The Church Times reports: Williams to visit Zimbabwe as harassment continues.
And Ekklesia has a report from ENInews headlined Anglican leader to seek meeting with Mugabe in Zimbabwe.
An earlier Church Times report said: Kunonga looks over the border as evictions bite.
And there was this ACNS report: Zimbabwe Anglican Church fights to reclaim its properties and end attacks.
The Church of England Newspaper has Mugabe meeting for Archbishop Williams and earlier Anglican clergy under siege in Harare.
13 CommentsColin Coward has penned four notes to correct various claims made by Anglican Mainstream recently.
Misapprehensions by Anglican Mainstream – 1
On August 17th, 2011 Dr Philip Giddings, Convenor of Anglican Mainstream, responded to the open letter from Rev Benny Hazlehurst (writing on behalf of the LGBT Anglican Coalition) about conversations with the two groups of bishops appointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, one broadly conservative, the other broadly liberal.
The first issue I want to address is whether or not the broadly liberal group, then convened by John Saxbee, Bishop of Lincoln and now by Peter Price, Bishop of Bath and Wells, had engaged in conversations with Changing Attitude or any of the other LGBT groups…
Misapprehensions by Anglican Mainstream – 2: What happened at Lambeth 1998
Misapprehensions by Anglican Mainstream – 3: The Listening Process
Misapprehensions by Anglican Mainstream 4: The Listening Process will change the Church
14 CommentsToday’s Church Times carries a news report, by me, on the recent meeting of the International Anglican Liturgical Consultation.
See ‘Respectful’ hearing for gay-rites debate.
“RITES relating to marriage” was the subject under study by 56 Anglican liturgists at the biennial meeting of the International Anglican Liturgical Consultation (IALC) earlier this month in Canterbury. Continuing work that was begun two years ago in New Zealand, a report on this topic will be completed by December.
Participants came from 19 Anglican provinces, including Brazil, Hong Kong, Nigeria, and the Southern Cone. Topics included theology, cultural contexts, and the shape and elements of ritual. Papers were delivered by the Bishop of Central Tanganyika, the Rt Revd Mdimi Mhogolo, and by the Revd Dr Simon Jones, of Merton College, Oxford…
…In addition to the regular sessions, there was a separate presentation by members of the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music (SCLM) of the Episcopal Church in the United States on their development of a theological rationale and liturgical principles for same-sex blessings. Those who attended were asked to give feedback by considering specific questions in small working groups.
The chair of the IALC, Dr Eileen Scully, from Canada, said on Thursday of last week that the purpose of the IALC meeting was to work on rites related to heterosexual couples only. In countries where civil-marriage laws were changing, however, to allow either civil unions or same-sex marriage, Churches faced challenges. They needed to reflect on the parallels with traditional marriage…
Anglican Communion Office backfiles of material on IALC here.
18 CommentsThe Church Times has a report by Pat Ashworth Nurses win abortion battle.
The first part of this deals with the case reported here: Equality Act applied in abortion case.
The second part deals with the EHRC intervention: Equality Commission reveals its views on 4 cases at the European Court. This finishes with a quote from me, which unfortunately got shortened in the editing process. The full quote reads as follows:
5 CommentsMany observers will welcome the EHRC’s suggestion that the rights of Eweida and Chaplin, under Article 9(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights to manifest their Christian beliefs, were not adequately considered. It is unclear why claims such as theirs ever came before the courts at all.
However, the EHRC’s view that the domestic courts came to the correct conclusions in the cases of Ladele and McFarlane will be very unwelcome to those who have campaigned so vigorously and so long on their behalf. Most employment lawyers though will breathe a sigh of relief that common sense has again prevailed.
Back in June, we noted that a Church Times leader had said this about that Legal Opinion, which was first reported much earlier in May.
