RW lecture on the media
Rowan Williams delivered a lecture last night at Lambeth Palace, entitled The Media: Public Interest and Common Good.
Lambeth Palace also issued a press release about it, in advance: Archbishop delivers major address on media.
Reports of this speech:
Ruth Gledhill in The Times Archbishop hits out at web-based media ‘nonsense’
THE Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, has criticised the new web-based media for “paranoid fantasy, self-indulgent nonsense and dangerous bigotry”. He described the atmosphere on the world wide web as a free-for-all that was “close to that of unpoliced conversation”.
In a lecture to media professionals, politicians and church leaders at Lambeth Palace in London last night, Dr Williams wondered whether a balance could be struck between the professionalism of the classical media and the relative disorder of online communication.
Dr Williams also extended his wide-ranging critique of journalistic practice to the traditional media, arguing that there are “embarrassingly low levels of trust” in the profession and that claims about what is in the public interest need closer scrutiny. He called for a “more realistic, less fevered” approach to stories by journalists and added: “There is a difference between exposing deceptions that sustain injustice and attacking confidentialities or privacies that in some sense protect the vulnerable.”
He attacked the “high levels of adversarial and suspicious probing” that send the clear message that any kind of concealment means “guilty until proved innocent”, and he challenged journalists and broadcasters to attempt to regain lost public confidence…
Stephen Bates and Owen Gibson in the Guardian Archbishop attacks ‘lethal’ media
The Archbishop of Canterbury last night launched a wide-ranging attack on the media, accusing journalists of distorting debate, contributing to a climate of national cynicism, and unjustly attacking institutions over their secretiveness.
In the most trenchant statement on public life he has made in his three years at Lambeth Palace, Dr Rowan Williams appeared to take in tabloids, broadsheets, weblogs and broadcasters with equal vehemence. He charged all with conspiring against public understanding.
The speech at Lambeth Palace represented a departure for the archbishop, who has been criticised in church quarters for his reluctance to speak out on public matters, leading to accusations that his advisers prefer him to say nothing controversial.
Dr Williams claimed that some aspects of current journalistic practice are “lethally damaging”, contributing to the “embarrassingly low level of trust” in the profession.
The archbishop said: “We need to deflate some of the rhetoric about the media as guardians and nurturers of democracy simply by virtue of the constant exposure of ‘information’ and we need to be cautious about a use of ‘public interest’ language that ignores the complexity and, often, artificiality of our ideas of ‘the public’. “
He accused the media of manipulating fear, exhibiting violent conflict between people for entertainment, and living off internal feuds: “Corrupt speech, inflaming unexamined emotion, reinforcing division, wrapped up in its own performance, leaves us less human: fewer things are possible for us. Bad human communication leaves us less room to grow.” His attack encompassed national newspapers which “communicate as if every reader … shared the same fundamental values, preferences and anxieties”, broadcasters for their obsession with breaking news, and weblogs which indulge in “paranoid fantasy, self-indulgent nonsense and dangerous bigotry”…
The Guardian also has an editorial about this, which should be read in full, Good news. Two quotes from that:
…Since he has spent much of the last three years avoiding as many journalists as he could, his analysis lacks the kind of practical sympathy arising from shared experience that he believes journalists should show towards their victims. It certainly lacks the snap that might propel it in the market place. But he makes a couple of deep and important points. The first is that the media, just as much as other powerful forces, tend to destroy the autonomy of the professions they write about. A professional, by definition, has knowledge and understanding unavailable to outsiders. Journalists, Dr Williams believes, should be illuminating this kind of inside knowledge and allowing readers to share it imaginatively; instead they concentrate on dragging mere facts into the light, which may well be misleading even if they are correct…
…The archbishop wants a society in which journalists, readers and their subjects all talk back to each other and try to learn from each other. This will strike most journalists and those who have to deal with them as extraordinarily utopian. Yet Dr Williams is right. There is something wrong with a society in which this seems a ludicrous aspiration. He should talk about it with journalists more often – and not just at them.
We don’t often link to the Sun on Thinking Anglicans, but its report is headlined ‘Fever’ call to media.
