from Lambeth Palace and Bishopthorpe
Tuesday 17th June 2008
For immediate use
Joint statement by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Archbishop of York regarding St Bartholomew-the-Great
“We have heard the reports of the recent service in St Bartholomew the Great with very great concern. We cannot comment on the specific circumstances because they are the subject of an investigation launched by the Bishop of London.
On the general issue, however, the various reference points for the Church of England’s approach to human sexuality (1987 Synod motion, 1991 Bishops’ Statement- Issues in Human Sexuality- , Lambeth motion 1:10, House of Bishops’ 2005 statement on civil partnerships) are well known and remain current.
Those clergy who disagree with the Church’s teaching are at liberty to seek to persuade others within the Church of the reasons why they believe, in the light of Scripture, tradition and reason that it should be changed. But they are not at liberty simply to disregard it.”
ENDS
In the light of this, can someone confirm whether these “teachings” have authority, and whether “guidelines” were not followed or actual rules broken?
Leaving all the political posturing aside, how much freedom does a priest have here?
A lucid and robust response.
‘House of Bishops’ 2005 statement on civil partnerships’
…so Richard Coekin and co who engaged in illegal and irregular ordinations was similarly not at liberty to disregard official positions I presume. Does anybody remember how he was disciplined? I seem to recall something like ‘don’t let it happen again’ and I guess the same will happen to Martin Dudley – though the seriousness of the breach was far graver in the case of Coekin and co.
Yes, lucid robust and terse !
I see it for the back covering devise it is.
Does anyone know that the C of E board of Pensions has a section on Civil Partnerships in its Clergy Pensions booklet ?
Fairly cautious comment I would have thought – a light rap over the knuckles. But then a) they don’t want to be seen pre-judging +Richard’s “investigation”, and b) they do want to put something out to get all the “what does that woolly bearded man in Lambeth think he is doing?!” conservatives off ++Rowan’s back. To do it with media-luvvie ++Sentamu is clever. I think this will do the job – but it doesn’t actually tell us much. And I think Erica’s point about the STATUS of C of E policy on sexual ethics in general and gay ethics in… Read more »
“can someone confirm whether these “teachings” have authority, and whether “guidelines” were not followed or actual rules broken?”
And, given the HOB motion coming to the July Synod re women bishops, can someone clarify whether a Code of Practice is “guidelines” or “rules”??
“Those clergy who disagree with the Church’s teaching are at liberty to seek to persuade others within the Church of the reasons why they believe, in the light of Scripture, tradition and reason that it should be changed. But they are not at liberty simply to disregard it.”
Says the bishop who knowingly ordained a practicing homosexual. Pot, kettle, black.
Comment deleted.
Erika, Was this service one of holy communion (and thus allowed by canon, even if mistakes were made in its conduct) or a service of blessing for a homosexual relationship / couple? The former is a form of service allowed by canon, the latter isn’t. It is however not prohibited by canon law and is therefore less serious than say benediction which is a form of service prohibited by canon. Perhaps a few Bishops should beware participating in benediction. Asking the vicar in question not to offer such blessings (or saying he would be grateful if the vicar didn’t offer… Read more »
“Those clergy who disagree with the Church’s teaching are at liberty to seek to persuade others within the Church of the reasons why they believe, in the light of Scripture, tradition and reason that it should be changed. But they are not at liberty simply to disregard it.”
There goes the Reformation then…
“There goes the Reformation then…”
But surely the Reformation was a necessary evil with, in every place, far more evil than necessary. This current debate highlights some of the errors of the Reformation that even we, whose reformation was more conservative than most, are still suffering from today.
I think they are at liberty to think as they wish and to tell the leadership of the church what a sickening bunch of bigots they are.
The commendable thing about this statement is that it adds nothing to the status of the various “reference points” the Church has tortuously and unnecessarily burdened itself with in recent years. I think it is significant that “reference points” is the major way in which they are referred to (“Church’s teaching” in para 3 shouldn’t be read as synonymous with the “reference points” in para 2).