In May, our view was a negative one, since the document listed several reasons why the appointment of a gay bishop could be blocked. This week’s positive spin has not changed our opinion. As the leaders of the “gay-led” Metropolitan Community Church in Manchester wrote to Dr Williams this week, “We note that [unlike a gay candidate] heterosexual candidates for bishoprics are not asked to repent of any sexual activity with which the Crown Appointments Commission may be uncomfortable.” More than one serving bishop has said that he would have considered it an impertinence had he been asked about his sexual history.
The legal advice has no more weight now than before it was circulated to Synod members. It was not approved by the Bishops when they discussed it in May, not least because, to many, the brief was not how to remove discrimination within the Church, but how to continue it untroubled by the law.
The full text of the letter to Rowan Williams from MCC leaders mentioned above (and which was published here) is copied in full below the fold.
6 CommentsThe Very Reverend Keith Jones, Dean of York has written to the Catholic Herald, responding to an intemperate and ill-informed attack on York Minster’s admissions charges and the Church of England in general.
An entry charge at York Minster is needed to maintain such a gigantic building
58 CommentsSIR – William Oddie makes very hostile comments about York Minster in protest at the entry charge, and many other things. He does not say how otherwise we are to maintain this gigantic building, which is not subsidised by the state, and which employs (proudly) numerous skilled workers in stone and glass, and music and teaching, to maintain York Minster for the nation and the world at large. We are not profiteers, but a charity. We take pains to make our references to our constant worship and Christian witness such that non-Christians will not be put off, but his sneers fail to mention that we give free entry to acts of worship or the fact that hundreds attend Evensong each day.
Then there is his charge of the Minster being “purloined” at the Reformation. As an expression of hard-line opinion he is entitled to utter it, but for those Christians who hope and pray for better it is crude and hopeless. For the record, our Anglican view is that York Minster is the product and expression of English Christianity, and belongs now as always to the people of England under their lawful sovereign. The Dean and Chapter maintain and administer it for them by the same law of the land.
The relationship of the Church of England with the see of Rome has varied in form considerably over the centuries; however, we do not believe that the Church of this land is constituted by our recognition of the jurisdiction of the Pope and we hold to the hope of a union of the Churches in which we can belong together again, the honour (and even primacy) of the Roman see being appropriately recognised. Of course it is a difficult thing, but York Minster is a place where already many traditions of English Christianity meet often in friendship and hospitality, praying together and sharing many things we hold in common. Mr Oddie’s accusations of criminality hardly relate to what we believe to be the guidance, let alone the charitableness, of the Holy Spirit, but rather to the jeers of sectarian strife.
Yours faithfully,
Keith Jones
The Equality and Human Rights Commission has published Legal intervention on religion or belief rights: seeking your views.
Last month we announced that we had applied to intervene at the European Court of Human Rights and we have now been granted permission to do so.
We are considering using the four cases already before this Court as a platform to advise on and clarify the interpretation of human rights laws. We are seeking your views on our proposed submission on the human rights elements of the four cases claiming religious discrimination, and separately, whether the concept of reasonable accommodation has any useful practical application in cases concerning the manifestation of religion or belief…
And there is a 6 page consultation document (.doc)
The essence of their position is this:
We propose to intervene in:
• Eweida and Chaplin on the basis that the Courts may not have given sufficient weight to Article 9(2) of the Convention.
• Ladele and Mcfarlane on the basis that the domestic courts came to the correct conclusions.
And
We had suggested that our intervention might put forward the idea of extending the concept of reasonable accommodation beyond disability. However, we also know that this idea needs more careful consideration than the timetable for the European Court of Human Rights allows.
So they won’t now be doing that, but they are seeking views on the subject.
13 CommentsNeil Addison reports on his Religion Law Blog about a new use of the Religion and Belief provisions in the Equality Act 2010.
See Abortion and the Equality Act.
…From the facts it was clear that the Hospital had not recognised or accepted that the Nurses had a legal right to refuse to participate. EMA has been held by the High Court, in the BPAS case mentioned, to be an Abortion procedure under the Abortion Act 1967 and as such the Nurses had an absolute right to refuse to participate under the conscientious objection provisions of s4 of the Abortion Act.
