ON CIVIL PARTNERSHIPS
By Dr. Peter Selby
Taken from the Diocese of Worcester website
19th AUGUST 2005
AS THE Bishops' pastoral statement on the Civil Partnerships Act went through its process of preparation, I found it necessary on more than one occasion to make it clear that it was unlikely to turn out in a form with which I could associate myself (News, 29 July).
Those responsible for crafting it worked long and hard, endeavouring to accommodate the widest range of opinions. But the opinions they sought to accommodate were chiefly those of the House of Bishops. More than once I asked that we might involve some who were considering entering a civil partnership, clergy and lay, in the preparation of the statement.
Had we done so, we would have acted on the encouragement given by the 1998 Lambeth Conference resolution to listen to the experience of lesbian and gay people, and would have heard the views of others affected. At the very least, we would then know what their reaction would be to what we were proposing to say.
My suggestion was rejected on the grounds that, as the proposed document represented no change in the Church's teaching, there was no need to consult in that way. At the level of words on the page, it may be true that it represents no change in the Church's stance on homosexual relationships. The document is based on Issues in Human Sexuality (Church House Publishing, 1991), reiterating the main points of its teaching, and in particular making its well-known distinction between the responsibility of lay Christians who are gay and that of those who are ordained.
However, contexts affect meanings profoundly, and, even if the document is based on Issues in Human Sexuality, it is specifically produced to take account of the new Civil Partnerships Act. That Act has the purpose of enabling people of the same gender to order many of the practical and financial aspects of their life together along lines that follow automatically for those who are married.
The fact that the bishops deem it necessary to respond to that new context by reiterating (as they see it) the teaching of Issues is itself a message that was bound to be heard negatively by those affected, and has been.
The message being sent is that entry into a civil partnership will arouse the suspicion that the teaching of Issues is being contravened, and those who decide on that course must be ready to give assurances that it is not. This will not only affect those who are gay, but will also lead many who are not gay and who choose to share their lives to refrain from exercising their rights under the Act, for fear of the interpretation that would be put on their doing so.
THOSE WHO put this statement together are certainly not seeking to be oppressive or to add to people's burdens: there are plenty of sentences in the document that show how much struggle went into putting it together, and I believe that in many, if not most, dioceses, it will be interpreted with gentleness and compassion.
Yet this pastoral sensitivity runs up against the dominant force that drives the bishops' response to the social reality of the increased public recognition of lesbian and gay relationships, and to the availability of civil partnerships in particular: what they fear is that marriages, and the institution of marriage, are somehow threatened by this development.
I find this fear difficult to understand, since nobody has ever been prepared to tell me that their own marriage was threatened by the public recognition of gay relationships. My experience of lesbian and gay friends in relation to my own marriage is only of support and insight. There is room, surely, for a much more hopeful response.
It should be a source not of fear, but of delight, that many who do not aspire to matrimony, or to whose circumstances it is inappropriate, wish none the less to order their lives by means of as many of the aspects of the married state as are made available to them.
Is it not a vindication of all that has been revealed to us about the contribution of marriage to human flourishing that, often in the face of sustained public and ecclesiastical disapproval, and the presence of some very destructive lifestyles within the "gay scene", many gay and lesbian people have aspired to order their lives in the kind of faithfulness and responsibility that civil partnerships involve?
I am aware that the decisions of such Christians represent a challenge to our received understanding, and I am personally committed to continuing to sustain respectful conversation about the biblical and interpretative issues involved. But we must surely find ways of continuing that conversation, however difficult it is, without at the same time making such a grudging and fearful response to those who have made conscientious decisions in relation to their lives, and believe that they are best ordered within the new context of civil partnership.
I remember meeting two priests, one of whom was having to nurse the other in the final stages of an AIDS-related illness. Had it been possible for them at that time, I imagine they might have considered entering a civil partnership. Whether they did so or not, they (like many I have known since, in less distressing circumstances) certainly threatened nobody, and offered an enriching inspiration of what it means to be in relationship - for better, for worse.
I dare to hope that bishops will find better ways of relating to such couples than seeking assurances, and I believe many of us will. But, sorry as I am to need to say so, the words we have uttered on this topic will not help either bishops or those to whom they minister. For the desire of people to enter civil partnerships, and the willingness of the Government to make that possible, represent something far more hopeful than this document makes it appear.
Sustaining the Church's doctrine of marriage is a challenging task at this time, almost entirely for reasons that have (if we are honest) little to do with homosexuality. If our difficulty as Church with particular life-choices means that we cannot speak hopefully about what are clearly signs of commitment and responsibility, perhaps it would have been better to say nothing.
