• 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?

7 responses to “C of E Border Crossing”

  1. Eamonn Avatar

    I’m fizzing too! It’s not helped, either, by those of our own members who refer to us as ‘the English Church’.

  2. agatha Avatar
    agatha

    That is completely outrageous! Maybe the SEC should have talks with the Muslims and then we could declare Fatwas.

    Or is this the CoE’s off the wall attempt to solve the women bishops/gay bishops question by moving to nae bishops?

  3. FrPaulB Avatar
    FrPaulB

    As an English Anglican I’m pretty embarrassed. So much for the “Anglican Communion” we’re supposed to be busy preserving by setting up covenants and writing letters.

  4. Martin Ritchie Avatar
    Martin Ritchie

    Well, maybe this is a good thing for the SEC? At least we are not being lumped in as “Church of England” which is perhaps a step forward. The future for “state” churches in the UK seems to me to be shaky to say the least, so perhaps it’s to the benefit of the SEC to not be part of that! It is rather surprising that there is no mention of the SEC in the “history” part of the paper, other than a cursory reference to the continuing episcopalian element after 1690. Maybe all this means that we should feel completely free to reject the Anglican covenant as totally irrelevant and a hindrance to the mission of the SEC?

  5. fr dougal Avatar
    fr dougal

    I’m heading for the West Port to saddle up! Bring back Clavers and the dragoons!

  6. John Lindsay Avatar
    John Lindsay

    The CofE CofS meetings have been going on for a very long time as two national churches. The recent report is actually designed to include the SEC – check facts with ICRC or read the report itself!

  7. kelvin Avatar

    Hi John, nice to hear from you.

    I’ve read the report and was not impressed by it. I suppose I am glad that the SEC is to be included next time, something that I acknowledged above that was to happen.

    I’m entirely unimpressed with the C of E appointing one of their bishops as an emissary to the C of S though. Very much border crossing. Very inappropriate.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

Previous Posts

  • Repeat post – wiki video

    I’m now experimenting with a wiki to enable the organisation, planning and documentation of the congregation. If you don’t know what I’m talking about, see this video: [youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dnL00TdmLY] First posted quite a while ago here.

  • The Equal Marriage Petition

    Just a reminder about the petition that is before the Scottish Parliament on opening up civil and religious marriage to everyone in Scotland. (That means opening it up to same-sex couples). Nick Henderson, the original petitioner came to St Mary’s last night to talk to the LGBT group about the petition. It only has a…

  • Two innovations

    Two rather fun innovations at church yesterday. It had been suggested to me that it might be a good idea to run a guided tour of the church. Indeed, it was. About 30 people gathered after the 1030 service for a guided tour. The theme of the tour was the seven traditional sacraments so we…