Comments: Civil Partnerships statement

There is no reason to consult a bishop on entering a Civil Parnership, I understand there is nothing in Canon Law which requires this.

Posted by Martin Reynolds at Monday, 25 July 2005 at 12:27pm BST

No mention of it at all. If the bishops want to discipline anyone for doing so they will have to introduce a new law, for which approval will have to be obtained ultimately from the government - which created the Civil Partnerships.

Posted by camma87 at Monday, 25 July 2005 at 6:06pm BST

the weak wording "must therefore expect to be asked for" in the section
"Members of the clergy and candidates for ordination who decide to enter into partnerships must therefore expect to be asked for assurances that their relationship will be consistent with the teaching set out in Issues in Human Sexuality." might be explained by the final paragraph of Ruth Gledhill's piece in timesonline
"Clergy swear canonical obedience to their bishops at ordination and whenever installed in a new post, but bishops can only require clergy to
do what is "lawful and honest". A senior canon lawyer gave warning: "The bishops are on a loser if they are going to try and insist on chaste

Posted by Brian Lewis at Monday, 25 July 2005 at 8:00pm BST

What a stunning example of institutionalized hypocrisy! The Anglican Church of Canada and Ecusa are being censured and possibly expelled for what? Honesty only.

The NOrth Americans and the Global South should both reject this double speak of the Church of England.

Posted by dmitri at Tuesday, 26 July 2005 at 11:52am BST

it seems to me we are where we were at the start of my ministry over remarriage after divorce-we cant do it but we can send enquiring couples to the Methodist Minister down the road.

Posted by Perry Butler at Tuesday, 26 July 2005 at 4:56pm BST

Dmitri wrote; "What a stunning example of institutionalized hypocrisy!"

Agreed, but not for your reasons. I think this will quickly turn out to be a fudge too far. It's just begging Bishops and Metropolitans to create dissention by imposing (or not imposing more likely) the required discipline!!

ps It's approving the sexual bit of homosexual relationships that ACCanada and ECUSA are being censured for. No-one is against "close loving same-sex relationships".

Posted by Dave at Thursday, 28 July 2005 at 6:20am BST

But they won't 'impose' any discipline - because they can't. CCTV in the vicarage bedroom, perhaps?

They can't expect anyone to take them seriously when it is apparent to all that civil partnerships are gay marriage.

Let's hope this helps the so-called Global South to make their decision to leave a little earlier, taking the conservative element of the CofE with them, then this sort of nonsense can be consigned to the dustbin where it belongs.

Posted by Merseymike at Thursday, 28 July 2005 at 11:12pm BST

Mersymike's prophecies of impending split are even more real with the Covenant signed at Nassau. This is the first real mainline challenge to the process the ACO and Lambeth have been so desperately trying to manage with, it now seems, little real success.
The striking feature of this plan, which Simon will doubtless give us all the details, is that it sets itself a goal of being founded on a unified theology. While Windsor still played the old tune of "reception" and "listening" and was open to development, founding the new Anglican Communion on a fomula concocted by the lawyer Norman Doe, this model for the Communion is of a different order.
It does seem that the end comes ever closer.

Posted by Martin Reynolds at Friday, 29 July 2005 at 12:54am BST

camma87, The bishops might decide to remove the licence of clergy who do enter into civil partnerships, and refuse to ordain anyone in such a relationship.

Where such clergy have tenure, they could begin proceedings against them for conduct unbecoming.

But they would all have to agree to support such moves - which seems unlikely.

Posted by Catholicus at Friday, 29 July 2005 at 1:07am BST

I do hope you are right, Martin. The CofE would certainly be a much kinder and thoughtful place without conservatives. I'm afraid I don't go along with people who think a broad church is clearly preferable - I view conservative theology as rather like cancer - ugly, marauding, eating away at anything resembling goodness, leaving death and misery in its wake.

How glad I will be to see them depart.

Posted by Merseymike at Friday, 29 July 2005 at 8:44pm 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.