Law suits and same-sex marriage
It has been announced that Jeremy Pemberton, the first clergyman in the Church of England to enter a same-sex marriage, is taking legal action against his bishop and the Archbishop of York.
Canon Jeremy Pemberton, the first British clergyman to enter a same sexual practice wedlock, has confirmed that he has filed an Equality Act claim in the Employment Tribunal confronting the Archbishop of York and the acting Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham. The action is beingness brought considering of the sanctions imposed upon him as a result of his wedlock. Canon Pemberton married his long term partner Laurence Cunnington in Apr of this year. Shortly thereafter his permission to officiate was revoked and a licence for chaplaincy work was refused. This led to the withdrawal of a job offer from Sherwood Forest Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust.
Jeremy'due south situation is unusual and complex. He resides in Southwell in the Diocese of Southwell and Nottingham, but up until at present has been working as an NHS chaplain in a hospital which is situated across the border in the Diocese of Lincoln. He had Permission to Officiate ('PTO', something with no legal status which is in the gift of the bishop) in Southwell and Nottingham, and he also had the Bishop'southward Licence in Lincoln. When he married, he was (information technology seems) given an informal rebuke by the Bishop of Lincoln, who reminded him of the Church building's current educational activity, though his license was non removed, not to the lowest degree considering this would have required at the very to the lowest degree a Clergy Discipline process. But the acting Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham, Richard Inwood, removed his PTO after an interview; since PTO is in the gift of the bishop, removing it requires no formal process.
He was then interviewed and appointed every bit Senior Clergyman at an NHS hospital inside Southwell and Nottingham. It has been a convention that chaplains are appointed simply if they accept the goodwill of the diocese in which the hospital is located—though (crucially in this case) the diocese is not involved in the actual appointment procedure. In the example of Anglican chaplains, this 'goodwill' is interpreted as the willingness of the diocese bishop to grant a licence—which Richard Inwood refused to do. The job offer was subsequently withdrawn.
But what is odd in this case is that employment has been refused by a potential employer (note that the Church is not an 'employer' of clergy in ministry posts, since they are 'office holders' and not 'employees') on grounds which are quite carve up from the procedure of appointment or employment. If Jeremy wants to pursue a case in an employment tribunal, then he would surely accept to pursue it against the NHS Trust, and not against the bishops.
Discussion on the Thinking Anglicans thread appears to confirm this. One commentator observes:
It will be interesting to see what the NHS Trust in question does. It might ask to have itself joined to the case, and in any event they're going to become dragged in. The Bishops' defense volition exist, I suspect, "we aren't stopping him from working for the NHS Trust in question, it's their decision to demand the accreditations nosotros offer, and we are entitled to determine who works for u.s.a. (which he hasn't practical to do) considering of our exemption from discrimination legislation". Legally (every bit opposed to morally, decently, etc) that argument looks reasonably sensible.
Another puts it similar this:
This is the kind of answer he will probably make it my stance – it's in two parts.
Part One
At that place is and was no employer-employee human relationship.
The ET has no jurisdiction.
The claim is vexatious.Role Two
Even if an employer-employee human relationship existed:a) information technology would have been with the NHS Trust
b) the C of Eastward is exempt from the Equality Act 2010
though a response is offered to this:
The Equality Act exemption relating to religious organisations allows them to discriminate on the grounds of religion, belief or sexual orientation 'in sure circumstances'.
In my view, considering the CofE had non formulated its grounds for revoking JP's licence (I empathise the matter is under some sort of extended discussion period?)It only might not become away with it.
In fact, of course, there has been fairly clear process. The Bishops have expressed the teaching of the Church conspicuously, recently and remarkably consistently. I imagine the interviews with the Bishops of Lincoln and Southwell and Nottingham with Jeremy must have gone something like this:
Bishop: Do you sympathize the teaching position of the Church building?
JP: Yes, though I recall it is wrong.
Bishop: Are you willing to comply with it?
JP: No
And and then whilst one bishop might not wish to instigate hard and costly proceedings to remove a licence, these are perfectly good grounds, procedurally and theologically, to turn down to grant a licence. Information technology is actually difficult to run across how a Tribunal tin can overturn this, given equality exemption, even if it thinks it does have jurisdiction, and even if it thinks the actual position of the Church building is wrong. If the Tribunalwere to overturn it, this would indicate the end of exemption for the Church of England, and by implication forall religious groups. Is that really plausible?
The most logical outcome of the whole process would be for a instance to be brought against the Trust, who would then detach the work of its own chaplains from the ministry of the diocese within which information technology sits, and who could then employ Jeremy without a licence—should information technology desire to utilise someone who has merely taken information technology to Tribunal.
