This is the link to the entire document containing the restrictions: https://tinyurl.com/Bishop-Love-Restriction
Here is the gist of the restrictions placed by Presiding Bishop Curry:
“Accordingly, in order to protect the integrity of the Church’s polity and disciplinary process and, thereby, the good order and welfare of the Church, and pursuant to Canons IV.7(3), (4), and IV.17(2), I hereby place the following partial restriction on the exercise of Bishop Love’s ministry:
During the period of this restriction, Bishop Love, acting individually, or as
Bishop Diocesan, or in any other capacity, is forbidden from participating in any
manner in the Church’s disciplinary process in the Diocese of Albany in any
matter regarding any member of the clergy that involves the issue of same-sex
Nor shall he participate in any other matter that has or may have the effect of
penalizing in any way any member of the clergy or laity or worshipping
congregation of his Diocese for their participation in the arrangements for or
participation in a same-sex marriage in his Diocese or elsewhere.”
The Diocese of Albany is one of eight dioceses that initially refused to abide by Resolution B012 regarding same sex marriages. Said resolution was passed at the General Convention of The Episcopal Church during the summer of 2018.
The responses to B012 by the bishops of those dioceses have ranged from the outright refusal to comply in Albany to the US Virgin Islands now allowing same sex marriages. Most of the other bishops have responded with a variety of ways to discourage same sex marriages in their dioceses. Some are considering ways to permit such marriages in accord with the spirit of the resolution.
The refusal of bishops to allow same sex marriages has been based on the same worn out justifications that have impeded the full inclusion of LGBTQ+ persons in The Episcopal Church. Scripture is cited as a justification but without the recognition that the alleged proscriptions in Scripture are taken out of the context of the time and culture of their writing and out of the context of the full narratives of which they are a part. Tradition is also cited, yet fails to consider how much the institution of marriage has changed over the centuries. It remains a puzzle as to how these bishops can reach such conclusions even if they have had a minimal seminary education. It would seem reasonable that those who studied or should have studied ancient texts should understand the contextual nature of Scripture as well as the issues related to authorship.
The situation created by these bishops has resulted in the failure of LGBTQ+ members of our church to be treated as full members of the church and due the same level of pastoral care so easily offered to non-LGBTQ+ members. Our canon law explicitly prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity/expression (along with a number of other criteria). It is sad that it seems to take filing legal actions to get bishops to simply comply with those canon laws. Yet, if that is what it takes for our kindred in Christ to access all of the rites of our church, then that is what needs to be done. Perhaps this action by the Presiding Bishop will at least nudge the other non-compliant bishops to rethink their positions. All are due proper pastoral care from their bishops in all areas of their lives. There are no exceptions that I have found.
Let us continue to pray for a change of heart for the non-compliant bishops and let us hold our kindred who suffer discrimination in our thoughts and prayers. Justice will eventually roll down like water…...
Bruce Garner, Past President
Integrity USA: The Episcopal Rainbow