homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   »   » Oblivion   » Gay clergy wedding at St Bart's, London (Page 1)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Gay clergy wedding at St Bart's, London
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266

 - Posted      Profile for Nightlamp   Email Nightlamp   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I suspect this thread will end up in the old nag's derby but any way it is a live issue.
I am of the opinion that this will make things more difficult in the Church of England particularly for gay clergy. I cannot see any benefit for anyone other than some people had some nice food.

[ 17. June 2008, 09:21: Message edited by: Ancient Mariner ]

--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp

Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cadfael
Shipmate
# 11066

 - Posted      Profile for Cadfael   Email Cadfael   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I wonder if this might be intended to have a little more significance than that...

Those currently seeking ordination in the CofE are required to commit to standards outlined in the 'Issues' report. In short, they are asked to commit to celibacy or Christian marriage. That does not stop celibate gay people seeking ordination, or celibate gay priests from entering into civil partnerships (as these two people had).

Now, if someone sets up a 'test case' to argue whether (or not) a Christian marriage has taken place, it's all a bit more complicated.

If these people are not disciplined because the service is simply not recognized as marriage, then they have done nothing wrong and others could easily do the same (under the heading of 'pastoral sensitivity'). Hey presto, lots of similar services and a de facto change in practice on the ground.

However, if these people are disciplined in some way for entering into this arrangement (if, for example, the vows included terms like 'with my body I thee honour...'), then it would imply that their actions were meaningful - in short, it would give the marriage de facto legitimacy...

It's a bit of a 'catch 22' for the Bishop of London, if you think about it. I think the first outcome is more likely though.

[ 15. June 2008, 08:04: Message edited by: Hermeneut ]

Posts: 576 | From: North by North West | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Gracious rebel

Rainbow warrior
# 3523

 - Posted      Profile for Gracious rebel     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
However, if these people are disciplined in some way for entering into this arrangement (if, for example, the vows included terms like 'with my body I thee honour...'), then it would imply that their actions were meaningful - in short, it would give the marriage de facto legitimacy...
According to the report in today's Sunday Telegraph, the ceremony did indeed include those words, so it seems to be deliberately disobeying the guidelines on celibate relationships.

--------------------
Fancy a break beside the sea in Suffolk? Visit my website

Posts: 4413 | From: Suffolk UK | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612

 - Posted      Profile for FreeJack   Email FreeJack   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
What makes this case more interesting is that the London-based priest is also a Priest Vicar at Westminster Abbey. That is the appointment that looks in more jeopardy, rather than the hospital chaplaincy.

Like the OP, I can't see any good coming of this for any side. There is too much risk of a cons.evo pressure group on the Bishop of London leading to an over-the-top clampdown, which may not be good for anyone.

Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Mogwai
Shipmate
# 13555

 - Posted      Profile for Mogwai   Email Mogwai   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Is it still the case that gay people can't marry per se? What is the technical difference between marriage and civil partnership?

--------------------
:love:

Posts: 704 | Registered: Apr 2008  |  IP: Logged
Pigwidgeon

Ship's Owl
# 10192

 - Posted      Profile for Pigwidgeon   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Hermeneut:
...if, for example, the vows included terms like 'with my body I thee honour...'

Yes. A PDF of the service can be seen here.

--------------------
"...that is generally a matter for Pigwidgeon, several other consenting adults, a bottle of cheap Gin and the odd giraffe."
~Tortuf

Posts: 9835 | From: Hogwarts | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
glockenspiel
Shipmate
# 13645

 - Posted      Profile for glockenspiel   Author's homepage   Email glockenspiel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I suspect we can all think of at least one vicar who has had, or is most likely having, a sexual relationship outside marriage. Is that wrong?
Posts: 1258 | From: Shropshire | Registered: Apr 2008  |  IP: Logged
Mogwai
Shipmate
# 13555

 - Posted      Profile for Mogwai   Email Mogwai   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by glockenspiel:
I suspect we can all think of at least one vicar who has had, or is most likely having, a sexual relationship outside marriage. Is that wrong?

Seriously? It's that common for vicars to engage in that sort of thing?

--------------------
:love:

Posts: 704 | Registered: Apr 2008  |  IP: Logged
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984

 - Posted      Profile for Doublethink.   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It is difficult to envisage how a high church liturgy for a same sex marriage would differ from that order of service. If they maintain it is a blessing only, why make it look and sound exactly like a wedding ?

