may expect to wander for a time in the wilderness.  I don’t myself grasp the logic of being a missionary to my church.  In long past years I recall talking to fellow aspirants to the priesthood who had an idea of becoming a priest to be a reformer of one sort or another.  This seems to me to be making use of the priesthood for something other than the essentials of serving as priest.  Evangelism seems to me to happen in two modes:  either you say, “We have found the Lord, come and see”, inviting people into the worshipping community, or like St. Paul, you go from existing community to the unchurched to start up new churches.  Joining an existing church in order to change it into something else, whether conservative or liberal, does not fit into my understanding of evangelism.

If Latimer, Cranmer and Ridley had the courage of Bruno and Gulick, Y’all would still be Roman Catholic.