Ship of Fools: Civil Partnerships in Church

Thread: Civil Partnerships in Church - or more? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028625

Posted by Aelred of Rievaulx (# 16860) on :

100 London C of E clergy (about 25% of the total) write that they want to be able to celebrate civil partnerships in church, on a local discernment basis, just as they can celebrate the (second or even occasionally subsequent) marriage of divorced people.

What do shipmates think? And would they think differently if the request was for the clergy to be able to conduct marriage for same sex couples?

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

Need to wait for Synod, surely?

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Aelred of Rievaulx:
100 London C of E clergy (about 25% of the total) write that they want to be able to celebrate civil partnerships in church, on a local discernment basis, just as they can celebrate the (second or even occasionally subsequent) marriage of divorced people.

Dangerous, surely? If someone starts celebrating civil partnerships in one church the abomination-vibes could contaminate faithful churches next door. These churches are densely mixed in central London, you know. Then when the faithful churches are celebrating real marriages between real people the abomination-vibes could suddenly turn the new husbands into lesbians!

That would undermine marriage.

(Or the congregations of the faithful churches might realise that churches are conducting civil partnerships and getting along lovingly and joyfully and that therefore building your theology around hating teh gayz is a bit stupid. That would be even worse.)

No. Make sure the abomination-vibes do not happen. Think of the husbands-to-be!

Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on :

Here's part of my letter to Willesden clergy on the matter:

A number of London clergy (including some of you) have signed a petition which is in the news today asking for the liberty for incumbents to decide whether or not to hold civil partnership ceremonies in Church of England churches as a matter for the individual conscience of the priest, analogous with the decision whether or not to remarry divorcees in church. It’s an important issue for us to face, but there is of course work in progress in the House of Bishops on a number of fronts before we can make a decision on this. First, there is a working party chaired by the Bishop of Sodor and Man which is tasked with reviewing the 2005 Pastoral Statement on Civil Partnerships. This working party is due to report this year. Secondly, another HoB working party is looking at the listening process and the previous statements made by the House in Issues in Human Sexuality and Some Issues. That group will report in 2013. There’s a tranche of questions here, including the eligibility of clergy in civil partnerships for episcopal office; what liturgical provision (official or otherwise) might be made for either blessing or registering civil partnerships on religious premises; and what progress has been made in the listening process. Perhaps the most basic unaddressed question is that of our theological understanding of the meaning of civil partnerships. A concept invented by Government on the hoof has never been addressed by us properly. Our rightly held gut pastoral reaction to wish to affirm committed friendship (a point made by Bishops in the House of Lords during the debate on the Civil Partnership legislation) has never been followed through by thinking about the meaning of such relationships within the whole gamut of Christian tradition. So there is more work to be done before we can respond to this petition – and the discussion will begin in the House of Bishops (which has had very little debate on these matters over the last ten years) before it comes to the floor of General Synod.

Posted by badman (# 9634) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
Here's part of my letter to Willesden clergy on the matter:

A number of London clergy (including some of you) have signed a petition which is in the news today asking for the liberty for incumbents to decide whether or not to hold civil partnership ceremonies in Church of England churches as a matter for the individual conscience of the priest, analogous with the decision whether or not to remarry divorcees in church. It’s an important issue for us to face, but there is of course work in progress in the House of Bishops on a number of fronts before we can make a decision on this. First, there is a working party chaired by the Bishop of Sodor and Man which is tasked with reviewing the 2005 Pastoral Statement on Civil Partnerships. This working party is due to report this year. Secondly, another HoB working party is looking at the listening process and the previous statements made by the House in Issues in Human Sexuality and Some Issues. That group will report in 2013. There’s a tranche of questions here, including the eligibility of clergy in civil partnerships for episcopal office; what liturgical provision (official or otherwise) might be made for either blessing or registering civil partnerships on religious premises; and what progress has been made in the listening process. Perhaps the most basic unaddressed question is that of our theological understanding of the meaning of civil partnerships. A concept invented by Government on the hoof has never been addressed by us properly. Our rightly held gut pastoral reaction to wish to affirm committed friendship (a point made by Bishops in the House of Lords during the debate on the Civil Partnership legislation) has never been followed through by thinking about the meaning of such relationships within the whole gamut of Christian tradition. So there is more work to be done before we can respond to this petition – and the discussion will begin in the House of Bishops (which has had very little debate on these matters over the last ten years) before it comes to the floor of General Synod.

