Thinking Anglicans

civil partnerships: a further legal opinion

Recently we published here an opinion on civil partnerships issued by LGCM and written by Derek Belcher.

Anglican Mainstream has now published a response by James Behrens which you can find at A Further Opinion regarding Civil Partnerships. He begins:

This further opinion is a response to a paper by Canon Belcher for the LGCM which comments on my written opinion of 30 June 2005 published by Anglican Mainstream. Canon Belcher and I are not as far apart as may be thought. Some people have read my written opinion as saying that the mere fact of entering into a civil partnership is a matter for ecclesiastical discipline. That was not my intention, and it is not my opinion. I am sorry that confusion has been caused. I make it clear now that it is active homosexual practice which is a matter for ecclesiastical discipline, rather than the fact of civil partnership itself. If the relationship between the parties to a civil partnership is chaste, the matter is not one for ecclesiastical discipline.

I annex to this note a slightly revised text for my written opinion which, I hope, makes my position clear. I have underlined the differences from the original version for ease of reference.

Unfortunately the AM web page has lost Dr Behrens’ underlining. Perhaps this will be rectified soon. Meanwhile the original version, of which this is a revision, can be found here.

10
Leave a Reply

avatar
3000
10 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
8 Comment authors
CuriousSimon SarmientobadmanDaveMerseymike Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest
Notify of
badman
Guest
badman

Even after his attempt to “fix” his original opinion, James Behrens’ produces a piece of work which is disappointingly superficial. Having first made the mistake of suggesting that ALL same sex civil partnerships were equally “conduct unbecoming or inappropriate to the office and work of a clerk in holy orders”, he now suggests that all same sex civil partnerships “involving sexual activity” are “conduct unbecoming”. He does not explain what he means by sexual activity. Nor does he draw any distinction between (on the one hand) monogamous, lifelong, faithful, loving, committed relationships and (on the other hand) promiscuous or casual… Read more »

Augustus Meriwether
Guest

I’m glad of this clarification from James Behrens. But it doesn’t predict how the approach will pan out as far as how pressure will be put on individual clergy. I’m sure it will be very sensitively controlled. Pressure will be sensitive to the culture of the host parish and the individual’s popularity and many other political factors. All will be excellently spun and handled. We have come a long way since Salem.

The good Reverend Lance Pinchcolt will do good business in the coming years:

http://frontparlour.blogspot.com/2005/12/calling.html

Hurrah the CofE!

Cheryl Clough
Guest
Cheryl Clough

This is good progress. One issue that remains is the consistency and how this position would manifest in the the day-to-day living. How do we ensure the appropriate sexual conduct of a same-sex relationship? Monitoring or interrogation? And if we are going to do it for same sex “for the sake of their health”, why shouldn’t we be doing it for heterosexual relationships? After all, there are men who sodomise their wives, there are spouses who rape their partners as part of bullying (including defiantly impregnating women already suffering ill health, adding even further to their burdens). Again, I go… Read more »

David H Lewis
Guest
David H Lewis

Unrelated (directly) to this topic but you may be interested to know that the Australian Broadcasting Corp’ are running a discussion “Jesus: History or Myth?” on their Religion and Ethics website. I am arguing for myth with an opening article, “Escaping the gravitational Pull of the Gospels” while Professor Bill Loader is opposing. Your members should be interested in the evidence and might care to comment. Find at http://www.abc.net.au/religion Kind regards, David (Presently in UK)

Dave
Guest
Dave

Dear Badman, Cheryl et al, I think we all agree that Civil Partnerships have created a ridiculous situation for the CofE. Clergy (and laity) living in publicly recognised same-sex relationships that may be sinful! It makes it look like the question about sex is only applied to homosexuals !!

I think the HoB was right to advise clergy against entering a CP. In fact I think that they should, on pastoral grounds, push for a widening of CP legislation so that any two people living together interdependently can enter one.

Merseymike
Guest
Merseymike

Been there, done that. It was rejected for the very good reason that civil partnerships are designed for same sex couples and use marriage as a template. Thus, dissolution is part of the legislation. How about widening marriage to any two people living ‘interdependently’, then, Dave? After all, marriage is a civil institution – most marriages do not take place in church, and most of those which do are not between those who believe the same things as you about marriage. Andrew Sullivan said that it was these sort of partnerships which would really upset the conservatives – and wasn’t… Read more »

Dave
Guest
Dave

Mike, CPs should be extended to provide cover for many other arrangements than just same-sex partnerships! My concern is for just tax and inheritance etc treatment for interdependent people not in married relationships – not for legal parity for the relationships themselves. I believe in monogamous marriage or celebacy! It is hardly surprising that I reject recognition of any other form of sexual partnership(s). Active homosexual practice is contrary to scripture, traditional church teachings and all the authoritative Church of England and Anglican statements: General Synod 1987, and HoB 1991, Lambeth 98 1.10, Primates meeting 2005, and ACC 2005. The… Read more »

badman
Guest
badman

Just to balance Dr Behrens’ characterisation of same sex relationships as “conduct unbecoming”, it is interesting to see the Secretary General of the General Synod of the Church of England suggest that a bishop who offers episcopal care to Anglicans outside his diocese and province “without the authority required under the law of the relevant province” might be engaging in ‘conduct unbecoming or inappropriate to the office and work of a clerk in Holy Orders’!

See question 22 at http://www.cofe.anglican.org/about/gensynod/agendas/watn05.rtf

Simon Sarmiento
Guest

22. Mr Gerry O’Brien (Rochester) asked the Secretary General: Is the Secretary General aware of any legal or other constraints which might inhibit a diocesan bishop in the Church of England from offering episcopal care to those outside the area of his territorial jurisdiction? The Secretary General: Canon C 18 provides for every bishop to be ‘the chief pastor of all that are within his diocese’. The effect of this is to make it unlawful for a diocesan bishop to minister in another diocese of the Church of England without authority, normally from the bishop of that diocese. There is… Read more »

Curious
Guest
Curious

I would be interested in an answer or comment on the following issue. Well, marriages performed by clergy of the Church of England are official in the eyes of the British state. So what happens if a CoE clergyman (who does not recognise “civil partnership” as a marriage) goes on to perform [regular] marriage involving someone (“converted and repented”) who is already a party to a legally valid “civil partnership”? There appears to be no obstacle in the church law to marrying that person – since “civil partnership” is not marriage at all in the eyes of the church, is… Read more »