Did Bishop Bruno Bless the Union of Mark Thompson and the Very Rev. Malcom Boyd?

To save us some time:

Oh, every commenter on this blog is so hateful!!!!

Etc.

Now, back in reaility, this seems to be a serious development, esspecialy since those who are announcing the blessing know how to abbreviate “Bishop” as “Bp.” and so on.

As I mentioned on another thread, now that gay marriage is legal in NH, VGR plans to marry Mark Andrew in June of 2008.  My question is can you have SSB more than once?  I ask that because Hayes “Hank” Judkins+ of NH did the SSB thing with VGR and partner several years ago.  But, then I live in the never never land of it’s only true if VGR says it is!

Chane became the second Episcopalian bishop, after J. Jon Bruno of Los Angeles, to preside over a blessing service for a same-sex relationship. The services have been performed for years by church rectors, including Hopkins, but were not officially recognized by the church until last year.

http://christiangays.com/marriage/maryland.shtml

Bishop J. Jon Bruno of The Diocese of Los Angeles blessed the union of the Rev. Canon Malcolm Boyd and his partner of 20 years, Mark Thompson, according to the Los Angeles Times.

http://www.iwgonline.org/ktf/archive/2004/july/

Desperate,

I think that VGR is making it legal with a civil union ceremony.

Is this the Malcolm Boyd who wrote the theological equivalent of “Jonathan Livingston Seagull” back in the Sixties?  Figures.

These princes of the “church” are so full of crap.  Spin, spin, spin, lie, lie, lie.

Why can’t they just man up and admit that they allow and perform SSBs in many diocese and ordain without qualm sexually active homosexuals?

I thought KJS would have more cajones than many of the arrested adolescent boy bishops we have and provide a bit of clarity on this.  Just who do they think they’re fooling anymore?

Jim the Puritan:
Yes, Boyd wrote “Are You Running With Me, Jesus?”

Let’s see:

1 Tim 5:24. The sins of some men are conspicuous, pointing to judgment, but the sins of others appear later. (RSV)

Acts 20:28-31. Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God which he obtained with the blood of his own Son. I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves will arise men speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them. Therefore be alert, remembering that for three years I did not cease night or day to admonish every one with tears. (RSV)

Then: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/36011.htm
(Too long to quote here.)

Again I ask…...Who is going to stand up in NO and put Bruno on the mat and confront him to expalin his out right lies? And we are supposed to think that anything good can come from this HoB meeting to present to the Primates and the AC? Hogwash!

J. John Bruno, the Episcopal bishop of the Los Angeles diocese, has confirmed that he presided over the blessing of a same-sex union of author Malcolm Boyd, 80, and his partner of 20 years, Mark Thompson, 51
Christian Century,  June 29, 2004
J. John Bruno, the Episcopal bishop of the Los Angeles diocese, has confirmed that he presided over the blessing of a same-sex union of author Malcolm Boyd, 80, and his partner of 20 years, Mark Thompson, 51. Present were five other bishops, including Frederick H. Borsch, who preceded Bruno in the Los Angeles office. 
Bruno said he did not do the blessing as a political statement: “I did it because it was the blessing of two human beings who have lived in a faithful relationship.” Bruno performed the blessing in May, he told the Los Angeles Times in early June.
COPYRIGHT 2004 The Christian Century Foundation

Bruno will say it hasn’t happened since GC 2006, all fudge…all the time.

Bruno will say it hasn’t happened since GC 2006, all fudge…all the time.

Rocks,
That would be a lie as well. The thread right here on SF about the two men in Beverly Hills this month and then didn’t another one take place at some Disney facility this year as well?

Susan Russell is going to grab the big bishop by the b**** and squeeze for this weazliness.

Susan Russell is going to grab the big bishop by the b**** and squeeze for this weazliness.

For what? Suan Russell doesn’t give a rats patoot about what Bruno does or says that helps keep the darkness of ssu’s or ssb’s out of the lime light of scrutny.

Bruno: “It does not happen in my diocese with my permission”

More Jedi Mind Tricks.

Maybe he can produce a document he wrote to his clergy after GC06 telling them to cease and desist ‘cuz of B033?  Or not.

If the GLBTs felt sold-out by B033, I wonder how they feel now?

Cindy T., no such loophole for him, the diocese of Los Angeles explicitly REPUDIATED B033 last year at its diocesan convention.
http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/?p=16507

‘Bishop Bruno,are you running from Me?’
Jesus

Bishop Bruno said that it does not happen in his diocese without his permission. He *did* (past tense) bless a same-sex couple in 2004. Clearly he had his own permission for this. He *does* (present tense) in 2007 not perform blessings or give his permission for any particular such blessing to be performed. That’s my understanding at least, as a distant observer of how things are in L.A. They changed, and they changed particularly in light of conversations around the Windsor Process. A progressive bishop stopped doing something he’d done for at least a brief time before. And if you have any wish for such a thing to happen again, it would be strategically wise not to condemn people for what they did in the past if they’re not doing it in the present. Otherwise, people might quite reasonably think that you’re not so much interested in people changing their behavior as you are in separating from people whose behavior has not met your standards in the past.

