The Episcopal Church’s Court of Review has ruled in favor of the Rev. Dr. Cayce Ramey in his abstention from celebrating or receiving the Eucharist. Ramey appealed the decision of a May 2024 Diocese of Virginia Hearing Panel that he should be deposed from the ordained ministry for his action, which he meant as an act of protest against racial injustice. The diocese released the 37-page ruling on its website on July 2.
Ten of the court’s 16 members signed the majority opinion, which overturned all five of the hearing panel’s findings against Ramey.
Virginia Leaders Decry RulingThe Diocese of Virginia’s leaders “strongly disagree with the Court of Review’s interpretation of canon law” in its decision to overturn a ruling by a diocesan hearing panel that the Rev. Dr. Cayce Ramey should be deposed from the ordained ministry for refusing to celebrate the Eucharist, said a July 4 statement. Virginia’s bishop, the Rt. Rev. Mark Stevenson, and his predecessor, the Rt. Rev. Susan Goff, had “engaged extensively with Dr. Ramey for a year and a half to resolve this matter—with grace and without invoking the Title IV process,” the statement said, responding to pointed criticism in a concurring opinion of Court of Review members that the bishops had failed to pursue appropriate “non-punitive” means to resolve the conflict created by Ramey’s actions. “Bishop Stevenson offered Dr. Ramey several opportunities to resolve the matter and reach an agreement in order to achieve some kind of reconciliation. All offers at reconciliation for ministry in the Diocese of Virginia were not accepted by Dr. Ramey,” it said. The diocese also pushed back against the ruling’s repeated criticism of the two bishops’ not issuing a written pastoral directive to Ramey, noting that “According to Canon IV.7.1, a Bishop ‘may’ issue a Pastoral Direction, but there is no requirement that they ‘must’ issue a written document in order to resolve a dispute.” Stevenson’s next step may be suggested in a passage from the ruling that the statement quotes: “The Court of Review wrote: ‘[T]he Bishop is not powerless to respond to Ramey. The Bishop retains the authority to issue a Pastoral Direction to Ramey regarding his future conduct. … If Ramey disobeyed such a Pastoral Direction, the Canons would provide a clear path for accountability’ (p. 23).” |
“Consequential procedural errors occurred here. The Hearing Panel misinterpreted or misapplied the Canons, engaged in a decision-making process inconsistent with Title IV and made findings that are not supported by substantial evidence when viewed in the light of the whole record. These errors substantially prejudiced Ramey,” the majority said.
A concurring opinion laced with harsh criticism of the Diocese of Virginia’s bishops and attorney for abusing the Title IV disciplinary process was signed by two of the six lawyers on the Court of Review. A dissenting opinion by six Court of Review members faults the majority opinion for setting a dangerous precedent for liturgical and theological disorder and failing to consider the implications of the issues raised for the church’s struggle for racial justice.
The majority opinion resists those charges:
Nothing in our opinion condones an “anything goes” Church. We do not dispute—indeed we wholeheartedly affirm—that a priest’s unilateral decision refusal to celebrate the Holy Communion is a grave matter, rightly causing dismay in a congregation …
Our ruling today is narrow, grounded in the specific charges made here and the evidentiary record, not in any approval of Ramey’s methods. Simply put, we conclude that the Diocese proved no Offense warranting the extreme sanction of deposition from the ordained ministry on these facts …
Upholding the rule of law within the Church’s disciplinary process is not at odds with maintaining doctrinal order or addressing racism. On the contrary, it is precisely how we ensure fairness and accountability for all.
“The decision issued today is complex and nuanced and will take time to fully digest,” Bishop Mark Stevenson of Virginia said in a statement appended to the court’s ruling.
“Throughout this matter, Dr. Ramey and I have been in substantial agreement regarding the need to address issues of racial justice and systemic racism in The Episcopal Church and/or the Diocese of Virginia.
“Confronting racism remains mission critical for me and for the Diocese of Virginia. Each of us must work to secure justice and human dignity and I welcome every member of the Diocese, including Dr. Ramey, to join together in this holy and life-giving work.”
