Church of England press release:
The membership of a group to advise the House of Bishops on the Church of England’s approach to human sexuality has been announced. The Group will be chaired by Sir Joseph Pilling. Sir Joseph, a former Permanent Secretary of the Northern Ireland Office, chaired the group that produced the report on senior church appointments, Talent and Calling, published in 2007.
The other members of the Group are the Bishop of Gloucester, the Rt Rev Michael Perham, the Bishop of Birkenhead, the Rt Rev Keith Sinclair, the Bishop of Ebbsfleet, the Rt Rev Jonathan Baker and the Bishop of Warwick, the Rt Rev John Stroyan.
The House of Bishops announced on 1 July that it intended to draw together material from the listening process undertaken within the Church of England over recent years in the light of the 1998 Lambeth Conference resolution on human sexuality. It also committed itself to offering proposals on how the continuing discussion within the Church of England about these matters might best be shaped in the light of the listening process. The task of the new group is to help the House discharge its commitment to produce a consultation document in 2013. The membership of another group, advising the House on its review of the 2005 civil partnership statement, was announced on 1 December.
The full text of the 1 July statement.
Is this a stacked deck? I have no idea.
Given the membership, shouldn’t this be renamed the working party on Male Sexuality?
Any gltb people? I bet not.
Peter Ould on his blog says ‘…Keith Sinclair (Bishop of Birkenhead in Chester Diocese and one of the patrons of the True Freedom Trust)…’
so at least we know where on of the participants stands.
No, it’s diverse. Personally (and from a different perspective – that of providing continuing accommodation within the C of E for FiF people), I’m glad that Jonathan Baker is on board.
no women at all – not even conservative ones! It does not look at all hopeful that there will be a change in the church’s appalling policies.
There is an interesting quote from Sir Joseph Pilling when he was interviewed by the Home Affairs Select Committee on his appointment as Identity Commissioner.
He said, “I have made it clear to everybody, including in the Department which asked me to do the job, that that is an issue on which I have no professional view. And nobody is going to hear my personal views while I am doing this job. I see it, essentially, as my job to help people to reach a better informed conclusion on that issue, among other things.”
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmhaff/51i/9112402.htm
Can anyone identify – so far as public utterances have been made on the subject – the attitudes of the various parties to the subject of LGBTs in the Church? I am aware that opinions may change (and hopefully so in the case of opponents), but some idea of provenance might be helpful.
“Is this a stacked deck?”
Well, a quick search of the TA archives indicates Keith Sinclair is FOCA-aligned. Michael Perham’s comments on the subject in May 2010 received some pushback here for being too “soft”. Perham, though personally friendly, is Mary Gray-Reeves’ brother bishop and wrote supportively of her “sacrificial” decision to recuse herself from the Bruce-Glasspool consecrations. Ebbsfleet might be expected to be negative, given his constituency. On the other hand, he could possibly be expected to be more sound, given his constituency (i.e. those FiF clergy remaining post-AngCoet with their vicarages and boyfriends).
FAO Geoff. The last of your comments is both snide and vindictive. The site, I hope, is not a forum for pejorative reamrks of that nature, especially since its contributors are ostensibly Christian.
‘Given the membership, shouldn’t this be renamed the working party on Male Sexuality?’
Queen Victoria couldn’t imagine women doing that sort of thing so women were excluded from th ‘Blackmailers Charter’. We don’t seem to have moved on at all, judging by the make up of this committee. It is male homosexual acts about which some are obsessed and there are some very interesting reason for that relating to passivity, men taking the ‘woman’s’ role and male identity.
no women then? do these men not attend anglican churches? god help us
Why is there not one woman on the group? I know there are no women in the HoB, but couldn’t they have shown a little imagination? How about getting in June Osborne, and letting her have a go at contributing to something that stands a chance of getting published, unlike her commission’s report on homosexuality of whenever it was!!
Sad reading. Why must it be only Bishops? They are limited in experiece and gender.
Especially as the ongoing dialogue appears to be nil.