In other words, this is not the Daily Show. Bishop Bruno didn’t say anything even remotely like, “I have never blessed a same-sex couple or allowed a priest in my diocese to do so,” and he wouldn’t, being (in my estimation) a supremely honest guy. He doesn’t and wouldn’t claim never to have changed his position or praxis. Citing what he did in 2004 proves nothing—except that, caring as much as he does about maintaining relationships and furthering reconciliation as he does, he has stopped doing something that his personal convictions to hold as being perfectly within the bounds of orthodox Christianity and solid pastoral practice for bishops, lest he further offend people whose convictions differ.

Guys (and gals), I’m sure you don’t think he’s gone anywhere far enough toward your position, but you would do well to recognize how much he’s bending from what he is convinced is allowable within the bounds of Christian orthodoxy as well as his pastoral duties as a bishop, and how many clergy in his own diocese berate him for not being progressive enough as a result.

Thanks for the link, Elves.  My point, exactly.  +Bruno is going to be twisting in the wind over this one.  He’s got some ‘splainin’ to do.

It is no small responsibility to be elevated to consecrated leadership in Christ’s Body.  God have mercy on him.

In the statement, which was drafted by a 16-member committee that included Bishop Diocesan J. Jon Bruno of Los Angeles, the bishops also addressed the matter of same-sex unions. They pointed out that the national Episcopal Church has not authorized rites for blessing same-sex couples: however, the bishops said that they themselves would refrain from performing such blessings for the time being. Clergy in dioceses that already practice same-sex blessings will be allowed to choose whether to continue the practice.

From a story in ENS about “Covenant Statement” issued after Navasota retreat in March 2005.

http://www.ladiocese.org/episcopalnews/UpdateArchives/NewsArticlesview.php?key=743

Since Bruno’s Diocese clergy were already doing it he makes clear here they can continue too.

Not happening?

While the resolution will not make a big difference in her diocese of Los Angeles, where blessings already occur, convention’s action will be welcomed by bishops who were seeking national authorization to respond to pastoral needs of gays and lesbians, said the Rev. Susan Russell, executive director of Claiming the Blessing, an organization that supports gay and lesbian concerns.

“We came looking for a bigger step. I was hoping for authorization for common language for rites,” she said. “I think this is a compromise that takes us a step forward. ... I think it makes us stronger and better able to move forward with the good news of the gospel.”

From GC 2003 News:
http://www.episcopalchurch.org/gcn_18576_ENG_HTM.htm

Okay, Ms. Breuer. Your clarification explains his syntax. In his quest for bringing clarity, let’s hope he spells it out tomorrow for the Anglican Communion.

Will he do the same for SDL’s?  You know, Same Diocese Lawsuits?  Or will he keep bending the perps over the car hood?  He’s moved so far, after all!  One shouldn’t give up hope, now, should one?

Re: Sarah Dylan Breur’s exegesis of Bruno’s statement, “It does not happen in my diocese.” Bruno uses the present tense, meaning at this precise moment in time, it does not happen in the D of LA. It may have happened yesterday. It may happen tomorrow. But right now, the bishop is tied up in a press conference and is not authorizing any SSUB’s in the present. Now, isn’t that clear?

A lesson from this is that in the age of the internet, the truth will out. I made a comment that Bruno himself had performed SSUB’s at 6:06 PM. By 6:58 PM, there is an entire story with photographic evidence(!) proving the lie. Bp Bruno, it seems honesty is really the best policy. Seems he didn’t learn his lesson from “I’m just a messenger, nothin’ was signed” Schori.

I agree with Sarah Dylan Breuer on this.

Nobody who is familiar with Bishop Bruno’s public remarks or actions since his consecration should have any reason to believe that he was pretending to have never blessed a same-sex couple, or to have authorized such a blessing. Throughout his tenure, Bishop Bruno has been honest about favoring such blessings.

I think that makes his willingness to withhold permission for such blessings, for the time being, all the more remarkable. It appears to be his genuine effort to respect the Windsor Report’s requests—or, if you prefer, to abide by General Convention’s Resolution B-033.

Learning that Bishop Bruno said this on Monday makes me still more eager to see what language he, Bishop Chane and Bishop Jenkins have put together. I think it would have to be better than the draft language circulating among the bishops today. In any case, God bless all three of them for trying.