2 CommentsAnglican Global Initiative
Updated Thursday twice
Two sources have published reports concerning a draft document which is titled: THE ORGANIZING CONSTITUTION OF THE ANGLICAN GLOBAL INITIATIVE.
Stephen Bates has this report in the Guardian Conservative Anglicans’ church plan revealed. It starts out:
Conservative Anglicans have drawn up detailed plans to set up their own church within a church, with their own constitution and decision-making synods, according to a document seen by the Guardian.
The move, days before representatives from the church’s 38 provinces meet in Nottingham to discuss the state of Anglicanism, appears to be the latest stage in the 77 million-strong communion’s widening split over homosexuality within the priesthood.
The draft organising constitution for a group to be called the Anglican Global Initiative envisages that it would operate within the Anglican communion. The document proposes that it should be headed by two conservative primate archbishops from the developing world “to affiliate and unite in love, holiness and true godly fellowship through our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, Anglicans in [the] global south with Anglicans in North America and the United Kingdom”…
Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh has issued a press release about the document, with the title Akinola and Gomez Prepared to Start Alternative Anglican Communion which can be read here and in part says:
Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh (PEP) has obtained a draft constitution for an organization called the “Anglican Global Initiative” (AGI), apparently intended to be a shadow, alternative, or parallel Anglican Communion for so-called orthodox Anglicans. The document, which has circulated among leaders of the Episcopal Church, USA, and the Anglican Church of Canada since the Primates Meeting of last February, was discussed at a January Nairobi meeting of “Global South” primates led by Nigerian Archbishop Peter Akinola. The constitution, which seems not to have been formally agreed to by meeting participants, names Akinola and Archbishop Drexel Gomez, of the West Indies, as interim co-presidents. Akinola and Gomez have been two of the most vocal critics of the Episcopal Church and of the Anglican Church of Canada for their treatment of homosexuality.
Despite provision in the draft document for appointment of a group of 12 laity and a synod of bishops, all power lies in the hands of an Executive Council of primates and one lay representative of their choice. Between meetings of this Council, power is exercised by the president(s). One provision would allow the Moderator of the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes (NACDAP) status as a primate. The top-down polity outlined by the constitution is also reflected in the document’s omission of the Anglican Consultative Council from a list of Anglican Communion entities owed respect for their “historical role and authority.” (The other three “Instruments of Unity” are named.)
An analysis of the text of the draft suggests that it was drawn up in close consultation with the NACDAP. It is prefaced by “If it becomes necessary, REALIGNMENT GUIDELINES.” “Realignment,” usually without any clear explanation, is a common theme of NACDAP spokespersons. The structural charter of the NACDAP and the AGI constitution each has an Article IX concerning property, with the AGI version closely following that of the NACDAP. The AGI constitution makes provision for a uniform canon law, recognizes the Anglican Relief and Development Fund by name, and commits to setting up missions in disregard of diocesan boundaries and directly serving dissident parishes, not only in North America, but in Britain as well. The AGI constitution was probably drawn up after the October 2004 meeting of CAPA (Council of Anglican Provinces of Africa) for presentation in Nairobi. Attached to it is what appears to be a preliminary draft of the statement actually issued January 28, 2005, at the close of January Nairobi meeting…
The AGI draft document itself can also be read in full here. The attached preliminary draft of the Nairobi statement can be compared with what was actually issued here.
Updates
Steve Levin in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette has Plan realigns Anglican church. Comments in that article include:
The Rt. Rev. Robert W. Duncan Jr., bishop of the Pittsburgh Diocese and moderator of an organization of representatives from about 10 dioceses around the country — including Pittsburgh — who believe the Episcopal Church has overstepped its canonical boundaries, said he first learned of the draft yesterday.
He dismissed it as looking “like the work of some lawyers” but said a similar document could eventually emerge.
“It’s within the structures of the Anglican Communion,” he said. “There are numerous subgroups within the communion. This is a proposal for another subgroup.”
The press spokesman for the Pittsburgh diocese commented directly to titusonenine see here. Further comments about this are located here.
