GS Misc 1339 Prayers of Love and Faith: a note from the Legal Office has provoked a lot of critical comment on social media.
This further* blog post by Paul Roberts analyses some of the reasons for this:
*see his two earlier articles here.
Update
The Church Times has published a news article: Clergy will bless same-sex couples not their marriage, say church lawyers
It is utterly grotesque. I recall my QC trying to get the bishop and his witnesses to explain how the church’s marriage (now portentously called Holy Matrimony) differed from civil marriage. No coherent answer was forthcoming. They still objected to same sex marriage being called marriage. He tried a different tack:”Would it be all right if we called it ‘morridge’ not ‘marriage’?” The other side got very huffy at that point. The point about all civil marriages, of which there are not a few in the Church of England, is well made. If even opposite-sex married couples can’t make their… Read more »
I also recall the point, in court, when it became apparent that the QC appearing for the Bishop didn’t realise that if one ‘migrated’ (for want of a better word) a civil partnership to a marriage, then the start of the marriage is backdated to the date of the civil partnership i.e. you were married all along! This shredded the Church’s tortured distinction between the two. It might have helped your case more if the ET judge had understood this.
Indeed. As I put on another discussion stream, it feels like a Dickensian Jarndyce vs. Jarndyce. A legal farce, which will surely unravel.
I am a frequent visitor to the Greek Island of Syros which is unusually half Roman Catholic and half Greek Orthodox. It is quite usual for a mixed couple to have both an Orthodox and Catholic wedding. Some friends of mine did this and I attended both weddings. So clearly from.a theological perspective it is possible to get married to the same person twice. Before same sex marriage was introduced there was a period when a civil partnership was “marriage” for same sex couples. I wonder if this could be a way forward for the Church of England ? Holy… Read more »
Equal but different? I wonder where we have heard that before.
Jeremy I would prefer completely equal marriage for same sex and opposite sex couples. But currently there isn’t a two thirds majority in Synod for that. It just occured to me that a different but equal ceremony might be a solution. But I hear you that it wouldn’t be seen as equal and the pain of rejection that you rightly express. My reservations are only practical Jeremy. If we hold out for equal marriage we are likely to have to wait a long time and if it was achieved it would certainly provoke a split as conservative parishes left. I… Read more »
You are correct to indicate that this move by the Legal Office is nudging the Church of England’s understanding towards either a Roman Catholic or Easter Orthodox doctrine. However, the BCP follows a Protestant understanding of marriage being “an honourable estate instituted of God in the time of man’s innocency” – independent of later Christian orders or sacraments, or of the existence of the Church itself. Since the lawyers now tell us that Holy Matrimony has parted company with “marriage”, we are left (in England at least) with a theological concept and possibility without any distinct means of identifying it.… Read more »
“Handled properly there would be no reason why one ceremony should be seen as inferior to the other, just different.”
Good luck on that. The con/evos will always see anything that accommodates same-sex couples as inferior and will loudly say so at any and every opportunity.
Whatever they call it, we’re not allowed to be married in church. Any ‘marriage’ we have must happen outside the Church.
And that’s plain discrimination, and a kind of two-tier apartheid.
We’re being asked by the Bishop of London to ‘welcome’ the bishops’ Response. “We’re sorry for excluding you, but we’re offering you blessings…” What do these rather vague blessings of people rather than their marriages offer, except 5 years more exclusion from marriage in church, and quite probably years and years beyond that because of lack of consensus? The blessings seem to me to be wallpapering over the great offence, which is discrimination because we are lesbian or gay. I really don’t want to take my wife to church when the organisation treats us different to everyone else. That is… Read more »
Paul Roberts makes some excellent points – legal advice creates all sorts of problems. In (Pre-Reformation and Roman) Catholic tradition, the couple are the ministers of the marriage, and what makes matrimony “holy” (as opposed to “natural”) is that the couple are both baptized. The rites and ceremonies of the Church of England are theologically immaterial (which is not to say that explicitly getting God involved is not a very good thing). Note that the marriage is proclaimed by the priest on the basis of exchange of vows before the blessing of the marriage – the blessing is after the… Read more »
Thank you for this, which relieves me of the responsibility I was feeling to put my oar in! You are completely correct, and the C of E is making a needless mess in this effort to make a distinction and difference on the basis of something that until now (in the West, as you observe) is extrinsic to the nature of marriage.
