On July 2, 2025, the Court of Review of The Episcopal Church announced its decision in a Title IV matter regarding the Rev’d Dr. B. Cayce Ramey. The majority (10) of the Court reversed the Order of the Diocese of Virginia Hearing Panel while a minority (6) concurred in part and dissented in part.
Bishop Stevenson is grateful to the members of the Hearing Panel and the Disciplinary Board of the Diocese of Virginia for their faithfulness in their work. He also recognizes the Court of Review’s diligence.
The members of all three groups are volunteers who work hard to do things well and with the grace that the Court’s ruling calls for in this process.
The Diocese of Virginia faithfully embraces Canon 1 of Title IV, which calls for us to “seek to resolve conflicts by promoting healing, repentance, forgiveness, restitution, justice, amendment of life and reconciliation among all involved or affected. This Title applies to Members of the Clergy, who have by their vows at ordination accepted additional responsibilities and accountabilities for doctrine, discipline, worship and obedience.”
The Court of Review denounced Dr. Ramey’s rejection of his obligation to celebrate the Eucharist and affirmed a Bishop’s authority to issue a Pastoral Direction.
The Court of Review wrote: “We do not dispute – indeed, we wholeheartedly affirm – that a priest’s unilateral refusal to celebrate the Holy Communion is a grave matter, rightly causing dismay in a congregation.” (p.21)
For context, both Bishop Goff and, after her retirement, Bishop Stevenson, engaged extensively with Dr. Ramey for a year and a half to resolve this matter – with grace and without invoking the Title IV process. They were clear with Dr. Ramey that his refusal to celebrate the Eucharist was a violation of his ordination vow. They sought a path to reconciliation, before and after the Title IV complaint process began.
The Eucharist is essential to the ordination vow: “Will you endeavor so to minister the Word of God and the sacraments of the New Covenant, that the reconciling love of Christ may be known and received?” In refusing to receive or celebrate the Eucharist, Dr. Ramey is refusing to offer, make known, and receive the reconciliation of Christ’s love.
In his ordination vows, Dr. Ramey promised to take his part in the “celebration of the mysteries of Christ’s Body and Blood,” “to minister the Word of God and the sacraments,” and to “obey (his) bishop and other ministers who may have authority over (him) and (his) work.”
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.
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)
The Court of Review reversed the ruling of the Hearing Panel, which had recommended Dr. Ramey be deposed as a priest. The Court of Review ruled in favor of Dr. Ramey, citing the lack of a written Pastoral Direction and erroneous interpretations of the canons on the part of the Hearing Panel. We strongly disagree with the Court of Review’s interpretation of canon law.
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.
According to the Book of Common Prayer, “As a priest, it will be your task to proclaim by word and deed the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and to fashion your life in accordance with its precepts. You are to love and serve the people among whom you work, caring alike for young and old, strong and weak, rich and poor. You are to preach, to declare God’s forgiveness to penitent sinners, to pronounce God’s blessing, to share in the administration of Holy Baptism and in the celebration of the mysteries of Christ’s Body and Blood, and to perform the other ministrations entrusted to you.” (p. 531)
The Court of Review was clear Dr. Ramey’s actions were wrong.
The Court of Review wrote: “Presiding over the Eucharist is central to the role of the priest in the Episcopal Church because only a priest can celebrate the Eucharist so that the faithful may partake. A parish priest who fails or refuses to celebrate the Eucharist for their congregation necessarily deprives them of their primary access to the Eucharist. While individual members of a congregation may choose for various reasons to abstain from partaking of the Eucharist, a parish priest’s decision to fast from the Eucharist necessarily has implications for the members of their congregation. Hence, it is an Offense to commit ‘habitual neglect of public worship, and of the Holy Communion, according to the order and use of the Church.’ (Canon IV.4.1.h.8.)” (p. 10)
The Court of Review decided “this case on canonical grounds alone.” “Our ruling today is narrow, grounded in the specific charges made here and the evidentiary record, not in any approval of Ramey’s methods.” (p. 21)
It is worth noting language from members of the Court of Review who dissented from the majority: “[T]he gift Ramey has chosen to leave at the altar is not his gift, but God’s gift bestowed by the Holy Spirit. It is also a gift to the community of the faithful and is dedicated to God’s purposes – rather than merely Ramey’s own. Thus, through his words and actions, he cannot ignore this sacred vow, trust, and obligation to this community by refusing his place at the Eucharist.” (p.35)
At no time during this matter has either Bishop Goff or Stevenson expressed any substantive disagreements with Dr. Ramey regarding the need to address issues of racial justice and systemic racism in The Episcopal Church and/or the Diocese of Virginia.
Said Bishop Stevenson: “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. But it is clear to me that Dr. Ramey’s actions, however well-intentioned, have harmed his congregation, the Diocese, and our shared efforts at racial reconciliation and healing. It is my obligation as Bishop to seek to remedy that harm moving forward, and I will work diligently to do so.”