I think it is unfortunate because it will provoke a backlash to little purpose.

--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell

Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cadfael
Shipmate
# 11066

 - Posted      Profile for Cadfael   Email Cadfael   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by FreeJack:
What makes this case more interesting is that the London-based priest is also a Priest Vicar at Westminster Abbey. That is the appointment that looks in more jeopardy, rather than the hospital chaplaincy.

Like the OP, I can't see any good coming of this for any side. There is too much risk of a cons.evo pressure group on the Bishop of London leading to an over-the-top clampdown, which may not be good for anyone.

I find it difficult to work out what the ultimate consequences might be. Disciplinary action means taking the service seriously, thereby suggesting that it acheived some change in the status of the relationship of the people concerned. I'm not sure that anyone will want to allow that inference to be drawn.

Also, it has just occurred to me that a Royal peculiar (or is that particular?) like Westminster Abbey might not fall under the authority of the Bishop of London? In which case, I guess only the officiating minister might be at risk of censure.

Also, given that it all happened a couple of weeks ago, perhaps everyone has just decided not to notice...?

[fixed typo]

[ 15. June 2008, 13:24: Message edited by: Hermeneut ]

Posts: 576 | From: North by North West | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
antSJD
Shipmate
# 13598

 - Posted      Profile for antSJD     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by glockenspiel:
I suspect we can all think of at least one vicar who has had, or is most likely having, a sexual relationship outside marriage. Is that wrong?

I've never known this to be the case. I'm not saying they are all saints, but still, I've never known it personally.

With the OP in mind, I can only see an awful backlash from this. Regardless of whether it is right or wrong, the media will grab it with both hands and it is hardly doing anything for unity and cohesion in the Anglican Communion.

--------------------
I yearn to understand some measure of your truth which my heart believes and loves. For I do not understand in order to believe, but I believe in order to understand.

Posts: 440 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Apr 2008  |  IP: Logged
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643

 - Posted      Profile for dj_ordinaire   Author's homepage   Email dj_ordinaire   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The words of marriage were not, as I understand it, including in the service. It was a blessing of two civilly partnered, celibate clergy in honour of their commitment to each other, which made use of some of the phraseology of the 1662 BCP so beloved of many Anglicans.

It was legal and above board at every level and nobody who wasn't driven by the basest of motivations would bat an eyelid at the affair.
God bless the Revd. Fathers, and grant them many years.

--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...

Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376

 - Posted      Profile for Forthview   Email Forthview   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Whilst it is not my intention to enquire into the private life of the individuals concerned ,what exactly does 'celibate' mean ?

Certainly it means 'living alone'. I should have thought that ,whatever physical relationship the two may have ,the whole purpose of this ceremony was to indicate before the general public that they were not celibate,but were living together as 'one'

Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged
Mogwai
Shipmate
# 13555

 - Posted      Profile for Mogwai   Email Mogwai   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The Times article noted that the church could not cope without the assistance of gay clergy. So it seems particularly strange to me that there should be any real controversy.

--------------------
:love:

Posts: 704 | Registered: Apr 2008  |  IP: Logged
Lydia
Shipmate
# 12161

 - Posted      Profile for Lydia   Email Lydia   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by antSJD:
quote:
Originally posted by glockenspiel:
I suspect we can all think of at least one vicar who has had, or is most likely having, a sexual relationship outside marriage. Is that wrong?

I've never known this to be the case. I'm not saying they are all saints, but still, I've never known it personally.
Sadly, I've known two personally and I knew someone who was involved with dealing with the case of a third. In all three cases the clergyman in question lost his job and his licence - one was allowed to resign quietly, and the other two were subjected to the publicity of a Consistory Court.

--------------------
You mean I'm supposed to think of something interesting to write in a sig?

Posts: 204 | From: England | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged
Mogwai
Shipmate
# 13555

 - Posted      Profile for Mogwai   Email Mogwai   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
In all three cases the clergyman in question lost his job and his licence - one was allowed to resign quietly, and the other two were subjected to the publicity of a Consistory Court.
I think it's pretty common, but I've underestimated the frequency of it occurring if glockenspiel is correct. But I understand that most times the priest would be quietly moved on. Now the consistory courts have presumably been replaced with the CDM.

--------------------
:love:

Posts: 704 | Registered: Apr 2008  |  IP: Logged
daisymay

St Elmo's Fire
# 1480

 - Posted      Profile for daisymay     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Isn't it sensible to have your relationship made legal and open/public, so that all the monetary, legal, necessary, effects come into place in both your lives?

