The first part of this essay outlined the concepts of systemic and structural sin and problems with Fr. Ramey’s claims. We turn now to the formal arguments made against him.
The Problems with the Case Against The Rev. Cayce Ramey
In fairness, the Christian tradition has long wrestled with how to live within the seemingly inescapable webwork of sin. Paul teaches us about meat offered to idols (1 Cor. 9). Justin Martyr and Tertullian provided different answers to questions about the boundaries one may not cross as a believer. The Western church experienced the rise of the Cathars in the Middle Ages and, likewise, in the Reformation era the Anabaptists who, in Johannine fashion, rejected the world and retreated to sectarian “pure” enclaves lest they be “tainted” with sin.
But, as Anglicans, we don’t readily draw from Cathar wells. And perhaps more importantly, to return to Scripture, the visceral image in Romans 7 of Paul collapsing under the weight of the inescapability of sin (“who will save me from this body of death?”) only to find peace in Jesus is not only comforting but instructive. What seems needed is not the absence of the Eucharist, but more of it—the memorial of Christ’s atoning death and resurrection and his presence, abiding with us, in the midst of our unworthiness and brokenness.
Sin, individual and corporate, is certainly to be taken seriously, but there is no instance, to my knowledge, of a priest refraining from his obligation to provide the sacraments as a way of acknowledging or showing penitence for corporate sin.
However, the case against Ramey has much more to do with whether Ramey disobeyed his bishop. The arguments set forth in the Court of Review placed most of the emphasis on Ramey’s failure to “abide by the promises and vows made when ordained,” Canon IV.4.1.(c), which the diocese described as failure to abide by the directives of his bishop. Much of the discussion and documents focused on whether Fr. Ramey was instructed by his bishops that he was not free to refuse to celebrate the Eucharist.
But fundamentally, the issue at hand is not about whether Fr. Ramey can make the decision he made, but whether any priest can properly make such a response.
I have struggled to find an analogy that really works. The difficulty is that the actions and duties that are part of the priesthood are not simply tasks that correspond to a “job.” A priest doesn’t simply function as a priest; a person is made a priest. Nonetheless, these two analogies gesture toward the way that the refusal to celebrate the Eucharist gets to what is constitutive of the priesthood.
Imagine an executive who informed the board of directors that she would be fasting from meetings in 2025 because of the ways in which the company benefited in the past from chattel slavery. Or simply imagine a plumber who said that because the company that made his preferred PVC piping was complicit in the use of child labor, the plumber would not touch or fix any PVC pipes during Lent. One might circle back to the discussion about the inescapability of sin and the Christian response. But my point has to do specifically with the priesthood.
In both of the analogies, an individual is treating as optional certain actions that are simply constitutive duties of a job. This is only more so in the case of the priesthood, since it is not only a job but a state of life under the authority of Almighty God.
The lawyers in the Court of Review seemed hampered by an inability to fuse their reading of the applicable canon law and rubrics with the necessary theological implications. A good example of this came at a different point in the Court of Review, when one of its members asked Ramey’s attorney whether a priest must be considered a communicant of the church—defined as having received Holy Communion at least three times during the preceding year—to fulfill priestly vows. Both Ramey’s attorney and Brad Davenport, representing the Diocese of Virginia, said that this only applied to the laity.
This, of course, is complete nonsense. Here is why.
A Theology of the Priesthood
Canon 1.17.2.(a) states:
All Members of this Church who have received Holy Communion in this Church at least three times during the previous year are to be considered Communicants of this Church.
As Daniel Stevik explains in his history, while the canon was introduced in 1961, “it introduced no novel material. It sought to codify what had been in the tradition all along … Lacking any previous definition in the American Church as to what minimal regularity might be required by Canon, a model was sought in the English canons of 1603. Canons 21 and 22 gave the rule that ‘every lay person is bound to receive the Holy Communion thrice a year’” (Canon Law, 144-45).
The English canons were also not novel but reflected much more ancient canons (as did a great deal of English canon law). The Fourth Lateran Council of 1215 decreed that all Christians were to receive the Eucharist reverently “at least at Easter” (Chapter 21), and a quick look at Heinrich Denzinger’s compendium of creeds and declarations points out that the council was only reiterating teaching that stretched back much earlier. The official annotated canons of the Church of England in 1947 cite the Decretals of Gregory IX, which was a compilation of earlier collections of ecclesiastical law (Canon B15 is the relevant current canon in the Church of England).
An assumption embedded in the logic of this long history is that priests are obligated to celebrate the Eucharist frequently; even current Catholic canon law “earnestly” invites all priests “to offer the eucharistic sacrifice daily.”
Therefore, the idea that priests are free from the duty to receive the Eucharist at least once or three times a year because they are not lay persons, but priests, is (again) nonsensical.
The baptized lay person is duty-bound to receive the Eucharist three times a year but the baptized person in Holy Orders is not? “But how are they to call on one in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in one of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone to proclaim him?” (Rom. 10:14). Is Paul’s rhetoric here any less relevant to the Eucharist? The laity can only receive if a priest or bishop celebrates the Eucharist. And as priests must receive the bread and wine of the Eucharist first, and every time they celebrate (as the BCP rubrics direct: “The ministers receive the Sacrament in both kinds, and then immediately deliver it to the people”; p. 338; 365), it is impossible to argue that the current canon intends to exclude priests and bishops from this obligation.
