http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2014/apr/14/gay-anglican-wedding-compromise-church-of-england
The gay Anglican wedding exposes a creaking compromise within the church
Church of England liberals may celebrate this first union, but conservative groups won't accept official tolerance of gay people
The marriage of canon Jeremy Pemberton (left) and Laurence Cunnington: 'this looks like a liberal victory, though a limited and partial one'. Photograph: Canon Jeremy Pemberton/PA
The marriage of canon Jeremy Pemberton and Laurence Cunnington, the first gay clergy wedding in England, looks like a decisive test of strength within the Church of England between liberals and conservatives. But it may just shift the trenches a few hundred yards. The tangles of employment law and church law make it almost impossible for either side to get all they want.
It looks as if it should be easy for the bishop of Lincoln, in whose diocese the canon works, to discipline Pemberton if he wants to. But Pemberton is not in fact a vicar. He is a hospital chaplain, which means he is employed by the local NHS trust. They are not going to sack him for contracting a perfectly legal marriage. The bishop has no power to get him sacked even if he wanted to.
But this is the Church of England; things are seldom simple. Pemberton is also a canon of Southwell Minster in neighbouring Nottinghamshire, which comes under a different bishop, and there he does operate under a licence known as the bishop's "permission to officiate". The bishop of Southwell could take away that licence. And when Pemberton proposed marriage to his partner he may have made his bishop the unhappiest man in England. For if the bishop attempts to discipline Pemberton he opens a huge legal can of worms, and if he doesn't he could himself be sued by conservatives eager for a fight.
Bishops have historically been the chief targets of the Clergy Discipline Measure, the law under which conservatives hope that Pemberton will be prosecuted. More than half of the cases brought under this act are not raised by bishops trying to discipline their clergy, but against bishops for failing to do things that disgruntled parishioners think they ought to be doing – usually involving the persecution of some third party.
Conservatives have already made it quite clear that they would attempt to sue any bishop who was, in their opinion, soft on gay marriages. We simply don't know what will happen if they do.
"I think it's going to be hell," says the Rev Colin Coward, who leads the most effective pro-gay pressure group Changing Attitude. On that site he wrote: "The members of the House and College of Bishops who are gay are under greater pressure to be honest and open, especially if they collude in any action taken against lesbian and gay clergy who marry, or clergy who bless married gay couples." He has at least two such bishops in his sights.
This looks like a liberal victory, then, though a limited and partial one. Chaplains, whether in hospitals or higher education, are probably quite safe to marry same-sex partners. Some vicars may also be. But the majority, who are on fixed-term contracts, are not so secure to marry. Neither are trainees for the priesthood. Conservatives are preparing for a formal schism if the church ever extends official tolerance to gay people. The gay and lesbian clergy, on the other hand, are preparing for a jubilee of openness.
They can't have that. There is still a very solidly entrenched and very well-funded conservative opposition to gay and lesbian clergy; open change will be immensely difficult to get through the synod. And while liberals are largely confident that the law can't touch most gay clergy who marry, conservatives are convinced it can. It will only take one bishop who fancies his chances in the law courts to blow the whole careful, creaking compromise to bits.
And if that happens the only winners will be the people, inside and outside the church, who yearn for disestablishment.
It looks as if it should be easy for the bishop of Lincoln, in whose diocese the canon works, to discipline Pemberton if he wants to. But Pemberton is not in fact a vicar. He is a hospital chaplain, which means he is employed by the local NHS trust. They are not going to sack him for contracting a perfectly legal marriage. The bishop has no power to get him sacked even if he wanted to.
But this is the Church of England; things are seldom simple. Pemberton is also a canon of Southwell Minster in neighbouring Nottinghamshire, which comes under a different bishop, and there he does operate under a licence known as the bishop's "permission to officiate". The bishop of Southwell could take away that licence. And when Pemberton proposed marriage to his partner he may have made his bishop the unhappiest man in England. For if the bishop attempts to discipline Pemberton he opens a huge legal can of worms, and if he doesn't he could himself be sued by conservatives eager for a fight.
Bishops have historically been the chief targets of the Clergy Discipline Measure, the law under which conservatives hope that Pemberton will be prosecuted. More than half of the cases brought under this act are not raised by bishops trying to discipline their clergy, but against bishops for failing to do things that disgruntled parishioners think they ought to be doing – usually involving the persecution of some third party.
Conservatives have already made it quite clear that they would attempt to sue any bishop who was, in their opinion, soft on gay marriages. We simply don't know what will happen if they do.
"I think it's going to be hell," says the Rev Colin Coward, who leads the most effective pro-gay pressure group Changing Attitude. On that site he wrote: "The members of the House and College of Bishops who are gay are under greater pressure to be honest and open, especially if they collude in any action taken against lesbian and gay clergy who marry, or clergy who bless married gay couples." He has at least two such bishops in his sights.
This looks like a liberal victory, then, though a limited and partial one. Chaplains, whether in hospitals or higher education, are probably quite safe to marry same-sex partners. Some vicars may also be. But the majority, who are on fixed-term contracts, are not so secure to marry. Neither are trainees for the priesthood. Conservatives are preparing for a formal schism if the church ever extends official tolerance to gay people. The gay and lesbian clergy, on the other hand, are preparing for a jubilee of openness.
They can't have that. There is still a very solidly entrenched and very well-funded conservative opposition to gay and lesbian clergy; open change will be immensely difficult to get through the synod. And while liberals are largely confident that the law can't touch most gay clergy who marry, conservatives are convinced it can. It will only take one bishop who fancies his chances in the law courts to blow the whole careful, creaking compromise to bits.
And if that happens the only winners will be the people, inside and outside the church, who yearn for disestablishment.
