The Genesis of Anglicanorum Coetibus is the title of a paper which was presented by Dr. William Tighe at the 2011 Anglican Use Conference, which took place recently at the Church of St. Mary the Virgin, Arlington, Texas. It contains some detailed information about its origins, with particular reference to (a) The Traditional Anglican Communion, (b) Forward in Faith/UK and (c) Other Church of England bishops.
The third of these may well be the most interesting. In connection with it, he refers to two other documents:
Updated
The Guardian’s Riazat Butt reports Archbishop of Canterbury dismisses spin doctor.
The archbishop of Canterbury’s spin doctor is to leave after just nine months in the role and following Tory protests over a controversial magazine article condemning the coalition.
George Pitcher, an Anglican priest and former journalist, was hired last October as public affairs secretary at Lambeth Palace and engineered Rowan Williams’s stint as guest editor for the New Statesman last month, which saw the archbishop launch a sustained attack on the coalition.
His criticism, seen by Whitehall as the most outspoken by an archbishop in a decade, pitted him against the government and left Lambeth Palace scrambling to minimise the damage as Conservative politicians and peers berated the archbishop either through the media or through channels at the Church of England.
Sunday, Lambeth Palace confirmed that Pitcher was leaving, but refused to say whether the New Statesmen stint had anything to do with his exit. “George was contracted to advise the archbishop on public affairs issues and that contract expires on 30 September when he will have completed projects he was asked to undertake. “When approached by the Guardian about his departure Pitcher said: “I am returning to journalism, a culture to which I am better suited…”
Later, Tim Ross at the Telegraph had Archbishop of Canterbury fires advisor Rev George Pitcher over outpoken attacks on coalition.
Dr Rowan Williams is understood to have lost confidence in the Rev George Pitcher, his public affairs secretary, and agreed that he should leave his post at the end of the summer.
It is understood the situation came to a head when Mr Pitcher made a crude joke about the Archbishop in the Daily Telegraph’s diary column following criticism of Dr Williams’ attacks on the coalition…
…Lambeth Palace confirmed that Mr Pitcher’s contract would end in September, one year after he started, and would not be renewed.
A Lambeth Palace spokeswoman said: “George will have finished the project he was working on and he wished to return to journalism.”
Mr Pitcher said: “I have decided to bring things to an end but it is true that I would have stayed with the Archbishop for the duration [of his time in the post].”
Here’s his piece in the Sunday Express Church Must Engage Us All (h/t DW)
Updated Wednesday
Jerome Taylor in the Independent has Who will rid us of turbulent PR man George Pitcher?
16 CommentsHis departure will leave Lambeth Palace bereft of a charismatic operator who was keen to see the Church engage with the public on key political issues. In a recent piece for the Sunday Express, he wrote: “The middle classes and MPs are keen to tell bishops to butt out of politics when they’ve something to say about health or education or treatment of our elderly. But our Church isn’t outside politics, only party politics.”
Others say Rowan Williams will now need to find a replacement for Mr Pitcher who will do more to protect him, rather than promote him. “Rowan needs advice, he really does,” said one Westminster lobbyist at a prominent Anglican group.
“His background is thoughtful academia and he doesn’t really spend enough time working out how his words will be perceived in the mainstream press. But at the same time his press team should be encouraging him to get out there and talk about issues, not duck behind safe headlines.”
The Church Times has a news article by Ed Beavan headed C of E in ‘ticklish’ position over its Murdoch shares.
During Church Commissioners’ questions, however, the First Church Estates Commissioner, Andreas Whittam Smith, admitted that premature sale of the shares would be “very bad”. It was “a ticklish area”.
The EIAG had been quick to consult James and Rupert Murdoch, he said, but the situation “won’t be easy, and I won’t volunteer to be part of the team”. Mr Whittam Smith was founding editor of The Independent.
The statement issued earlier by the Ethical Investment Advisory Group is available here.
