Updated again Sunday
This case continues to yield amazing quotations.
Two more reports just in:
Nottingham Post Bishop made ‘personal decision’ to deny license to Nottinghamshire priest in same-sex marriage
…When pressed on what damage Canon Pemberton’s appointment would have caused, Rev Inwood said: “There would be no harm to the trust in granting the license and no harm to the church.”
Employment Judge Peter Britton said the bishop’s decision highlighted an “innate conundrum” for the church and questioned how something that is not harmful to the church can be so fundamental to the doctrine as to cause the license to be denied.
He said: “This is a busted flush isn’t it?”
In response Rev Inwood said: “I think put like that I would agree with you Sir.”
Press Association via the Guardian Recruiting married gay priest would not have harmed church, bishop admits
…Inwood was asked by Sean Jones QC, acting for Pemberton, what harm he thought it would do the Church of England to have granted a licence to allow the 59-year-old to be appointed as chaplain. “We know that Canon Pemberton wanted to join. In your view he was perfectly capable, you had no reason to believe he wasn’t. He was the trust’s preferred candidate, and that when you refused the licence, at very least, the man responsible for making recommendations to the trust was anxious to get you to think again. We know the House of Bishops guidance did not require you not to grant. And you say you took the decision. What was it you feared would happen?
What harm would arise if you gave Canon Pemberton the licence?”Inwood replied: “It is not a matter of danger but by my own oath of honour and obedience, under authority, to maintain the doctrine of the church.
It’s my own personal decision.”Jones asked: “You weren’t anticipating any harm, whether to him, to you, or the trust? The bishop replied: “Certainly no harm to the trust or the church.”
The tribunal judge, Peter Britton, picking up on this answer, suggested it left him with a conundrum. He asked the bishop: “If it would be no harm to the church, and the doctrine is about protecting the beliefs of the church, then haven’t you got an innate conundrum? If it so fundamental to the doctrine, thus the breach would cause harm. But if you think it is of no harm to the church surely that means the reliance on this being fundamentally doctrinal, as to otherwise bring down harm on the church, is a busted flush isn’t it?
Inwood agreed but later added that he would have felt granting the licence would have been incompatible with guidance issued by the Church of England’s bishops in March 2014…
Update
Ian Paul has this further analysis: Is wrong doctrine harmful?
The Church Times carries this report in its online edition: Same-sex marriage ‘certainly irregular’, Inwood tells tribunal
Judge: “busted flush.”
CofE (notionally): “Doctrine is what we say it is. And we are harmed whenever a priest asserts otherwise.”
Even if the Bishop had put this reasoning forward convincingly, it doesn’t sound as though it would cut much ice in this tribunal.
sounds like he’s not defending the church policy at all — just telling the tribunal to give a judgement on it — he might be happy if the tribunal found it unjustifiable
Well, this match is going to be over in three sets. My spies had told me that the bishop was essentially acting under orders, i.e. he took advice, lots of it, and made his decision accordingly. Why would an acting bishop play it any other way on an issue that was clearly seismic? Now it seems that Lambeth and Church House have an audit trail that distances themselves from the decision and puts the focus back on the bishop. He has admitted that it was his personal decision, based on his oath of honour and obedience, under authority, presumably of… Read more »
The bishop seems to have thrown in the towel.
The exemption in the Equality Act only applies to sexual orientation discrimination which is imposed “(a) because it is necessary to comply with the doctrine of the organisation, or (b) to avoid conflict with strongly held convictions within sub-paragraph (9).”
Necessary is a big word. The bishop’s case now seems to fall short of it.
What does ” busted flush” mean ?
So the bishop agrees that his own case is ‘a busted flush’. Hard to see how the C of E case can recover, but would welcome Peter Ould’s view (as also on Schuth from an earlier thread).
This judge is astute. The question of what or who is harmed, or not, should guide the moral compass of the church. What does it say about the “teachings” if ignoring them with inclusion does good and following them with exclusion is exceedingly hurtful?
Inwood’s quoting Francis Urquhart’s “You may say that ….” gives me great pleasure.
Grateful for the term “busted flush” which I’ve never encountered and had to look up. I’m afraid my first thought was of lavatories, and thought the Judge’s comment a bit rude. But it is a useful phrase, given its meaning in this particular Card Game. It strikes me that much of the C of E position on sexuality is in this position: a half-reliance on principles of natural law simply cannot hold. It’s either the whole package (including a bar to contraception) or you’ve lost the rational rationale, such as it is. Of course, if this is a card game,… Read more »
I’m surprised that there are not more poker players among our readers.