Speak to those inclusive parishes which already welcome all, and have experience of living together.
Fr John E. Harris-White
Isn’t it a tad inappropriate for a PEV to be on the working group? Whatever he is like personally, it is already his job to support people who exclude!
Richard: my comment was actually about women, full stop, whatever their sexuality. Your response indicates (and it is a perfectly valid one) that this is really a House of Bishops Working Party on Male Homosexuality. Why not just call it that, I wonder?
So, then! This really would seem to be a ‘stacked deck’ – designed – like the covenant – for an outcome inimical to the human rights of the LGBT constituency in the Church. Mind you, miracles have been known to happen. Jesu, mercy; Mary, pray!
“FAO Geoff. The last of your comments is both snide and vindictive.” (-Benedict)
I don’t know about you, but I don’t consider gay an insult. I was only commenting on the difficulty of trying to predict the contribution of a provincial episcopus vagans based on his job title, since those in his care are likely to be those who both look to Rome on matters of doctrine (albeit not ecclesiology!) and sit lightly to that doctrine on the homefront.
OTOH, since he’s already non-Chalcedonian on the OoW it may not be unreasonable to expect him to repeat that on SSBs.
But FIF and the Anglo-Catholics are hugely gay ! Please don t try to tell me otherwise. I’ve seen this all my life – and am in my 60s.
“Is this a stacked deck?”
All male, a PEV and a member of TfT… Certainly a P.R. disaster – and extremely difficult to see what good can come of it.
“it intended to draw together material from the listening process undertaken within the Church of England over recent years”
The diocese in which I live (Southwell and Nottingham) has not undertaken a listening process at all – hardly surprising given that the last bishop was George Cassidy – and I understand that the current bishop is only just starting to think about doing something. If this is at all representative of dioceses generally, then there isn’t a great deal of material for the working group to draw together!
Maybe they will acknowledge that the dam was burst in 1930, when the Lambeth Conference accepted contraception, having previously condemned it.
Geoff and Laurence Roberts are both guilty of a crass generalisation. Can they provide any statistics for this, I wonder? One strays into very dangerous territory by making such sweeping generalisations.
Benedict – you said “Geoff and Laurence Roberts are both guilty of a crass generalisation. Can they provide any statistics for this, I wonder? One strays into very dangerous territory by making such sweeping generalisations.” Geoff and Laurence are simply talking from their personal experience and knowledge (which matches mine) that that particular constituency contains a high proportion of gay priests, many of whom are in relationships with their boyfriends/partners/whatever. We all speak from our own experience, and of necessity that speaking involves generalisations. But I don’t see why that generalisation is “crass”, or an earlier statement to the same… Read more »
Simon Dawson et al, I am not questioning the truth of the statement as to whether the FiF constituency contains gay priests or not. THat is of little consequence to me. What I am objecting to is the original remark from Geoff, which implicitly suggested that the FiF constituency as a whole, or at least that section left after departure to the Ordinariate, somehow majors on gay priests and their boyfriends in Vicarages. I have a lot of friends who are married priests in FiF, but I don’t assume or suggest that because I have a lot of them they… Read more »
I was around on the fringes of the anglo catholic wing for years. I remember well the ‘Catholic Renewal’ conference of 1978 as a great gathering of gay priests and I met a long term partner there. In those days gay anglo catholicism was an open secret and some theological colleges notorious. And over the years I have met priests in gay bars and clubs who have been vicious in their remarks about women in general and women in the priesthood in particular. And only this year a priest I knew around that time, who I hadn’t seen in years… Read more »
Maybe they will acknowledge that the dam was burst in 1930, when the Lambeth Conference accepted contraception, having previously condemned it.
Posted by: rOBERT IAN WILLIAMS on Friday, 6 January 2012 at 11:59pm GMT
Pun intended ?
Geoff and Laurence Roberts are both guilty of a crass generalisation. Can they provide any statistics for this, I wonder? One strays into very dangerous territory by making such sweeping generalisations.