It’s interesting, if true, that +Bruno has intentionally stopped authorizing SSUs since GC06.  (Guess the ones going on are unauthorized.)  But if the bishop loudly repudiates B033 before the ink is dry, and then his whole diocese repudiates B033 at its convention, and he says at the top of the press conference that they do not intend to “turn the clock back,” you’ll excuse us for being a bit techy about trusting his sincerity.  Time will tell.  We’ll know more when the statement comes out.

Douglas,
  That would be a fine sentiment if it weren’t for the fact that clearly SSBs are happening in his Diocese, either with or without his permission. “willingness to withhold permission for such blessings” means nothing if you allow them to occur along and be evidenced by very public announcements on the internet and in newspapers.

Douglas,

He is not at all willing to stop same sex blessings. Rather he seeks to continue to promote the rather deceitful distinction between authorizing public rites and allowing actual blessings. I have followed this Bishop fairly carefully and found his press conference tonight a disgraceful display. He was trying to obfuscate the truth of the matter by continually switching between the two distinct types of blessings (public and private) described above, knowing full well that the secular press would have no idea about the distinction being made.

In regards to the coments by Sarah Dylan Breuer & Douglas LeBlanc, all I can do is shake my head and LOL!
Lord Have mercy!

Sarah Dylan, one question.  When, in Bishop Bruno’s diocese, was Susan Russell ‘married’ to her partner?

All this reminds me of the entertaining Iraqi Minister of Information, Baghdad Bob: “I can assure you unequivocally that there are absolutely no same sex blessings going on!  And I would not tell you this if it were not true!!  Anyone who tells you otherwise is sadly misinformed and not in possession of the correct information.  Merely because you have newspaper stories and photographs of same sex blessings occurring proves absolutely nothing . . . .”

“married” is the word Susan used.

Doug,

B033 said nothing about same-sex blessings. Further, his diocese went on record opposing it, even though its caution against unwise consecrations was ambiguously vague and watered down.

If he were entirely forthright, he could have told the NYT that although he approved and even performed SSB’s in his diocese in the past, he has as of (date) temporily withheld further authorizations. If indeed he has, of course.

r.w.

Well, I just watched the press conference, thanks babyblue, and it’s clear Bruno was suggesting he has a don’t ask, don’t tell policy.
He does not give permission but he won’t do a thing to a priest who goes ahead and performs a SSB. He was informed at the end about the recent one and it’s clear from his language and attitude, especially his smirk, that he has no intention of doing a thing about it.

If they don’t understand by now that DES was specifically meant to address this hypocrisy then they are feeble minded or in outright denial.

+Chane is just a guilty as +Bruno

Church Recognizes Gay Pastor’s Union
by Reginald Fields
Baltimore Sun Staff
June 13, 2004
Chane became the second Episcopalian bishop, after J. Jon Bruno of Los Angeles, to preside over a blessing service for a same-sex relationship. The services have been performed for years by church rectors, including Hopkins, but were not officially recognized by the church until last year.

And he is on this panel with Bruno…..God help us!

If Bp Bruno had the intended meaning with his use of present tense that Ms Breur and Mr Leblanc says he does, this shows a level of duplicity that makes “nobody signed nothing” pale in comparison.

Suppose he pledges in the future, “I will not sue parishes that flee.” By this he can mean, he personally won’t sue (he is not licensed to practice law) but his lawyers will. The possibilities are endless.

I too just finished watching the Press Conference and in my humble opinion when one is answering a question that he or she knows they could step in the pile if they are not careful they answer with alot of uh…uh….uhmmm….uh…. I heard alot of that in the answerng of the million dollar question. And then I hear the wonderful lady from the NYT ask Bruno afterwards about the Beverly Hills Boys and he said he had no idea what she was talking about and then another man piped in and gave particulars and Bruno chimes up and says, “Well, I’ll have to look into that “, rather snubly and then the wonderful lady from the NYT says “shame on you Rev. Bruno.”

Geesh! Ya just got love the tenacity of the press some times. But, the real question is will anybody that is somebody that can call Bruno on the carpet for his deceit do it?

Yeah, I’m going with Fr. Matt here.  From watching the video, it was clear that the reporter wanted to know about the current practice in the diocese, and Bishop Bruno pulled the old, “we have not and cannot ‘authorize a rite’” argument, (meaning adding a service to the prayer book,) without 2 GenCons.  Please.  We all know what the reporter wanted to know.  And +Bruno insists that fudge is something you eat.  Tell you what,  I’m not putting THAT stuff in my mouth.

Matt, thank you for the elaboration, which helped me. I think you may underestimate religion reporters’ ability to understand Bishop Bruno’s remarks. Many of them have covered this story for quite some time and often ask perceptive questions. The persistent questioning by Neela Banerjee of the New York Times is Exhibit A for that point.