Other churches also have embarrassments. The Tablet has two items about the links between James Murdoch and the recent papal visit, but neither is available online. However, Riazat Butt reported some of it in her article for the Guardian James Murdoch’s six-figure gift to UK papal visit.
A shorter version of the comments by Catherine Pepinster who is Editor of The Tablet is available here.
At Ekklesia Simon Barrow has some reflections on all this, see Church investments in the spotlight again.
This tidbit from the Church Times article:
3 CommentsThe Archbishop of Canterbury’s spokeswoman said that it was unlikely that Dr Williams was a victim of phone-hacking. Dr Williams does not own a mobile phone.
Richard Coekin has written a long article, titled We rejoice in the emergence of the ANGLICAN MISSION IN ENGLAND.
In this piece he explains in detail about the purpose of AMiE and why it was/is unhappy with both the previous and current bishops of Southwark. It needs to be read in full.
…For example, in the liberal Southwark Diocese where I work as a senior pastor and director of the Co-Mission church-planting network, we have been pushed into “temporarily impaired communion” with our Diocesan Bishop since 2005. This is because, despite Lambeth Resolution 1.10 (declaring that homosexual activity is wrong) he would offer us no assurance that he would teach that homosexual practice is sin and therefore something not to be tolerated among the clergy. As a matter of conscience under the Biblical command to “contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints” with those “who change the grace of our God into a licence for immorality”, we cannot accept the oversight of a Bishop who refuses to teach such fundamental Biblical doctrine. The Bible is clear that un-repented wickedness (including homosexual practice) prevents us from inheriting the Kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:9-11). The refusal of church leaders to teach this truth with compassion and clarity imperils the salvation of gay people we seek to love in our community by suggesting that repentance isn’t necessary. In this conviction we have enjoyed warm fellowship within many Evangelical networks but have longed for orthodox Episcopal oversight within the Church of England that will support Biblical teaching in our church-planting movement…
Richard Perkins, of Christ Church Balham has written at The Urban Pastor about AMiE. This article reflects on a BBC radio interview from last week.
Robert Piggott, the BBC Religious Correspondent, got it about right on Saturday on Radio 4. In his piece on the Today Programme he commented that, in launching the AMiE, conservative evangelicals had parked their tanks on the front lawn of Lambeth Palace.
It’s obviously the case that the establishing of this new mission society is seen by some as unnecessarily provocative. Even by some of those who are orthodox on the issue of human sexuality. But it’s worth asking why some evangelicals thought that such a drastic move was necessary. A ‘conversation’ is supposed to be taking place between, if I may simplify, the liberal revisionists and the evangelical reformers. But clearly one side doesn’t feel that they’re being listened to. They are now, I’ll wager…
Some historical background can be found in this presentation by John Richardson.
32 CommentsThree Questions were asked at General Synod last Friday about the Legal Opinion issued as GS Misc 992. They were answered together.
Question 7
Mrs Sue Johns (Norwich) to ask the Chairman of the House of Bishops:
Q. Has the House considered the issues addressed in GS Misc 992?
Question 8
The Revd Canon Simon Butler (Southwark) to ask the Chairman of the House of Bishops”
Q. Given the legal opinion offered in GS Misc 992 (‘Equality Act’) can the House indicate the following:
a. Which individuals or bodies are responsible for weighing and, if appropriate, adopting this opinion as policy;
b. The process by which this opinion shall be weighed and, if appropriate, adopted;
c. How these deliberations will be communicated to this Synod and candidates for episcopal appointment?
Question 9
The Revd Dr Rosemarie Mallett (Southwark) to ask the House of Bishops:
Q. As we have in effect debated paras 14-18 of GS Misc 992 regarding divorce and remarriage at the February Synod, what process does the House envisage to ensure that a debate on the complete paper takes place, recognising that the circulation of a paper to Synod by the Legal Office does not create policy?
