A priest and former rector in the Diocese of Virginia argued in a church court hearing November 25 that he neither broke his ordination vows nor violated church canons by engaging in a “Eucharistic fast” as an expression of protest against the Episcopal Church’s complicity in white supremacy.
The Rev. Cayce Ramey, who served as rector of All Saints Episcopal Church Sharon Chapel in Alexandria, Virginia, from 2014 to 2022, has abstained from celebrating, administering, and receiving Holy Eucharist for the past three years. Ramey has said he will not resume the practice until there is proof of repentance and amendment of life in the Episcopal Church regarding white supremacy and racial injustice.
Diocesan leaders maintain that Ramey’s fast violates his ordination vows and ignores one of his intrinsic responsibilities as a priest, and that he should be deposed from the ministry for it.
The churchwide Court of Review considered Ramey’s appeal of a disciplinary Hearing Panel’s decision in May endorsing the diocese’s decision. The roughly two-hour livestreamed meeting included oral arguments by Ramey and his counsel and the Diocese of Virginia’s attorney, followed by questions from the Court of Review, a 17-member body that includes both lay and ordained members. The Court of Review did not hear new testimony. It instead will reach a decision based on the record and supplemental briefs filed by the parties.
This is a rare instance of an appeal making its way to the Court of Review. Since 2018, the court has considered just two cases, both of which were Title III cases related to the election of the Rev. Charlie Holt to the episcopate in the Diocese of Florida.
The court’s line of questioning largely focused on whether Ramey’s actions indeed violated his ordination vows — namely, a priest’s pledge to be “loyal to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of Christ as this Church has received them” and to “obey your bishop and other ministers who may have authority over you and your work.”
The Hearing Panel determined Ramey violated multiple Title IV canons by failing to “abide by the promises and vows made when ordained” to be guided by the leadership of his bishop and by “habitual neglect of … the Holy Communion, according to the order and use of the Church.” That decision followed a two-day ecclesiastical trial that included testimony by multiple bishops, the dean of Virginia Theological Seminary, and the seminary’s chair of systematic theology, the Rev. Dr. Katherine Sonderegger.
Ramey’s counsel, J.B. Burtch, said there were several “grounds of error” in the Hearing Panel’s decision, arguing there is “nothing in the Prayer Book, Constitution, or Canons that requires priests to celebrate Holy Eucharist in all circumstances,” nor any prohibition on a priest engaging in a Eucharistic fast as a matter of conviction. Burtch said the Hearing Panel “exceeded its jurisdiction” by making theological assumptions and findings beyond its competence.
Burtch argued that Ramey’s abstention from Communion fulfilled the admonition to “pattern your life in accordance with the teachings of Christ” and “minster the Word of God and the sacraments of the new covenant that the reconciling love of Christ may be known and received.”
A point of contention during the proceedings was whether Ramey’s bishops ever explicitly instructed him to break the fast.
“Appellant’s bishops offered opinions and preferences, but intentionally refrained from specific guidance. They never directed appellant to do anything,” Burtch said.
The Rt. Rev. E. Mark Stevenson, who issued a restriction of Ramey’s ministry within a week of being consecrated Bishop of Virginia in December 2022, challenged that claim, saying he made such a directive.
Before Stevenson, Suffragan Bishop Susan Goff served as Virginia’s ecclesiastical authority during the relevant period. Conversations between Ramey and Goff about the fast began in February 2021, when the Ramey emailed the bishop, saying he was “wrestling with” the idea of voluntary excommunication over racial injustice. He initiated his fast in June of that year.
In January 2022, Goff raised concerns with Ramey, writing via email: “When we talked last year, I wondered if the Holy Spirit was up to something and said I didn’t want to get in the way. Now, [I] am concerned that it is a different spirt at work, and not that of the Holy Spirit. Your decision not to receive the sacrament is one thing. Your decision not to provide the sacrament for other people is another.”
Later that year, after Ramey’s refusal to resume his celebration of the Eucharist, Goff filed Title IV charges against him. The diocese contends both Goff and Stevenson spent months in conversation with Ramey trying to find a pastoral resolution before Goff took that action.
