KANSAS CITY, Mo. -- A strongly worded censure of the Rt. Rev. Albert A. Chambers for contributing to schism has apparently ended -- for the present -- a threatened ecclesial trial against the retired bishop.

The censure was passed as part of a fiercely debated package presented by the bishops who had first brought charges against Bishop Chambers and was designed to demonstrate to the Church that the House of Bishops was, and had consistently been, concerned with Church order.

The four-hour debate at the House of Bishop's interim meeting -- held at the Hilton Airport Plaza Inn here -- produced a compromise package of bills that, while it did less than the original set, was apparently sufficient for the presenting bishops. The next day one of their number announced that 14 of the 16 had withdrawn their names from the charges. Three bishops are needed under Episcopal canon law to file initial charges.

The agenda item originated with 14 of the 16 bishops who had signed the canonical charges against Bishop Chambers. Bishop David Reed of Kentucky, speaking for this group, said, "We believe we have found a way" to resolve this matter "without the costly and painful process of a trial. We don't want a trial any more than anyone else does." Their printed statement said, "we are basically concerned that order be established. Therefore we are willing to consider the withdrawal of our signatures" for the charges if assured that "the House of Bishops is prepared to admonish and censure Bishop Chambers in such a manner that there may be no doubt in his or anyone else's mind that we totally disassociate ourselves from his actions."

In their original form, the resolutions took a stringent tone which the House moderated considerably. The original motions, which failed, would have newly censured both Bishop George Barrett and Bishop Antonio Ramos. Both men had taken part, in one or another, in unauthorized ordinations, and in both cases, the House decided against formal censure. Debaters urged vehemently that this not be done, saying such a move would smack of "double jeopardy. " Many speakers were not willing to take harsher action in regard to matters which they had deliberated about and acted on several years ago.

The original form of the proposal about "breaking fellowship" had concluded with the admonition that the censured bishops "should not hereafter participate in the deliberations" of the House. Strong opposition was voiced at once, and repeatedly.

Bishop William Frey of Colorado wanted to substitute the words, "and that this House, in the name of Jesus Christ, offer them Christian forgiveness."

Bishop Gerald McAllister of Oklahoma declared, "To forgive short of judgment is cheap grace, a way of welshing and failing to face the situation and deal with it."

Ohio's Bishop John Burt termed the original language "insulting" and added, "Let us treat each other as men, with honesty and integrity, and respect Bishop Chambers as a man. To break faith would be a terrible thing; I hope we reject this overwhelmingly, so that we can again look at each other despite our disagreements."

Bishop Robert Spears of Rochester expressed resentment of the rationale behind the proposition: "These people seem to be saying, 'Unless you do this, we're going to do worse and press for trial.' I view this approach as irresponsible and insulting, as well as uncanonical."

Bishop Robert Appleyard of Pittsburgh urged the House to "move out of this punitive attitude and act in the manner of Our Lord, welcoming home these men and moving ahead with the Church's real work." Suffragan Bishop Stuart Wetmore of New York tried without success to get the chair to move the resolution out of order because it violated the Constitution which, as Bishop Donald Parsons of Quincy also had stated, provides that a bishop becomes unaffiliated with the House only by resignation or by suspension or deposition following a church court judgment.

During the span of debate on the entire set of proposals, North Carolina's Bishop Thomas Fraser set forth some of the thinking of the 14 bishops who had prepared the document. "Everyone has been saying that we bishops have undermined the order of this Church, and I'm not sure I disagree. We're not out to get anybody," he said. "The canons are not clear, and I'd like to test them (by proceeding to trial.) If the nature of the Church permits bishops to act (in these ways,) we need to find that out, and quickly. It would be worth the cost; it would clear the air; it would give grounds for dealing equitably with both bishops and priests, and many priests have been deposed for affiliating with ACNA. Further, it would provide a basis for changes in doctrine and discipline, and might even give substance to what we mean by freedom of conscience."

Bishop Gray Temple of South Carolina declared that "no issue in my 18 years in the House has disturbed me more or made such an impact on the Church.... Church order is in shambles, and the bishops have the responsibility to restore it.... How can we maintain order and not become a congregational Church when local authority decides what may be done? (Our action here) needs to be so serious that people will break order, for the sake of conscience, only under the gravest of circumstances."

At another juncture, Bishop George Murray of the Central Gulf Coast, who had signed the charges, insisted, "We need to review a connected series of events before we move to the discipline of Bishop Chambers. Let us not behave with an excess of uncharity.... The Church may live with heresy, with error in doctrine. But schism is a different matter....Because of the seriousness of fomenting schism" as compared with the actions of the ordaining bishops, he pleaded that the key resolution be divided to allow the House to treat the Chambers actions differently from those of the other three. But his and other attempts to make this differentiation failed, and all four were treated alike.

Bishop John Coburn of Massachusetts declared: "We have been seeking a statesmanlike way in which to proceed. I can't envision anything but infinite tragedy for the Church if Bishop Chambers goes to trial. Nobody can win.... We are not called on to bring back past events and put them in the same package. The essential question is, what do we do about Bishop Chambers?... Let's make our decision, start over from scratch, and get our canons reshaped for the future."

Bishop John Spong described the healing process in the Diocese of Newark with two women ordained priests early, then added, "We need pastoral healing here. Let us not drag up events of four years ago which would hurt a lot of people."

After all voting was done, Bishop Paul Moore of New York said: "I am feeling anger, sadness, and general desolation. Ever since our sad performance with regard to Bishop Pike, this House has had a demonic spirit come amongst us, and sometimes I feel like resigning from the House myself. At Lambeth I learned again that our spirit should be the spirit of pastoral leaders. I came home with a sense of enormous confidence in the Anglican Communion and the Anglican way, renewed in spirit and given new courage to go forward. We have met for three days, and it's been wonderful. And now, all of a sudden, the demonic spirit has returned. Is there any way, now that we've done what we've done, that we can once more be what we individually are -- people around our Lord Jesus Christ, not people who are bitter and accusatory?"

An equally emotional response came immediately from Bishop Addison Hosea of Lexington: "I resent having the majority vote of this House being called demonic. I have not said I am ashamed to be part of this House. I have not called it demonic. Right just might be on the side of the majority. It's 'cold tongue for supper' but if it's cold tongue, you might just have to eat it."

In the final form the resolutions first "reminded the Church" that in 1974 the House had censured Bishops Robert DeWitt, Daniel Corrigan, and Edward Welles, and in 1975 had "decried the actions" of Bishop Barrett, all of whom had ordained women as priests before the 1976 General Convention had authorized such ordination.

There was clear agreement to the censure of Bishop Chambers. By an all but unanimous voice vote, the House had censured Bishop Chambers for performing confirmations for the Anglican Church in North America, and censured him "in the strongest terms" for presiding at the consecration of bishops for that schismatic group. The next to the last resolution in the set caused the longest and most fervent debate and finally passed, 61 to 41, in an amended form after numerous attempts to modify it further had failed. The action directs the House secretary to notify the four censured bishops -- DeWitt, Corrigan, Welles, and Chambers -- that "they betrayed the trust that the Church placed in them in their consecration, and have broken fellowship with the House of Bishops. " It concludes by asking the Presiding Bishop and/or other bishops of his choosing to "raise questions" with the four "concerning their continued participation in the deliberations of the House, and report the results of such discussion to the next meeting of this House." Twenty-seven men asked that their negative votes on this proposal be recorded by the secretary.

Last of the resolutions asks that a canon be prepared before the 1979 General Convention which will "provide a way for the Church to express itself clearly in the future when actions of a bishop threaten the discipline and order of the Church."