United Methodist attorney clarifies complex ruling

[Raphael Jauregui]

An attorney for the United Methodist Church has clarified that the Judicial Council's ruling on April 28,2017 ruled that they did not have jurisdiction to review the nomination, election, and assignment. They only ruled that they had jurisdiction to rule on hypothetical future cases. The result is that Bishop Karen Oliveto, the denomination's first openly gay bishop, "remains in good standing" the ruling says. But, a review process has to take place and future LGBTQI candidates might not be able to be consecrated. Commentary: Attorney on confusion over Oliveto’s status - The United Methodist Church

 

[raschau]

An openly gay bishop would not have been consecrated at all if existing denominational rules were being adhered to in the first place.

 

[Raphael Jauregui]

An openly gay bishop would not have been consecrated at all if existing denominational rules were being adhered to in the first place.

There was, and is, disagreement about the meaning of words like "self-avowal" and "practising." The Western Jurisdiction has argued that it did not necessarily recognise a legal marriage license as an admission of "self-avowal" or of a someone being "practising." The Judicial Council has expanded on the definition of those terms in this ruling which is why the attorney says it will affect future cases more than the current openly LGBTQI bishop. Even with the expansion of that definition, the Judicial Council ruled that they did not have jurisdiction to question the nomination, election, and assignment of Bishop Karen Oliveto, and they ruled that she "remains in good standing" until further notice.

 

[section9+1]

It looks like my previous post here bent the rules somewhat and was deleted. That's ok. Rules are rules. I attend a United Methodist church and while I like my local church and the people, the United Methodist organization itself has nothing at all that remotely resembles a backbone.

 

[seeking.IAM]

I was in the UMC for about 55 years. It seems to me that every time this issue is discussed, as it has been for years, the UMC seems to sidestep a definitive position possibly in hopes of preventing schism. At least my church had the courage to decide even though their decision was divisive, subject to criticism, and led to schism. Only time will tell if the UMC side-stepping or TEC's decision will serve either well.