PLEASE CONSIDER SIGNING THE PETITION

If you have not done so already, please consider signing the petition appealing to Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby and Archbishop of York John Sentamu to speak out against draconian anti-gay laws in Nigeria, which violate the human rights of gay and lesbian people.

As you will know, Nigeria has just enacted some of the most extreme anti-gay laws on the planet. The Church of Nigeria, in particular retired Archbishop Akinola, has been supporting the bill for many years, and only last year the Bishop of the Anglican Diocese, Asaba, Justus Mogekwu, appealed to President Goodluck Jonathan to assent to the anti-gay marriage bill. As Anglicans [and fellow Christians of other traditions], we call on both of you to oppose these laws, publicly and privately, in word and deed. 

I can think of no better words to persuade you than those of two advocates for human rights, one a martyr to the cause, the other stripped of his priestly faculties.


“Let those who have a voice, speak out for the voiceless.”
Archbishop Óscar Romero 

"Silence is the voice of complicity."
Fr. Roy Bourgeois

'CALLING THE ARCHBISHOPS' BLUFF'

Don't blame me. Blame Mr C. In my heart, I can't blame him at all. It's way past time for the misogynistic nonsense to be over.

In the event that you don't understand Mr C's every word, the transcript is at his blog and at YouTube.

MR CATOLICK - "MR SENTAMU DOES IT TO THE GAY COMMUNITY"

MrC reviews Mr Sentamoo's recent work and offers his thoughts.

From Mr CatOLick. A transcript may be found at Mr C's blog and on YouTube.

Mr C reminds us in the video:

Mr Sentimoo’s Christ might go down well in some places, but then so does the death penalty for gays. This is not what Jesus came to teach us and people who talk in this way are playing a very dangerous game with other people’s lives.

Words have consequences.

PREJUDICE IS PREJUDICE IS PREJUDICE

Andrew Brown in the Guardian:

The Church of England's House of Bishops – for which, read the archbishops of Canterbury and York – has explained how they hope to mollify the opponents of female clergy. The proposals are breathtaking.

From the Code of Practice suggested by the two archbishops:

The House of Bishops does not wish to see any outcome that would entrench radical division or give any impression of a 'two-tier‘ episcopate. Because of their commitment both to this principle and to the most adequate and sustainable provision for theological dissent over the ordination of women, they are seeking a balanced provision within the overall framework that will allow all members of the Church of England to flourish and to pursue the mission to our nation and society that we share.

We are aware as bishops that there are very difficult decisions ahead for many of our clergy and faithful; we want to honour the desire of all who wish to remain loyal Anglicans, fully engaged in this mission. And we are not thinking in terms of a time-limited provision, mindful that such a suggestion was rejected at the Revision stage of amending the legislation under discussion.

Despite the statement above, in the suggested 'Code of Practice' the two archbishops in the Church of England are quite determined to enable prejudice against women bishops and, further, to assure that prejudicial attitudes and practices remain entrenched in the church.

Andrew Brown:

The archbishops envisage that the Church of England, once it has female bishops, will continue ordaining men who do not accept these women, finding them jobs they will deign to accept, and promoting some of them to be bishops who will work to ensure the continued supply of male priests who refuse to accept female clergy. In fact, the church will pay three bishops (the formerly "flying" sees of Ebbsfleet, Richborough, and Beverley) to work full time against their female colleagues, and to nourish the resistance.

Funds are scarce, and yet the CofE will support three bishops to continue to ordain priests who would not consider ordination by a female bishop as valid, because, not only would the women not be real bishops, but they were never even real priests in the first place. How is the support of bishops to prevent candidates for ordination from besmirchment by the laying on of hands by a woman bishop not entrenchment of division?

Code of Practice

In the light of our discussion, the House will continue to uphold these three principles:

• Bishops will continue not to discriminate in selecting candidates for ordination on the grounds of their theological convictions regarding the admission of women to Holy Orders;

• In choosing bishops to provide episcopal ministry under diocesan schemes for parishes requesting this provision, diocesan bishops will seek to identify those whose ministry will be consistent with the theological convictions concerning the ordination of women to the priesthood and episcopate underlying the Letter of Request;

• The archbishops and bishops commit themselves to seeking to maintain a supply of bishops able to minister on this basis. This will obviously have a bearing on decisions about appointments and on the role of bishops occupying the sees of Beverley, Ebbsfleet and Richborough (which will, as a matter of law, continue to exist even after the Episcopal Ministry Act of Synod has been rescinded).

Andrew Brown

Despite all these concessions, there will be female bishops, as there are already female priests, and these will be treated exactly the same as male ones – except by the men who don't want to treat them equally and who believe that God has called them to undermine women's authority wherever it appears.

This is apparently Rowan Williams's idea of justice.

The two archbishops could not get their desired legislation through the previous General Synod and are aware that church members, bishops, and clergy are embarrassed and weary of efforts to cater to the prejudicial "theological convictions" of the squeamish, so now they attempt a new tactic by calling the effort to prolong discrimination against women by a different name, a 'Code of Practice'. Do the archbishops think that by this blatant attempt at subterfuge through name change, they will get the code passed? Perhaps they will. I hope not.

UPDATE: The official title is 'The Illustrative Draft Code of Practice'. I was tempted to omit the letter 'r' from one of the words in the title. The word starts with 'D'.

BECAUSE I LOVE AN OXYMORON

A rough outline of sequence of events that led the late Colin Slee, former Dean of Southwark Cathedral, to write the Slee Memo, which was recently leaked to the Guardian:

The position of Bishop of the Diocese of Southwark in south London becomes vacant.

Dr Jeffery John, Dean of St Alban's Cathedral, who is gay and in a civil partnership, but celibate, is one of the nominees for the position.

Jeffrey John's name is leaked to the media, despite the vow of confidentiality taken by the members of the Crown Nominations Commission.

According to Dean Colin Slee's account in the Slee Memo, the Archbishop of Canterbury himself may have been the leaker when he inquired of church lawyers if there was any reason to decline the nomination of Jeffrey John as bishop of the Diocese of Southwark. In his memo, Slee alleges that the Archbishop had no right to break the vow of confidentiality taken by all members of the commission in order to consult the lawyers.

The news of Jeffrey John's nomination spreads through the media.

After vehement objections to Jeffrey John and another nominee by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, the Crown Nominations Commission submits the name of Christopher Chessun to the crown, and he is appointed to the position of Bishop of Southwark.

An inquiry into the leak (the Fitchie Enquiry) begins. The findings of the inquiry are to be secret, says the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Concerning a phrase included in Terms of Reference of (the Fritchie Enquiry) Colin Slee says in an email to Chris Smith of the Anglican Communion Office:

Finally, I hope you are aware of the marvellous oxymoron in the terms of reference, (your italics) '...and to make any recommendations necessary to improve the confidentiality in the work of the Commission as it seeks to open up its processes.' (My emphasis)

Colin Slee writes in the memo about the conduct of the Crown Nominations Commission meeting to choose the bishop of Southwark:

The oxymoron within the Terms of Reference will be a delight to me for years to come; it exhibits the chaotic unreality that prevailed from the very beginning.

The purpose of this post is to call attention to the "marvellous oxymoron" and to the "chaotic unreality" of the process of choosing bishops in the Church of England and also as a memory aid for me of the sequence of events if I choose to write about the Slee Memo yet again.

Thanks to Pluralist for the reminder of the oxymoron in his post titled "More on the Smell".