One simple example is when a person is ill or dying, they need to have contact with their partner.

Or a partner inherits pension when another passes away.

It's also being honest.

--------------------
London
Flickr fotos

Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Lydia
Shipmate
# 12161

 - Posted      Profile for Lydia   Email Lydia   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mogwai:
quote:
In all three cases the clergyman in question lost his job and his licence - one was allowed to resign quietly, and the other two were subjected to the publicity of a Consistory Court.
I think it's pretty common, but I've underestimated the frequency of it occurring if glockenspiel is correct. But I understand that most times the priest would be quietly moved on. Now the consistory courts have presumably been replaced with the CDM.
I hope very much that glockenspiel is overestimating, but which of us really has an overview of the church as a whole?

You're right that the CDM has now replaced the consistory courts - the 3 cases I knew about were all some years ago. I should perhaps add that all 3 were heterosexual.

--------------------
You mean I'm supposed to think of something interesting to write in a sig?

Posts: 204 | From: England | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged
Cadfael
Shipmate
# 11066

 - Posted      Profile for Cadfael   Email Cadfael   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
The words of marriage were not, as I understand it, including in the service. It was a blessing of two civilly partnered, celibate clergy in honour of their commitment to each other, which made use of some of the phraseology of the 1662 BCP so beloved of many Anglicans.

It was legal and above board at every level and nobody who wasn't driven by the basest of motivations would bat an eyelid at the affair.
God bless the Revd. Fathers, and grant them many years.

I have nothing against these people or the service enacted for them - but let's be honest about what it was. If you look at the liturgy for it (linked to above by Pigwidgeon) it is not expressed as a blessing of an existing union. It is worded as the entering into a life-long covenant by the two people on that day. Furthermore, the partners made vows, exchanged rings and their union was pronounced as being effected by these actions.

It doesn't have the word marriage in it, but lots of the words from the marriage service, from the 'sickness and health' through 'will you take this man' to the 'with my body I thee worship'.

Wouldn't a blessing of an existing union be different, both in the performative claims and the language employed?

Posts: 576 | From: North by North West | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
justlooking
Shipmate
# 12079

 - Posted      Profile for justlooking   Author's homepage   Email justlooking   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
The words of marriage were not, as I understand it, including in the service. It was a blessing of two civilly partnered, celibate clergy in honour of their commitment to each other, which made use of some of the phraseology of the 1662 BCP so beloved of many Anglicans.

It was legal and above board at every level and nobody who wasn't driven by the basest of motivations would bat an eyelid at the affair.
God bless the Revd. Fathers, and grant them many years.

Amen. Much love to them both [Votive] [Votive]
Posts: 2319 | From: thither and yon | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
Dumpling Jeff
Shipmate
# 12766

 - Posted      Profile for Dumpling Jeff   Email Dumpling Jeff   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Glockenspiel wrote,
quote:
I suspect we can all think of at least one vicar who has had, or is most likely having, a sexual relationship outside marriage. Is that wrong?
Yes it's wrong. It's also very human.

The Church should teach the highest standards. These include chastity, living up to one's word, and the humility of not rebelling against authority.

They also include wide tolerance for those of us who don't live up to these standards. May we teach perfection and live forgiveness.

--------------------
"There merely seems to be something rather glib in defending the police without question one moment and calling the Crusades-- or war in general-- bad the next. The second may be an extension of the first." - Alogon

Posts: 2572 | From: Nomad | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged
Mogwai
Shipmate
# 13555

 - Posted      Profile for Mogwai   Email Mogwai   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:


You're right that the CDM has now replaced the consistory courts - the 3 cases I knew about were all some years ago. I should perhaps add that all 3 were heterosexual.

Lydia, can I ask... were the details disclosed to the congreagtion or was it deemed better to withhold them? Were the congregation given any sort of pastoral care?

--------------------
:love:

Posts: 704 | Registered: Apr 2008  |  IP: Logged
Cadfael
Shipmate
# 11066

 - Posted      Profile for Cadfael   Email Cadfael   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Whilst it is not my intention to enquire into the private life of the individuals concerned ,what exactly does 'celibate' mean ?