Having literally a busted flush in our house at the moment, in the lavatorial sense, I’m afraid I didn’t even realise this was relevant until I was reminded by another member of my family. I went straight to the card-related meaning – which reflects on the proclivities of my youth, and also seems to reveal my advancing age – “you thought it was worth something, but actually it’s worthless”. I was going to put “but actually it isn’t worth a hill of beans” before realising this might make the situation worse. If it weren’t so serious for the people involved,… Read more »
I must admit to being puzzled by +Richard Inwood’s input here. On the surface it seems inept in the extreme and just begging for the tribunal to find in favour of Jeremy Pemberton. And I just cannot – for one second – believe that the bishop made this decision without any reference to an archbishop (although I can quite believe that such a reference was done in such a way as to enable the archbishop(s) to maintain full deniability). Perhaps I am reading too much into this, but what comes across to me is someone who has been left swinging… Read more »
Inwood does himself no credit here: playing the “I was only obeying orders” card with one breath; then with the other, admitting that he suspended Pemberton’s license at his own discretion. At no point does it appear to have dawned on him that he should refuse to obey immoral orders, let alone that, as a diocesian bishop (even acting), he’s not supposed to take them. Honor, for him, lies in being a company man. That speaks volumes. I’m glad that Sentamu’s no longer a party, ’cause this isn’t on him. Whatever “advice” he gave, it’s Inwood’s decision, and he’s at… Read more »
This is quite fascinating.
Am now beginning to wonder whether the bishop thinks that the orders that he was under were ridiculous.
He’s certainly playing the part of one who imposed doctrine for doctrine’s sake, but couldn’t really justify it to himself.
“No harm to the trust or the church.”
Left unsaid: “But harm to the Anglican Communion.”
Of course, if the bishop had said that, then we all would have had proof that Canon Pemberton is being denied his license in order to placate homophobes in Nigeria.
I’m not sure I share @James Byron’s relief that +Sentamu is no longer part of this. Much of the responsibility for this situation must, surely, lie at his door. Not only has he previously intervened in a matter outside his own diocesan jurisdiction, taking advantage of a vacancy-in-see and knowing that the acting bishop would comply; I simply cannot believe his ‘advice’ to +Inwood was in any way neutral. This has got the new papal style of archiepiscopal ‘leadership’ written all over it.
One hardly dares to hope. One thing’s certain: the attempts of our wretched archbishops to put a firewall between themselves and these proceedings will fail.
Things are changing. Last night my wife was reading our son a story. The princess, disguised as a boy, so impressed the Sultan that he offered his daughter in marriage. The princess agreed. Quoth 9 year-old Tommie: ‘Love knows no gender’. Like Susanna, I’m against church schools.
The image that comes to my mind is that of the crumbling house in the path of the motorway under construction somewhere in China (https://uk.news.yahoo.com/defiant-homeowner-refuses-to-move-while-motorway-gets-built-around-his-house-131436056.html#a96m3nb). The ancient owner refuses to budge so the contractors wait for the inevitable.
I’m puzzled by the willingness of many here to complain about Richard Inwood’s role in this. To be a bishop, at least since Rowan’s time on matters of doctrine, is to express only the position of the House of Bishops. What +Inwood seems to be doing is show how ridiculous this particular position is, at some cost to himself. That the issue is seen by some as a licence to blatantly misrepresent what he has said (does anyone have a more complete record than the C of E website extract?) illustrates a wider problem. The whole theological fabric of the… Read more »
I understand that an unofficial transcript of the full hearing, including all the witnesses’ evidence, will become available in a few days’ time. Surprisingly, to me, there is no official transcript taken of the proceedings at an Employment Tribunal. Commentators of whatever opinion will then be able to make up their own minds regarding what was said.
David Marshall, The bishop was very clear that he supported the position of the House of Bishops. But the pastoral statement did not stipulate what would happen if anyone went against it and married. This was left to the individual bishops. The point made was that the bishop had said to Jeremy in a meeting that he had 4 options open to him, one being to do nothing, one being to issue a rebuke, one being proceedings under CDM/EJM and one being not issuing a license. It was clear that he would be making the final decision. Whether any pressure… Read more »
Erika – a small correction of fact:
At the one meeting I had with Richard Inwood his Registrar outlined for me four possible consequences of my having married:
1. No action
2. A written rebuke
3. Removal of my PTO
4. Action under the CDM (the EJM was not mentioned)
I believe it is now also possible to obtain the original witness statements from the tribunal. Is anyone planning to do that and publish them?
“To be a bishop, at least since Rowan’s time on matters of doctrine, is to express only the position of the House of Bishops” @ David Marshall. Er… no actually. The Bishop of Lincoln could have withdrawn Jeremy Pemberton’s Licence or refused to renew it for the NHS post he holds in Lincoln Diocese, but chose another course. +Richard Inwood had clear latitude on this, but chose to withdraw Jeremy’s Southwell PTO Licence after his marriage and then took the course of action he did when a Licence was requested by an NHS trust in that Diocese. To condone the… Read more »
Did not get the point of the misreported cross on a earlier thread. thats the problem with this type of thing though its so partial.