There is a slight tension here between (a) your implication that it is all being discussed and decided "upstairs" so everyone can wait and see (or have I misunderstood?) and (b) your very fair admission that the leadership of the Church of England "has had very little debate on these matters over the last ten years".

Meanwhile, men and women in the parish grow up, fall in love, and grow old, and ask for ministry.

There is also the concern that the Bishop of Sodor and Man's working party is remarkably narrow and unrepresentative; containing no women, no men who are not in heterosexual marriages, and no young people. This makes it very far from a substitute for the views of the clergy in London who are more diverse and whose experience is also likely to be different from that of the working party, not least because of the sheer numbers involved and the very wide range of their pastoral experiences and responsibilities.

The Bishop of London has said that the London clergy request to General Synod "is based on very proper pastoral concern and it is right that this matter continues to be discussed openly."

Would you agree with that? Do you welcome the clergy letter? Or do you think it is untimely and unwelcome?

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Mind you, the list of signatories to the letter ( see here ) could be quite a useful 'where to worship in London' directory.

[ 03. February 2012, 12:21: Message edited by: Albertus ]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

As long it doesn't get used for a witch-hunt by bishops.

Interesting that there is wide cross-section of churchmanship.

Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on :

Yeah, there's liberal catholic and liberal! [Biased]

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

So what else do you need? [Biased]

Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on :

The letter is only untimely in that I'm having to spend my whole weekend doing media stuff on the issue (but that goes with the teritory!)

They're raising an important pastoral concern, though they will know that the House of Bishops' two working parties, announced before Christmas, are the next stage for this. Any Synod Private Members' Motion is likely to get parked until the House of Bishops' working party(ies) have completed their task. And of course the W/P has no women or young people - it's composed of bishops (who unfortunately are still all male - but we're working on that!)

The only point I'd make is that we don't do theology and liturgy on the hoof. Praying privately with people is part of our pastoral duty; doing public services and giving status to civil partnerships, on the lex orandi, lex credendi principle [what we pray is what we believe] is a different ball game. You wouldn't (I hope) expect the CofE to diminish its commitment to the seriousness of our public role as the national Church by swallowing uncritically a rather badly constructed legal formula called "civil partnerships" which the Government invented on the hoof, and which put right a number of injustices in relation to property, inheritance and pensions, but didn't really address what was meant and intended. We need a theology and a public consensus about the meaning of civil partnerships. That should be the next stage.

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:
Originally posted by Aelred of Rievaulx:
100 London C of E clergy (about 25% of the total) write that they want to be able to celebrate civil partnerships in church, on a local discernment basis, just as they can celebrate the (second or even occasionally subsequent) marriage of divorced people.
Dangerous, surely? If someone starts celebrating civil partnerships in one church the abomination-vibes could contaminate faithful churches next door. These churches are densely mixed in central London, you know. Then when the faithful churches are celebrating real marriages between real people the abomination-vibes could suddenly turn the new husbands into lesbians!

That would undermine marriage.

(Or the congregations of the faithful churches might realise that churches are conducting civil partnerships and getting along lovingly and joyfully and that therefore building your theology around hating teh gayz is a bit stupid. That would be even worse.)

No. Make sure the abomination-vibes do not happen. Think of the husbands-to-be!

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
Yeah, there's liberal catholic and liberal!

I thought Garth Hewitt was an evangelical and Edward Norman some sort of conservative.

Then again, people change.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
Here's part of my letter to Willesden clergy on the matter:

A number of London clergy (including some of you) have signed a petition which is in the news today asking for the liberty for incumbents to decide whether or not to hold civil partnership ceremonies in Church of England churches as a matter for the individual conscience of the priest, analogous with the decision whether or not to remarry divorcees in church. It’s an important issue for us to face, but there is of course work in progress in the House of Bishops on a number of fronts before we can make a decision on this. First, there is a working party chaired by the Bishop of Sodor and Man which is tasked with reviewing the 2005 Pastoral Statement on Civil Partnerships. This working party is due to report this year. Secondly, another HoB working party is looking at the listening process and the previous statements made by the House in Issues in Human Sexuality and Some Issues. That group will report in 2013. There’s a tranche of questions here, including the eligibility of clergy in civil partnerships for episcopal office; what liturgical provision (official or otherwise) might be made for either blessing or registering civil partnerships on religious premises; and what progress has been made in the listening process. Perhaps the most basic unaddressed question is that of our theological understanding of the meaning of civil partnerships. A concept invented by Government on the hoof has never been addressed by us properly. Our rightly held gut pastoral reaction to wish to affirm committed friendship (a point made by Bishops in the House of Lords during the debate on the Civil Partnership legislation) has never been followed through by thinking about the meaning of such relationships within the whole gamut of Christian tradition. So there is more work to be done before we can respond to this petition – and the discussion will begin in the House of Bishops (which has had very little debate on these matters over the last ten years) before it comes to the floor of General Synod.

Do you think your response to civil partnership will finish before the government introduces same sex civil marriage?

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
Perhaps the most basic unaddressed question is that of our theological understanding of the meaning of civil partnerships. A concept invented by Government on the hoof has never been addressed by us properly.

The Church of England is not on the face of it a body united by theological understanding. I should expect that a majority of the clergy signing the letter have come to a theological understanding in their own heads. It might not be a theological understanding that pleases clergy who haven't signed the letter, but the Church of England has been living with divergent theological understandings for a while.

Posted by badman (# 9634) on :

quote:
Originally posted by badman:
There is also the concern that the Bishop of Sodor and Man's working party is remarkably narrow and unrepresentative; containing no women, no men who are not in heterosexual marriages, and no young people. This makes it very far from a substitute for the views of the clergy in London who are more diverse and whose experience is also likely to be different from that of the working party, not least because of the sheer numbers involved and the very wide range of their pastoral experiences and responsibilities.

quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
Any Synod Private Members' Motion is likely to get parked until the House of Bishops' working party(ies) have completed their task. And of course the W/P has no women or young people - it's composed of bishops (who unfortunately are still all male - but we're working on that!)

Sir Joseph Pilling isn't a bishop. He's also not young, and not a woman. And he's heterosexually married. He's on the working party. Seems like being a bishop is not a criterion. But being a man, and not gay, and not young, are essential. And that goes for the House of Bishops too.

The leadership of the Church of England is not well placed to address the topic of human sexuality. It's too late for "Wait and see": it's been a long wait and nothing to show for it. "Trust me" has got off to a bad start with the working party. Hardly surprising if others now step in.

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

As an outside observer, I know what my response would be, when told "We may or may not be discussing this, at some time when the bureaucracy have finalised the minutes of the agenda, and when the Moon is in the right phase of blueness"

The fact that a mere 400 priests are sufficient to minister to a city of more than 10 million tells us that the issue is not of significance to most people in the area, since they don't "do" church in the first place.

But, why is The Church not interested in attempting to deal constructively with people that actually want to be part of The Church?

A vague desire not to be troubled with issues isn't good enough.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Can I just clarify something from the OP? Is Aelred saying that whether or not to celebrate second marriages is a matter for local decision in the C of E?

If so, I'd be interested to know how long that's been the case, and how long it took to get that decision.

Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on :

Because a marriage is a marriage is a marriage (ie no distinction between civil and church), incumbents have always had the right to solemnise a second marriage for a divorced person following banns. We have (after long and considered debate) put in place a procedure whereby clergy are encouraged to enquire of those wishing for a second marriage and to consult their bishop before doing so. The material is here.

So conscience comes in (a) about whether priests wish to remarry divorcees at all and (b) where they may need to refuse a particular couple.