The oral arguments on November 25 opened with remarks by Ramey, who described his 2017 trip to Ghana as a watershed moment in the development of his Eucharistic theology and convictions related to slavery. He recalled touring Cape Coast Castle, a slave-trading fort on the Gold Coast where an Anglican chapel was built above a dungeon for slaves.
“For me, standing in that chapel, all the claims of my Anglican sacramental theology seemed utterly insufficient,” said Ramey, whose Zoom backdrop showed the sprawling slave castle.
He drew parallels between that chapel and the plantation land on which his former parish, All Saints Sharon Chapel, was built.
“How many years and how many miles, then, are required before our church can wash our hands of it all and without a second thought present our gifts of bread and wine at that altar while our siblings, sisters and brothers, have something against us?” Ramey said, alluding to Jesus’ mandate in Matthew 5:23-24 that a Christian reconcile with an aggrieved person before offering a gift at the altar.
A Court of Review member, the Rev. Canon Gregory Jacobs, said this case raises the question of how to reconcile a priest’s conscience with the obligation he has to a faith community. Representing the Diocese of Virginia, Brad Davenport said “it can’t be done” in Ramey’s case, contending his ordination vows are in conflict with his Eucharistic fast.
“There is no conscience clause written into the canons,” Davenport said. Ramey “declared a conscience clause. The hearing panel can’t graft a conscience clause into the canons. Neither can the disciplinary board and, with all due respect, neither can this court.”
Burtch countered, arguing that Title IV is not suited to address an issue of conviction like this one.
“I don’t think that Title IV is suited to theological differences, where there may be different acceptable views of what the theology is. I think we’re in a place where that just doesn’t work,” Burtch said, adding that he believes this case is fundamentally about a pastoral issue.
Burtch cited multiple instances in which clergy have acted outside the canons to press for change — for example, withholding the sacrament of marriage until it became available to same-sex couples, or opening Communion to the unbaptized.
“This kind of thing has been going on in the Episcopal Church for years,” Burtch said.
In neither of those cases, however, did the protests suspend the Holy Eucharist.
Bishop A. Robert Hirschfeld of New Hampshire raised a hypothetical to Burtch: Would a priest be justified in engaging in a Eucharistic fast to protest other issues, such as the church’s use of fossil fuels or the acceptance of pledges from an individual whose income comes from manufacturing weapons?
“We’re not making that case,” Burtch said. “The case we’re making is the House of Bishops has spoken unequivocally about the sin of white supremacy in the Episcopal Church and that is specifically the grounds on which Fr. Ramey has instituted his Eucharistic fast. … It’s one very specific reason for a very specific purpose.”
Discussion returned multiple times to how often a priest should celebrate the Eucharist to remain faithful to ordination vows. Burtch cited the temporary pause on in-person worship during COVID, as well as retired and inactive clergy, as evidence that there is no requirement that a priest celebrate the Eucharist “at all times.”
“During COVID, Bishop Goff said, in effect, it would be wrong to celebrate when public health may be affected. White supremacy is a church health issue, and Fr. Ramey’s Eucharistic fast calls that out and confronts it directly,” Burtch said.
The Rev. Dr. Marisa Tabizon Thompson asked 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 Burtch and Davenport said that, under the canons, this requirement applies only to the laity.
Burtch said Ramey’s faith community was affected for a “fairly brief” time from the beginning of his fast in June 2021 until he stepped down as rector in December 2022. During those 18 months, All Saints held joint services with neighboring Episcopal congregations as part of a collaborative ministry, with other priests celebrating the Eucharist.
Davenport pushed back, saying the effect on the wider church has been damaging.
“If a single priest can declare that he doesn’t have to do what he’s vowed to do because of his conscience, that’s a very bad precedent and a very slippery slope,” he said.
That led to an exchange on whether such protests have a place in the Episcopal Church.
“We have a lot of room for a lot of things in this church, and there’s got to be room in the Episcopal Church for somebody to make this particular eucharistic fast as a stand and a witness against the evil of white supremacy,” Burtch said.
“That’s what the case is about,” Davenport responded, “whether there is room in the Episcopal Church for that — and there isn’t, under Title IV.”
The Court of Review may dismiss the appeal, reverse, or affirm in part or in whole the order of the Hearing Panel, or grant a new hearing before the Hearing Panel. There is no prescribed timetable for the Court of Review’s decision.