The Bishop of Norwich to reply:
A. With permission, I shall answer this and the related questions from Simon Butler and Rosemarie Mallet together.
The Legal Office note was produced in December and made available to members of successive Crown Nominations Commissions and to all diocesan bishops in connection with episcopal appointments. It explains the implications of the legal framework created by the Equality Act so that those making appointments understand the parameters within which they now have to operate. It offers no policy advice. The relevant policy documents are the well known texts referred to in the document, to which must now be added last Friday’s modest supplement from the House.
The policy issue on civil partnerships is now for the review of the 2005 statement and the Church’s stance on same sex relations more generally will be addressed in the consultation document that the House will produce in the light of the listening process in 2013.
Supplementary Question from Simon Butler:
While I welcome the House of Bishops clarity that GS Misc 992 isn’t the policy of the Church, nevertheless it is the legal opinion of the church’s lawyers. Can the Bishop confirm then what freedom the House of Bishops has to depart from this legal opinion?
A. Well, I think what the legal opinion seeks to do is to explain for those involved in episcopal appointments what the law permits. It simply refers back to formal statements of the Church of England’s policy, including statements by the House of Bishops on divorce and civil partnerships, and of course that’s been amended in the light of what the synod decided last February, but it actually offers no policy advice. And the House of Bishops statement is about policy reviews, not prejudging their outcome.
Supplementary Question from Rosemarie Mallett:
Again, we thank you for the clarity of your answer. As part of the review process that will be now ongoing, can we be assured that the House of Bishops will consult with members of the House of Clergy and the House of Laity, before bringing the final consultation document to synod in 2013, so that we have a truly dialogic as well as listening process between now and 2013.
A. Well I think that what we hope for in the 2013 review, which will cover matters related to human sexuality, is to try and create an account of what’s gone on in the listening process, which has included clergy and laity over the course of the past decade or more. And there is a sense in which quite a lot of that work of course has already included clergy and laity, and how that review group will go about its work I can’t say, but it would be very surprising if it did not include consultation with clergy and lay people, to produce the sort of document that we hope would be representative of the mind of the church as a whole.
3 CommentsA Question was asked at General Synod last Friday about this. (The deadline for filing Questions was several days prior to the issue of GS Misc 997.)
Question 6.
The Ven Jan McFarlane (Norwich) to ask the Chairman of the House of Bishops:
Q. What consideration has the House given to the eligibility for the episcopate of those in civil partnerships?
The Bishop of Norwich to reply:
A. As Synod members will now have seen from GS Misc 997, which was issued last Friday, the House of Bishops has decided to review the pastoral statement on civil partnerships that it issued in July 2005 before the Civil Partnership Act came into force. That review will, among other things, address an issue on which the 2005 statement was silent, namely whether those in civil partnerships should be eligible to become bishops. To avoid breaking new ground while the review is in progress the House has concluded that clergy in civil partnerships should not at present be nominated for Episcopal appointment. The review will be concluded next year.
Supplementary Question from Mr John Ward (London):
In welcoming GS Misc 997 most sincerely and the review of the civil partnerships statement, will the House engage with the whole People of God when reviewing this statement, including lesbian and gay people in civil partnerships, and if so how?
A. Well, that will be a matter for the review group when it is established, how it goes about its work, and I think I wouldn’t want to say more than that. But your point is well made.
2 CommentsSeveral Questions were put down for answers at Question Time last Friday relating to the Anglican Church in North America. Only one of them was reached during the session, but the written answers prepared for the others were issued afterwards (and are reproduced below the fold).
Question 40.
Ms Susan Cooper (London) to ask the Chairman of the Faith and Order Commission:
Q. Father Thomas Seville CR, ‘of the Faith and Order Commission of the Church of England’ was welcomed as a ‘participant and observer’ at the Provincial Council 2011 of the Anglican Church of North America in Long Beach, California. What was the status of his attendance from the point of view of the Faith and Order Commission?
The Bishop of Chichester to reply as Chairman of the Faith and Order Commission:
A. Fr Seville attended the ACNA Provincial Council as an observer at my request following a resolution of the General Synod in February 2010.