Posted by: Benedict on Saturday, 7 January 2012 at 8:16am GMT
I’m talking about my life Benedict using mine own full name.
What ‘very dangerous territory’ do you mean ? Honesty only seems dangerous to begin with – you get used to it. When will the dear olde C of E try it ?
Thanks Simon (Dawson) that was what I was trying to get at. Well expressed.
I will say I hadnt thought of theological colleges when writing above. From my own experiences in the 1970s, I did find even a middle of the road C of E college very gay too – also a Methodist college and an RC seminary. But then we were all young, idealistic and keen to entertain angels unawares …
The make up of this panel is looking scandalously biased against lesbian and gay people. Will any one with any clout speak out before it’s too late ? And we have something homophobic forced on us.
One member is involved with ‘True freedom Trust’
http://truefreedomtrust.co.uk/
The Church of England is losing its final shreds of credibility for gay Christians — lost long again for other gays and much of the general public.
I don’t believe that any real listening process has taken place at Diocesan level. Most Dioceses have fought shy of it and those that have done it have done it in a highly sanitised and unsatisfactory manner….probably through sheer fear as to what may come to the surface. Some Diocesan bishops have simply stonewalled the idea or kicked it into the long grass despite a Lambeth commitment to progress it. All very disappointing and frustrating……and dishonest.
Can thie membership be right? Surely there should be a woman on this group? Jo will be an excellent chair, but the voice of women should be represented. I hope the C of E will think again.
Perhaps Church of England dioceses have need for a few brave Gay clergy to actually stand up in Synod and speak to the debate on sexuality from their own point of view. This has already happened in some TEC and ACANZP dioceses – to good effect, for the acceptance of the LGBT constituency in our Churches.
A climate of enforced hypocrisy can be the greatest enemy of Truth and justice – en Christo.
Benedict: honestly, I can’t quite believe you are really so naive about FiF clergy. I remember being sent along by my Vicar to get the parish oils at the local FiF Chrism Mass, celebrated by the former Bishop of Ebbsfleet. Bishop Andrew made some remark in his sermon about how important the Catholic teaching on marriage was, and made it clear that it excluded gay people from having relationships. I thought “That’s a very odd thing to say in this company,” and spent the rest of the sermon mentally counting around the other clergy present. I found that half of… Read more »
‘or at least that section left after departure to the Ordinariate,’ (Benedict)
Those ‘who left for the Ordinariate’ are just as gay. What made you think otherwise ?
If you give us the married stats then we could deduct that from the total -if you like ! Trouble is being married does not mean non-gay– as you probably realise.
‘Majoring on boyfriends’
Seems a bit melodramatic to me. Many are not boys but partners and civil partners who have been together for a lifetime – just ordinary cosy couples, with life’s downs and ups. Like all couples, and families.
I take my hat off to all those clergy-partners who have supported, enabled and made possible the ministry of their other half.
Well Benedict (“unto whom all hearts be open”?), you’re entitled to draw your own conclusions but I can’t say I understand how you’re able to deduce the “tone” of my typed comments. “I have a lot of friends who are married priests in FiF, but I don’t assume or suggest that because I have a lot of them they are in a majority. Hard statistics would be needed to prove such a statement, so again, can any one of you supply those please?” Supply what? Hard statistics *would* be needed, if anyone were indeed making “such a statement,” (by which… Read more »
I seriously can’t believe that anyone is doubting that a disproportionate number of Anglo-Catholic clergy – and laity for that matter – are gay. This is not new – it was noted en passant as early as the 1870s. It goes well beyond a gay subculture; I’ve mostly, although not entirely, worshipped in parishes that didn’t have a gay culture and I now tend to avoid ones that do. The proportion of gay men in the congregation has always been in excess of – well in excess of – the 4% or so of the population that actually are LGBTQ.… Read more »
Perhaps the Bishops review needs to consider the theological implications of the fact that a significant percentage of clergy are gay ( certainly well in excess of the 4% of the population generally assumed to be so). What does this say about vocation,selection, the nature of the priesthood, life in the ordained ministry etc. After all one cant help but feel this review has come about because of gay clergy and the difficulties they are supposed to present, rather than “human sexuality” in the abstract.