Certainly it means 'living alone'. I should have thought that ,whatever physical relationship the two may have ,the whole purpose of this ceremony was to indicate before the general public that they were not celibate,but were living together as 'one'

Forgive me speaking in plain language, for the avoidance of doubt. Celibate means no sexual relations, it does not mean that you have to live alone! So a CP does not imply anything about the celibacy (or otherwise) of the partners. Whether the service enacted a couple of weeks ago means something different is a moot point, however.
Posts: 576 | From: North by North West | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
glockenspiel
Shipmate
# 13645

 - Posted      Profile for glockenspiel   Author's homepage   Email glockenspiel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lydia:
quote:
Originally posted by Mogwai:
quote:
In all three cases the clergyman in question lost his job and his licence - one was allowed to resign quietly, and the other two were subjected to the publicity of a Consistory Court.
I think it's pretty common, but I've underestimated the frequency of it occurring if glockenspiel is correct. But I understand that most times the priest would be quietly moved on. Now the consistory courts have presumably been replaced with the CDM.
I hope very much that glockenspiel is overestimating, but which of us really has an overview of the church as a whole?

You're right that the CDM has now replaced the consistory courts - the 3 cases I knew about were all some years ago. I should perhaps add that all 3 were heterosexual.

What I'm trying to get a grasp of here is of how a 'two-tier' sexual code (one for laity and one for clergy) is supposed to operate in the anglican church. Whats the 'pass mark' for having sex? On the 3rd date if you're a layperson, but on getting engaged if you're a clergyperson?? Does anybody have a clue as to what the consensus is; in practice as well as theory? We can't even begin talking about 'alternative' sexualities untill this has been squared up to.
Posts: 1258 | From: Shropshire | Registered: Apr 2008  |  IP: Logged
Mogwai
Shipmate
# 13555

 - Posted      Profile for Mogwai   Email Mogwai   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
On the 3rd date if you're a layperson, but on getting engaged if you're a clergyperson?? Does anybody have a clue as to what the consensus is; in practice as well as theory? We can't even begin talking about 'alternative' sexualities untill this has been squared up to.
I think, in practice, prohibition of sex before marriage is accepted as unrealistic for most people. I don't think it's analysed beyond that.... Relationships between clergy and their parishioners I guess raised a separate set of questions.

--------------------
:love:

Posts: 704 | Registered: Apr 2008  |  IP: Logged
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349

 - Posted      Profile for Anglican_Brat   Email Anglican_Brat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Can anyone answer this question?

Where is the Church of England on the whole issue of homosexuality/same-sex relationships? Is the CofE conservative, liberal, or in between?

--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.

Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643

 - Posted      Profile for dj_ordinaire   Author's homepage   Email dj_ordinaire   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Hermeneut:
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Whilst it is not my intention to enquire into the private life of the individuals concerned ,what exactly does 'celibate' mean ?

Certainly it means 'living alone'. I should have thought that ,whatever physical relationship the two may have ,the whole purpose of this ceremony was to indicate before the general public that they were not celibate,but were living together as 'one'

Forgive me speaking in plain language, for the avoidance of doubt. Celibate means no sexual relations, it does not mean that you have to live alone! So a CP does not imply anything about the celibacy (or otherwise) of the partners. Whether the service enacted a couple of weeks ago means something different is a moot point, however.
Actually, this isn't quite right - 'celibacy' technically just means 'living alone' i.e. being unmarried. However, it is often used in modern parlance as a synonym for 'chastity' i.e. sexual abstinence. It was in this widely used but technically inaccurate sense that I used the term in my last post.

--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...

Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643

 - Posted      Profile for dj_ordinaire   Author's homepage   Email dj_ordinaire   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Can anyone answer this question?

Where is the Church of England on the whole issue of homosexuality/same-sex relationships? Is the CofE conservative, liberal, or in between?

And sorry to double-post but... yes. Yes to all of the above.

--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...

Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
pete173
Shipmate
# 4622

 - Posted      Profile for pete173   Author's homepage   Email pete173   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I suspect the answer to that last question is "yes"!

The official position on services is that neither same sex blessings, nor liturgies purporting to be "marriages", nor public blessings of civil partnerships are allowed.

Priests who wish to exercise pastoral care (including prayer) of people within their parishes are of course encouraged to meet with them privately.

Cross posted with several others...

[ 15. June 2008, 14:30: Message edited by: pete173 ]

--------------------
Pete

Posts: 1653 | From: Kilburn, London NW6 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cadfael
Shipmate
# 11066

 - Posted      Profile for Cadfael   Email Cadfael   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Can anyone answer this question?