I am betting that GS Misc 1339 will either be withdrawn or a ‘clarification’ issued. At the very least it has created doubt as to whether some couples are, or are not, married in the eyes of the Church of England and I don’t see how that can be permitted to persist.
Many thanks for your thoughts Bernard. By your third to last paragraph, I felt the whole set of distinctions being drawn by the lawyers were moving into the territory of alchymical marriage..!
A further paradox: an opposite sex civil partnership between two baptized persons (unlikely, but theoretically possible), if the vows/promises include lifelong exclusivity and intention towards children, would appear to be Holy Matrimony but not civil marriage.
What a mess. Of the bishops it might be said, “Forgive them, they do not know what they are doing.”
I do wish there was a ‘like’ button on this site…
“an opposite sex civil partnership between two baptized persons (unlikely, but theoretically possible)”
Why unlikely? I can imagine such a thing quite easily.
Highly likely as same sex marriages are not permitted in church. I can easily see a couple not wanting a civil ‘marriage’ under the circumstances but opting for a civil partnership to make a point.
It’s easy enough to imagine, but I’m not sure many couples would really want to make the point this way. To reject Church for civil marriage would be more likely, I suspect. But nothing hangs on my “unlikely.”
In the orders of service in the Church of England, the fact of the marriage is declared followed by a blessing.
There is a further point. As the Established Church, the Church of England is the Church FOR the nation… not just for its own members, but for all the people in every parish. It’s there for them. As part of that role, they offer all people in a parish a right to be married in their parish church. To continue being an Established Church, I suggest “all people” needs to mean ALL – without discrimination based on sex or gender. This is rightly a matter of concern in that contract between Church, and Parliament representing the people, and monarch too.… Read more »
Thanks to Paul Roberts for highlighting some of the issues that GS Misc 1339 has caused. I am not certain that he is right that only marriages after 2014 are affected – I don’t think that is right. But to take his reasoning further, many of the ‘spouses’ invited to the Lambeth Conference were not actually spouses in the eyes of the Church of England but were bishops and partners living in sin. So why were they invited? They were not, it seems, any more “married” in the eyes of the Church of England than the same sex spouses who… Read more »
Paul: “There are several purposes behind the Legal Office’s note: To prove that prayers asking for God’s blessing on a same-sex (civil) marriage were not the same as blessing a couple joined in Holy Matrimony – this is a point to fend off a conservative criticism in any synodical debate. But it won’t fend off conservative criticism because to many conservative critics (not to mention bishops) whether it’s marriage or matrimony, gay sexuality is a sin, and to bless that would be regarded as heretical. And then Paul raises a point about those living together but not in Holy Matrimony.… Read more »
Susannah, as in my comment above, I’m afraid the way out of this conundrum is to say that a same sex “civil marriage” is not a marriage at all in the eyes of the Church, but some other legally recognized relationship. The State can define anything it likes as marriage, but that does not make it so, would be the argument. The distinction is between “natural marriage” and Holy Matrimony – all examples of Holy Matrimony are also natural marriages, but not vice versa. Natural marriage would be defined to include procreation (which is what animals naturally do when they… Read more »
The suggestion, “Natural marriage would be defined to include procreation,” if applied fully coherently of course raises a new issue if all examples of Holy Matrimony must be Natural marriages.
To maintain the internal logic of the argument one needs to deny Natural marriage, and therefore Holy Matrimony, to women beyond childbearing age and indeed anyone else knowingly infertile. That would include those of us men who have taken permanent steps such as vasectomies to prevent further children.
We want coherence. (</grin>)
The Form of Solemnization of Matrimony in the 1662 BCP contains the rubric “The Prayer next following shall be omitted, where the woman is past child-bearing.”