The Archbishop of Canterbury had subsequently highlighted certain questions on which he and the Archbishop of York would value the thinking of the Faith and Order Commission in preparing the requested report.
As Fr Seville is one of the two members of the Faith and Order Commission most closely associated with its work on “continuing churches” in the light of a resolution of the 1998 Lambeth Conference, he attended as an observer on behalf of and reporting to the Commission in order to assist our work in advising the Archbishops.
Supplementary Question by Ms Cooper:
Would the bishop clarify how the visit… was funded?
A. It was entirely funded by the Anglican Church in North America.
8 CommentsUpdated Wednesday 20 July
The BBC has reported that:
A review of how the Church of England dealt with two paedophile priests contains significant inaccuracies, a BBC investigation has found.
The review, carried out by Baroness Elizabeth Butler-Sloss for the Church, looked at how historic claims of abuse by two Sussex priests were handled.
Evidence obtained by BBC South East appears to show a bishop provided incorrect information to the inquiry.
The Church said the new information did not undermine the review.
Read the BBC report and watch the video: Church abuse report over Sussex sex abuse ‘inaccurate’
Earlier BBC reports are here, and here, and also here.
The Diocese of Chichester earlier issued this press release: Bishop responds to safeguarding report and the actual reports are available as PDF files:
Update
The latest (19 July) BBC report is: Report into paedophile priests Cotton and Pritchard investigated
12 CommentsThe Church of England is starting an investigation into how inaccurate information was published in a report on two paedophile priests.
The report, by Baroness Elizabeth Butler-Sloss for the Church, looked at how historic claims of abuse by two Sussex priests were handled.
Lewes and Hastings Archdeacon, the Ven Philip Jones, denied there had been a cover-up.
The EHRC has issued a clarification of its intentions in this Q and A, which has been reproduced by the Equality and Diversity Forum. See EHRC intervention in cases of religious discrimination. This inlcudes the following passage:
The purpose of our intervention is to explain that the law should consider how it may give better respect for religious rights within the workplace than has hitherto been the case, without diminishing the rights of others. We want to change the view that there needs to be an either/or situation. The spotlight and focus is placed too frequently on conflict in place of dialogue that could help identify other acceptable workable solutions.
The accommodation of rights is not a zero sum equation whereby one right cancels out or trumps another. We believe that if the law and practice were considered more widely, then in many situations there would be scope for diverse rights to be respected.
Our view is that careful, sensitive and balanced treatment and consideration is discouraged by the approach taken by the courts to date. In turn, this hinders the development and dissemination of better practice amongst those with duties. We believe that where possible ways should be found within the law of promoting the resolution of disputes at an early stage, without protracted, costly, complex legal proceedings that irretrievably damage relations between the parties.
Philip Henson on Employment Law Update gives an extensive background briefing in The Equality and Human Rights Commission calls for ‘reasonable accommodation’ for religion or belief.
More comment articles expected soon. Meanwhile, this earlier TA article indicates the views of Trevor Phillips, chair of the EHRC.
Heresy Corner has Equality Commission outrages gays and humanists.
The Church Times carries a news report by Ed Beavan Courts have set bar too high for Christians, says EHRC.
1 CommentUpdated Thursday morning
The Equality and Human Rights Commission has applied to the European Court of Human Rights to be allowed to intervene in several recent cases concerning religious discrimination in the workplace.
The EHRC has issued this press release: Commission proposes ‘reasonable accommodation’ for religion or belief is needed.
Judges have interpreted the law too narrowly in religion or belief discrimination claims, the Commission has said in its application to intervene in four cases at the European Court of Human Rights all involving religious discrimination in the workplace.
If given leave to intervene, the Commission will argue that the way existing human rights and equality law has been interpreted by judges is insufficient to protect freedom of religion or belief.