Those who want to see what the original document looks like should examine the 0.9 Mb PDF file available here.
further update
The story is also reported in the Church of England Newspaper as Conservative Anglicans planning separate branch
news from Trinidad
John Gladwin wasn’t the only person recently affected by the policies of the Province of the West Indies.
From the Trinidad and Tobago Express a profile this week of the American priest who had her invitation to return to her native country withdrawn by the local bishop, God loves Gays.
Ifill’s attitude of inclusion-expected, of course, from a priest-landed her in the midst of a local controversy last month, when she became the second cleric from whom an invitation to speak here was withdrawn. The Trinidad and Tobago Anglican diocese cited conflicts between its and the invitees’ views on homosexuality. (The other rejected priest was UK bishop John Gladwell.)
Ifill says media headlines referring to her as “pro-gay” distorted her views on the issue. Her stance might best be described as open and non-condemning.
“I still struggle with the issue,” she says. “Every day you see scientific research and evidence contrary to what we think might be someone taking on (homosexuality) because it’s a fad or because they feel to go this way.”
Ifill tells the story of praying and crying with a suicidal gay young man who had been ostracised by his church and family. The painful experience had a great impact on her outlook.
“It’s very, very hard for me to come hard and fast on any particular side,” she says of the conflict that has been rending the international Anglican community.
But Ifill is certain that her role in dealing with gay parishioners is the same as dealing with straight, that is, to counsel, comfort and-above all-accept.
“The church is called to reconcile all people to God and to each other,” she says. “The church has a mission in this world to preach the gospel and we cannot be about alienation.”
Ifill’s moderate position was close enough to the church’s liberal extreme—concentrated in the USA, Canada and the UK, which supports gay clergy and the blessing of same-sex unions, to alarm local bishop, Calvin Bess.
He, like other West Indian Anglican leaders, believes gay relationships are a contravention of God’s laws and therefore not consistent with Christianity.
“The whole question of homosexuality has been pronounced upon by the word of God,” Bess says in a phone interview. He cites biblical passages some believe prohibit homosexual acts. One, Leviticus 18:22, reads: “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind; it is abomination.”
“Who am I to go contrary to the word of God and stay a minister?” says Bess.
Reassurances from Ifill that she would not preach anything contradicting the West Indian position weren’t enough.
“She had a number of programmes in schools,” says Bess. “How would she know the kinds of questions those children were going to ask? I cannot allow myself to be seen as somebody who is saying one thing and doing the opposite. I would look like a madman.”
Ifill is regretful of Bess’s decision and the rift in the worldwide Anglican church.
Here’s the earlier reports of her disinvitation, Anglicans blank another foreign priest on gay issue and West Indies Withdraws Invitation to American Missioner.
For good measure, here’s a recent piece by Angela Infill, What Is Expected of the Baptized?.
49 Commentsweekend opinions
Alex Wright, who is religion editor at IB Tauris has written in the Guardian godslot about Landscapes of the spirit
Christopher Howse in the Telegraph writes this week on Crying out for vengeance
In The Times Jonathan Sacks, who has today been knighted, writes about volunteering in Lifting others, we ourselves are lifted
This month in Harper’s Magazine Jeff Sharlet has a major article: Inside America’s most powerful megachurch. This was discussed in last week’s Church Times Press column by Andrew Brown in Where they queue to get in
Pastor Ted has been getting a lot of publicity lately in the USA, follow the links from The Church of No Questions
There’s a second article in that same Harper’s issue, Feeling the hate with the National Religious Broadcasters
5 Commentsfrom the Church Times last week
The process of inculturation in southern Africa has led some priests to introduce animal slaughter. Michael Bleby reports in Bringing new blood into church
There was also a related news story by Bill Bowder, Blood used to welcome ancestors
For many unmarried couples, christening of their children is a substitute for another service, Alan Billings finds in Why baptism parties are getting bigger
Boycotting Israel, especially its universities,would not have helped anyone, argues Ed Kessler in Sense triumphs in boycott row
1 CommentResourcing Mission Group – 2
The Church of England report from a group with this title has now attracted some press coverage.