Where is the Church of England on the whole issue of homosexuality/same-sex relationships? Is the CofE conservative, liberal, or in between?

There is no one view really, but officially the CofE requires priests to be celibate or in a Christian marriage. The position is more vague for laity, but having a discussion on either of those points would be a Big Dead Horse.

What did you think of the service in question? I guess it would be pretty much accepted in BC, but if you look at the liturgy linked to above by Pigwidgeon, would you call that a blessing or a marriage?

Posts: 576 | From: North by North West | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
justlooking
Shipmate
# 12079

 - Posted      Profile for justlooking   Author's homepage   Email justlooking   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Can anyone answer this question?

Where is the Church of England on the whole issue of homosexuality/same-sex relationships? Is the CofE conservative, liberal, or in between?

All of those.
Posts: 2319 | From: thither and yon | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349

 - Posted      Profile for Anglican_Brat   Email Anglican_Brat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Hermeneut:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Can anyone answer this question?

Where is the Church of England on the whole issue of homosexuality/same-sex relationships? Is the CofE conservative, liberal, or in between?

There is no one view really, but officially the CofE requires priests to be celibate or in a Christian marriage. The position is more vague for laity, but having a discussion on either of those points would be a Big Dead Horse.

What did you think of the service in question? I guess it would be pretty much accepted in BC, but if you look at the liturgy linked to above by Pigwidgeon, would you call that a blessing or a marriage?

If it quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, etc...

Here in liberal New Westminster, our rite of same-sex blessing was designed to be specifically unlike a marriage. (See www.Samesexblessing.info for more info). The 1662 BCP marriage rite is the most famous marriage liturgy in the Western world. It's a marriage for all intensive purposes.

--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.

Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged
Cadfael
Shipmate
# 11066

 - Posted      Profile for Cadfael   Email Cadfael   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
Actually, this isn't quite right - 'celibacy' technically just means 'living alone' i.e. being unmarried. However, it is often used in modern parlance as a synonym for 'chastity' i.e. sexual abstinence. It was in this widely used but technically inaccurate sense that I used the term in my last post.

I sit corrected. But does Issues use the term in the correct sense? If it does, since gay people can't marry, they are all 'celibate', whatever the status of their other-than-marriage relationships. I really don't believe that's what's intended, and I imagine that 'celibate' is one of those cases where the colloquial use is now the more usual meaning of the word. Otherwise the standard would equate to being married or not married, which would not be very difficult to adhere to.
Posts: 576 | From: North by North West | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Edward Green
Review Editor
# 46

 - Posted      Profile for Edward Green   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by glockenspiel:
What I'm trying to get a grasp of here is of how a 'two-tier' sexual code (one for laity and one for clergy) is supposed to operate in the anglican church. Whats the 'pass mark' for having sex? On the 3rd date if you're a layperson, but on getting engaged if you're a clergyperson?? Does anybody have a clue as to what the consensus is; in practice as well as theory? We can't even begin talking about 'alternative' sexualities until this has been squared up to.

What is certain is that clergy in heterosexual relationships are not required to give the same account as those in homosexual relationships. Although clergy do tend to get married rather quickly, so it would be very unusual for them to be asked about the extent of their sexual relationship before marriage (or before ordination!).

Although abstinence before marriage is ideal the Scripture is very clear about the resolution of a 'failure' in this area. Get Wed. I will add that from my experience of pastoral work with people who come from traditions that are strongly 'no sex before marriage' the two biggest problems were: couples who couldn't make the transition between no-sex and sex following the wedding day; and couples who felt deeply hypocritical because they hadn't managed to wait it out yet still taught abstinence. Some reality would be nice here.

Interestingly with a number of funerals that I have taken for people in their 80's, when you do the math with the children, plenty of the brides of that generation were pregnant on their wedding day - so this isn't a case of modern moral laxity!

I don't really know of any cases where stipendiary clergy have lived with a fiance(e) before marriage. I do know of curates who have been forbidden from having any single guests staying with them in case it brought 'the church into disrepute'. I had a male friend lodge with me and didn't hear a whisper that we might be a 'couple'. However on another occasion I had coffee in public with a gay parishioner and rumors flew! YMMV.

Issues in Human Sexuality also proclaims the husband's royal headship over his wife. I know of no bishops, clergy, or their partners who have been asked to sign that they follow this model of marriage.

