Tuesday, 9 August 2005

Paul Perkin on civil partnerships

Paul Perkin who is Vicar of St.Mark’s, St.Peter’s & St.Paul’s Battersea in the Diocese of Southwark, has written An Open Letter to English Bishops. Mr Perkin is on the council of Reform.

He raises two issues, one about blessings of such partnerships and one about baptism of children. The key questions:

Blessings

The bishops said:

18. It will be important, however, to bear in mind that registered partnerships do allow for a range of different situations- including those where the relationship is simply one of friendship. Hence, clergy need to have regard to the teaching of the church on sexual morality, celibacy, and the positive value of committed friendships in the Christian tradition. Where clergy are approached by people asking for prayer in relation to entering into a civil partnership they should respond pastorally and sensitively in the light of the circumstances of each case.

Paul Perkin asks:

…I intend always pastorally and sensitively to decline politely any request for such a prayer affirming a same-sex union. Can you clarify for me ‘the light of the circumstances’ in which you would feel it necessary to discipline me for such a refusal, before I go any further? You might well receive complaints from my parishioners, and it is only fair that the House of Bishops spell out now on what grounds you would be sympathetic to such a complaint.

Baptism

The bishops said about baptism:

23. The House considers that lay people who have registered civil partnerships ought not to be asked to give assurances about the nature of their relationship before being admitted to baptism, confirmation and communion. Issues in Human Sexuality made it clear that, while the same standards apply to all, the Church did not want to exclude from its fellowship those lay people of gay or lesbian orientation who, in conscience, were unable to accept that a life of sexual abstinence was required of them and instead chose to enter into a faithful, committed relationship….

Paul Perkin asks:

…It is our practice [at St Mark’s] to delay the baptism of heterosexual adults known to be cohabiting outside marriage, giving time for progress in discipleship. Is the House suggesting that this practice is wrong? If I intend pastorally and sensitively to decline politely any request for such a baptism, can you clarify for me the light of the circumstances in which you would feel it necessary to discipline me for such a refusal, before I go any further? Or is the House suggesting that clergy may enquire of heterosexual relationships outside marriage, but may not enquire of homosexual relationships? Or perhaps neither – is the House suggesting that relationships in general fall outside the scope of enquiry of candidates’ genuine repenting and turning to Christ? You might well receive complaints from my parishioners, and it is only fair that the House of Bishops spell out now on what grounds they would be sympathetic to such a complaint.

Posted by Simon Sarmiento on Tuesday, 9 August 2005 at 2:11pm BST
You can make a Permalink to this if you like
Categorised as: Church of England
Comments

Good for Paul Perkin, and what a good successful church!

I read "Issues in Human Sexuality" and remember it stating that (homo)sexual abstinence was required of clergy of gay or lesbian orientation, and that it accepted that there are laity in the church who, in conscience, were unable to accept that a life of sexual abstinence was required of them and instead chose to enter into a faithful, committed relationship…. BUT I don't remember it saying that this was good and sinless!

All this clergy / laity differentiation started, I think with an amendment to the 1987 Synod resolution that stated that:

1 that sexual intercourse is an act of total commitment which belongs properly within a permanent married relationship;
2 that fornication and adultery are sins against this ideal, and are to be met by a call to repentance and the exercise of compassion;
3 that homosexual genital acts also fall short of this ideal, and are likewise to be met by a call to repentance and the exercise of compassion;
4 that all Christians are called to be exemplary in all spheres of morality, including sexual morality; and that holiness of life is particularly required of Christian leaders.'

The last phrase was, I believe, a last minute amendment, and seems to have become the door through which homosexual partnerships are being pushed into acceptability.. which was by no means the meaning of the resolution!

Homosexual genital acts are to be met by a call to repentance and the exercise of compassion..

Posted by: Dave on Saturday, 20 August 2005 at 6:03pm BST
Post a comment









Remember personal info?

Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select 'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical, advertising, or other purposes.