Ruth Gledhill wrote about it in The Times Church admits cash shortage threatens one third of clergy
Peter Price the chairman of the group wrote a letter to the editor, taking issue with the article: Church of England’s finances and future
The Church of England Newspaper contained an article in a quite different vein, headlined Church to direct funding to enable mission ventures
The BBC reported this way: Buildings ‘holding back’ Church
In the Church Times Bill Bowder had Out-of-date Church lacks vision, not cash, says report
The report’s own summary of its conclusions is reproduced below the fold.
0 CommentsInclusiveChurch and General Synod
InclusiveChurch is campaigning for election to the 2005-9 General Synod of many more clergy and lay members who are committed to celebrating and maintaining the Anglican tradition of inclusion and diversity.
Advice on how to get nominated and elected can be found on the IC website as PDF files:
IC Aims and Objectives for the 2005 General Synod Elections
Advice on making an election address
How to stand for General Synod, advice for Laity
How to stand for Synod – advice for Clergy
How does the single transferable vote system work?
Panel of Reference named at last
The names of the rest of the panel have now been announced. The full text of the ACNS press release is below the fold.
Updates Thursday and Friday
Ruth Gledhill reports this news in today’s Times under the headline Church appoints tribunal to bring peace on gay row
The CEN has Panel of Reference named
The Church Times has Dr Williams names his row referees
Scottish bishops: further statement
The Scottish bishops have issued this Statement by the College of Bishops concerning future discussion of issues raised by the Windsor Report in the Province.
Earlier reports of the events leading up to this can be found here and here. Also here and here.
The full statement is reproduced below the fold.
0 CommentsEvangelical, Broad and Catholic Anglicans Working Together for an Inclusive Future
History was made on Saturday 4 June when representatives of 14 organisations from the full span of Anglican Communion tradition took part in a partnership and strategy day, organised by InclusiveChurch at All Saints Church, Fulham.
Representatives of organisations as diverse as Accepting Evangelicals, the Society of Catholic Priests, the Evangelical Fellowship for Lesbian and Gay Christians and Affirming Catholicism met with representatives from LGCM: Anglican Matters, the Modern Church People’s Union, Progressive Christianity Network, WATCH, Changing Attitude and others to deepen existing partnerships and to develop concrete strategies for joint action.
Erica Wooff, National Coordinator of InclusiveChurch, said:
‘We are a network of partner organisations and individuals whose very make-up reflects the breadth and scope of the Church of England and beyond. We come from differing traditions and differing locations today, but we are united in one aim: To celebrate and maintain the traditional inclusivity and diversity of the Anglican Church.’
Revd. Giles Goddard, Executive Secretary of InclusiveChurch, said:
‘If we are to be faithful to the Gospel and to our Anglican traditions, it is essential that we celebrate the ministry of women as bishops without reservation, of lesbian and gay people on equal terms with the rest of the world, of people from ethnic minorities and people with disabilities. We hope that the upcoming meeting of the Anglican Consultative Council will be robust in their rejection of anything which might limit Anglican diversity.’
As the first joint action following the partnership day, InclusiveChurch and its partner organisations will be present at the ACC meeting in Nottingham and will be urging ACC members to ask all Provinces in the Anglican Communion to begin a process of genuinely listening to and seeking to understand, first-hand, the experience and theological positions of lesbian and gay Christians – a process that has been woefully lacking to date.
For further information contact Rev. Giles Goddard at giles@inclusivechurch.net or on 07762 373 674 (m); or Rev. Dr. Giles Fraser at giles.fraser@btinternet.com or on 07811 444 011(m).
24 CommentsMr Hooker and the Windsor Report
Mike Russell, the Rector of All Souls Episcopal Church, San Diego, California, recently wrote the following short essay to explain why section B4 of the Windsor Report does not reflect the classic Anglican position on the authority of Scripture, which is to say the position of Richard Hooker.
