homosexuality"
www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/
At the end of last summer, a team of solicitors acting for theChurch
of England drew up a five-page document detailing in
whichcircumstances a cleric could be legally banned from becoming
abishop because he was homosexual. The briefing was one of a numberof
dry, legal notes issued by Church House that year. But amongliberals
it caused consternation.
The Church long ago decided there was essentially nothing to stop a
gay man who lived a life of celibacy from becoming a bishop. Even
within the orthodox wings there was acceptance it would be difficult
to exclude someone who was living in an entirely celibate civil
partnership - for most traditionalists the line in the sand was
engaging in a physical, same-sex relationship.
But a grey area remained concerning clergy who at one time or another
had a same-sex relationship but had since abandoned it in favour of
celibacy. Could someone who had been physically homosexual ever
become a bishop?
The Church's legal note provided a stark answer. Only those who had
"repented" their physically homosexual past could be considered for a
bishop. You could be a gay bishop, but only if you vocally shunned
your sexual past, a condition which is not imposed on heterosexual
applicants.
Within conservative wings the caveat quickly became gleefully
nicknamed "The Jeffrey John clause" - after the openly gay Dean of St
Albans who was humiliatingly made to relinquish his appointment to
the Bishop of Reading in 2003 following traditionalist outrage over
his promotion. Dr John lives in a celibate relationship but has
always said refused to apologise for his past.
In effect, the decision meant those who remained in the closet could
climb the ecclesiastical pole, but those who were honest about their
sexuality were disbarred. To the liberals it was a slap in the face -
another clear indication that senior leaders within the Church of
England had no desire to rock the boat or confront an issue that has
deeply divided the Anglican Communion for much of the past 15 years.
But now the liberal wing may force the Church's hand. Over the
weekend it was reported that the Right Reverend John had finally had
enough of being passed over for promotion and had instructed a
specialist employment law firm to look into beginning proceedings
against the Church of England.
Under current equality laws religious organisations are are given
dispensation to discriminate against those who do not comply with
their teachings, allowing clerics like Dr John to be passed over, and
mosques to only have male imams, for example. Were the Church's
current stance on homosexuality to be tested in court the Church
would almost certainly win, for if it didn't the very existence of
many faiths would be under threat. But by forcing the issue those at
the top would be forced to confront some embarrassing - and extremely
divisive - issues.
Some of those who know him expressed surprise that he would take such
a step. "Jeffrey's always wanted to do things within the church,"
said one. "He's not the litigious type."
Others questioned where the leak came from. "It's so obviously deeply
counter-productive to Jeffrey," said another colleague. "It makes him
look like he's saying promote or I'll sue. It's a rather good way of
smearing him."
Whether the Dean would go to the courts or not is a moot point. But
there is little doubt he and fellow liberals have become frustrated
at a form of discrimination that would be entirely illegal outside a
church, mosque or synagogue.
Two years ago the Dean was short-listed but lost out on becoming
Bishop of Southwark, an ultra-liberal London diocese with many
homosexual clergy members and laity. A leaked memo later claimed that
Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, blocked his
appointment. Written by Colin Slee, the late Dean of Southwark
Cathedral, the memo also pointedly lamented a well-known but
generally hushed up fact - that the Church had plenty of closeted gay
bishops who "have been less that candid about there [sic] domestic
arrangements and ... have been appointed to senior positions".
The Independent also understands Dr John was not even long-listed for
the currently vacant post of Bishop of Edinburgh, meaning no church
leader was willing to put him forward for another key diocese with
liberal leanings.
Ironically, neither liberals nor traditionalists are happy with the
current status quo and both want to see some final resolution to the
issue of homosexuality. But the Church of England's senior leaders -
not least the Archbishop of Canterbury - are loath to wade into a
theological quagmire at such a fragile time for church unity.
For 2012 will be a crunch year for the Church of England. Over the
next six months the Church's parliament - known as synod - will
finally decide on whether to appoint women bishops and what provision
should be made for those theologically opposed to the idea.
Rowan Williams - backed by the Archbishop of York, John Sentamu - is
expected to make a final plea to allow for a system that gives
traditionalists permission to refuse to be administered to by women
bishops. A failure to reach a compromise could see traditionalists
walk away from the church all together.
At a time when such rancour and disagreement already abounds, there
are few senior leaders willing to throw another spanner in the works.
But some liberals believe now is precisely the time for them to force
the issue. "We are determined to campaign for full equality right
now," says Colin Coward, director of Changing Attitude, the most
prolific, pro-gay lobby within the Church. "There is no sense of
urgency among Church leaders. But the Church is sick, it needs to be
fixed right away."
------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment