Gay marriage 'inquisition' looms

Warnings of an 'inquisition' have come from the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement in response to the Archbishop of Canterbury's latest comments on civil partnerships. Dr Rowan Williams, in a Q&A posted on the Global South's new website, spoke movingly of his first encounter with the 'living God' at a Russian Orthodox Mass in Swansea. But in the same session he addressed the question of 'discipline' on the issue of civil partnerships, which will become legal in the UK from next month.

He said, 'If it can be established that a priest seeking to register a civil partnership is in fact active in a sexual union, then that priest is liable to the discipline of the Church.'

He continued, 'What form the discipline takes, since we are in the middle of revising our disciplinary provision, I can't at this moment say with precision, but I'll simply mention that it is recognised as a disciplinary offence if priests either refuse to declare that his civil partnership is not a sexual union, or if they volunteer to the bishop that it is a sexual union.'

What a nightmare lies ahead for the Church and its unfortunate clergy. It conjures up images of people shinning up drainpipes at vicarages to try and photograph clergy 'in the act'. In Britain, the need for evidence of sexual activity in the bedroom went out with the secular divorce reforms but it seems as if the Church of England, in all its compassionate consideration, is about to bring it back.

The Rev Richard Kirker, of the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement, believes that up to 400 gay clergy couples will register their partnerships within the first five years of the Act coming into effect. But unlike with marriages, there will be no requirement for public notice to be given or for banns, and no need for witnesses at the ceremony. Mr Kirker believes therefore that many clergy who do register their partnerships will do so secretly to avoid what he describes as an 'inquisition'.

But register them they will, he says, because it makes such good sense from the point of view of security, pensions and inheritance. It is difficult therefore to see how they will be able to keep the arrangements secret, given that the Church Commissioners will have to know if there is going to be a future claim on a clergy pension from a civil partner.

Both liberals and evangelicals are unhappy with the bishops' civil partnerships statement. Evangelicals are upset because they are told they must not quiz lay members of their congregations about the sexual nature of their civil partnerships. This is one of the reasons that the Rev Richard Coekin, the Southwark priest who's had his licence revoked, fell out with his bishop Tom Butler and declared his congregation in impaired communion with the bishop. (Links to then latest developments on this story can be found here.)

Liberals, on the other hand, are upset because they are being told they must quiz the clergy about their civil partnerships.  (While this apparent double standard might seem strange to the unitiated reader, it is in fact a natural consequence of the principles outlined in the 1991 document, Issues in Human Sexuality.) The Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement has obtained a legal opinion to the effect that under the 1998 Human Rights Act, it would be 'unwarranted and unsustainable by law' to enquire intrusively into a cleric's private life.

However, only one bishop, the liberal Peter Selby of Worcester, has had the courage to dissent publicly.

Dr Selby says, 'I remember meeting two priests, one of whom was having to nurse the other in the final stages of an AIDS-related illness. Had it been possible for them at that time, I imagine they might have considered entering a civil partnership. Whether they did so or not, they (like many I have known since, in less distressing circumstances) certainly threatened nobody, and offered an enriching inspiration of what it means to be in relationship - for better, for worse.

'I dare to hope that bishops will find better ways of relating to such couples than seeking assurances, and I believe many of us will. But, sorry as I am to need to say so, the words we have uttered on this topic will not help either bishops or those to whom they minister. For the desire of people to enter civil partnerships, and the willingness of the Government to make that possible, represent something far more hopeful than this document makes it appear.

'Sustaining the Church's doctrine of marriage is a challenging task at this time, almost entirely for reasons that have, if we are honest, little to do with homosexuality. If our difficulty as Church with particular life-choices means that we cannot speak hopefully about what are clearly signs of commitment and responsibility, perhaps it would have been better to say nothing.'

This is, after all, what the Roman Catholic church has opted to do. I had assumed, the CofE being the established church, that it was incumbent on it to do something, but if a bishop is suggesting nothing need have been done, maybe that would indeed have been the better course of action.

Comments

[MICHAEL JONES]

Bishop Gene Robinson is not challenging the authority of Archbishop Williams but that of God!

[Michael Malloy]

About the November 12, 2005 article: "Archbishop reveals his unorthodox way to God," I assume in the UK, as in the USA, a news "style manual" dictates the use of the term "Mass" (a Roman Catholic term) for any non-protestant Christian religious service. This is a shame because it is inaccurate in addition to being offensive to Orthodox Christians.

I was raised in the U.S. version of the Anglican Church but converted to the Orthodox Church with my wife in 1996 when we could no longer put up with constant revision of services to become more "inclusive" - a misleading term used to deflect from the real action of modifying church dogma to suit the special interests of homosexual groups.

The second error in the article is a common one in the Western media, assumably also caused by style manuals. The Patriarch of Constantinople is called the "First among equals" but in no way is his position similar to an Eastern "Pope." Your article did not infer that idea directly, however, it is a common error.

Divine Liturgy is not served at night. The service the Archbishop attended as a boy had to have been either "Great Vespers" or a "Vigil" which combines Great Vespers, Matins, and the First Hour (in Russian practice). If he indeed witnessed a distribution of the Holy Mysteries there are two possibilities: 1) He may have attended one of the Lenten services called "Liturgy of the Pre-sanctified Gifts"; 2) a Pascha "All Night Vigil" which combines Compline, Great Vespers, Matins, and goes directly into the Paschal Divine Liturgy. Such a service would last at least four hours and begin at about midnight.

Reader* Michael Malloy
Columbus Ohio, U.S.A.
Worshiping at the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia parish of St. George, in Cincinnati, Ohio.
* A "Reader" is the lowest member of the clergy in the Orthodox Church.

[Thomas Campbell]

Re: your story on Dr Williams. The Orthodox Church (of which I have been a member for 30 years, although I was raised Episcopalian) does not have "the Mass", which is the Roman Catholic celebration of the Eucharist. It is always referred to as The Divine Liturgy, which is the translation from the Greek name for the service. One says "going to Liturgy", "attending Liturgy" and priests use the phrase "serving the Liturgy" rather than saying or celebrating Mass. And on ordinary Sundays it usually lasts about 1 1/2 hours.
In addition, it is very rarely served in the evening. I suspect the Archbishop attended Great Vespers or the Vigil held in Orthodox churches of the Russian tradition every Saturday evening (I know Anglicans in London that regularly go to the Ennismore Garden cathedral on Saturday evenings-it is a quiet, very beautiful service in preparation for Sunday. As I am sure you know, in the Orthodox parctice the day begins at sundown with vespers. As he was a youth at the time and if it was served in Church Slavonic it would be easy to not be quite correct in his memory. He certainly would know the difference now, and of course it doesn't lessen the impact of the experience.
Just a few words of clarification.