The Legal Office note is an amazing twisted knot. I wonder if the Church of England really wants to follow the Roman Catholic Church in this amount of Jesuital parsing. (My apologies to the Jesuits, who probably do get a bum rap on this cliche.)See, for example, the Roman-Catholic-Church-blessed wedding of Boris Johnson, despite two previous wives, two previous divorces, and seven (or so) children, permitted on the grounds that his previous marriages weren’t “real” because the weddings weren’t in the church and, therefore, the previous divorces didn’t count. See “Catholics question why Boris Johnson was able to marry in… Read more »
Thank you, Paul Roberts, for your excellent description of the distinctive difference – in the opinion of the C. of E. – between a Civil Wedding and a Church of England Wedding; as summarised in your words here: – “The Legal Office here make one clarification based on the definition of Canon B30 – namely, that Holy Matrimony can only take place when the couple is a man and a woman. The civil marriage of a same sex couple confers a civil status on the couple: they are married so far as the general law is concerned but that status… Read more »
Another critique of the legal advice document can be found here
https://mbarrattdavie.wordpress.com/2023/01/26/failing-the-green-test-ii-a-critical-examination-of-the-advice-from-the-church-of-englands-legal-office/
Many thanks. It seems to me that the Legal Office is being (or has been) set up as a lightning rod so that anger can be drawn away from the bishops as individuals onto a set of conveniently anonymous Westminster bureaucrats who are, happily, also lawyers (although their lead is in orders as well as being a barrister). The Legal Office is also having to articulate doctrine to the Church. It is a rum thing when the authority of the bench is so enfeebled and discredited that it must have lawyers expound its own unstable doctrines on its behalf. It… Read more »
It appears to me that Martin is saying exactly the same as Paul – while seeking an entirely different outcome. Martin even recognises that same sex couples who are married will not want a blessing that so clearly says that the are not in ‘holy matrimony’. The legal advice highlights the problem we face.
It is lawful to celebrate the full marriage rite of the Church of England for an opposite sex couple after civil marriage, even though this may not be registered as the marriage.
Ah! But would it by recognised by the C. of E. as ‘Holy Matrimony’? Presumably, NO!
The sooner a common Marriage rite becomes the sole prerogative of the State, the sooner this selective ambiguity could be cleared up. Then all citizens may have equal rights to Marriage in the sight of the law, with no gender bias.
Whilst that may be so, Robin, I’m not sure it could be regarded as a valid liturgy as it would be incapable of doing the thing it purported to be doing in the legal sense. It would be a bit like ordaining a priest who was already in priests’ orders. Of course, this may open up a *very* long rabbit hole!!
So by this legal note, the King isn’t married to the Queen according to the CofE’s understanding of marriage. See also the Bishop of Fulham and his second wife.
That’s my understanding of the note too; it is saying that The King isn’t legally married to The Queen in the eyes of the Church. That’s unfortunate at best. For that couple it’s probably academic but, were they younger, it could give doubt as to the place of any children in the line of succession not being children of a valid marriage in the eyes of the church. Thrones have been lost and fought over for less. Whichever bishop/archbishop authorised the publication of the note ought to resign. It needs to be recalled (and therefore with it the response to… Read more »
But clearly legally married. Divorce is equally disregarded in the succession to the throne. Thus Prince Edward, the only child of Her late Majesty not to be divorced, stands at No 13 in the line.
I’m not sure whether the legal note calls into question civil marriages solemnised before 2014. It was, after all, the state which changed its practice (and therefore, according to the Note, the definition) when the Act came into force. So I think the King and Queen Consort are unaffected.
Of course, I think the perceived legal difference is practically, pastorally, theologically and ministerially unsustainable, but I explain all that in the article.
Didn’t civil divorce do that?
From the Church Times, reporting on the Legal Office statement:
“The Prayers are framed so that they do not bless civil marriages (or civil partnerships); any blessing is of the couple and the good in their relationship, not of the civil status they may have acquired.”
That is so insulting. They can bless our dogs, our home, our boat, our new job, but not our devoted marriages. I can’t type what my wife tells them they can do.
I thinnk they may have one eye on the BCP preface to marriage which states ‘For be ye well assured, that so many as are coupled together otherwise than God’s Word doth allow are not joined together by God; neither is their Matrimony lawful.’… [my emphasis].
Can this still be used in good conscience?
I wouldn’t call that the preface to the service: it is part of the question to the couple as to whether either of them knows any impediment to lawful marriage – and it is saying that if they proceed when there is an impediment, the purported marriage is not lawful. The part in bold does not contain all the possible impediments (for example, “God’s Word” does not specify anything about the ages of the couple). And it surely doesn’t render non-church marriages (Cana? Every Old Testament marriage?) unlawful or suggest that all such are outside what “God’s Word doth allow”.… Read more »
Church Times: “On Monday of last week, the Archbishop of Canterbury spoke to LGBTQ+ protesters outside Lambeth Palace, telling them “I don’t have the votes to go further” than offering blessings.” So the Archbishop wants to marry gay people, but it’s other people’s fault? I don’t think so. According to Christopher Cocksworth, Bishop of Coventry, the majority of bishops who decided the ‘Response’ believe marriage should only be between one man and one woman: “As we know, some bishops have come to believe that the doctrine and practice of marriage should be developed or extended to include same-sex unions. Others, the… Read more »
“it’s the bishops themselves who are reported to be against gay marriage” So I think we need to question why such people are being appointed Bishops. In theory they are appointed by our head of state, the King. So why is our head of state appointing people who don’t accept Gay marriage when the state has democratically decided that England should marry people of the same sex ? Actually a committee decides on who should be a Bishop. Who decides on the membership ? Can the decisions of the committee be questioned ? Is it acceptable that the appointment of… Read more »
How does ++Justin know that he “hasn’t got the votes”? Has he asked each member of the General Synod? Even if he has, what of the ability of the Holy Ghost to move, or, more prosaically, his ability to persuade?
