MORE ON DR JEFFREY JOHN AND HIS ALLEGED LITIGATION AGAINST THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

Thus far The Independent seems to have the most reliable coverage of the alleged litigation being prepared by Dr John and his legal advisers against the Church of England.

Under current equality laws religious organisations are are given dispensation to discriminate against those who do not comply with their teachings, allowing clerics like Dr John to be passed over, and mosques to only have male imams, for example. Were the Church's current stance on homosexuality to be tested in court the Church would almost certainly win, for if it didn't the very existence of many faiths would be under threat. But by forcing the issue those at the top would be forced to confront some embarrassing - and extremely divisive - issues.

Some of those who know him expressed surprise that he would take such a step. "Jeffrey's always wanted to do things within the church," said one. "He's not the litigious type."

Others questioned where the leak came from. "It's so obviously deeply counter-productive to Jeffrey," said another colleague. "It makes him look like he's saying promote or I'll sue. It's a rather good way of smearing him."

The newspaper report includes a photo of a nasty sign, which I don't see as necessary, but I admit the sign is the reality for some who oppose the appointment of gay bishops.

The Independent also understands Dr John was not even long-listed for the currently vacant post of Bishop of Edinburgh, meaning no church leader was willing to put him forward for another key diocese with liberal leanings.

More's the pity. I expect Jeffrey John will not be a bishop, which is very much the Church of England's loss.

Read the article which reminds us of what conservatives happily label "The Jeffrey John clause", in which gay persons are asked to repent of their "physically homosexual past", whereas such repentance is not asked of heterosexual candidates, a Catch-22, which is about as blatantly discriminatory as one can imagine.

UPDATE: Andrew Brown in the Guardian thinks it is unlikely that Jeffrey John will sue the Church of England because he keeps his personal life private, which he could not do in the midst of litigation, and because he will lose the case anyway.

Last year the Church of England published a legal opinion that makes it quite clear that it believes it is legal to discriminate against John, not because he is gay, since he is also celibate, but because he is not in the least bit ashamed of being gay. That is what sticks in the craw of the conservative evangelicals who oppose him. They have moved on from supposing that it is absolutely wrong to be gay. They now believe that it is OK to be gay providing that you are very unhappy about it.
....

Look at the small print of its legal opinion on civil partnerships, transparently designed to prevent John from being able to sue for discrimination. No selection committee would ask straight candidates for a job whether they had ever had pre-marital sex, and, if they had, whether they were jolly sorry for it. Yet the Church of England believes that it is legally and morally OK to ask the equivalent questions of gay men: "Whether the candidate had always complied with the church's teachings on sexual activity being solely within matrimony; whether he had expressed repentance for any previous pre-marital sexual activity."

As the late, great Molly Ivins said so often, you can't make this stuff up.

UPDATE 2 from Jim Naughton at The Lead:

Articles appeared in several British newspapers over the weekend suggesting that Dean Jeffrey John of St. Alban's Cathedral was going to sue the Church of England for discrimination unless he is made a bishop. We don't think these stories were quite right.

It is our understanding, after some extensive conversations, that what John has done is hire a lawyer to inform the Church of England that provisions which prohibit anyone in a civil partnership--be they gay or straight, celibate or sexually active--from becoming a bishop exceed even the generous exemptions provided for religious organizations in the Equality Act of 2010.