Fascinating responses to this post! What interests me is the abundent evidence provided of homosexuality among Anglo-Catholics and in theological colleges. That is precisely why I consider that bogus ‘marriages’ are both untenable and unnecessary in the Church of England or elsewhere. Relationships occur come what may without the paraphanalia of ceremonies. That these are as sinful and irregular as heterosexual co-partnership goes without saying. The fact that they exist does not make them right
But it is refreshing to see the actuality of the problem recognised.
John Bowles, the alternative interpretation is that God regards these people as married and understands that it is only humans who refuse them that same recognition and who disallow the ceremonies that go with it. You really cannot compare the moral status of people who refuse to get married to those who are denied the right to marriage. But as marriage is the one state that is made by the couple and only then confirmed by the priest, we can rest easily knowing that God, from whom no secrets are hidden, can tell a real marriage when he sees it,… Read more »
I would never, Erika, presume to know the mind of God. But I would not imagine that He would see no difference between co-habitation and marriage. At one time homosexuals described their relationships as affairs, even to the point of introducing their partners as ‘my affair’. There was then far greater reality in recognising the nature and impermanence of such alliances before the mimetic adoption of the heterosexual model of marriage was sought as an objective. In those days the nearest thing to marriage was when alliances broke up and people would refer laughingly to a couple having a divorce.… Read more »
John Bowles, thank you for engaging! The difficulty I have is that you generally just make assertions about the morals of homosexual relationships and their supposed status as sham “marriages”. There is very very good pro-gay theology around, and as I said on another thread here, we’re way past the state where we can simply say “oh yes it is”, “oh no it isn’t”. That makes us opinionated but not a serious partner in the conversation. I don’t know if you’ve come across Tobias Haller’s book “Reasonable and Holy”, which is really a bible study on the topic of same… Read more »
When has speculative theology ever been seen in definitive terms? It remains speculative and can only be seen of value when it does not contradict doctrine. I have not read any of the books you mention and cannot comment on them. Many years ago I read a book by an American Jesuit which examined the biblical prohibitions – I think he was later expelled from the Order. You may remember his name. But bad theology does not vindicate its subject – it merely distorts it. Because books have been published does not necessarily mean that what they contain is true.… Read more »
John, thank you. But I still struggle. You say you haven’t read anything that has been written, yet you seem to know that it is bad theology. If you’re so sure that it will be bad theology, why not read it and then engage with each of the actual biblical arguments made and show, rather than assert, that it is bad theology? I can’t say anything about the homosexual people you know, they sound all much of an age group in which a stable open partnership was not an option and relationships, however fleeting, had to be sustained in a… Read more »
Research in the late 80s in the Bristol Diocese amongst Anglican clergy showed that 17% declared themselves to be homosexual.
(Source – unpublished thesis by Paul Appleton quoted in ‘Anglo-Catholicism: a study in religious ambiguity’ by WSF Pickering. SPCK 1989)
No claims can be made for this research, the thesis was never completed and the author died earlier this year. Nevertheless the high figure is interesting both because of the under-reporting which always occurs when such questions are asked and because the results are from a diocese not noted for a high predominance of either Anglo Catholic or gay clergy.
I see the report has been published today,and is (currently at least) available as a free download here http://www.churchofengland.org/our-views/marriage,-family-and-sexuality-issues/human-sexuality/pilling-report.aspx . Fascinating stuff, especially the listening process, and the evidence gathered by listening to gay voices. But the findings are sadly far too conservative for my taste and do precious little to rehabilitate the C of E in its stance on homosexuality. I suppose the fundamentally encouraging part of the report was this: “As we shared our experiences of the listening process within our working group, the most significant and telling points were the following: Opposition to gay and lesbian relationships… Read more »