It will say that the courts have set the bar too high for someone to prove that they have been discriminated against because of their religion or belief; and that it is possible to accommodate expression of religion alongside the rights of people who are not religious and the needs of businesses…
The National Secular Society is unhappy, see Equality Commission determined to push religion up the hierarchy of rights.
So is the British Humanist Association, see Equality Commission’s intervention in Christian legal cases ’wholly disproportionate’.
And Stonewall is deeply disturbed, see Stonewall response to EHRC statement on religious ‘discrimination’ cases.
The Christian Institute is however very pleased, see Equality body: Courts have failed Christians and also Humanists and gays fear EHRC intervention.
Updates
Some further reactions:
Christian Concern Equality Commission decides Christians have the right to follow conscience
Andrew Copson at Cif belief The EHRC’s stance on religious rights undermines its credibility
Patrick Strudwick The Equality and Human Rights Commission’s choice is beyond belief
32 CommentsSavi Hensman has written about the presidential address given on Saturday by the Archbishop of Canterbury.
The Church is “the visible sign of a faithful God”, declared the Archbishop of Canterbury. He was speaking at the Church of England’s General Synod on 9 July 2011, in York. He expressed the view that those present were “entrusted with the strength not to abandon and the joy of knowing ourselves not abandoned.”
Rowan Williams made many valuable points in his presidential address to Synod, the Church of England’s key decision-making body. Yet his lack of acknowledgement of the Church’s mixed record raises some concerns…
Changing Attitude has published some comment about the note sent to synod members from the House of Bishops about the Equality Act and the appointment of celibate people in a civil partnership as a bishop.
See Bishops in the church and the Equality Act.
4 CommentsThe House of Bishops sent a note to Synod members about the Equality Act and the appointment of celibate people in a civil partnership as a bishop. The legal advice is discriminatory and unworkable. No priest who is gay, let alone in a civil partnership, is going to reveal their sexual orientation when confronted by five such intrusive questions.
The legal note will simply encourage people to stay in the closet, maintaining secrecy about their sexual orientation for all gay (and eventually, lesbian) clergy who are nominated for episcopal office…
The Church Times has a full report today, see Ordinariate deemed Anglican enough to be awarded £1m by Ed Thornton.
THE Charity Commission has been asked to investigate a grant of £1 million to the Roman Catholic Ordinariate by the Confraternity of the Blessed Sacrament.
A spokeswoman for the Charity Commission said: “Concerns have been raised with us regarding the Confraternity of the Blessed Sacrament. We are currently considering these to establish whether there is any regulatory role for us.”
The Confraternity, a registered charity, was founded in 1862 to support the Catholic revival in the Church of England. The Charity Commission website states that its charitable objects are “for the advancement of the Catholic faith in the Anglican tradition”.
The present Superior-General, Fr Christopher Pearson, now a priest in the Ordinariate, has reported that, in December, the Ordinary of the Ordinariate, Mgr Keith Newton, then the (Anglican) Bishop of Richborough, approached him “asking whether it was within the remit of the Confraternity to make a financial grant to the proposed Ordinariate”…
And the Tablet has a news item:
Costs pile up for Ordinariate
7 July 2011
The head of the Ordinariate for England and Wales, Mgr Keith Newton, admitted this week that the group is struggling financially three months after it welcomed its first members into the Catholic Church from the Church of England. This month the group will have to start paying its clergy and other bills are piling in, Mgr Newton told The Tablet on Tuesday. In addition a recent grant of £1 million to the Ordinariate from an Anglo-Catholic group, Confraternity of the Blessed Sacrament, has been challenged and is under investigation by the Charity Commission.
There is a much more detailed report on this in the paper edition.
32 CommentsThe Church Times has both a news report and a leader comment.
Lambeth rebuke for Kenya ordinations by Ed Thornton
This contains some additional information, including this:
…The Revd Richard Perkins, the senior minister of Christ Church, Balham, an AMIE church, wrote on his blog last week that the three who were ordained in Kenya were staff of the Co-Mission Initiative in the Southwark diocese, of which his church is a member.