Voluntary Excommunication
Ramey began what he alternately called a “voluntary excommunication” or “Eucharistic fast” in June 2021, while serving as rector of All Saints Sharon Chapel in Alexandria, Virginia. He testified in March 2024 hearings that his interpretation of Jesus’ strictures about reconciliation and sacrifice in Matthew 5:24 prevented him from participating in the Eucharist, given the Episcopal Church’s complicity in racial injustice.
At the time, All Saints was a member of the Potomac Episcopal Community, a four-church consortium in which four priests shared pastoral leadership. Ramey continued to attend the Eucharist during his fast, and performed significant liturgical acts like proclaiming the Gospel, preaching, and baptizing. But he relied on colleagues to celebrate, administer, and receive Holy Communion.
Several months before his fast began, Ramey consulted with the Rt. Rev. Susan Goff, who was then serving as ecclesiastical authority in the Diocese of Virginia, about his discernment of these issues. After members of Ramey’s congregation expressed concerns, Goff met three times with Ramey in 2022 and told him that she believed he was breaking his ordination vows and that his conduct had placed him outside “the doctrine, discipline, and worship of the Church.”
But Goff did not issue a pastoral directive to Ramey, a written statement that would have required him to undertake certain lawful actions, a decision harshly criticized by the Court of Review’s majority opinion.
Instead, after Ramey told her in November 2022 of his plans to resign as All Saints’ rector the next month, Goff filed Title IV charges against Ramey, alleging that he had habitually neglected public worship and failed to keep his ordination vows, to conform to the rubrics of the Book of Common Prayer, and to avoid conduct unbecoming a member of the clergy.
A charge of violating “his duty to refrain from holding and teaching publicly or privately, and advisedly, any Doctrine contrary to that held by the Church” was later added by the Diocese of Virginia’s attorney, as well as charges of obstructing the Title IV process related to an email Ramey sent to colleagues telling them that they had no duty to testify in the proceedings against him.
The Hearing Panel’s May 8, 2024, order included six findings. Two faulted Ramey for offenses related to the email to his colleagues. He was also found to have violated his ordination vows to administer the sacraments and to be guided by the leadership of his bishop, to have habitually neglected the Holy Communion, and to have engaged in conduct unbecoming a member of the clergy. The charges related to conforming to the Book of Common Prayer and holding and teaching contrary doctrine were not sustained. The Hearing Panel “prescribed” that the Bishop of Virginia depose Ramey from the ordained ministry.
Ramey appealed the order to the Court of Review, while the diocese allowed the hearing panel’s findings that exonerated him from charges on the prayer book and doctrine to remain unchallenged.
‘Canonical Grounds Alone’
The majority opinion of the Court of Review said that it primarily based its decision to overturn the Hearing Panel’s order on Goff’s not issuing a pastoral direction for Ramey to break the fast, and the diocese’s failure to appeal the decision exonerating Ramey of the liturgical and doctrinal charges, which it said “undermine[d] the basis for the Hearing Panel’s remaining findings.”
It overturned the findings related to the email Ramey sent during the Title IV proceedings on procedural grounds, ruling that the alleged violation did not rise to the level of an offense as defined in canon law; and that Ramey’s rights were violated in the way the violation was handled by the hearing panel.
Bishop Goff’s not issuing a pastoral directive was central to the Court of Review’s decision that Ramey had not broken his ordination vows. The vow to “respect and be guided by the pastoral direction and leadership of your bishop” (Book of Common Prayer, p. 523) requires a specific direction from the Bishop to do or refrain from doing something that is within the Bishop’s authority to direct.”
Given the hearing panel’s finding that Ramey had not violated the prayer book’s rubrics, such a directive was essential, they added. “When no Rubric or other Church law applies, as here, a Pastoral Direction by the Bishop is essential for creating an expectation of behavior.
“Fidelity to ordination vows is enforced through the Church’s defined discipline—its Canons, Rubrics, and duly issued Pastoral Directions—and none of these was contravened by Ramey’s conduct. In short, we decline to transform a general ordination promise into an open-ended duty actionable under Title IV without clear standard. …We maintain that Ramey’s vow of obedience obligated him to follow his Bishop’s lawful directions, not to intuit and obey unstated expectations,” they added.