Finally(!) we have a politically astute statement from the two ABs, which should prevent the Bartholomew the Great service from becoming ammunition in the puritans’ attacks on the whole church.
This statement would have a lot more credibility if it weren’t for three little words that make it complete hypocrisy:
Remember Jeffrey John.
They forgot to mention how Jesus was certainly free to disagree with the money changers in the temple but (as it was accepted policy approved by the religious leaders of the day) he was not free to chase the money changers out of the temple. No, Jesus should not have seen himself at liberty to act as he did. He was free to think that the religious leaders of the day were wrong but he had no right to upset the established order. Established order first and foremost. And while we are at it, eating with tax collecters and harlots… Read more »
“Those clergy who disagree with the Church’s teaching are at liberty to seek to persuade others within the Church of the reasons why they believe, in the light of Scripture, tradition and reason that it should be changed.”
But isn’t this precisely what was done?
“Those clergy who disagree with the Church’s teaching are at liberty to seek to persuade others within the Church of the reasons why they believe, in the light of Scripture, tradition and reason that it should be changed. But they are not at liberty simply to disregard it.”
Sometimes the only way to convince a hardened heart is to go ahead and do what they are hardened against, proving to them that the world will not end when it happens.
I suppose this service was the only one of its kind ever to have occured in the C of E, right? Or was it the object of arch-episcopal tut-tuttery because it was public and got a lot of press coverage?
Remember, the ABC likes gays OK, and will even celebrate Eucharist with them, as long as it happens in a nice gothic closet and someone eats the invitation list.
And when do we get arch-episcopal tut-tuttery over the various episcopoi vagrantes [or in good old Ammurican, vagrant or hobo bishops]?
The Book of Acts (and other parts of the New Testament) spring to mind. The authorities’ priests deprived the early Christians of witness, allowed witness but then tried to coral its direction to gain the points (remember Jesus’ contempt and the Caesar coin manipulation), actually chased souls out of towns with stones (depriving witness not only with their buildings but also from the public streets), and engineered souls assassinations. How are these priests any different from those who persecuted the early church and denied grace to others both before, during and after the church’s inception? Fortunately God has ways of… Read more »
Lucid it was but robust it wasn’t. It’s like living in an in between world, forever not one thing nor another, but the edifice is crumbling. It could just be that when the histories get written (I’m smiling to myself because a church group discussed history this evening) that this service will be seen as a fine symbolic signpost on the way to something we will come to regard as second nature. and commonplace
Yes it’s a no!
This is a welcome statement by the Archbishops, who are men of the highest integrity.
The more I see of the CofE, the more I love TEC. Lord have mercy!
What God has joined together let no man put asunder… We hear a lot about “religious conscience” these days. With its faithful adherence to Scripture, tradition and reason, painstakingly prepared, nothing about the Order of Service could be construed as remotely “secularist”, so we shall see whether participants’ religious conscience is respected in the investigation. Those screaming “Off with their frocks!” might take some comfort from this joint statement. But if the Church’s teaching needs to be revised in the light of the Listening Process at Lambeth, any accusations of “disregarding” the Church’s teaching will look a little harsh. Dr… Read more »
Robert Ian Williams: “Yes it’s a no!”
Did you think of that comment yourself or did you shamelessly steal it off the front of an issue of Private Eye last autumn commenting on Gordon Brown and the snap election which he didn’t call?
😉
This is a welcome statement by the Archbishops, who are men of the highest integrity.
Posted by: Audrey on Tuesday, 17 June 2008 at 10:50pm BST
Yes, men of two very different integrities !
“Well, just because Jesus felt that he was at liberty to disregard religious rules which contradicted justice and mercy doesn’t mean that anyone else should!”
Indeed! There’s an awful lot of “WWJD” going around these days. It tends to help us forget that none of us is God Incarnate, which is, I think, somewhat the point.