He said that “on the presenting issue of homosexual activity”, the Bishop of Southwark, the Rt Revd Christopher Chessun, “has not been able to reassure us that he believes and will teach that the only God-approved context for sexual activity is within heterosexual marriage.
“What this means for those Anglican congregations within Co-Mission . . . is that the situation of temporarily impaired communion remains unchanged. We do not . . . recognise his spiritual authority over us…”
Leader: A fresh expression of ordination
4 CommentsWAS it all, indeed, just a misunderstanding? The Lambeth Palace gloss on the formation of the Anglican Mission in England (AMIE) this week is that the Archbishop of Kenya was ill-informed about “the precise requirements of English canon law and good practice” when he ordained three clergymen in the Southwark diocese last month. We should have thought that common courtesy might have prevailed and that, after all the discussions about the Covenant, the assumption of some form of oversight of clergy in another province might have rung a warning bell or two in Nairobi.
The Lambeth statement also reveals the surprising fact that Dr Williams is no wiser about the intentions of the new Anglican Mission than the average observer…
Updated and republished Wednesday morning
A statement from Lambeth Palace
Tuesday 5th July 2011
The announcement of the creation an ‘Anglican Mission in England’ prompts concern for a number of reasons. New mission initiatives are, as such, always good news; and the declared intention of the spokesmen for this new initiative to remain faithful to the structures of the Church of England is welcome.
However, it is not at all clear how the proposed panel of bishops relate to the proper oversight of the diocesan bishops of the Church of England. Nor is there any definition of the issues which AMiE think might justify appeal to such a panel rather than the use of normal procedures. Furthermore, the ordination of three English candidates to the diaconate in Kenya with a view to service in England is problematic. It is not clear what process of recognised scrutiny and formation has taken place and how, in the absence of Letters Dimissory (the relevant formal letters from the sponsoring bishop), they have come to be recommended as candidates for ordination by the authorities of another province.
The issue is one of episcopal collegiality. There needs to be some further discussion of this development between those involved and the diocesan bishops of the Church of England. The Archbishop of Canterbury has had the opportunity to speak with the Archbishop of Kenya about the situation: the good faith and fraternal good intentions of our Kenyan colleagues are not at all in question, but it seems that there were misunderstandings of the precise requirements of English Canon Law and good practice as regards the recommendation of candidates for ordination and deployment in mission. It is hoped that an early opportunity will be found to clarify what this new initiative seeks to achieve if it is truly to serve God’s mission in the most effective and collaborative way.
Update
AMIE has responded. The full text of the response, currently at this URL, is below the fold.
Press Statement Tuesday 5th July 2011
Women and the Church (WATCH)
10/10 Dioceses vote for women bishops
The first ten Dioceses in the Church of England to vote on women bishops have all voted in favour – almost all by an overwhelming majority. They have all also turned down requests for extra provision for opponents, mostly by huge margins.
In every Diocese there have been separate votes of bishops, clergy and lay members. Taking the votes of all the Dioceses together, over 80% of lay members, over 80% of clergy and over 80% of bishops have voted for the proposed law, which also makes provision for those opposed to women being ordained as priests and bishops. Parishes will be allowed to opt for a male bishop and/or a male vicar.
Hilary Cotton, Head of Campaigns for WATCH, said, “Across the country Church members are saying, ‘Please just get on with making women bishops’. They are voting overwhelmingly in support of the legislation that will make that happen, and also creates space within the Church for those who will not accept women bishops. They do not want any more wrangling or delay.”
All 44 Dioceses have to vote on the draft legislation for women bishops by November 2011. It will then face a final vote in General Synod in York 2012 where there will need to be 66% of members of each of the three Houses of Bishops, Clergy and Laity, for it to be approved. It will then proceed to Parliament for final endorsement.