None of this is rocket science, and I am certain Jeremy (and his advisers) have worked information technology all out. What, then, is the point of making the claim? The answer possibly comes in the Press Release from Changing Attitude from the day before which specifically mentions Jeremy'due south state of affairs. The statement concludes:
Yous need to respond to the anger and frustration being felt by LGBTI laity and clergy. The temperature is ascent and people are calling for urgent activity. We are not prepared to wait for the conclusion of the mutual conversations for the changes which take already occurred to be canonical by the Business firm of Bishops.
The cardinal phrase here is 'nosotros are not prepared to expect'; nothing is more important than changing the Church's teaching on this question—not the reputation of the Church, not relationship with bishops, not any consideration of those who hold a different view, not the Pilling process of facilitated conversations. There are no grounds for conversation or negotiation.
Jeremy must have known in April that the new post was coming upwards. He was also well aware of the claiming to the bishops of his living in 1 diocese (whose bishop was probable unwilling to have disciplinary action) and working in some other (whose bishop was more likely to). In the timing of his matrimony, it is quite hard to see Jeremy as the hapless victim rather than as a well-planned campaigner.
This was highlighted some time ago past Andrew Goddard in his analysis of catechism police force:
Those clergy who ally someone of the same sex believe they should live in accordance with canon C26 and that they are doing so and that their problem is simply with canon B30. Withal, the full general category of "co-ordinate to the doctrine of Christ" in C26 has inside the canons one very clear specification – the definition of wedlock in B30. This is the canon that, in a form of conscientious ecclesial disobedience, they are non but questioning and asking the church to reconsider merely actively contradicting by their actions…tin can the clergy concerned (and those supportive of them) therefore recognise that any bishop would exist totally justified, perhaps even have a moral responsibleness, to have activity against them when they enter a same-sexual practice marriage?
But this whole arroyo to changing the Church suggests something more insidious about attitudes to leadership. David Runcorn commented with exasperation on another thread (well-nigh bishops' education):
At that place is wearying predictability about the way any topics involving bishops on this 'thinking' website turn into a kicking contest. Leadership? – useless. Theology? – inept. Education? – not a skillful enough degree/doctorate (and if they take a doctorate – like Carey? – OK only he needs kicking for other reasons).
Is the supposition here that if we but sacked this lot of bishops and dismantled the management obsessed processes in place to appoint them, there is a whole raft of holy, doctorate/caste laden, super gifted, politically and internationally astute, media savvy, ethically active and progressive thinking, men and women church leaders just waiting to be plucked out of the watching crowd – and all shall be well? If not what are we hoping for by these muggings?
He then goes on to cites Libby Purvis' analysis of the claiming of leadership in our media historic period:
time to fourth dimension it befits us to throw a small cautious, grudging kind idea upwards … remember, they too are powerless against the not bad tide of history. And different us, they accept to have the arraign. In an age of mass communication power falls ever more to the grumblers, onlookers, comedians, parodists, gossips, blog bullies, unelected commentators and sneering interrogators. But some of usa should admit, from time to fourth dimension, that we'd much rather throw old boots at the bosses than walk a mile in theirs.
Richard Moy, in his new blog, makes astute observations about the challenges of leadership where there is little in common between leaders and led:
The ability of a leader to divert thinking will depend massively in my experience, on factors such as the strength of denominational/local church didactics identity; personalities of the leader and congregation (corporate and private); and the degree to which other voices are also speaking into that issue. Then in the classic case of homo sexuality an individual congregation leader who might ordinarily carry a high level of theological influence with their flock, might find the 'uphill' struggle of restating 'biblical orthodoxy' a Sisyphusian impossibility.
In other words, the less at that place is a shared set of wider values, the harder it is to find any consensus on this result.
Perhaps the one skilful affair coming out of the dispute almost aforementioned-sex marriage is the claiming to the Church of England: what, in fact, is the shared theological basis of our life together? The Church has been happy to duck this question, since answering it will take some painful consequences. But we are at present at the stage when not answering it will be even more than painful.
If you have valued this post, would y'all considerdonating £1.20 a month to support my work?
If y'all enjoyed this, do share information technology on social media (Facebook or Twitter) using the buttons on the left. Follow me on Twitter @psephizo. Similar my page on Facebook.
Much of my work is done on a freelance basis. If you have valued this post, yous tin can make a single or echo donation through PayPal:
Comments policy: Expert comments that engage with the content of the post, and share in respectful argue, can add real value. Seek starting time to understand, then to be understood. Make the well-nigh charitable construal of the views of others and seek to learn from their perspectives. Don't view debate as a conflict to win; address the statement rather than tackling the person.
Source: https://www.psephizo.com/sexuality-2/law-suits-and-same-sex-marriage/
0 Response to "Law suits and same-sex marriage"
Post a Comment