Thinking Anglicans

Progress in Jeremy Pemberton's tribunal case

This action was first reported here.

The following announcement was issued today:

“Following a preliminary hearing held on 30th October 2014, the Employment Tribunal case between the Revd Canon Jeremy Pemberton (Claimant), the Right Revd Richard Inwood, the Acting Bishop of Southwell & Nottingham (1st Respondent) and the Most Revd Dr John Sentamu, the Archbishop of York (2nd Respondent) will be proceeding to a full hearing and has been listed for June 2015. Neither Jeremy Pemberton nor his husband, Laurence Cunnington, will be making any comments on the case at this stage.”

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
18 Comments
Oldest
Newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
JCF
JCF
6 years ago

“Jeremy Pemberton nor his husband, Laurence Cunnington”

Seeing this in print is progress in itself.

Martin Reynolds
Martin Reynolds
6 years ago

As I recall there were a couple of commentators here on TA who predicted this action would fall at the preliminary stage.

robert ian williams
robert ian williams
6 years ago

And in the meantime, the nation will be focused on the love affair between the gay barman on Coronation street and a Vicar!

Jeremy
Jeremy
6 years ago

Congratulations to Jeremy Pemberton — over the first hurdle!

Jeremy (non P)

Father Ron Smith
Father Ron Smith
6 years ago

“And in the meantime, the nation will be focused on the love affair between the gay barman on Coronation street and a Vicar!” – Robert I Williams –

Oh dear, Robert! Will it be anywhere near as sensational as the story of the R.C. clergy in the film ‘Priest’, I wonder? Nothing like a bit of gossip to muddy the waters, eh.

Jamie Wood
Jamie Wood
6 years ago

Simon, what is your source please? In other words, who issued the announcement?

Simon Sarmiento
6 years ago

The statement was issued on behalf of the Claimant.

Gill Forbes
Gill Forbes
6 years ago

Getting over this hurdle shows that a prima facie case has been made. The Bishops have a case to answer.

Martin Reynolds
Martin Reynolds
6 years ago

I remain mystified by the total failure of any reporting of the other, London based, married priest’s encounters with his bishop. His frank disclosures on the Changing Attitude Face Book page remain inaccessible to me, though Erica has now emailed his amazing story. From what he says it appears that this committee of bishops established to ensure there is “consistency” in the way bishops respond to newly married clerics has laid out a strategy of locking people into their present posts – “to rot”, as one commentator said. My feeling is that the members of this committee too should be… Read more »

Erika Baker
Erika Baker
6 years ago

Martin,
“My feeling is that the members of this committee too should be named as parties to this action.”

That would depend entirely on the terms of the action. We don’t yet know the content of the claim, its grounds and its legal basis.

One difference I could imagine is that Jeremy applied for a secular job in an organisation that is not part of the CoE.

James Byron
James Byron
6 years ago

Couldn’t agree more, Martin. Yet again, I’ll say that we need liberal bishops like Nicholas Holtam to break ranks with their colleagues, and pledge not to discriminate against LGBT clergy in their diocese. That’s quickest route to change I can see. As a diocesan, Holtam’s position and livelihood are secure. Even in career terms, he’s nothing to lose. He’s unlikely ever to be archbishop, and in any case, it’s reasonable to ask him to make that sacrifice, far less than the sacrifice demanded of LGBT clergy. He, and other liberals in positions of power, have no good reason to maintain… Read more »

Martin Reynolds
Martin Reynolds
6 years ago

As James says the present balance is uncomfortably skewed. We are told that only one bishop has voted against the present polity of the bench. So we are faced with a situation where we can suppose that some have voted for this policy for political reasons rather than following their conscience. The response, while not being as unprincipled, must be political and I would suggest needs to be organised. Now we know that this extraordinary panel exists we need to test out the responses from different dioceses. Might I suggest that clergy in civil partnerships write to their ordinary asking… Read more »

Erika Baker
Erika Baker
6 years ago

Martin,
yes, up to a point.
I do like the idea of CPd clergy writing to their bishops asking what would happen if they converted their CPs to marriage.

But they cannot necessarily point out that this is a paper exercise requiring no vows nor witnesses, because we now have the option to upgrade in a standard ceremony including vows and witnesses.
And I would expect that many couples will choose the full ceremony.

We should not risk getting to a place where clergy might be “allowed” to upgrade provided they only opt for informal conversion.

Robert ian wiliams
Robert ian wiliams
6 years ago

Despite Ron’s dig at the Catholic Church, my point is still valid, public opinion is changed far more quickly by soap opera characters!

Martin Reynolds
Martin Reynolds
6 years ago

Hmmm, that was precisely my point. Erica and I have discussed this both online and privately. Firstly, the government has NOT changed its mind in principle. The conversion is not dependent on a declaration or vows, it is a nonessential decoration FOLLOWING the actual legal conversion which is (once again) a signed document. IF the bishops responded as you suggest that itself would be a considerable step away from their present policy. What we can see – even from this exchange here – is that the matter is not straightforward, that is very much to our advantage. We should make… Read more »

Martin Reynolds
Martin Reynolds
6 years ago

The point of this exercise would be to demonstrate that what we have in the English House of Bishops cannot be characterised as care, clarity and consistency rather it is calumny, collusion and conspiracy.

Erika Baker
Erika Baker
6 years ago

Martin, are you saying that even an upgrade with vows is not the same as a marriage because the vows aren’t necessary? That hadn’t occurred to me despite our conversations.

Martin Reynolds
Martin Reynolds
6 years ago

I am saying that, Erica.

18
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x