One does not wish to speak ill of the dead, of course. But the fact remained that--in an addendum to a section on its website titled "Seeking a Shepherd: Finding Our Bishop in the 21st Century," the diocese cited three episcopal exemplars, each from a different minority ethnic group, among them the late Bishop of Navajoland, Steven T. Plummer. A married man, Plummer was reported in 1993 to have admitted to sexual activity with a male minor over a period of some two years, ending around 1989.

What's more, the diocese's biography of Plummer (which had apparently been on the website for at least a couple of months) did not mention the sexual misconduct. Rather, it hailed the Native American as having led the Navajoland Area Mission (created from parts of the Arizona, Utah and Rio Grande dioceses) "on a path toward greater incorporation of Navajo traditions into Episcopal Church worship." Navajoland's bishop from 1990-2005-he died last year--Plummer "strived constantly to encourage development of indigenous leadership among the Navajo and a more self-reliant Navajo Episcopal church."

The California diocese recently decided to formalize Bishop Swing's "longstanding practice permitting the blessing of same-gender unions" by asking two diocesan panels to prepare a rite or rites to bless such unions. (So much for the Windsor recommendations.). Still, we wondered, could the plaudits for Plummer really signal what they seemed to about how far the revisionist diocese was willing to go?

Voraciously curious at this point, we contacted Sean McConnell of the Diocese of California's Department of Communications to ask why Plummer was not unfortunately disqualified from serving as an inspirational bishop, and why mention of his sexual misconduct was omitted in the diocese's story of his ministry.

Remarkably, Mr. McConnell replied that neither he nor those responsible for selecting the three model bishops were aware of Plummer's impropriety "until you brought it to our attention," even though he said he had met the bishop on several occasions and the prelate was known to other diocesan staff. "That is the reason why there was no mention of the misconduct in Plummer's biography, which has now been removed from the curriculum in question," he told us. "We take all instances of sexual misconduct very seriously in the Diocese of California, and we thank you for bringing this oversight to our attention."

But why, we wondered, had not Bishop Swing prevented this diocesan "oversight"? As leader of the California diocese since 1980, he would have been among bishops to deal directly with this matter (the Navajoland Mission is overseen by the House of Bishops), which was also reported to the whole church.

"Bishop Swing did not create or review the materials in question," nor was he aware of the citation of Bishop Plummer on the website, McConnell said. "I must take full responsibility for the oversight." He said Swing was informed about the matter and approved of steps taken to rectify it.

IF THE PROBLEM HERE was really lack of awareness, though, it is very likely due to the Episcopal Church's handling of the Plummer case.

Simply put: How could people not notice the fact that a bishop was removed for sexual misconduct? The answer is that he wasn't.

While ECUSA generally forces out bishops charged with heterosexual adultery, it handled this case--or at least then-Episcopal Presiding Bishop Edmond Browning did-by sending Plummer away for a year to continue therapy, and then returning him to service as bishop, based on his counselors' opinions that he was unlikely to repeat his former behavior. The victim in the case was no longer a minor and "unwilling to pursue this any further," Browning said in 1993.

At the time in 1994 that Plummer was reinstated, reports indicated that the members and Council of Navajoland were divided on the bishop's return. That there was some opposition was understandable; as we have seen more recently, many did not consider the slate wiped clean when Roman Catholic clergy who molested young people underwent treatment and were returned to ministerial service. Still, Plummer gained the support of Browning and the Episcopal House of Bishops to continue leading the Mission.

HAVE WE COME to the end of this story? Yes, and (possibly) no. It appeared at this writing that the Diocese of California could be poised to offer up another controversial--and this time living-"model" when it elects a successor to Bishop Swing (inter alia the founder of the United Religions Initiative); and in that case no "oversight" could be claimed. Since the election is set for May 6, whoever the diocese chooses at that time will bypass the normal diocese-by-diocese consent process, and instead be up for approval or disapproval by June's Episcopal General Convention.

Unofficial sources in the diocese claim that those responsible for choosing nominees for bishop are currently trying to select a final group of four or five candidates from a list of around nine possibles--three or four of whom are said to be open homosexuals, one of them a lesbian. If so (and admittedly, there are a lot of "ifs" here), should one of those candidates end up among the final nominees and be elected by the diocese, and then approved by General Convention, would-be liberal obfuscators would be stymied. Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold and his liberal colleagues would not have to worry about fudging a response to Anglican primates who want to know if ECUSA will observe moratoria on the consecration and blessing of those in same-sex unions. The General Convention will have given the clearest possible answer on the matter.

Permission to circulate the foregoing electronically is granted, provided that there are no changes in the headings or text.