[ 15. June 2008, 14:54: Message edited by: Edward Green ]

--------------------
blog//twitter//
linkedin

Posts: 4893 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Lydia
Shipmate
# 12161

 - Posted      Profile for Lydia   Email Lydia   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mogwai:
quote:


You're right that the CDM has now replaced the consistory courts - the 3 cases I knew about were all some years ago. I should perhaps add that all 3 were heterosexual.

Lydia, can I ask... were the details disclosed to the congreagtion or was it deemed better to withhold them? Were the congregation given any sort of pastoral care?
The guy who resigned quietly did so without the congregation having the faintest idea what it was all about.

The consistory court made press statements about the other two. As for details, in the case I know most about, the woman wasn't named but nobody in the congregation had the least difficulty in working out who she was. She moved fairly soon afterwards and was looked after by the church she joined in the town she went to.

As for pastoral care of the congregation, it was a largish church with more than one clergyperson, so obviously the pastoral responsibility landed on the remaining clergy.

quote:
Originally posted by Mogwai:
quote:
On the 3rd date if you're a layperson, but on getting engaged if you're a clergyperson?? Does anybody have a clue as to what the consensus is; in practice as well as theory? We can't even begin talking about 'alternative' sexualities untill this has been squared up to.
I think, in practice, prohibition of sex before marriage is accepted as unrealistic for most people. I don't think it's analysed beyond that.... Relationships between clergy and their parishioners I guess raised a separate set of questions.
There are still evangelical churches that teach that the "passmark" for sex is marriage for everyone, lay or clergy. Many of them, however, adhere to a "belong first, believe next, behave after that" model of evangelism and discipleship, so they are quite realistic about what is probably going on amongst church members. They often require the "marriage or celibacy" thing of people in any kind of leadership, though, not just the clergy but homegroup leaders, worship leaders etc. (That's celibacy in its usual 21st century sense of sexual abstinence.)

Lydia

--------------------
You mean I'm supposed to think of something interesting to write in a sig?

Posts: 204 | From: England | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged
Edward Green
Review Editor
# 46

 - Posted      Profile for Edward Green   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Sorry to double post but another thread reminded me of something.

(This: Case Here)

Clergy who are separated but not divorced (for whatever reason) are in a very vulnerable position. Although it is unlikely that a secular Judge would take kindly to an accusation of adultery against a separated individual who then pursues another relationship, in Church Law any romantic/sexual relationship undertaken (even if genital acts are not involved) whilst legally married to someone else leaves the cleric open to the accusation of an 'adulterous relationship'.

So for example if your husband left you, but you did not divorce, and 18 months down the line you had 'a date' you would be in danger of immediate 6 month suspension!

Which is why clergy often divorce quickly as well as marrying quickly!

--------------------
blog//twitter//
linkedin

Posts: 4893 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076

 - Posted      Profile for Gwai   Email Gwai   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
On one level, I would say it's definitely more honest. After all, if these two people intend to live together as husbands, then it is appropriate to be married before God.
However, it's also pushing a church further than the Church is willing to be pushed right now, I fear. So yes, as a PR stunt, I think it was a very bad idea.

--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.


Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612

 - Posted      Profile for FreeJack   Email FreeJack   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Hermeneut:
I find it difficult to work out what the ultimate consequences might be. Disciplinary action means taking the service seriously, thereby suggesting that it acheived some change in the status of the relationship of the people concerned. I'm not sure that anyone will want to allow that inference to be drawn.

Also, it has just occurred to me that a Royal peculiar (or is that particular?) like Westminster Abbey might not fall under the authority of the Bishop of London? In which case, I guess only the officiating minister might be at risk of censure.

I don't know exactly what the disciplinary procedures are at the Abbey these days, but a little bit of research indicates that the Dean of the Chapels Royal is the Bishop of London himself. There's also an episcopal Clerk of the Closet!

The problem with the officiating minister is that he has the freehold. The only easy censure against him would be suspension of his area / diocesan permission to officiate.

The London-licensed participant is paid by the NHS, but this is normally on condition of a diocesan licence being held - and that is an awkward situation for the NHS who would not want to sack someone for being gay, but he would not be able to continue to do his job without the license.

If +London does nothing, then this situation will repeat itself, and sooner or later some other evo churches in the diocese will consider their positions - and no-one really wants to go down that path.

Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Audrey Ely
Shipmate
# 12665

 - Posted      Profile for Audrey Ely   Author's homepage   Email Audrey Ely   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I suspect the timing of this ceremony and the consequent publicity is significant in relation to the Lambeth Conference.

