Read it all (5 page pdf). I see also that Simon Sarmiento has helpfully provided an html version there if you find that more user friendly.
Read it all (5 page pdf). I see also that Simon Sarmiento has helpfully provided an html version there if you find that more user friendly.
Whatever one thinks about the details of this document, it shows how different the CofE is on this issue than TEC. It would be hard to imagine a document like this ever emerging from TEC deliberations, at any level. TEC has simply ‘moved on.’
Susan Russell, of course, is fuming about this CofE stand.
I am not convinced.
The point is being made [and being pushed by Thinking Anglicans which should be a warning] that there is nothing new in this, just stating where we are. It is just being provided for Synod’s information; they are just unofficially being asked to take note. The person pushing this to Synod will be Rowan’s stooge, the Bishop of Dover.
You will remember that Synod last time were just asked to take note of a non-change that resulted in straight gay-campaigner and general subversive, Nick Holtam being made a bishop, when Rowan and +Dover shifted heaven and earth, getting this non-change in the divorce position for bishops and their wives ‘taken note’ of by Synod after being ‘clarified’ by the House of Bishops.
And of course, just who claims to be openly gay and ‘celibate’? Why it is Jeffrey John! Of course last time he was shown to have lied about his domestic arrangements.
Bear in mind that just how sly Rowan Williams is. This is his modus operandi. Of course the effect of making Jeffrey John a bishop, however devious Rowan Williams is in getting there, will be division, as like Nick Holtam or the other two inclusive church bishops he has pushed through recently, he will be unacceptable to many.
But what will be will be. I expect Bishop Minns will be busy shortly.
There does seem to be some inconsistency, or perhaps awkwardness in the language, between:
[blockquote]19. A person’s sexual orientation is, in itself, irrelevant to their suitability for episcopal office or indeed ordained ministry more generally. It would, therefore, be wrong if, during a CNC or a selection process for a suffragan see, account were taken of the fact that a candidate had identified himself as of gay sexual orientation.[/blockquote]
and
[blockquote]27. The position in summary, therefore, is as follows:
it is not open to a CNC or a bishop making a suffragan appointment to propose someone who is in a sexually active same-sex relationship;
it is not open to them to take into account the mere fact that someone is gay by sexual orientation;
where someone is in a civil partnership and/or is known to have been in a same-sex relationship, even though now celibate, it is for the CNC in the case of diocesan appointments and for the diocesan bishop, in consultation with the relevant archbishop, in relation to suffragan appointments, to come to a view whether the person concerned can act as a focus for unity because of these matters.
28. As a matter of law, what this involves is applying a requirement related to sexual orientation so as to avoid conflicting with the strongly held religious convictions of a significant number of members of the Church of England, either in the particular diocese or more widely. The requirement is that the person can act as a focus for unity, which is related to the sexual orientation of the candidate.[/blockquote]
It is not entirely clear and reads as a bit sloppily put together.
If it were me, I think I would have gone to senior independent counsel, rather than relying on those lawyers who happen to work ‘in-house’; earnest and hardworking as they no doubt are. But perhaps there are reasons why this was not done in this important instance.
One also remembers the complete lack of interest shown by the Bishops who have the right to sit in the Lords at the moment [all 26 of them in theory] in the debates on this piece of legislation.
Also regarding:
[blockquote]29. Relevant factors which can properly be taken into account include:
– whether the candidate had always complied with the Church’s teachings on same-sex sexual activity;
– whether he was in a civil partnership;
– whether he was in a continuing civil partnership with a person with whom he had had an earlier same-sex sexual relationship;
– whether he had expressed repentance for any previous same-sex sexual activity; and
– whether (and to what extent) the appointment of the candidate would cause division and disunity within the diocese in question, the Church of England and the wider Anglican Communion.[/blockquote]
It is not clear in this instance why Nick Holtam, who has publicly advocated against the church’s teaching on same sex relationships from his pulpit and whose church has blessed members undertaking a civil partnership was made a bishop when he is clearly in breach of the factors outlined in black. He has not complied with these factors at all.
Good points Pageantmaster. There do appear to be major inconsistencies in the document.
It looks like I was right to have my suspicions. ‘Reform’ group has been on the case and asked for this legal advice to be withdrawn from Synod on the grounds that “this gives the impression that the Church of England has decided that it is acceptable for candidates for the episcopacy to be in civil partnerships. However, no such decision has been taken by the Church and as a matter of law it is within its rights to prevent such a thing happening.â€
[blockquote]Reform Media Statement
20th June 2011
Reform calls for legal advice on Bishops’ Appointments to be withdrawn
The legal advice from Church House on whether clergy in civil partnerships can be appointed as bishops should never have been published and should now be withdrawn. This is the view of General Synod member and chairman of Reform, the Revd Rod Thomas.
Commenting on the advice that has now been circulated to General Synod members, Mr Thomas said:“this gives the impression that the Church of England has decided that it is acceptable for candidates for the episcopacy to be in civil partnerships. However, no such decision has been taken by the Church and as a matter of law it is within its rights to prevent such a thing happening.â€
The legal advice states that it is up to those involved in individual appointment processes to decide whether or not they want to take into account a candidate’s civil partnership. It also implies that it is similarly up to them to decide whether or not any expression of repentance for past same-sex activity is needed.
Mr Thomas said: “This goes far beyond anything the Church has decided to permit and opens up the possibility of a bishop being appointed who, whilst being celibate, is in a civil partnership and openly opposes the Church’s teaching on marriage.
“To be in a civil partnership is to be seen as having forged a lifelong bond with someone of the same sex; to have created family ties; and to have engaged in a commitment similar to marriage. A bishop vows to protect the church’s teaching both by what he says and by the way he lives. This is immediately compromised when he engages in a civil partnership. If the Church no longer wants bishops to support the Bible’s teaching on marriage and sexual relations, it is not up to a legal office to hint at it. It must be decided by the House of Bishops and affirmed by the General Synod.
“There can, of course, be no bar on a person being appointed as a bishop because of their sexual orientation. The issue is what they teach and how they live.â€
Mr Thomas will now be writing to the Secretary General of the General Synod asking for the legal advice to be withdrawn and new advice issued. In the absence of this, Mr Thomas warned that the issue would be firmly addressed at the Synod itself.
Ends
For further information contact:
Revd Paul Dawson, Reform media officer, 07791 495824
http://reform.org.uk/news/src/archive/06-2011/title/media-statement-20-6-11-reform-calls-for-legal-advice-on-bishops-appointments-to-be-withdrawn%5B/blockquote%5D
As I say, the ABC is sly.
Yet, this might serve to get them off the “oh-but-I’m-celibate-in-a-civil-partnership” nonsense. Based on that, every British subject should be in a civil partnership with his or her friend, thus entitling everyone to all the legal benefits of a civil partnership.
Would that they could apply that standard for priests. Didn’t +NT Wright take a lot of heat for either disciplining, or attempting to discipline, Durham’s clergy in civil partnerships? I understand the “bishop belonging to the whole Church” sort of thing, but it seems a glaring double standard.
But, we all know that those who are “sly” don’t care about double standards.