For more detailed figures see http://www.womenandthechurch.org/campaign.htm
10 CommentsCoalition Appoints Episcopal Patrons
NEWS RELEASE
JULY 6, 2011
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
BISHOPS JOHN SAXBEE, PETER SELBY TO BE PATRONS OF NO ANGLICAN COVENANT COALITION
LONDON – The Right Reverend Dr John Saxbee and the Right Reverend Dr Peter Selby have been appointed Episcopal Patrons of the international No Anglican Covenant Coalition.
“The Anglican Communion doesn’t need a Covenant because Anglicanism is a Covenant, predicated on grace and goodwill,” Dr Saxbee said. “If there is grace and goodwill, a Covenant is unnecessary. If there is no grace or goodwill, a Covenant will be unavailing.” Dr Saxbee was Bishop of Lincoln from 2001 until his retirement in January of this year.
Dr Selby, Bishop of Worcester from 1997 to 2007, has been a supporter of the Coalition since its launch last November. “This proposed Covenant is not the solution to the tensions in the Anglican Communion,” he said. “It will inevitably create a litigious Communion where every serious disagreement will become a possible occasion to seek a province’s exclusion.”
“More and more questions are being raised about the potential pitfalls of the proposed Anglican Covenant,” said the Reverend Dr Lesley Fellows, Moderator of the No Anglican Covenant Coalition. “We have consistently seen that support for the Covenant tends to collapse in the face of full and fair discussion and analysis. We are very pleased to welcome Bishops Selby and Saxbee as our first Episcopal Patrons. They are well respected in the Church of England and throughout the Anglican Communion. We expect that their views on the Covenant will persuade many more people to take a harder look at the risks inherent in this radical proposal.”
8 CommentsUpdated Tuesday evening
Ruth Gledhill has broken a news story in The Times which is behind a paywall. But the story opens this way:
The Charity Commission has been asked to investigate a £1 million grant made to the Ordinariate, a new Roman Catholic organisation for defecting Anglicans, by a 150-year-old Anglican charity.
Trustees of the Confraternity of the Blessed Sacrament, founded in 1862 as part of the High Church revival in the Church of England, voted the grant through a few weeks ago, thus divesting their charity of more than half its total assets of £1.85 million.
The grant has prompted an outcry among Anglo-Catholics who have remained in the Church of England.
Shortly before the grant was made, the confraternity changed its membership rules, allowing Roman Catholics to become members for the first time…
No doubt other media reports on this will appear fairly soon. But meanwhile here is the original letter from the Superior-General of the Confraternity of the Blessed Sacrament, to the membership. Copied in html below the fold.
Update
See The CBS Affair by Peter Bolton which contains more background information.
30 CommentsSavi Hensman has written for Ekklesia about the recent statement by the House of Bishops of the Church of England.
The article is entitled Addressing sexuality truthfully in the Church of England.
16 CommentsThe Church of England is to review its policies on sexuality. As in many other churches, there has been heated debate and deep hurt around this issue in the past. How can this controversial subject be tackled in a way that promotes greater understanding of one another and of God’s purposes?
Returning to the sexuality debate
On 1 July 2011, the Church of England’s House of Bishops issued ‘Civil partnerships and same-sex relationships’. By 2012, it will have reviewed its 2005 pastoral statement on civil partnerships. Until then, no clergy in such relationships will be considered as bishops. In 2013, it will issue a consultation document that examines human sexuality, in particular same-sex relationships, more generally.
Such a review is long overdue – the last major Church of England policy document on the subject, Issues in Human Sexuality, appeared two decades ago; and, even then, many thought it inadequate. (Indeed the main author, John Austin Baker, publicly changed his mind afterwards and eloquently made a theological case for accepting gay and lesbian partnerships.)
