‘The Church
of England recommends civil partnerships for gay clergy…the Church of England
has ALWAYS recommended civil partnerships for gay clergy…’
Ok, so
perhaps it’s a wee bit naughty to suggest there's something Orwellian in the House of Bishops' thinking around civil partnerships and equal marriage. I’ve been
involved in the C of E long enough to presume my senior colleagues adopt a hand-wringing bimbling
through issues rather than an overthought Soviet-diktat approach.
However,
the emergent events surrounding Canon Jeremy Pemberton (see Church Times story here) should give all of us
cause to pause and think. When I say ‘all of us’ I don’t just mean church
people, but that wider group of people, of faith and none, who hold an interest
in civil society and the pursuit of a compassionate, intelligent and generous society and public square.
Earlier
this week Jeremy’s husband, Lawrence, signaled that Jeremy’s promotion to a new
NHS Chaplaincy job had been de facto blocked by the acting Bishop of Southwell
& Nottingham, the Rt Revd Richard Inwood. Lawrence asked that people write to the bishop and Archbishop John Sentamu indicating support for Jeremy. (Further info here.)
For those not on the inside of the machinations of the C of E
– which frankly is basically most people – Pemberton’s role as a chaplain/Head
of Spiritual Care in a hospital is a job paid for and contracted under the
auspices of NHS, an organization committed to equal opportunities. However, it
is standard practice for the NHS to request a Bishop’s Licence for that
chaplain. This enables the chaplain to serve specifically as an Anglican priest in the Diocese in which a
hospital is set. Licensing is something which is part of the habitus or warp
and weft of being a serving Anglican priest in any setting in England.
Bishop Inwood has denied this
license. This means that Pemberton cannot take up his new job.
It
is the prerogative of the bishop to issue or withhold licences. The withholding of licenses is - as I understand it - a practice which happens under
circumstances in which a priest has been disciplined, or has broken Canon Law in specific ways.
What
particular transgression of discipline or behaviour has Pemberton committed in
the estimation of the bishop? He has legally married.
That’s
right. He has married. He has exercised his legal right, contracted using laws
signed under the assent of the Head of State, the Queen (who also happens to be the
Supreme Governor of the Church of England).
The point
of contention for the bishop is that Pemberton has married a man. From the
point of view of law, that matter is incidental; that is,
the gender of the person is no longer of any significance as a bar to the
contracting of a marriage. Yet, despite Pemberton exercising his legal right
and entering into a relationship which (whether undertaken in a church or not ) the Church has considered a social and
human good, Pemberton has had his capacity to work as a cleric in a secular
setting effectively denied.
In the eyes
of the acting Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham Pemberton has seemingly – in
getting married – engaged in conduct unbecoming to a (gay) Clerk in Holy
Orders. What he should have done is contract a Civil Partnership (or remain in
one if already contracted.)
Let’s be
clear here. If I understand the House of Bishops’ advice and Inwood's reading of it aright, the ethically
correct behavior for those gay clergy who wish to place their committed,
faithful and stable monogamous relationships on a legal footing is to contract
a civil partnership rather than get married. That is, there is a moral
imperative on gay people not to engage in the kind of relationships which the
church has said is the right kind of relationship for those who wish to make a
lifelong commitment to each other.
What will bewilder non-religious
people who read this blog is how on earth the State church of England has got
itself into such a horrible mess. The mess runs as follows: when an ordained person exercises their legal right
to commit to another human being in love and faithfulness, and this person happens to be of the same gender, this leads to them being denied work in a setting subject to the Equalities Act 2010. It
rather bewilders me and I’m ‘of the church.’
I am gutted for Jeremy (and Lawrence) at a human level. However I am also gutted that the prospects for an institution that can offer so much seem so bleak. I want people to know God. I also still dream that people switched off by an institution that has worse LGBT policies than an organisation as crummy as McDonalds might come to recognise the C of E as a beacon of hope. That seems a pretty forlorn prospect.
