Comments: CofE website: an update on the video

I agree that the MAS video is far better than ours. I think still photos are a mistake and it was agood idea to have the individuals hold up signs rather than speak. The music was good too.

Posted by Sara MacVane at Friday, 14 January 2011 at 7:32pm GMT

I followed the article on website about being called to a vocation in the priesthood to discover that if you are LGBT 'Issues in Human Sexuality Apply' so forget it, you will be discriminated against.

Posted by clairejxx at Saturday, 15 January 2011 at 7:03am GMT

That's terrible, clairejxx.

Can anyone find out if this was intended? (If so, per the ACI: "It's Broken. Fix it!")

Posted by JCF at Sunday, 16 January 2011 at 2:43am GMT

Thanks Simon for the link and highlight although I'm not sure what claire's subsequent comments have to do with my blog or with the CofE video.

I am presuming that claire is referring to the official CofE site, and possibly the Call Waiting website, which is the official website from the Archbishops' Council to encourage vocations.

The above page is from an official website with official guidelines. One of which is that everyone "submit to the disciplines in the Church of England’s Issues in Human Sexuality." All potential Ordinands have to read that book if they haven't done so already and discuss it with their DDO.

I suspect Claire may not have read it, and I know there's probably little point clarifying this but what the official guidance says is not the same as you have implied cf. LGBT and discrimination.

Posted by David at Sunday, 16 January 2011 at 4:25pm GMT

I agree it has nothing to do with the video or with Dave's blog, but it is extremely difficult to argue that the CofE does not discriminate against LGBT clergy - and some laity - when there is a specific exemption in Clause 2 of Schedule 9 of the Equality Act 2010 (formerly clause 7(3) of the 2003 regulations)which deals with exactly this matter.

CofE officials have been at pains to insist that this provision of the legislation was essential in order for them to continue to operate as they wished. And large numbers of bishops turned out in the House of Lords to help vote down an attempt by the former Labour government to amend this clause.

Posted by Simon Sarmiento at Monday, 17 January 2011 at 12:02am GMT

Thanks Simon. I know this isn't a good place to conduct any such debate and I'm not trying to start a debate, but just to say that I'm not disagreeing with you. I just think there's a difference between what the official Ministry Division guidelines say, what Issues in Human Sexuality say, and what clairejxx was saying they say. :)

Posted by David at Tuesday, 18 January 2011 at 3:59pm GMT

That's right, the Church of England's policy on gay ordinands is completely and totally non-discriminatory. As a heterosexual male priest, David Green gets to be married to his wife, and sexually active with her and have children, and that's all cool even if the Church rarely supports clergy spouses to the degree that its 'pro-family' rhetoric would indicate.

In the same way, a homosexual male priest gets to be married to his wife, and sexually active with her and have children. And many do. And if all of their lives end up completely in a mess as a result - because being a gay vicar married father carries a high risk of things going spectacularly wrong for the whole family - then the Church will of course take no responsibility for the situation.

Or, of course, one can stay celibate, and we all know from the Roman Catholic church how good an idea imposing celibacy on people who are completely unsuited to it is. Or one can have a nice friend of the same gender and even be in a Civil Partnership with them as long as, like those crazy American education films from the 1950s, one does not share a bed nor slip the tongue when one kisses.

Or one can just tell lies, and given that the proportion of newly ordained C of E clergy who are gay remains enormous, clearly lots of young clergy are telling lies, and lots of Bishops are quite happy to accept lies.

Oh, and it's OK to have sex with one's same-sex partner if one is a layman. Which just goes to show that the Church of England's theologies of priesthood and lay ministry are every bit as messed up as its theology of sex.

David, you're clearly an intelligent man. You must be aware that to claim the Church of England does not discriminate against LGB ordinands or potential ordinands is a tight squeeze with the truth; a very tight squeeze indeed. I wonder if Christians really should be indulging in that sort of tight squeeze with the truth? But then again, hypocrisy and the Church go together like bangers and mash, so maybe I shouldn't be all surprised.

Posted by Gerry Lynch at Tuesday, 18 January 2011 at 10:06pm GMT

PS - David, I agree with you about the videos!

Posted by Gerry Lynch at Tuesday, 18 January 2011 at 10:40pm GMT

Please, let's stick strictly to the website/video issues here in all future comments. Thanks.

Posted by Simon Sarmiento at Tuesday, 18 January 2011 at 10:52pm GMT

I don't know why I bother sometimes. I thought I included the line in there somewhere that was addressed to Simon at the time... "I'm not disagreeing with you". I'll give up trying to be helpful in future.

Posted by David at Saturday, 22 January 2011 at 1:59pm GMT

To me the most astonishing statement on the new Church of England website (
is that the 'Call Waiting' website 'may be of particular interest'..'for those between the age of 13 and 30'.

I know we are worried about ageing clergy and the cost of their pensions, but are congregations really ready for teenage priests?

Assuming this is not the intention, perhaps what lies behind this startling phrase is the euphony of '13 to 30'?

More worryingly, however, perhaps the church hierarchy really believes that immediately after confirmation we should be encouraging people to think about entering the priesthood?

Posted by Laura at Friday, 28 January 2011 at 7:27pm GMT
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.