Dr Idowu-Fearon said: “It is clear that Bishop Nicholas has abided by the guidelines set down by the Church. In fact, his lifestyle would make him acceptable to serve the church at any time in its history. I reject the suggestion that his appointment is an ”˜error’.
“I do recognise that this is a sensitive area for many people whatever their convictions. It is also a difficult time for Bishop Nicholas with revelations about his private life being made public in such a dramatic way, against his will, by anonymous sources that seem to be out to make trouble.
“The Anglican Communion is a worldwide family and, like any family, we don’t agree on everything,” he added. “But we are committed to working together on difficult issues. I want to reassure the Communion of my commitment to what was set out at the Lambeth conference in 1998 ”“ that human sexuality finds it full expression in marriage between a man and woman. But all baptised, faithful and believing people are loved by God and full members of the body of Christ regardless of their sexual orientation. The Anglican Communion has never made sexual orientation a condition of eligibility to hold office within the church and I reject the suggestion that it has.”
[blockquote]”In fact, his lifestyle would make him acceptable to serve the church at any time in its history.”[/blockquote]
1 Timothy 3 gets thrown under the bus.
Really, title should be “General Secretary muddies the waters with nuanced press release written by PR dept. at Lambeth Palace.”
Help me out here. It is my understanding that civil partnerships or whatever the UK calls them, and legal gay marriages both assume, legally, a sexual relationship between the partners. One cannot establish such a partnership with one’s sibling or parent. Is that correct? So, are the multitude of UK clergy who have done this, but tell the Church that they are “celibate,” lying to the State or to the Church? I make no judgment on this particular man as to his veracity. But there are many dozens of such clergy, I think.
Back when civil partnerships were introduced they were explicitly “not marriage”. Yet the legal rights of civil partnerships and marriages were very, very similar.
The RC church took the view that this similarity, and the possibility for confusion, meant that its clergy could not enter civil partnerships. The CofE HOB decided that, though civil partnerships were only possible for same sex couples, and the rights enjoyed were very similar to marriage, that they were not a legal marriage, and thus did not imply consummation, that clergy could enter civil partnerships so long as they were willing to give an assurance to their bishop that the partnership was celibate.
However after gay marriage was introduced, I believe that civil partnerships could be legally “converted” into marriage by simply signing a form: exactly the sort of confusion that the RCs desired to avoid. Yet the CofE stuck with their initial view. Clergy may enter same sex partnerships so long as those partnerships are assuredly celibate.
In theory clergy may not enter same sex marriages – though in fact a handful of parish clergy have done so, without being removed from their their posts. (You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows…)
Whether all of this would have been possible before the the 21st century, others will need to judge.
It’s also worth saying that I have heard that, in various dioceses, bishops in fact do not ask for an assurance that civil partnerships are celibate.
The business rule with respect to conflicts of interest is to avoid impropriety and also to avoid the appearance of impropriety. Surely with respect to behavior outside of church teaching the same rule should apply. This strikes me as playing pretend.