Ramey’s continued level of involvement in the Eucharistic services of the congregation he led, the majority opinion said, undermined the hearing panel’s finding that he had “habitually neglected public worship.” The court noted that the Episcopal Church’s canons—unlike those of some other Anglican provinces and the Roman Catholic Church—do not clearly impose the obligation to receive Holy Communion on its clergy. The Diocese of Virginia’s attorney also agreed in oral arguments that the obligation of Canon 1.17.2, which defines communicants of the church as those who receive Holy Communion three times a year, applies only to the laity.
“Ramey was clear that he was not neglecting his duties. Neglect implies uncaring and indifference. He did not do this. He absented himself from the Holy Eucharist to honor the power of the Eucharist,” the majority said.
Testimony from Ramey’s former parishioners about the effect of his actions might have strengthened the case that they had been harmed, the majority added, but the diocese chose not to call a single congregant to testify.
The Court of Review struck down the finding about Ramey committing “conduct unbecoming a member of the clergy” because the hearing panel failed to provide any rationale about why this charge constituted a separate violation.
The majority opinion also stated, in response to a recommendation of the dissenting opinion, that the court’s jurisdiction prevented it from considering the two charges against Ramey that the hearing panel did not sustain.
It also said that adjudicating about the ways in which Ramey’s conduct relates to the Episcopal Church’s struggle for racial justice and reconciliation would exceed the limits of the court’s authority and scope:
Title IV—at least for matters that reach a Hearing Panel—is a judicial process. The evil of racism is real and pernicious; there is no doubt about that here. But it would be imprudent and unprecedented to resolve a clergy discipline case on the terms Ramey proposes—by treating the Church itself as the accused for acquiescing in white supremacy. Our duty is to apply the canon law neutrally to the facts before us, not to adjudicate where the Church has adequately repented of racism. To decide otherwise would warp the Title IV process into a political or ideological battleground, undermining its integrity and fairness. We decide this case on canonical grounds alone, mindful that the Church’s broader reconciliation work must continue in appropriate forums.
The opinion’s closing section provides a further defense of the majority’s decision for a narrow ruling in this admittedly unusual case:
Title IV is not a catch-all tool to punish every imprudent act by clergy. It provides a specific disciplinary mechanism with defined Offenses and standards of proof. However well-intentioned, the dissent’s approach—stretching the canons to fit a novel situation out of a generalized sense that Ramey did wrong—would set a dangerous precedent. It would invite disciplinary action whenever a clergyperson’s symbolic gesture is unpopular or controversial, even if it breaks no Canon or Rubric. That path leads exactly to the arbitrary, “anything goes” scenario that the dissent fears, only with Church Attorneys and Hearing Panels wielding the arbitrariness rather than individual clergy.
The 10-member majority included Laura Russell, the court’s president; Sharon Henes, its vice president; and two of the three bishops who serve on the court, the Rt. Rev. Frank Logue of Georgia and the Rt. Rev. Kathryn Ryan, Suffragan Bishop of Texas.
‘Threshold Was Not Met’
A concurring opinion was signed by the Rev. Rodney Davis and Brunilda Rodriguez, both lawyers, who were part of the 10-person majority.
“We write separately in the hope that expressing our concern and disappointment with the decisions and behavior of diocesan officials and the Hearing Panel will lead to future applications of Title IV consistent with its purpose and intent,” they said.
They particularly faulted Bishop Goff and her successor, Bishop Mark Stevenson, for not thoroughly pursuing non-punitive means of resolving the situation, especially given that Ramey had already announced his decision to resign as rector when the charges were filed.
“Title IV’s punitive, disciplinary provisions are reserved for conduct that not only violates a canonical standard but also results in harm that is “material and substantial or of clear and weighty importance to the ministry of the Church” (Canon IV.3.3). That threshold was not met here. And the failure of diocesan officials and the Hearing Panel to apply this safeguard to the conflict before us has resulted in avoidable financial and emotional harm to Ramey. That harm is inconsistent with the stated objectives of Title IV and undermines its restorative purpose,” Davis and Rodriguez said.