But i read on earlier threads I find here that the bench of bishops had established a small committee to advise bishops on their response to married gay clerics, in itself something of a novelty i read.
Is this temporary diocesan saying he did not consult that group?
Has there been any reference to this panel?
Erika
From the Press Association quote above, +Inwood’s reason for his decision was to maintain the doctrine of the church. I think that’s a crazy basis for making a decision like this, but it’s what bishops (and priests) promise to do. Jeremy Pemberton chose to get married when he did to make a point. The bishop denied him a licence to make another point. That the issue may be highly personal (rather than some other equally contentious but less personal theological sticking point) does not seem a good reason to misrepresent what the bishop said.
Again, one small correction:
The Bishop of Lincoln could only have removed my licence under action brought against me under the Clergy Discipline Measure following a complaint. No complaint was ever made.
“Jeremy Pemberton chose to get married when he did to make a point.” That’s quite an assertion. Most people get married because of personal reasons. When it became legal in my state, we wasted no time. Those legal and human rights matter. Affirmation from our friends and family matters. For my spouse and I, the sacrament in the church mattered (Praise God is was available to us). Has Jeremy P. declared that his marriage was all about making a “point?” Or was it just time? In TEC, there are bishops who are INSISTING that gay clergy get married and make… Read more »
David Marshall,
You don’t know me. You have no idea of the motivation that lay behind my marrying, either the decision itself, or the timing of our marriage. Frankly it is none of your business.
But you are completely wrong in your assertion that I chose to marry when I did to make a point. Nothing could be further from the truth. This was explored in the Tribunal and completely refuted by me.
An apology for what you said would be in order.
I’m trying to understand what lies behind the often made comment that Jeremy married to make a point.
Is it a very low view of marriage or a very low view of gay people?
Re Ian Paul’s blog, has the case actually been made that the pastoral statement lays down doctrine? That the church HAS a doctrine about same sex marriage, and that this doctrine us a first order issue?
And I don’t mean whether individuals believe this to be so, but whether it is absolutely legally clear and beyond dispute?
Bishop Alan testified how doctrine is made in the CoE and how it is enshrined in law. None of that has happened with regard to same sex marriage.
“Jeremy Pemberton chose to get married when he did to make a point.”
Please, without evidence to substantiate that claim, it is a pretty hurtful thing to say about someone’s tender love and fidelity to their partner.
On other matters, I think Charlie raises a relevant point. What advice (if any) did the episcopal sub-committee offer?
Jeremy
I did not mean to give offence and I apologise for doing so. I thought that was a reasonable outsider’s interpretation of both your and Richard Inwood’s actions. On reflection I see it was inappropriate. I should have found another way to note my concern about the way some commentators (not you) misrepresented what was said at the tribunal. Sorry.
David,
Apology accepted. Thank you.
Jeremy
Ian Paul’s invocation, in this case (x2), of ‘wrong doctrine’ seems to me incredibly tendentious.
David,
Apology accepted. Thank you.
Jeremy
Jeremy P wrote: “Again, one small correction: The Bishop of Lincoln could only have removed my licence under action brought against me under the Clergy Discipline Measure following a complaint. No complaint was ever made.” I think Jeremy is correct and this is vitally important to understand the difference between Lincoln and Southwell (and why in the removal of the original PTO there was NO inconsistency). PTO and Licence are two different things and so just because a licence is not removed in one Diocese, a PTO can still be removed in another (and vice-versa). None of this is really… Read more »
Peter: thanks for this post. Have you views on either of my two questions?
Peter I think the blathering ignorants on Changing Attitude simply find it inconceivable that someone can commit such a major sin that his PTO has to be removed and license refused, yet a bishop in another diocese does not instruct the Archdeacon to make a complaint so that diocese, too, can take appropriate action against this severely sinning priest. One assumes that if Jeremy had been caught with his fingers in the till or had an affair with an 18 year old choirboy in his care Lincoln would have quickly found a way of making sure he was no longer… Read more »
Peter, I am contesting both the removal of the PTO and the Refusal to grant a licence. It was made very clear in the submissions and in the taking of witness evidence that the two were understood by all parties to be linked before the PTO was removed, because at the “pastoral meeting” of 29 May Richard Inwood was told of my application to Sherwood Forest Hospitals NHS Trust, which application had gone in on 14 May. It was the bishop who commented that it would be unusual to grant a licence if a PTO had been removed. And when… Read more »
Thanks Jeremy. You appear to agree with me that the issue is about what happened in Southwell and that therefore maintenance of a licence in Lincoln is irrelevant.
Which is exactly my point about those blathering on as though it were relevant legally.