What is in Kelvin's Head?

  • Peter Tatchell on Outing Bishops

    I was in conversation with Peter Tatchell yesterday in St Mary’s after the Sung Eucharist yesterday morning. The whole of the conversation was recorded and can be seen on the cathedral website.

    One of the things that I wanted to ask him about was whether he still thought it was appropriate to out gay bishops, something that he has done in the past. I wasn’t too surprised to hear him justifying the outing of gay public figures who use their own influence to inhibit the lives of other gay people.

    I was interested to hear him say that he and those whom he works with are currently considering outing bishops again.

    The whole of the segment on outing people is in the video extract above. The particularly relevant bit comes at the end:

    Kelvin Holdsworth: For what it is worth, I find myself very often wondering these days whether we are heading back in that direction [of outing], with bishops in England directly preventing their clergy from marrying at the moment in a way that is not likely to happen in Scotland. And some of them perceived to be in partnerships. And that seems to me to be back in that territory.
    Peter Tatchell: You are absolutely right, and we are amassing the evidence right now. I’m not saying that we will use it, but we are certainly thinking about it – because people have a right to privacy so long as they are not using their own power and authority to harm other people and when other people are being caused harm and suffering we have a duty to try and stop it. If this is the only way, it is certainly not the preferable way, it’s not the first option but as a last resort I think it is morally and ethically justifiable.

    My own view that it is perfectly justifiable to out those who are gay who use their authority to inhibit the lives of those gay people in their care. It seems to me that it is perfectly legitimate for anyone with concrete evidence of a bishop who has supported an anti-gay policy such as the recent pastoral statement in the Church of England and who is in a same-sex partnership, to draw attention to that hypocrisy in public.

    What do you think? Is it reasonable to out bishops who are themselves gay and in partnerships who are supportive of policies which would inhibit their gay and lesbian clergy from marrying?

    ,

9 responses to “Faith and Order Board Business – the Anglican Covenant process”

  1. kelvin Avatar
    kelvin

    Tim Daplyn – says that the Indaba process is not a normative process but something which means many things to many people. We have no rules of procedure. Asks if the feedback from Indaba will be incorporated into synod. is is canonical. Indaba was designed for African situation not our own.

    Reply
  2. kelvin Avatar
    kelvin

    Chris Mayo – history is replete with turning points. We are at a turning point. Covenant process is laiden with emotion. People making up their minds at an early stage. Some see it as taking away our identity. Others see it as essential in a chaning environment. Question today is about moving on the journey. Thinks it would be abbrogation of responsibility to turn down this motion. We have a voice the punches far above our weight to communion.

    Reply
    1. kelvin Avatar
      kelvin

      I speak and ask for material for dioceses to consider which puts a different position to that put by the Anglican Comminion Office.

      Reply
  3. kelvin Avatar
    kelvin

    Grant Swain speaks in favour of the covenant and says that we would be left out in the cold by refusing to sign. Says that we must be there. But, our strength lies in being undecided. He supports the motion and says that we must sign the Covenant so we can mediate between extremists both in and outside our church. Talk is needed. But we need to be

    Reply
  4. kelvin Avatar
    kelvin

    Lawrie Scrimgeour – asks since Independence is on the agenda, in this motion we are talking about Independence. Has the faith and order board considered a referendum on the question of the Covenant.

    Reply
  5. kelvin Avatar
    kelvin

    Anne Pankhurst – notes that the Faith and Order Board say that there could be other processes. She says that we could end up with a Canon which was very difficult to change. She asks for further enlightenment.

    Reply
  6. kelvin Avatar
    kelvin

    Bishop of Glasgow (Acting Convener) responds: Synod does seem to have the capacity to decide to adopt the process outlined. Responds to my suggestion by saying that he will take those views back to Faith and Order Board. He says that the Process itself takes no view on the Covenant. Synod is the only legally competent body to decided it. A referendum has not been considered and he believes it would not be canonical. Faith and Order Board has considered the posibility of remaining undecided.

    Reply
  7. kelvin Avatar
    kelvin

    Bishop of Argyll says that Indaba process is a way of giving everyone a voice in a transparent way. We are trying to talk this year and explore the issues in depth. Next year a canonical process. Everyone will see everything that has been said in the Indaba process. The process is no in camera or in committee but a way of giving everyone a voice.

    Reply
    1. kelvin Avatar
      kelvin

      Motion is carried – I think about 12 – 15 people voted against and 1 or 2 abstentions. So, we have a process for considering the Covenant.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Previous Posts