Abortion Act 1967 – 4. Conscientious objection to participation in treatment
(1) Subject to sub-section (2) of this section, no person shall be under any duty whether by contract or by any statutory or other legal requirement to participate in any treatment authorised by this Act to which he has a conscientious objectionTMLC wrote to the hospital stating that the Nurses were refusing to work in the Clinic and quoting their rights under s4 Abortion Act. The letter also stated that their belief in the sanctity of life from conception onwards was a philosophical belief protected under the Equality Act and therefore any attempt to pressure them into participating in the Abortion Clinic or to suggest that their refusal would affect their career would be illegal under the Equality Act 2010.
This particular interpretation of the Equality Act has never, to my knowledge, been argued before however since the Courts have accepted that the philosophical belief in Global warming is protected under Equality legislation, see Grainger Plc & Ors v. Nicholson [2009] UKEAT 0219_09_0311 I could see no reason why belief that human life begins at conception should not be equally protected.
The reason for including the Equality Act in the letters to the Hospital was in order to provide the Nurses with additional protections. Section 4 of the Abortion Act though it is clear does not provide any enforcement mechanism and also does not protect a conscientious objector from being pressurised to participate in Abortion, held back in their career due to their pro-life belief or indeed not employed in the first place. However using the Equality Act as well as s4 of the Abortion Act meant that the Nurses would be able to claim Harassment, Victimisation or Discrimination in an Employment Tribunal if they were put under pressure at work because of their reliance on the conscientious objection protection in s4…
Gavin Drake has some further comments on this.
3 CommentsIn June we reported that Catholic Care had been refused leave to appeal by the Charity Tribunal, but noted that the agency’s solicitor had said:
the charity could appeal to the Upper Tribunal for a review of the charity tribunal’s decision not to allow the appeal. He said trustees had not decided whether to do so.
And it is now reported that they have done this. See this from Third Sector Catholic Care given leave to appeal again.
…After a further charity tribunal ruling in June that it would not accept an appeal against the decision, Catholic Care has appealed to the Upper Tribunal, which has the same status as the High Court.
The Upper Tribunal confirmed this week that it would allow the appeal.
Benjamin James, a solicitor at the law firm Bircham Dyson Bell, acting on behalf of Catholic Care, told Third Sector the charity would argue in its appeal that the charity tribunal had failed to properly perform the balancing act required to determine whether discrimination was reasonable given that, according to the charity, the alternative was closing its adoption service.
James said the charity would attempt to overturn the charity tribunal’s ruling that it had not provided sufficient evidence to show that losing funds from the Catholic Church would force it to close the service. The tribunal had suggested the charity could raise money from other sources…
The historical background to this case can be found in this excellent article in Caritas from last October, by Michael King and Fraser Simpson Equality v religious belief. They then go on to comment:
15 CommentsThe Archbishop of Canterbury spoke in the House of Lords yesterday. His remarks are here.
So did the Archbishop of York. Text over here.
The Bishop of London also made comments, after visiting the affected areas. See this.
Today’s Church Times (press date Wednesday) carries reports of church responses.
See Rioters help themselves; Christians help victims by Ed Thornton
and also Bishop contrasts ‘thuggery’ of vandals with soldiers’ sacrifice.
The Bishop of Southwark has issued a statement: Message to churches about the London riots.
The Bishop of Willesden (an area within the Diocese of London) has issued a statement to his clergy. This is copied below the fold.
The Bishop of London has also issued a statement: London riots: message from the Bishop of London.
The Bishop of St Albans has issued a statement with other church leaders: Bishop leads message of support for Luton
The [RC] Archbishop of Westminster issued this statement: Archbishop Nichols has asked Catholics to pray for those directly affected by the violence in London.
53 CommentsTwo more developments in the previously reported appeal to the European Court of Human Rights of four recent cases involving discrimination in the UK, and the announcement by the Equality and Human Rights Commission that it would intervene in the case. That development was recorded here (12 July), and then here (14 July).