But it isn't just about pastoral response; it's done within an agreed and defined legal and liturgical framework, which we don't yet have on civil partnerships, and where there is no consensus in the church.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Hmm. If a marriage is a marriage is a marriage, then what would happen if the law abandoned its current attempt at distinguishing a civil union, and started calling it a marriage?

(Which appears to happen a lot in UK popular usage, from what I've seen, so it wouldn't really surprise me if the law moved that way.)

Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Hmm. If a marriage is a marriage is a marriage, then what would happen if the law abandoned its current attempt at distinguishing a civil union, and started calling it a marriage?

I assume that's what's striking such terror into the hearts (such as they are) of the likes of the Abp of York.

quote:
(Which appears to happen a lot in UK popular usage, from what I've seen, so it wouldn't really surprise me if the law moved that way.)

From, the PMO, a topical wakeup call.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

It seems to me that "a marriage is a marriage" is really a policy of cross-recognition. The state recognises church marriages and the church recognises state marriages.

There's nothing inherent in this, as shown by the fact that a large number of countries simply don't follow it.

It's not self-evident that people have always had the right to solemnise a second marriage for a divorced person. It's a policy decision. One that the Roman Catholic church took a different policy on.

And it's a policy question that other churches will have to wrestle with all over again if the legal distinction between marriages and civil partnerships ever disappears. Which I think it probably will in most countries in the long run. Quite a few of the countries that now have gay marriage had gay civil unions first, and a few others that have had gay civil unions for a while seem to be moving in that direction.

Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
There's nothing inherent in this, as shown by the fact that a large number of countries simply don't follow it.

Well, quite - the problem in the long-range analysis has always been establishment and Erastianism. Just look at the comparative sanity of the long-suffering Scottish Episcopalians.

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

My problem with Pete's stance (which I suspect is in line with many/most C of E bishops) in this is as follows:

a) It's an attempt to kick the matter into the long grass. "We've got working parties - so it would be wrong to say or do anything until they've done their job." But the working parties are unlikely to come up with definitive statements - especially give that the key one has a very slanted membership. Sorry, Pete, but you can't shut off debate and initiatives this way.

b) It reflects yet again the growing tendency of the C of E to control everything from the centre. Naughty clergy and laity shouldn't be having thoughts and initiatives of their own - they should wait until the centre-controlled work parties have decided what they should think.

c) It is patently inadequate. There is (suddenly?) a rising resentment by many who would see themselves as part of the "silent majority" - the waiting and obfuscation have gone on long enough. They want to see some action NOW.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
My problem with Pete's stance (which I suspect is in line with many/most C of E bishops) in this is as follows:

a) It's an attempt to kick the matter into the long grass.

The Bishop of Salisbury has broken ranks.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The Bishop of Salisbury has broken ranks.

Interesting. Not least because of his remarks about bearing children - which is precisely what I've banged on about somewhere around Dead Horses.

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
The only point I'd make is that we don't do theology and liturgy on the hoof. Praying privately with people is part of our pastoral duty; doing public services and giving status to civil partnerships, on the lex orandi, lex credendi principle [what we pray is what we believe] is a different ball game. You wouldn't (I hope) expect the CofE to diminish its commitment to the seriousness of our public role as the national Church by swallowing uncritically a rather badly constructed legal formula called "civil partnerships" which the Government invented on the hoof, and which put right a number of injustices in relation to property, inheritance and pensions, but didn't really address what was meant and intended. We need a theology and a public consensus about the meaning of civil partnerships. That should be the next stage.

I heard you say something very like that on Radio 4 this week.

It's fine as far as it goes. You are, of course, absolutely right that we need to know what we are doing when blessing a partnership, and so we need to decide what, theologically, a civil partnership is.