Having watched the videos posted on Baby Blue Anglican, I agree that Bishop Bruno certainly could have better acknowledged his past record on allowing the blessing of same-sex unions (and celebrating at least one himself). Again, though, for any Episcopalian who follows the news—or, for that matter, for anyone who understands his clearly stated theological sympathies—his past record would be no surprise.

r.w., Thank you for the correction about B-033, and please forgive my sloppy error.

I do not think it was Neela Banerjee who said, “Shame on you, Bishop Bruno.” Having met Neela in person, I can say it was not her voice I heard. The video does not really make clear who said “Shame on you.” That woman does not seem to be on camera.

I count it all joy to bring laughter and head-shaking into the life of One Day Closer, but I’ll leave it at that.

Sorry to side track (and please excuse me) but Sara Breuer’s defense of bishop Bruno rings hollow for me - I have trouble hearing a plea for reasonability from an editor who publishes lies about African bishops practicing polygamy and then when unable to substantiate it, steadfastly refuses to retract it.

Douglas LeBlanc,
You may count it joy to bring laughter and the shaking of my head. After a week like this one we all need to shake our heads and laugh some. But seriously, I sometimes think that if reporters would just ask the questions straight forward and insist on a straight forward answer without any ambiquity it would really help the reception of news. Hard line straight forward questions may bring the all too often “uh’s….ummm’s….ah ah’s” but then we would know that they are looking to weazly out of the truth in order not to bring their house down around them.

iops! Weazly should have been weasel…sorry! Long day!

One Day Closer,
Calling these bishops weasels does a great disservice to weasels.

Nyssa,
My bad! I do apologize to you and to the weasels. Forgiveness begged.

is anyone going to forward the picture and story to the reporter?

It depends on the definition of what “is”, is.
Oops, I mean “bless”.

from the Briar Patch,

JJ Bruno’s performance on the BBlue videos has accomplished what we have not been able to do: Lay open to all who see how this smug, brutal, calculating, disengenuous, dishonest man functions.  Generations will pass before the wounds he has inflicted on the Body of Christ are healed.

He has convicted himself out of his own mouth. Pray for him to be converted to Christ. He could help to undo the damage he has wrought.

Thanks for your friendly response, One Day Closer. I’m all for reporters asking tough and persistent questions, which Neela Banerjee did in this case.

Doug LeBlanc: re: “Again, though, for any Episcopalian who follows the news—or, for that matter, for anyone who understands his clearly stated theological sympathies—his past record would be no surprise.”  No, it wouldn’t.  We’re talking about this because Bruno’s brazen prevarication that SSB don’t happen in his diocese – so brazen that even a NYT reporter had to follow up with astonishment – is a surprise.

Sarah Dylan, I don’t know what to say.  You’re better than that.

Douglas: What a joke: “I think that makes his willingness to withhold permission for such blessings, for the time being, all the more remarkable. It appears to be his genuine effort to respect the Windsor Report’s requests—or, if you prefer, to abide by General Convention’s Resolution B-033.” The only thing genuine in his responses at the presser were his bald faced attempt to hoodwink the press and the public. He “withholds his permission” wink, wink, and pretends that he’s covered. Disgusting. The emperor has no clothes, and no shame.

Good work guys….Expose them left and right…Makes em mad…

A hypothetical question, but I’m curious:
Can barefaced lying furnish grounds for ecclesiatical discipline?

Re: Can barefaced lying furnish grounds for ecclesiatical discipline?

At least one could be assured of a jury of one’s peers.

Re: Can barefaced lying furnish grounds for ecclesiatical discipline?

No, not if it is told in the service of the “new thing”.

RSB

Both Ms. Breuer and Douglas LeBlanc are technically correct that he did not deny “ever” performing or authorizing SSUs or SSBs. That having been said, there are hallmarks of intellectual honesty and integrity, the principles of which include the use of unambiguous language in one’s statements, particularly when one’s “public testimony” is germane to an ongoing dispute. This latter is arguably the case with Bishop Bruno’s cited comment, which was offered as a categorical reply to a question from the press, and clearly intended to address his position on the subject from his role as a leader. Given the kinds of charges and counter-charges that are currently being exchanged within TEC (concerning what particular individuals did, or did not, say or do), a fully honest and upright person, especially one who is in a position of leadership as is Bishop Bruno, ought to frame one’s categorical statements in language which does not admit of ambiguity—whether by others’ interpretation, or by the speaker’s later attempting to explain what was actually intended.

I would humbly suggest that the quotation from Bishop Bruno does not pass such a test.

Blessings and regards,
Martial Artist