Now the Christian Institute is reporting that Angela Mason, one of the EHRC commissioners has said:
“The commission has already decided not to put forward ‘reasonable adjustment’ arguments if we do continue with our intervention.”
Their source is Pink News which carries further comments from Ms Mason:
“The legal issues are complex but it is a question of harm. And we have to be very careful when the issue is of manifesting religious belief that is about discrimination.”
When asked whether she had been consulted before the EHRC made its announcement, she said: “A press release is a press release. I don’t think it fully represented the opinion of the commission.
“It is important to carefully consider all the points and arguments that have been made and take them into account before we decide to intervene. We haven’t actually been given permission to intervene yet and there are sensitive and conflicting issues.”
Speaking about her personal views, she added: “The balance of reasonable adjustment does not deal in the cases of Ladele and McFarlane.
“If we go back to the issue of harm, there is less harm involved in the wearing of crosses than the view that gay men are less equal.”
The second development is the National Secular Society has announced that it is also going to intervene in the case. See NSS given leave to intervene at ECHR in religious discrimination cases.
4 CommentsThis is taken from a Jubilee Group pamphlet, published in 1988, and titled Speaking Love’s Name; Homosexuality: Some Catholic and Socialist Perspectives. Several excerpts are available on the web here.
The Introduction to the pamphlet was written by Rowan Willliams. A copy has been placed below the fold.
More about the Jubilee Group starting here.
The General Synod resolution of 11 November 1987 to which Rowan Williams refers:
‘This Synod affirms that the biblical and traditional teaching on chastity and fidelity in personal relationships is a response to, and expression of, God’s love for each one of us, and in particular affirms:
(1) that sexual intercourse is an act of total commitment which belongs properly within a permanent married relationship,
(2) that fornication and adultery are sins against this ideal, and are to be met by a call to repentance and the exercise of compassion,
(3) that homosexual genital acts also fall short of this ideal, and are likewise to be met by a call to repentance and the exercise of compassion,
(4) that all Christians are called to be exemplary in all spheres of morality, including sexual morality, and that holiness of life is particularly required of Christian leaders.’
As noted in GS Misc 842b:
59 CommentsAlthough often referred to as the ‘Higton motion’ (the debate was on a Private Member’s Motion from the Revd Tony Higton) what the Synod passed was in fact a substantially recast motion proposed by way of an amendment by the then Bishop of Chester, the Rt Revd Michael Baughen.
We reported earlier on the challenge being made in respect of the large financial grant from the Confraternity of the Blessed Sacrament to the Ordinariate.
There was a further story in the Church Times on Ordinariate finances: Ordinariate describes its £1-million donation as allowing breathing space.
The correspondence columns have had several letters about this, see last week and also two weeks earlier.
This week there is another story, about another society, see President of CU to quit over its exclusion of Ordinariate. And more letters, but these are behind the paywall until next week.
The Church Union website is over here.
64 CommentsGladstone’s Library is holding a residential event from the evening of Friday 2nd to lunchtime on Sunday 4th September which is titled The Future(s) of Anglicanism.
Is there a distinctive Anglican ethos and does it still survive? What does Anglicanism stand for? Is Anglicanism in danger of splitting apart over contentious issues like gay clergy, divorce, women bishops – the so-called western liberal agenda? The end of Anglicanism as we know it?
Is an Anglican Covenant the answer to our contemporary problems? Amidst all the controversy do we miss signs of hope and vibrancy – and the beginnings of an exciting future?
The speakers are:
More details from this page.
10 CommentsPress release from the LGB&T Anglican Coalition.
Coalition offers assistance in Sexuality Reviews
Tuesday 2nd August 2011 – for immediate use
The LGB&T Anglican Coalition has written to the House of Bishops to offer its help in the forthcoming reviews on sexuality and the church.