The conflict between the bishops and Ramey, the concurring members said, turned on differing interpretations of the Book of Common Prayer, which are not unusual in the Episcopal Church. “What is unusual here is that Bishop Goff, her successor, the Reference Panel, and the Church Attorney of the Diocese of Virginia chose to resolve such a conflict through pursuing punitive, disciplinary action rather than making use of non-punitive remedies and tools under Title IV.”
‘A Dangerous Precedent’
Six of the Court’s members, including two of its six lawyers, the Rev. Canon Gregory Jacobs and Grecia Christian Reynoso, as well as Bishop Robert Hirschfeld of New Hampshire, filed a dissenting opinion.
The dissenters said they concurred in the majority’s judgment that Ramey should be exonerated of the charges related to his email because of procedural errors. But they believed the hearing panel’s findings against him for violating his ordination vows, neglecting public worship, and engaging in conduct unbecoming a member of the clergy should be upheld, especially considering “his conduct and its impact on the community of faith and the wider Church,” a factor that they say was unwisely minimized in the majority’s opinion.
They said that Ramey had broken his ordination vows because his failure to celebrate the Eucharist with and on behalf of his people was a violation of the covenant that bound him to his people, which “caused profound spiritual harm.”
In evaluating the charge of “habitual neglect of the Holy Communion,” the dissenters focused on Ramey’s responsibility to celebrate and administer the Eucharist (instead of his obligation to receive it, which was the focus of the majority opinion). His failure to serve as celebrant, they said, was “deliberate, contentious, and willful, demonstrating an intention to engage in impermissible conduct.”
“While circumstances may prevent clergy from regularly celebrating Holy Communion, the intentionality of the action in this case is callous and contrary to the teachings and theology of the church. Ramey violated his ordination vows and represented a dereliction of his covenantal relationship with his Community of Faith and God. His patent disregard for the objections lodged by leaders of his faith community demonstrates a cavalier and self-justified dismissal of his sacred promises to pastorally love, nourish, and support his flock revealing the extent of his failures as an ordained leader in violation of Canon IV.4.1.h.8,” they added.
The dissenters also believe that the hearing panel’s exoneration of Ramey for violation of the prayer book’s rubrics and the church’s doctrine should be reversed, claiming that there are grounds for considering such a reversal in Ramey’s Notice of Appeal:
Examining the record reveals that Ramey openly acknowledged that his actions stemmed from a new and different theological understanding of the Holy Eucharist. (1RT 117-139.) Drawing primarily on theological justification from outside The Episcopal Church, he developed an unorthodox personal theology that directly contradicted that of our church. He taught this contrary doctrine without regard for the Church’s teachings, let alone with due consideration of how his congregation and the Diocese would receive it.
Ramey’s unilateral decision to abstain from celebrating the Holy Eucharist until he believes the Church has sufficiently repented for its complicity in the sin of racial injustice sets a dangerous precedent. Condoning his behavior without sanction could permit any priest to do the same regarding various human sins in which the Church, despite its strenuous efforts toward repentance, will remain inextricably implicated until the Coming of Christ’s Kingdom. A priest who perceives a church’s lack of progress in environmental stewardship, gender justice, food insecurity, or caring for the poor (to name a few) might find justification to act similarly without accountability to ecclesiastical authority and the good order of the Church.
They also claimed that the majority’s decision to sidestep the case’s significant focus on racial injustice is deeply problematic, and a sign of “the undeniable power and privilege that our clergy, especially our white male clergy, continue to wield in The Episcopal Church.”
They said that Ramey’s specific choice of voluntary excommunication as a means of expressing his convictions about racial injustice was at cross-purposes with the various forms of anti-racism training used throughout the Episcopal Church, which include the Eucharist as a culminating act of dialogue as a means of assisting in healing.
Despite their serious concerns, the dissenters do not believe that deposing Ramey from the ordained ministry is warranted, but express hopes that renewed conversations between Ramey and diocesan officials could result in an act of reconciliation “in accordance with the spirit and mandate of Title IV.”
The Rev. Mark Michael is editor-in-chief of The Living Church. An Episcopal priest, he has reported widely on global Anglicanism, and also writes about church history, liturgy, and pastoral ministry.