Updated Sunday lunchtime
Church Times Ed Thornton House of Bishops will review same-sex relations
Associated Press Robert Barr Church of England bishops to review gay policies
Guardian Riazat Butt Bishops review approach to gay relationships and gay priests
ENS Matthew Davies ENGLAND: Bishops call for church review of civil partnerships, same-sex relationships
BBC Church to review same-sex relationships policy
Sunday Telegraph Jonathan Wynne-Jones Church warned of split if it relaxes teaching on gay relationships
Anglican Mainstream Anglican Mainstream welcomes review of Bishops’ Guidelines on Civil Partnerships
We welcome the review of the Bishops’ Guidelines on Civil Partnerships, which we called for when they were first issued. We therefore are reissuing the statement we made then in 2005 and the letter to the House of Bishops signed by over 1700 church members.
Philip Giddings (Convenor) and Chris Sugden (Secretary) for Anglican Mainstream
‘CIVIL PARTNERSHIPS A PARODY OF MARRIAGE: BISHOPS MUST TAKE ACTION’ say many Anglicans
Civil partnerships are a parody of the marriage relationship which is God’s provision for human flourishing, say many Church of England Clergy and lay leaders. They consider the government’s Civil Partnership Act 2005 is deeply ambiguous about whether these partnerships are marriage or not…
Changing Attitude House of Bishops statement on civil partnerships and same-sex relationships
20 CommentsThirteen years after the Lambeth Conference 1998 launched the listening process the House of Bishops has committed itself to a wider look at the Church of England’s approach to same-sex relationships more generally and will produce a consultation document in 2013.
The bishops intend to draw together material from the listening process which has been undertaken within the Church of England over the recent years and offer proposals on how the continuing discussion within the Church of England about these matters might best be shaped in the light of the listening process.
I feel sorry for Graham James, Bishop of Norwich, to whom fell the lot of speaking on behalf of the House. So the House is going to spend two years producing a consultation document, and only in 2013 will they allow the rest of the Church to engage in ‘continuing discussion’.
The bishops are in disarray. Changing Attitude has been told this by a number of bishops. We know from personal experience that the bishops are in disarray. Some recommend for ministry lesbian and gay people who have contracted civil partnerships (and these people are not celibate). Some license lesbian and gay clergy who are in civil partnerships and some actively encourage them to enter civil partnerships. Other bishops are either ignorant of this practice or naïve…
Included in the statement issued just now by the House of Bishops is the following paragraph (emphasis added):
“Among the matters to be considered in the review of the 2005 Statement there is one of some importance which the House did not address in advance of any experience of civil partnerships. This is whether clergy who have registered civil partnerships should be eligible for nomination to the episcopate. The House has concluded that it would be wrong to pre-empt the outcome of the review and that clergy in civil partnerships should not at present, therefore, be nominated for episcopal appointment. The House’s intention is to complete the review, which will need to take account of the legal analysis set out in GS MISC 992 (Choosing Bishops – the Equality Act) during 2012.
As regular TA readers will be aware, the Church of England recently issued “a note on the Equality Act prepared by the Legal Office in connection with episcopal appointments for members of Crown Nominations Commissions and diocesan bishops and their Advisory Groups”. This is the document numbered GS Misc 992.
In connection with this, I wrote last week to Church House to ask some questions about GS Misc 992. One question was this:
Third, there is the issue of being in a civil partnership as a specific item to be taken into account. See paragraph 29, second bullet, and also see paragraph 20, where this is distinguished ( by the conjunction “or”) from “a requirement related to sexual orientation”.
These wordings suggest that the authors of the opinion believe it is permissible to discriminate against a person who is in a civil partnership even if none of the other items listed in the document are applicable. I am at a loss to understand the legal basis for such a position, unless all married candidates are to be similarly discriminated against.
I received this in reply:
21 CommentsThis was a piece of legal advice and the Legal Office stand by it as an accurate piece of analysis of the Equality Act and its application to the Church. It was produced to help those appointing bishops understand what they are and are not entitled to take into account within the law. In particular the Equality Act is quite explicit in making it clear that religious organisations can, in certain carefully defined circumstances, discriminate on the grounds of someone being in a civil partnership. The note offers no policy or operational advice on what appointment panel should do.
