Wednesday, 8 October 2014

Archbishop of York challenged at Southwell Minster

The BBC reports: Jeremy Pemberton gay marriage case: Archbishop of York challenged

The Archbishop of York has been challenged over “discrimination” against a gay clergyman who married his same-sex partner.

Jeremy Pemberton can no longer work as a priest in Nottinghamshire and has been blocked from taking a job as a hospital chaplain in the county.

Human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell challenged the archbishop over the case as he arrived at Southwell Minster.

However, Dr John Sentamu said he could not comment due to legal reasons.

Local newspapers carried the story too:

The Peter Tatchell Foundation reported it this way: Archbishop of York beset by gay protesters.

Posted by Simon Sarmiento on Wednesday, 8 October 2014 at 5:50pm BST | TrackBack
You can make a Permalink to this if you like
Categorised as: Church of England | equality legislation

I am glad that this archbishop is being challenged.

We need to see more and more of this.

The people doing it are to be commended for their commitment, energy and guts.

Posted by: Laurie R on Wednesday, 8 October 2014 at 11:28pm BST

Is this what they call a "facilitated conversation"? If so a transcript of the video would be helpful as it is very difficult to hear what is being said.

Posted by: Father David on Thursday, 9 October 2014 at 9:29am BST

This may seem a trifling point, but it's actually quite significant. Why is Sentamu carrying a crozier? He is not in his own Diocese and, even as an Archbishop, has no jurisdiction outside his own Diocese (York). A crozier (for Anglicans) is a symbol of jurisdiction. Is this just another sign of Sentamu's increasingly papal behaviour? It may also be a symbolic statement of who is really running Southwell and Nottingham at the moment! In that sense, Peter Tatchell and co were talking to the right person.

Posted by: James A on Monday, 13 October 2014 at 5:51pm BST

Newark Advertiser article shows that not only was he processing with a crozier, it was the crozier of the Bishop of Southwell:

"The visit will include a procession from the cathedral to the Palace. This will be followed by a blessing and historic knocking on the door of the Palace with Bishop Ridding’s Crozier which will be opened by the Head Chorister, at 3.05pm. Bishop Ridding was the first Bishop of Southwell, from 1884-1904."

I remember reading somewhere that the correct way would have been for Bishop Inwood to process with it and then hand it to Sentamu to rap the door.

Posted by: Erika Baker on Tuesday, 14 October 2014 at 10:28am BST

All of the issues around SSM, Clergy in civil partnerships and sexually active, clergy who perform SSM could be resolved next month.
Plus generally all holders of Bishops licences will be given protection should a case in an Employment Tribunal be won next month. The clergyman will argue that all Bishops are qualifications bodies. For further info on QB's read the Employment Appeal Tribunal case UKEATS/0031/12/BI.

Posted by: Gill Forbes on Wednesday, 15 October 2014 at 11:56am BST

What a shame that there were not some of us there to support Peter Tatchell. I asked on this site a few weeks ago whether the demonstration was still on but there was no response. I would certainly have been happy to go along. I'm retired so would have enjoyed a day out!!!! A few cassocks around the place would have moved it even further up the news agenda. I was sad to see that Church Times covered the story in a matter of a couple of sentences...I would have thought it deserved better coverage than that. After all it is not every day that an Archbishop is publicly challenged about their homophobia.

Posted by: robertellis on Wednesday, 15 October 2014 at 2:53pm BST

I'm intrigued by your comment.
Are you referring to Jeremy Pemberton? Or is there another clergyman further advanced with an Employment Tribunal? If so, are the circumstances similar? I suppose this would have become public information by now if the actual tribunal is going ahead next month?

Posted by: Erika Baker on Thursday, 16 October 2014 at 10:39am BST

I understand Colin Coward is claiming somewhere online that BOTH the clerics who have hit the news with their marriage have been disciplined.
Sorry, but did I miss something?

Posted by: Martin Reynolds on Thursday, 16 October 2014 at 9:27pm BST

On 9 October Andrew Foreshew-Cain posted in the open Changing Attitude FB group about his treatment. He writes "As you will know I have been disciplined for marrying Stephen - with presumably the same consequences for me that have happened to Jeremy - ie if I ever want to change job I will be refused a license for a new parish."

You may also want to read the sermon he posted on the CA FB page on 26 September in which he explains in more detail what happened to him. It includes the paragraph "A few days later I received a letter from Bishop Peter in which he told me to look elsewhere for pastoral care and support and I have not had any further communication from him in the six months that have passed, apart from the letter that disciplined me for getting married which arrived shortly after my wedding. In it he reiterated that I was no longer to look to him for support or pastoral care."

Posted by: Erika Baker on Thursday, 16 October 2014 at 10:23pm BST

Erica, no this is not JP, it is a heterosexual clergyman whose license (among others) was without reason and by letter removed by the Bishop, which is not possible under common tenure. The case is due to explode into the media shortly. JP and others know about this case and theirs would be as good as won if this clergyman succeeds in having the Bishops classified as qualifications bodies.

Posted by: Gill Forbes on Friday, 17 October 2014 at 11:44am BST

Erica would you please clarify this story...I'm totally confused by this thread or is it still under wraps?
Thanks in anticipation.

Posted by: robertellis on Saturday, 18 October 2014 at 9:56am BST

Yes, I cannot find this FB thingamabob.

What you say is reported there is amazing!
How come it. Hasn't been reported here, or come to that, on the front page of The Times?

Posted by: Martin Reynolds on Sunday, 19 October 2014 at 9:23am BST

Robert, which story would you like me to clarify?
The Andrew Forshew-Cain story? I was responding to Martin who asked whether it was true that two priests had been disciplined for getting married. Changing Attitude has an open Fscebook group and on that Andrew wrote of having received a disciplinary letter after his marriage. In effect thst puts him in the same position Jeremy Pemberton is in, whereby he is safe in his current job but could not move to another one.

Posted by: Erika Baker on Sunday, 19 October 2014 at 9:34am BST

Sorry Erica...I think my request should be to Gill re her comment on 17th October. Gill could you give us a little more info please....some of us live out in the sticks and are a bit slow on the uptake!

Posted by: robertellis on Sunday, 19 October 2014 at 7:39pm BST

Still cannot find the original material that was the reason for Coward's claim ........
Perhaps that's why this major story never emerged ......
But a priest punished and then told by the executioner that he has to **** off and find his support and care elsewhere is truly a CofE first in the annals of monstrosity!

Posted by: Martin Reynolds on Sunday, 19 October 2014 at 8:19pm BST

Yes Martin you are right there is a very important story here that needs to come out......I know some journalists read Thinking Anglicans so I cannot work out what is going on us somebody please.

Posted by: robertellis on Monday, 20 October 2014 at 3:31pm 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.