In this sense it is a provocative act (I do not say that provocation is always a bad thing).

I cannot help but wonder what would have happened had two female lay people been involved, rather than two male clergy.

Posts: 1432 | From: Cambridgeshire, England | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I believe that the Church of England's official position is that no rite of same-sex blessing has been given explicit authorisation by a Bishop. Individual priests have produced rites of same-sex blessing off their own bat and have not been disciplined. However, tolerance on the part of the Bishop is not technically the same as explicitly authorising it.

This is of course a fudge.

--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams

Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Bullfrog.

Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014

 - Posted      Profile for Bullfrog.   Email Bullfrog.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
On one level, I would say it's definitely more honest. After all, if these two people intend to live together as husbands, then it is appropriate to be married before God.
However, it's also pushing a church further than the Church is willing to be pushed right now, I fear. So yes, as a PR stunt, I think it was a very bad idea.

I might say that turning any wedding into a "PR stunt" is a bad idea.

--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg

Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Audrey Ely
Shipmate
# 12665

 - Posted      Profile for Audrey Ely   Author's homepage   Email Audrey Ely   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Having the order of service available on the internet suggests an intention was to publicise.
Posts: 1432 | From: Cambridgeshire, England | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
Actually, this isn't quite right - 'celibacy' technically just means 'living alone' i.e. being unmarried.

Are monks in a monastery celibate, or no? They don't live alone, yet (if they're true to their monastic vows) they don't have sexual relations either and are thus chaste.

<obnoxious Orthodox holier-than-thou hat>

You silly westerners. This could never arise in the Orthodox Church because we don't allow clergy to marry. [Razz]

</obnoxious Orthodox holier-than-thou hat>

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Very traditional - almost BCP.

'With my body I thee worship' need not necessarily mean full-on sex.

Are cuddles a form of worship? Can two men cuddle and remain chaste/celibate?

Good luck to them, as far as i am concerned.

On TV news, it is claimed to be the FIRST ever in England - that's simply not true - I have already attended two this year and one last year plus one about six years ago - all in churches.

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jengie jon

Semper Reformanda
# 273

 - Posted      Profile for Jengie jon   Author's homepage   Email Jengie jon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

<obnoxious Orthodox holier-than-thou hat>

You silly westerners. This could never arise in the Orthodox Church because we don't allow clergy to marry. [Razz]

</obnoxious Orthodox holier-than-thou hat> [/QB]

You really think that stopping clergy marrying stops scandal. Go and talk to our Roman Catholic fellow believers! In this world no regulation is humanity proof!

Jengie

--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge

Back to my blog

Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
You really think that stopping clergy marrying stops scandal.

Um, no, it was a joke.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cadfael
Shipmate
# 11066

 - Posted      Profile for Cadfael   Email Cadfael   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
Actually, this isn't quite right - 'celibacy' technically just means 'living alone' i.e. being unmarried.

Are monks in a monastery celibate, or no? They don't live alone, yet (if they're true to their monastic vows) they don't have sexual relations either and are thus chaste.

<obnoxious Orthodox holier-than-thou hat>

You silly westerners. This could never arise in the Orthodox Church because we don't allow clergy to marry. [Razz]

</obnoxious Orthodox holier-than-thou hat>

Errmm.. but you do allow them to marry, if they do it before ordination, don't you?

Does that mean they could be in a CP before ordination too? I can see how that would be totally unproblematic...

Posts: 576 | From: North by North West | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It.Was.A.Joke. Part of the joke being the conceit that what would in fact be the "real problem" (gay marriage) isn't as important as a secondary problem (clergy getting married).

[brick wall]

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cadfael
Shipmate
# 11066

 - Posted      Profile for Cadfael   Email Cadfael   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
It.Was.A.Joke. Part of the joke being the conceit that what would in fact be the "real problem" (gay marriage) isn't as important as a secondary problem (clergy getting married).

[brick wall]

In which case:

It. Was. Really. Funny.

(Especially since your clergy can be married [Razz] )

Posts: 576 | From: North by North West | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Hermeneut:
(Especially since your clergy can be married [Razz] )

Our clergy can be married. Our clergy cannot marry. I shouldn't think the distinction TOO hard even for a westerner.

I don't ask you to think my joke is terribly funny, just not to take it as a serious comment. Hence the angle brackets. God, give me patience.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools