In England, the equality laws make it unlawful to discriminate against a person because of their sexual orientation...
Nevertheless, exemptions written into the Act accept that the C of E “does not draw the same distinction as most secular employers between a person’s work life and his or her private life”.
The key factor is the requirement of a bishop to act as a focus of unity. The advice states: “Where someone is in a civil partnership and/or is known to have been in a same-sex relationship, even though now celibate, it is for the CNC . . . to come to a view whether the person concerned can act as a focus for unity because of these matters.”
So. The church is exempted from the practice of equality under the law because the bishop must be a focus of unity. That's absurd. No bishop can possibly be a focus of unity for every single person in the diocese. After all, several bishops left the Church of England to join the Roman Catholic ordinariates. They were hardly a focus of unity, because members of their flock stayed behind in the Church of England. The "focus of unity" reasoning appears to be trumped up for the very purpose of excluding gay persons from the episcopacy.
A CHECKLIST has been drawn up that makes it virtually impossible for an openly gay person to become a bishop in the Church of England.
“[F]actors that can properly be taken into account:• whether the candidate had always complied with the Church’s teachings on same-sex sexual activity;
• whether he was in a civil partnership;
• whether he was in a continuing civil partnership with a person with whom he had had an earlier same-sex relationship;
• whether he had expressed repentance for any previous same-sex sexual activity; and
• whether (and to what extent) the appointment of the candidate would cause division and disunity within the diocese in question, the Church of England and the wider Anglican Communion.”
The checklist leave me speechless, because it evidences such intrusiveness and discrimination against gay persons as to be truly shocking.
Are you bored yet with posts on the Church of England? I'll give you a rest after this one, unless....
Time to out the gay bishops?
ReplyDeleteIf I post anything on the Church of England that does not have a direct link to the United States the 70% of my readers who are from the States don't read it. If I post something on TEC the 30% of my readers who are not from the States read it. So, yes, you are correct in assuming that your American readers (at least) are already fed up with all this foreign stuff you have been talking about.
ReplyDeleteI agree, it's time to out the gay bishops. Or they should have the decency to out themselves. Otherwise they are no better than Larry Craig toe-tapping in the men's room.
ReplyDeleteWhat if they wrote,
“Where someone of African descent, it is for the CNC . . . to come to a view whether the person concerned can act as a focus for unity because of these matters.”
Well, at least the heterosexism, ignorance, and bigotry are out in the open now.
Piskie, a number of people must be sorely tempted.
ReplyDeleteMadPriest, how do you work out those percentages?
If it's any comfort to you, I find the machinations of the powers in the Church of England highly intriguing.
IT, exactly. Thank you, St Colin, for shedding light into the darkness.
My stat counter tells me where people come from. And comments tell me who is interested in what subjects.
ReplyDeleteYes, MadPriest, that would do it, though I never tried to figure out the percentages. I know that certain posts are popular, even though I receive few or no comments, which leads me to believe that they're not a total waste of my time and effort.
ReplyDeleteMy stat counter gives me the percentage breakdown of where people are from - both countries and cities.
ReplyDeleteI agree that you can have regular posts that are popular but not commented on. But I don't think that American disinterest in foreign affairs falls into this category. Perhaps it's not so much a lack of interest in non-American things but a manic interest in things American. I've noticed on facebook that Americans go on and on about American politics. In England most people wouldn't be able to name anybody in our government except the prime minister and maybe the chancellor of the exchequer.
Oh, so you are now moving once again into bash-America territory. We have our faults to be sure, but it gets tiresome to have the same person throw them in our faces over and over again.
ReplyDelete?
ReplyDeleteGoodness, you're paranoid!
I think it a fine thing that you all have an interest in what goes on in your own country. I think our lack of interest and knowledge is a very dangerous thing. That's what I said in the comment. That you have seen something different (unless you think not knowing your politicians names is a good thing) is a bit worrying.
My take on this, and a snazzy cartoon, over on FoJ.
ReplyDeletePardon me, MadPriest! I see that your comment was entirely complimentary - simply a reference to our "manic interest in things American".
ReplyDeleteYour accusations of paranoia get tiresome, too. Your superior English manners seem to be missing when it comes to labeling and name-calling.
?
ReplyDeleteDamned if I do and damned if I don't it appears.
Yes, the ABC and his rules are sooo tiresome. If there has been a real threat to the Anglican Communion it has been his archepiscopacy.
ReplyDeleteI do wish the Brits had enough moxie to put him in his place, but emmigration has taken it out of them.
Even on my non-church blog, i've posted about this twice. It's a very big deal, and maybe a game changer in my pew-sitter opinion.
ReplyDeleteIf there has been a real threat to the Anglican Communion it has been his archepiscopacy.
ReplyDeleteMuthah, yes, indeed. From the Jeffery John episode in 2003, we should have known, but I guess a good many of us thought/hoped he might recover from the misstep and move in a different direction. Alas, it was not to be.
Counterlight, the revelations are a big deal, which is why I continue to post on them. I believe they will change the rules of the game. If Rowan does not resign, he'd surely be laughed out of the room if he tried once again to lecture the bishops in TEC on how to run a church. He won't have a second chance to do that.
And if he tries another stunt before GC12, I'd hope the result would be the same.
Now that we've discovered that O'Bama has Irish ancestors, we think very highly of people in the Atlantic Isles.
ReplyDeleteOrmonde, yes, indeed we love the people in the Atlantic Isles. And the Irish seemingly love O'Bama more than many of the citizens of his own country. It's a puzzlement.
ReplyDeleteI didn't want to be a bishop anyway, so there!
ReplyDeletePaul, I'd want you for my bishop anytime. I fear you would not pass the stringent requirements for an honest gay man to be a bishop in the Church of England.
ReplyDeleteAs the Church Times says the checklist makes it "virtually impossible for an openly gay person to become a bishop in the Church of England," although I'd leave out "virtually".
Good heavens.
ReplyDeleteThis list does seem rather biased towards a single result. I would have more respect for it if it at least tried to say people could do things and then repent - by this standard St. Augustin wouldn't qualify as bishop of Milan (well he liked girls, but you know what I mean).
andrewdb
This list does seem rather biased towards a single result.
ReplyDeleteTo say the least, andrewb!
The checklist does include "whether he had expressed repentance for any same sexual activity;" so I guess if the person was really, really sorry and promised never, never to do it again, he might have a chance.
MP, lemme see if I've got this straight {ahem}:
ReplyDeleteYOU broke this story to us (your readers) on OCICBW, but if your Yank readers TALK about it (wherever), then...what? We're being monomaniacal Yanks?
I'm honestly confused re where you're coming from.
So, if you had a few too many drinks and went home with an ugly bloke and regretted it in the morning, that would be alright?
ReplyDeleteJCF, I cannot for life of me see where I have said that. I passed on some information from my stats that demonstrates that my American readers don't tend to be interested in me posting much English stuff. And I came up with the suggestion that this was because they were so into talking about politics as opposed to the English who rarely talk or blog about politics (for which I was accused of getting at Americans which I couldn't understand because it is obviously a good thing to keep an eye on your government). I did say the Mimi was paranoid and after your comment I'm beginning to think that might be a national trait. And, yes, I was getting at you in that last sentence - no ambiguity there. Now get off my case, I'm pissed off with the silliness I got from Mimi and I really don't need any more aggro tonight.
ReplyDeleteJCF, I'm not getting it either. If you understand, please explain it to me.
ReplyDeleteSorry, MadPriest, your explanation doesn't clear things up.
Well, I understand that you're pissed off. I get that.
ReplyDeleteIt's not an explanation it is a reiteration of what I wrote above. It is down to you to show me where I said, " if your Yank readers TALK about it (wherever), then...what? We're being monomaniacal Yanks?"
ReplyDeleteI'm really cross about this. You've been really aggressive towards me recently and as I said, I'm getting pissed off with it.
MadPriest, who is getting aggressive, me or JCF?
ReplyDelete