But, really, is there any mystery about that? It's gay marriage by another name. That's what people who get civilly partnered think it is and want it to be: they are making a commitment to a single person with whom they are in a sexual relationship, just as people do when they get married. The law makes no sense at all understood in any other way: if it were not de facto gay marriage, but literally a partnership implying nothing erotic, then it would not be limited to same-sex pairings. Take a look at the (ridiculous) laws that apply when a married person legally changes sex: he or she cannot have his new gender identity finally registered in circumstances where a single person could unless the marriage is converted to a civil partnership: it is absolutely clear that the legislative intent was to create a status equivalent to marriage for same-sex couples. That is a crystal-clear case that exactly the same relationship is called a marriage when the two parties are legally considered to be opposite sex, and a civil partnership when they are legally considered to be same-sex. You don't need two working parties to scratch their heads for two years to tell you what a civil partnership is. Everyone already knows.

The Church can do number of things: bless civil partnerships as effective gay marriages unconditionally; allow a priest free choice whether to bless civil partnerships or not; bless civil partnerships on the fiction that they imply no sexual relationship*; take a firm stance that same-sex relationships are wrong; delay and prevaricate.

Don't we have all the information we need to make that decision already? What is a working party going to add to what we already know? Are you seriously suggesting that they are going to discover some radically new understanding of what a civil partnership is that hasn't occurred to anyone before? It's gay marriage. We know that. No working party is going to change that.

(*There's nothing wrong with blessing close friendships, of course, but no one thinks that the pastoral demand is provide a liturgy for doing that, rather than blessing gay couples, so in this context it would be a fraud. There probably are civil partnerships that are asexual, just as there are, and have always been, marriages of convenience, but the institution as a whole is designed and used for celebrating and strengthening sexual relationships and absolutely everybody knows it.)

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
Secondly, another HoB working party is looking at the listening process and the previous statements made by the House in Issues in Human Sexuality and Some Issues. That group will report in 2013.

This would be the committee of five straight blokes being discussed a few threads down?

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Petition here. [link removed - see my host post below]

[ 06. February 2012, 23:24: Message edited by: Louise ]

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :

hosting
Leo,
Links to petitions and campaigns need to go in your sig, not your post to avoid crusading. See my sig for example.

Thanks
Louise
Dead Horses Host

hosting off

Posted by badman (# 9634) on :

From General Synod today:

quote:
Judith Maltby asked
Q. Given the inclusion of a man who is not a bishop in the group to advise the House of Bishops on the Church of England’s approach to human sexuality, are there any plans to include some women members in order to achieve at least a partial gender balance on this currently all-male group addressing the complex issue of human sexuality?

The Archbishop of York to reply:
A. The Archbishop of Canterbury and I made the appointments to this group, after consultation with Standing Committee of the House. It was, like the parallel group on civil partnerships, established as a small episcopal group. We concluded, however, that there was advantage in inviting a distinguished and independent outsider to chair and facilitate the process.

We do not intend to enlarge the membership of the group but it will be open to the group to consider how others can help it in its work, including, if it so decides, through inviting individuals to serve as consultants or assessors.

So no woman qualified as a "distinguished and independent outsider"?

It's hard to manage diversity from exclusive groups (like the Bench of Bishops, which deliberately excludes women) because, even with good intentions, they tend to select people just like themselves, even when looking for "distinguished and independent outsiders".

Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :

Well, why would the house of bishops risk mixing in a non-hetero-male perspective that might lead the group astray from the conclusions they're obviously tasked with reaching?

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

This is the kind of blinkered dumbness that realy makes you despair. You'd have thought that given that the rest of the group were Bishops and thus necessarily (at present) male, this would have flagged up the need to make sure that your 'distinguished outsider' was a woman. Never mind anything else, anyone with even the least sense of what looks good would have done this. But not Ebor & Cantuar.

Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on :

Fascinating - my partner was on such a committee in the PCANZ. The committee of six was chosen with some attention to balance: male (4)/female (2), ordained(3)/lay(30), gay(2, although for the first 2 years the gay man was in the closet and had been chosen as a clergy rep)/straight(4) and spread across the theological continuum. They produced a report in three years which was a miracle of balanced argument. It was promptly dismissed without discussion by the Assembly, even though the committee had received more submissions than any other before.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0