Reproduced with Mike’s permission
For his credentials on Hooker see here
Another essay in the same vein is here
columns this weekend
John Wilkins a former editor of the Tablet writes in The Times about the former editor of America in Full symphony of voices needs to be heard
Over at the Telegraph regular columnist Christopher Howse writes about FD Maurice in Moonshine and Spitzfindigkeit (another article occasioned by this same biography was in the Church Times recently)
In the Tablet Isabel de Bertodano interviews Cardinal Rodríguez of Honduras in Africa’s Latin champion
Both the Church Times and the Tablet have editorial opinions on the French vote against the European constitutional treaty:
Church Times Why the French voted no
Tablet Europe must go back to basics
and for good measure Giles Fraser added ‘Non’ also to Anglican bureaucracy in his op-ed column in the Church Times
0 Commentslast week in the Church Times
Robin Gill wrote about human embryo cloning in Knowing the facts of life. He is Michael Ramsey Professor of Modern Theology at the University of Kent.
Another feature article was Understanding Akinola by Canon Dr Stephen Fagbemi who is Honorary Curate of Murston with Bapchild and Tonge, in the diocese of Canterbury.
Addendum: The Nigerian Vision Statement mentioned is here (hat tip to KB)
Theo Hobson’s new book ANARCHY, CHURCH AND UTOPIA: Rowan Williams on church was reviewed by David Martin.
And edited extracts of the recent Fulcrum talks by Tom Wright and Jane Williams were printed. Full versions still available here
6 CommentsBrazil and the Panel
3 weeks now since we were told that we would learn more about the Panel of Reference “next week”. The CEN has some information though in its report New ‘Panel of Reference’ role to be limited:
The 12-member panel will be “representative of the Anglican Communion by geography, gender and order” Dr. Carnley noted, with the laity “very likely to be canon lawyers”.
As of May 31, nine of its twelve members had been chosen, The Church of England Newspaper has learned. Several Primates, bishops and church leaders approached by Lambeth Palace had declined to join, citing the pressure of other work.
Another case where an appeal is being made to the Panel of Reference is the Diocese of Recife, Brazil. At least the Province of Brazil will be represented and able to speak at Nottingham, unlike its North American counterparts.
Meetings in London and Cheshire last week gave publicity to the situation in Brazil, where an entire conservative diocese is seeking episcopal oversight from “any orthodox province” instead of from the Igreja Episcopal Anglicana do Brasil. The remarks prepared for these events were published by Anglican Mainstream as
Remarks from a conflict – “What is right & fair?”.
A further note about this then appeared on the Living Church website as
Brazilian Archdeacon Meets with Lambeth Palace
(This note also reported that the Panel membership would be announced on 31 May.)
Civil Partnerships: CofE statement
Updated Friday 10 June
According to the Church of England Newspaper a spokesman for the CofE said this week:
“The Church of England’s position on same-sex relationships has not changed and is not about to change in the light of the Civil Partnerships (sic) Act, that comes into effect in December. It is set out in the General Synod motion of 1987 and the House of Bishops’ statement, Issues in Human Sexuality.
“The Church’s approach to civil partnerships will reflect the fact that they will not be marriages, nor based on the presumption of sexual relations between the two people making the legal agreement.
“A working party of the House of Bishops has been drafting a Pastoral Statement in response to the Act. This was discussed at the House of Bishops meetings in January and May. The House has agreed its broad approach and the statement is being amended to take account of those discussions. It will be published in the course of the summer.”
The report is headlined Bishops decide clergy can register gay partnerships
(Graham James is the bishop of Norwich not Norfolk).
The Norwich Evening News carries this further report: Bishop’s role in new gay guidelines
The Living Church carries a version of this story at Civil Partnerships for British Clergy Clarified
Update The Church Times carried Same same-sex policy
21 CommentsARCIC Seattle Statement
The full text of the Seattle Statement, Mary: Grace and Hope in Christ is now available on the web in several places:
Vatican copy
Canadian copy or in French
As yet it has not appeared on the ACO website, but this page contains an address by Nicholas Sagovsky delivered in the Jerusalem Chamber at Westminster Abbey on 19 May, and a homily by Cardinal Walter Kasper preached at Vespers in All Saints Anglican Church in Rome on 22 May.
The most balanced Anglican analysis so far is the Fulcrum response to the statement which is here.
A Vatican commentary on the document can be found here.
Earlier TA items can be found here and here.
