Anglican Mainstream leaders wrote this letter to the House of Bishops of the CofE. And another one, apparently on 3 October. Anyway, they got a reply from the secretary of the HoB, which they have published. It can be read here. It should be read in full, but does contain the following key paragraphs:
In relation to the church’s room for manoeuvre in relation to the law there were two separate issues. The first is whether it would have been legally possible for the Church to have made registering a civil partnership incompatible with being in Holy Orders. The second concerns the changes to various references to ‘spouse’ in church legislation (for example on pensions).
On the first, the answer is that there will no doubt be denominations or faith groups who will regard being in a civil partnership as intrinsically incompatible with membership of their ordained ministries. That is the position of the Roman Catholic Church. The law does not preclude that approach where the prohibition is based on doctrine or religious conviction. For the reasons set out above, however, civil partnerships do not necessarily involve activity contrary to the teaching of the Church of England (as contained, for example, in the 1987 Synod motion). The bishops did not, therefore think it warranted to seek to impose a prohibition.
This statement is very helpful and clears up the questions I had. I do not think it will be at all helpful in quieting the concerns of +Akinola and others; after all, extending entitlements formerly reserved to married couples to same-sex partners is, I take it, a major part of the problem for them: it creates a “marriage-like” status that should be reserved to a mixed-sex couple.
It remains to be seen if this letter will smooth or roughen +Rowan’s way in Egypt, or even back in England.
“….civil partnerships do not necessarily involve activity contrary to the teaching of the Church of England…… The bishops did not, therefore think it warranted to seek to impose a prohibition.”
Do they mean that because there may be a possibility that a civil partnership may not be sexual, they didn’t relish the prospect of the battle with the gay lobby?….
Neil suggests that the HoB didn’t rule against all civil partnerships because it didn’t want a battle with what he calls the “gay lobby”. The statement makes it clear that it is not fear of a fight that has deterred the House but the understanding that some partnerships will be entirely consistent with Church of England teaching and tradition. It has long been the case that some persons have chosen to live with a friend of the same sex without any desire or intention that the relationship involve anything we would call sexual activity. This was particularly common among unmarried… Read more »
David, I wonder if the HoB are really as naive as you imagine? “The statement makes it clear that it is not fear of a fight that has deterred the House but the understanding that some partnerships will be entirely consistent with Church of England teaching and tradition.” That can only be true for a very small minority of relationships which qualify as civil partnerships. The HoB concede that they have deliberately chosen not to handle the issue as they could have done on grounds of doctrine and religious conviction, as per the approach of the RC Church. Instead, they… Read more »
We know that the HoB (except for Lincoln) will not be authorising such rites, but that was not the question.
Will they take action against members of the clergy for inappropriate conduct when it is apparent that they are living in a partnership which is both civil and sexual?
And if not, will they allow clergy to share a house with a member of the opposite sex, on the strict understanding that this is an entirely innocent arrangement?
“when it is apparent that they are living in a partnership which is both civil and sexual?”
Apparently sexual HOW, Alan?
Unless the bishops are planning some kind of inquiry (inquisition) into the exact nature of civil relationships, I would suggest that the living relationships of any particular set of partners is, apparently, no one’s business but theirs.
[Or will establishing the nature of a relationship devolve into more of the *gnosis* we’ve seen so much of around this board lately? “Oh, you just *know* that those two are Going At It!”]
JCF, yes the Bishops’ pastoral statement SAYS that the Bishops *WILL* enquire of those entering into CPs as to whether they are “going at it”.
CPs are allowable for clergy IF the Bishop is assured its participants are not “going at it”.
That aspect is a recipe for deception and hypocrisy…
Civil partnerships are gay marriage. Thats something that both gay activists of which I am one, and conservatives, fully recognise.
I wonder if the Church are going to dig up two old buffers who are ‘Just Good Friends’ to prove their rather pathetic point?
As it stands, I shall be having my wedding next year, and I definitely don’t want the Church involved!
Well, to judge by these comments and others elsewhere, it appears I was correct that this ‘explanation’ would do little to soothe. What seems strange to me is the supposition that the same-sex clergy couples who are living together without benefit CP are already “breaking the rules” — yet little fuss is made. I think I am seeing that the real concern for at least some, as with J John and V G Robinson, is not that they are gay clergy (even in the latter case sexually active gay clergy) but that anyone should know about it. But people do… Read more »
It is PRECISELY a recipe for deception and hypocrisy. Clergy are not permitted in the Church of England to share a house with a partner of the opposite sex unless they are married. The same principle should apply to a couple who have entered a civil partnership (which the bishops assure us is NOT marriage). The cleric(s) involved should be disciplined in precisely the same way as a heterosexual couple would be. The whole world (apart from the house of bishops) knows what civil partnerships are intended to be. The bishops might wish to be a laughing-stock but the rest… Read more »
So, Alan, it isn’t actually sexual relationships you lot are bothered about, is it?
Unless you are suggesting that sharing a house with someone of the same sex without civil partnership would be OK…? Or is it simply that you don’t like gays full stop?
If only you lot would admit to your bigotry and homophobia – for that is what it is – inbuilt and integral to your religion…..
No, merseymike, you have misunderstood completely. I would not want to see any cleric living with a partner to whom he/she is not married. But I guess Christian sexual morality has come to mean in your own mind whatever you want it to mean, nothing more and nothing less? If civil partnerships are NOT marriage (as the bishops are claiming) then they should not tolerate any cleric publicly moving their civil partner into the Vicarage as if this were a marriage. Equally, if civil partnerships ARE a form of secular marriage, as you have repeatedly stated, it is not a… Read more »
Alternately, we recognise that the Church has got it wrong, and needs to change.
If the Church wishes to try and throw me out after our civil partnership ceremony next year, I’d be interested to see them try.
Of course, they know this is a non-starter with the laity, so you’ll have to carry on fulminating!