Updated 24 December
The Church Times has two reports on this, both can be found at Church studies employment ruling; scroll down for Shiranikha Herbert’s report of the case.
A court case with significant implications for the Church of England (and other UK Anglicans) was decided in the House of Lords this week. Although the case itself concerned a claim alleging sex discrimination in the (presbyterian) Church of Scotland, it could have much wider ramifications in the long term.
The best newspaper reports of this are in the Scotsman and the Guardian.
Scotsman Susan Mansfield and (scroll down) Julie Sabba Ex-minister wins right to sue Kirk for sex discrimination
Guardian Clare Dyer Kirk minister sacked over affair wins right to lodge sex bias claim
Update also Woman ex-minister to sue Kirk over sex ‘bias’ by David Lister in The Times
The full text of the Law Lords ruling is online here:
Judgments – Percy (AP) (Apellant) v. Church of Scotland Board of National Mission (Respondent) (Scotland) and a PDF of this, which may be more convenient because it is some 60 pages long on paper, is here.
Other press coverage:
Observer before the judgement Minister awaits sex bias verdict … against God
The Times/PA News Woman vicar cleared to bring sex claim
Herald She worked for God on high, but her boss is down on earth
BBC Ex-minister wins sex claim fight
Heading for French style “separation of church and state” ? Next it will be headscarf bans, legislation that discriminates against religions, and state controlled church… Dooh! 😉
Was there not some discussion about the loss of freehold being replaced with acceptance of clergy right to go to tribunal?
Merseymike is right. The proposals for common tenure would indeed give the clergy the right to go to employment tribunals. In the five-minute discussion which passed for a “debate” of these proposals at the London Diocesan Synod, there were some priests who were extremely doubtful about the ability of an employment tribunal to deal with the office and work of a priest. (I think they’re mistaken, and in any event the government isn’t going to wear setting up an entirely different tribunal to deal with the C of E clergy.) In any event, the lady whose nookie inspired the case… Read more »
Yes ; thats what confused me – did the regulations relate to all ministers of all churches?
Merseymike —
I guess establishment is establishment — I’ve been told that Queen Victoria was asked why she always spent Christmas & Easter at Balmoral & she repled, “Oh, those are much too happy occasions for a PRAYERBOOK service!”
I thought that the key line from Lord Nicholls was “It was time.. to recognise…etc”. Isn’t he saying “herewith we bring about a change [in effect] in the law”? Notwithstanding the hypocrisy of harsher discipline of some leaders compared to others for what the church would theoretically say are identical “sins”, if the appointment and discipline of its spiritual leaders and teachers isn’t a spiritual matter for the church (or mosque or synagogue or temple) without interference from the state, what is? If not, it is hard for me to imagine what real effect the churches’ autonomy in matters spiritual… Read more »