2 CommentsNottingham meeting details published
Information about the Anglican Consultative Council meeting in June is now available:
Anglican Consultative Council ACC-13 Meeting
Programme of Events
List of Attendees
Some additional useful links:
The ACC constitution
A briefing paper by James Behrens, from Anglican Mainstream which discusses the relationship between the ACC and the other instruments of unity
The Jubilee Campus of the University of Nottingham
Civil Partnerships and the CofE
In view of the forthcoming Pastoral Statement on Civil Partnerships it may be of interest to read what the Church of England said formally to the UK Government back in 2003 when the government was holding a public consultation on this matter.
The document is on the CofE website in Word format though its location here is not very obvious. An accessible copy of it is available here.
The government document to which this was responding is this one (very large – 1.5 Mb – pdf file). The report on this consultation is another similar sized document. One item from it is this:
2.13 Of those representing nationally-based religious groups:
- For example, the Church of England, the Catholic Bishops Conference, the Salvation Army, the Methodist Church and others
- 53% (9 responses) supported the principle of a civil partnership scheme
- 47% (8 responses) opposed, or did not offer an opinion on, the principle of a civil partnership scheme
2.14 Of those representing individual religious groups and congregations:
- These were largely Baptist, Evangelical, Free and Congregational churches
- 85% (17 responses) opposed the principle of a civil partnership scheme
- 15% (3 responses) supported the principle of a civil partnership scheme
The legislation that was then drafted and subsequently passed differs from what was in the consultation document in various ways, so the CofE comments should not be interpreted as applying to the legislation as it now stands.
9 CommentsThe Panel and the Connecticut Six
It’s now 18 days since we were told (on 11 May) that the other participants in the Panel of Reference would be named “next week”.
Meanwhile these developments in the Connecticut case:
A Statement by the Connecticut Six was issued on 27 May, in response to the diocesan statement of 19 May. This starts out:
A recent statement by the Bishop of Connecticut (issued through his spokesperson, Karen Hamilton), which has been masquerading as a piece of journalism, includes distortions of fact and blatant misrepresentations; it is proof positive of the need for immediate intervention here in Connecticut. There are two major issues that must be addressed: Bishop Smith’s abandonment of orthodox Anglican faith and order and his continued harassment of faithful clergy and congregations in Connecticut.
Unfortunately, the article fails to substantiate this criticism by listing any specific “distortions” or “misrepresentations” in the diocesan article, but after addressing the other two issues mentioned, it concludes:
Everyone in the Episcopal Church concerned with the preservation of the Anglican Communion and the imperatives of simple Christian charity, should call on the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church and the Archbishop of Canterbury to employ the Panel of Reference to intervene immediately, so that adequate episcopal oversight can become a reality for faithful Episcopalians of Connecticut. No further adversarial action, or threats of such action, should be countenanced.
There has been one attempt to suggest a way forward in this dispute, in earlier (April) blog posts by Leander Harding, which I had missed at the time: Observations On CT Clergy Meeting Today and Thoughts On The CT Six. These suggestions do not seem to have had any effect on the dispute.
Also, last week, David Anderson issued An Open Letter to the Anglican Communion from the AAC President
While this does not mention Connecticut, it is an extended criticism of the remarks already reported from Archbishop Peter Carnley about the Panel.
If the Panel of Reference is a serious effort by the Primates and the Archbishop of Canterbury’s office to address the needs of those who otherwise would seek succor from global Anglican Provinces, and if there is serious intent to implement this Panel so that it fills this need, major change including the choice of the chairman will be necessary for this to be acceptable and useful. If it is designed to be unacceptable or useless, the bother of assembling the Panel can be dispensed with.
One might have thought that this subject should be placed firmly on the agenda of the forthcoming Anglican Consultative Council meeting in Nottingham, where other provinces could express their views face-to-face to ECUSA representatives. However, since the ECUSA delegation was asked by the Primates meeting (and has agreed) not to participate in that meeting, that’s now not possible. What a pity.
3 CommentsCivil partnerships and the clergy
Update Tuesday
Here is a good critique of this newspaper report: Get a Clue
According to Christopher Morgan of the Sunday Times the Church of England will respond to the issue of clergy who wish to enter into a Civil Partnership in the following manner:
Church to let gay clergy ‘marry’ but they must stay celibate
HOMOSEXUAL priests in the Church of England will be allowed to “marry” their boyfriends under a proposal drawn up by senior bishops, led by Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury.