Following his announcement of reviews on Civil Partnerships and Guidelines on Human Sexuality by the Bishop of Norwich, the LGB&T Anglican Coalition has written to the Rt Rev Graham James welcoming the reviews, and offering to meet with him in the near future.
The letter states, “We are sure that you will want to consult widely in the review process, and would like to offer our services at an early stage. We hope you will welcome this offer to meet a small team representing the Coalition to discuss how our members can contribute to this work.”
This offer stands in sharp contrast to claims made by Anglican Mainstream that such discussions have already been taking place during the past year.
Chair of the Coalition, Rev Benny Hazlehurst, said, “We are looking forward to the opportunity to engage with the House of Bishops in their work on sexuality, but Anglican Mainstream’s assertion that the reviews have come out of pre-existing discussions with LGBT groups is both untrue and misleading.”
In an open letter to Anglican Mainstream, the Coalition says it read with surprise Anglican Mainstream’s claim that the reviews “followed a year of conversations chaired by the Bishops of Lincoln and Bath and Wells, commissioned by the Archbishop of Canterbury, with leaders of the Lesbian and Gay groups in the Church of England.”
The open letter goes on to say that “Neither the Coalition nor any of its member groups were invited to take part in conversations of this kind.”
If the House of Bishops agrees to such meetings however, they will be in full accordance with Lambeth Resolution 1.10 which calls for a commitment ‘to listen to the experience of homosexual persons’ and the Coalition looks forward to the start of formal discussions.
The full text of the open letter to Anglican Mainstream follows below.
2 CommentsThere have been many reports of the row between the Irish Government and the Vatican, which has been so severe that yesterday the Catholic Herald published an article titled Debate: Is there any hope for Catholic Ireland?
Here is the full text of what Enda Kenny originally said.
The Church Times has carried two reports by Gregg Ryan. Last week there was Ireland: abuse report leads to Church-State rift. This week there is Irish PM excoriates Vatican as Nuncio is flown home.
This weekend, the Guardian, in its Face to Faith column, has George Pitcher The Vatican response to the child abuse row in Ireland looks like repentance-lite.
And on Cif belief Massimo Franco writes about Sex abuse scandals and the secularisation of sin.
The Tablet has an editorial Ireland needs a healing touch.
Earlier, Ferdinand von Prondsynski wrote The RC Church in Ireland, coming out fighting: a wise strategy?
Even the Financial Times had an editorial: Arrogant Vatican.
36 CommentsHere are some of the notices of his death that have appeared.
Archbishop of Canterbury Archbishop remembers John Stott
Telegraph The Rev John Stott
Guardian The Rev John Stott obituary
Church Times John Stott: ‘gracious and kind’
New York Times Rev. John Stott, Major Evangelical Figure, Dies at 90
14 CommentsAndrew Goddard at Fulcrum has published a lengthy analysis of the recent document GS Misc 997 (and the earlier GS Misc 992) in a document titled Civil Partnerships & Same-Sex Relationships in the Church of England: What is happening and how should evangelicals respond?
Colin Coward at Changing Attitude has published some comments on this in How to respond to the House of Bishops initiative on Civil Partnerships and Same-Sex Relationships.
Both of these documents contain valuable background information and analysis.
See also extracts from the most recent General Synod Question Time:
Update 10.30 pm
Chris Sugden at Anglican Mainstream has published A response to the House of Bishops’ announcement of a review of its Guidelines on Human Sexuality.
81 CommentsWe reported back in May: Primate calls for Nigeria to leave the UN.
Then at the end of June, there were some press reports about a national consultation in Nigeria, for example: Homosexuality: Nigeria’s Anglican church calls for pull out from UN or Homosexuality: Okoh urges FG to quit UN.
Now, the actual communiqué from that conference has been published: COMMUNIQUE ISSUED AT THE END OF THE NATIONAL CONSULTATION ON HUMAN RIGHTS.
While it is critical of the United Nations, it does not include a call for Nigeria to withdraw.
Jim Naughton’s earlier comments about this are still relevant.
5 Comments