This is a reminder about how canons and rubrics are written. Not every possible infringement is outlined. Rather, by stating what is required, they often exclude what they do not proscribe. For example, when the rubrics say that the Celebrant “faces [the people] and sings or says” “The Lord be with you” and all that follows to begin the Great Thanksgiving, it means categorically to exclude the possibility that those words are said with one’s back to the people. Canon IV.4.1(h)(8) lists the “habitual neglect of public worship, and of the Holy Communion, according to the order and use of the Church” as a canonical offence. The implication is crystal clear: a priest is one who regularly celebrates Holy Communion, particularly rectors and others with a specific cure of souls.
Of all the duties of a priest that are outlined in the Ordinal in the 1979 prayer book, there are only a few that cannot be delegated to deacons or lay persons. Here is the complete list of duties mentioned in the Ordination of a Priest:
- to “engage to conform to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of the Episcopal Church” (BCP, p. 526)—applies only to those in Holy Orders.
- “to proclaim by word and deed the Gospel of Jesus Christ” (BCP, p. 531)—not limited to those in Holy Orders.
- “to fashion your life in accordance with [the] precepts [of the Gospel of Jesus Christ] (BCP, p. 531)—not limited to those in Holy Orders.
- “to love and serve the people among whom you work, caring alike for young and old, strong and weak, rich and poor” (BCP, p. 531)—not limited to those in Holy Orders.
- “to preach” (BCP, p. 531)—not limited to those in Holy Orders.
- “[to] declare God’s forgiveness to penitent sinners” (BCP, p. 531)—applies only to priests and bishops.
- “to pronounce God’s blessing” (BCP, p. 531)—applies only to priests and bishops.
- “to share in the administration of Holy Baptism” (BCP, p. 531)—in public liturgy, this applies only to those in Holy Orders; but any Christian can administer baptism (see BCP, p. 313).
- “to share in the celebration of the mysteries of Christ’s Body and Blood” (BCP, p. 531)—applies only to priests and bishops.
- “to perform the other ministrations entrusted to you” (BCP, p. 531)—applies only to those in Holy Orders.
- to “offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to you” (BCP, p. 534)—applies only to priests and bishops.
- to “boldly proclaim the gospel of salvation” (BCP, p. 534)—not limited to those in Holy Orders.
- to “rightly administer the sacraments of the New Covenant” (BCP, p. 534)—applies only to those in Holy Orders.
- to be “a faithful pastor” (BCP, p. 534)—not limited to those in Holy Orders.
- to be “a patient teacher and a wise councilor” (BCP, p. 534)—not limited to those in Holy Orders.
It we look at all the acts that are enjoined on a priest and then reduce the list to only those actions that can be undertaken by a person in Holy Orders, the implication is obvious: all of those actions are ritual and liturgical. And only one of those ritual actions could take place in liturgy that is not public (the declaration of God’s forgiveness can be given in Reconciliation of a Penitent, which is a private liturgical rite). This reflects the clarity of the canons about the one area where priests have exclusive authority in a parish: “The Rector or Priest-in-Charge shall have full authority and responsibility for the conduct of the worship and the spiritual jurisdiction of the Parish, subject to the Rubrics of the Book of Common Prayer, the Constitution and Canons of this Church, and the pastoral direction of the Bishop,” Canon III.9.6(a)(1).
“The Holy Eucharist, the principal act of Christian worship on the Lord’s Day and other major Feasts, and Daily Morning and Evening Prayer, as set forth in this Book, are the regular services appointed for public worship in this Church” (“Concerning the Service of the Church,” BCP, p. 13).
The celebration and the ministration of the Eucharist is constitutive of the priesthood in general, and the duty of any rector. It is there that the priest:
- Preaches and boldly proclaims the Gospel of salvation in Jesus Christ.
- Declares God’s forgiveness to penitent sinners.
- Pronounces God’s blessing.
- Administers Holy Baptism.
- Celebrates and shares in the celebration of the mysteries of Christ’s Body and Blood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God.
This is an essential part of this church’s theology of the priesthood. Importantly, it is theology that is not unique to this church, but is part of the “doctrine, discipline, and worship of Christ as this Church has received” it.
Remove the celebration and reception of the Eucharist from a Christian priest and you have a contradiction in terms. If a rector is only undertaking duties that can be performed by a deacon or lay person, we can only draw one conclusion: the priest is refusing to undertake tasks that are constitutive of that person’s identity as a Christian priest.
I’ll be completely honest: I do not know precisely how Christians are to respond to the wickedness with which we are entangled. But it does seem clear to me that if Fr. Ramey believes he is conscience-bound to refrain from receiving or celebrating the Eucharist, he must also accept the fact that this is not an option open to someone who wishes to remain a priest.
One must choose one or the other. The priesthood is incompatible with an indefinite eucharistic exile.
The Rev. Matthew S.C. Olver, Ph.D., is the Executive Director and Publisher of the Living Church Foundation, Senior Lecturer in Liturgics at Nashotah House Theological Seminary, and a scholar of early Christian liturgy.