The decision ensures that gay and lesbian clergy who wish to register relationships under the new “civil partnerships” law — giving them many of the tax and inheritance advantages of married couples — will not lose their licences to be priests.
They will, however, have to give an assurance to their diocesan bishop that they will abstain from sex. The bishops are trying to uphold the church doctrine of forbidding clergy from sex except in a full marriage. They accept, however, that the new law leaves them little choice but to accept the right of gay clergy to have civil partners.
The decision is likely to reopen the row over homosexuality that has split the worldwide Anglican communion. It may also overshadow an international meeting of senior bishops next month designed to heal rifts between liberals and conservatives over the issue.
The Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement estimates that within five years 1,500 homosexual Anglican clergy will have registered under the new law, which comes into force on December 5.
The Church of England proposal is contained in a draft Pastoral Statement on Civil Partnerships, drawn up by Graham James, the Bishop of Norwich. It was discussed at length and provisionally agreed at a meeting last week at a hotel in Market Bosworth, Leicestershire.
A final draft with some amendments will be produced for approval by the House of Bishops, the upper house of the church’s General Synod.
Under the proposal, a priest intending to register a civil partnership would inform his or her bishop in a face-to-face meeting. The priest would then give an undertaking to uphold the teaching of the Church of England, outlined in the 1991 document Issues in Human Sexuality. This paper prohibits sex for gay clergy.
Although no sanctions are included in the new proposal, it is expected that a breach of the rules may lead to disciplinary action or the possible suspension of clergy.
Some bishops, however, are uncomfortable about subjecting their priests to the proposed interviews.
One said this weekend: “We all have clergy in gay partnerships in our dioceses and there is a genuine reluctance on the part of a number of us to make their lives more difficult.”
…The bishops have also agreed to a government request to change ecclesiastical law to favour civil partners. A change to the Pluralities Act of 1838, for example, will enable gay partners to occupy vicarages for up to two months after the death of a priest.
This matter was the subject of questions at the General Synod in February, and the answers were published exclusively on TA here. The Civil Partnership Act can be read in full here.
The government is also proposing to amend the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003. Clause 3 (defines the meaning of discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation) and Clause 25 (benefits dependent on marital status) are the sections affected. The purpose of the first of these amendments, which would add a new sub-clause 3.3, is explained thus:
Purpose and effect
1. The purpose of this new provision is to make it clear that, for the purposes of the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003, the status of a civil partner is comparable to the status of a spouse. The effect is to enable a civil partner who is treated less favourably than a married person in similar circumstances to bring a claim for sexual orientation discrimination under the Sexual Orientation Regulations. New paragraph 3(3) prevents the discriminator from being able to say, by way of defence, that being married is a material difference to being a civil partner. The discriminator would have to show that the married person and the civil partner were not in a comparable position for some other reason, for example, that they were doing different jobs.
2. An employer etc would not be able to justify less favourable treatment of a civil partner as compared to a spouse in similar circumstances unless he could show that being heterosexual was a genuine occupational requirement (GOR) of the job within the meaning of reg 7(2). The additional GOR exception in reg 7(3) for employment for purposes of an organised religion permits an employer to apply a requirement “related to sexual orientation” (rather than to be a particular sexual orientation). It may therefore permit a narrow range of employers, such as religious organisations, to require that an employee be married (rather than a civil partner) but only where such a requirement is necessary to comply with the doctrines of the religion, or because of the nature and context of the job, to avoid conflicting with the strongly held religious convictions of a significant number of the religion’s followers. It is likely that these defences will only be available in a very limited number of circumstances.
The proposed wording of the clause is as follows (the consultation is now closed and this might change when the proposal is formally published for parliamentary approval):
15 CommentsNew regulation 3(3)
3. Discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation
“(3) For the purposes of paragraph (2), in a comparison of B’s case with that of another person the fact that one of the persons (whether or not B) is a civil partner while the other is married shall not be treated as a material difference between their respective circumstances.”