On its face, this reasoning displays a mix of dubious theology and defeatism. Has realpolitik now been sanctified in England (or, as wags would doubtless say, was it ever thus)?
James, The depressing truth is that the elections to General Synod focused on this issue and, while those on the inclusive list were better organised than ever, the conservatives had a target and they easily reached it. The Holy Spirit can move – oh yes she can – and +Steven Croft is an example of her work, but there are those who are unable to hear her and, sadly, they form more than a blocking minority in synod (One third).
The bishops should lead and they haven’t. They have collectively held to a conservative view themselves, and need to own that. It’s not just lay Synod members – it’s the bishops themselves. They could have affirmed gay marriage in church, even if it didn’t get through. They didn’t. They could have pressed a case for allowing diversity of options (Scottish style) to protect the consciences of priests and church communities. They didn’t. They could have provided options and choices to vote on in Synod. They didn’t. They could have stated conclusively that gay sex is not a sin. They didn’t.… Read more »
Sentiments heartily echoed!
The bishops could look across the Atlantic, not to the monumental MLK (baby steps, your graces) but LBJ, ultimate power politician and casual racist … who drove through the Civil Rights Act and knowingly destroyed his party in the South because he made JFK a promise and kept his word. Who knows what’s possible until it’s tried.
What you seem to be saying is simply that they did not lead the Church where you would have preferred them to go.
My view, your view, m’dear.
The discussion over the various descriptions and definitions of “marriage” in these columns appears to be getting (wilfully?) confused. It seems to me there’s an underlying ambition to identify Church of England marriage with legal civil marriage in order to argue that since civil marriage is legal for same-sex couples then church marriage should be as well. If that is indeed the underlying logic, then it would be helpful to the discussion to say so openly. Of course, there are issues with that. Until a few years ago, presumably those people were arguing that since the state did not then… Read more »
I wonder how many C of E clergy and ministers were married to an opposite sex partner in a civil marriage ceremony, as I was. Are we married in the eyes of the Church of England or not? To be at all consistent, if the answer is no, then we should not have been ordained or licensed. If yes, then not accepting the civil marriages of same sex partnered priests or ministers looks awfully like homophobia.
That’s how I would sum it up too.
If the underlying principle here is that the Church should accept as its definition of marriage whatever the current legal definition of marriage under the law of England and Wales, then that leads you into some interesting places. It is not generally realised that although entering into a polygamous marriage is illegal, indeed criminal, under the law in England and the result is null and void, polygamous marriage is actually legally recognised. That is, the law in England will accept as valid a polygamous marriage that was legally performed in some other country. Should the Church accept polygamous marriages which… Read more »
Why shouldn’t it accept polygamy? It would have an extensive Biblical witness to support it. Probably a stronger witness than the various verses proof texted together from all over the Bible to support the current doctrine of one man, one woman, for procreation, for life.
Following on from your last sentence, is the C of E obliged to accept civil marriage of same-sex couples? The opt out in the legislation to taking/holding same-sex marriages by a ‘religious registrar’ or religion seems not the same as having an opt out to disregard the civil marriages of same-sex couples as marriage (unless all civil marriages are disregarded perhaps). Especially when there is the requirement under equality legislation not to discriminate on various grounds, including sexuality and gender. Perhaps the same applies to lawful polygamous marriages.
The C of E is not are present obliged to accept same-sex civil marriages but a number of people in these columns are arguing that it should, because, they aver, there should be a single notion of marriage. My point is that those people are perhaps unaware that they are thereby also arguing for the C of E to recognise polygamous marriages as well. I thought that might prove controversial: maybe I was wrong about that.