--Dr Peter Selby is the Bishop of Worcester. The Diocese of Worcester is one of 44 dioceses in the Church of England. It covers an area of 671 square miles and includes parishes in the County of Worcestershire, the Metropolitan Borough of Dudley, and a few parishes in northern Gloucestershire, south east Wolverhampton and Sandwell.
| Poster | Thread |
|---|---|
| mathman | Posted: 2005/8/20 20:56 Updated: 2005/8/20 20:56 |
Home away from home ![]() ![]() Joined: 2004/5/26 From: Rockville, MD Posts: 1064 |
Bishop Selby:
Suppose that I am a murderer. I like to find people alone and take their lives. I cannot explain why I do this; I suppose it is because God created me this way. Despite my murderous conduct I want to be regarded otherwise as a Christian person. I want to join in the Sacraments just like everyone else. I want to be welcomed in the Church. I want to enjoy Christian fellowship (except, of course, for those Christians whom I murder). I have no intention of changing my murderous ways. How do you respond? Should I be welcomed? |
| Damascus | Posted: 2005/8/20 21:02 Updated: 2005/8/20 21:02 |
Home away from home ![]() ![]() Joined: 2004/9/26 From: Republic of Karelia Posts: 640 |
I remember meeting two priests, one of whom was having to nurse the other in the final stages of an AIDS-related illness. Had it been possible for them at that time, I imagine they might have considered entering a civil partnership. Whether they did so or not, they (like many I have known since, in less distressing circumstances) certainly threatened nobody, and offered an enriching inspiration of what it means to be in relationship - for better, for worse.
Could the learned bishop be any more clueless? You have two priests, one of whom is suffering from AIDS. Church of England doctrine requires that any unmarried priest be chaste. Clearly, this was not the case here. It also doesn't say much about the monogamous nature of these relationships. Had they limited their sexual contact to each other, there would have been no chance of one becoming infected with HIV. The fact of the matter is that most so-called monogamous gay relationships are not. There are frequently dispensations for getting a little bit on the side. Gay people know this. It is not in their best interest to advertise this fact while they are trying to normalize the notion of gay marriage. They would like you to think that two men getting married is just the same as a man and a woman getting married, when it is not. Although adultery is still an issue in heterosexual marriage, few couples enter marriage with the understanding that they will be able to have sex outside of the partnership. Many gay relationships do incorporate such flexibility. What the House of Bishops of the Church of England has done by endorsing civil partnerships is a laughable farce. What's more, they knew it was a farce when they approved it. This allows them to approve something that they really wanted to, while still retaining a facade of deniability. They are not fooling anyone. The Church of England has sold its soul to the culture. One can only hope that the CAPA Primates will say, “Enough!” when they meet this fall. Anglicanism needs to find new leadership. |
| bcwright | Posted: 2005/8/20 22:26 Updated: 2005/8/20 22:26 |
Home away from home ![]() ![]() Joined: 2005/7/4 From: Posts: 528 |
Church of England doctrine requires that any unmarried priest be chaste. Clearly, this was not the case here.
Actually that's not so clear at all - though it's probably the most likely case. There are plenty of other ways to get AIDS than from sex - drug use and blood transfusions being the major ones. It's also quite possible to get it from heterosexual sex (though that would also be unchaste behaviour). We're not told the time frame of this incident so it could well have been before the blood supply was protected as well as it is now. However reading between the lines it appears very likely that the priest in question contracted it in the way you're suggesting - from homosexual sex. What the House of Bishops of the Church of England has done by endorsing civil partnerships is a laughable farce. I couldn't agree more. They should have taken a stand on one side or the other - Either they should have condemned the domestic partner law (or at the very least said nothing), or they shouldn't have made themselves look like idiots by endorsing them but saying that the partners can't engage in sex. You really can't have it both ways. |
| PRISCA | Posted: 2005/8/20 22:40 Updated: 2005/8/21 1:33 |
Home away from home ![]() ![]() Joined: 2005/8/3 From: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada Posts: 269 |
The “harms no-one else” part of this argument is what I wish to address in this slot. The more lurid medical aspects (in respect of which the figures for lesbians tend to be very low, about the same as for nuns!) are not quite the point. I should buy the “no harm” claim only in any case where there were no concomitant betrayed spouses, deserted children, confused adolescents, enemies of God caused to blaspheme, violated Christian consciences, dead-ended lives, broken-hearted lovers, eager never-married maidens or men, where emotional coldness and ruthless selfishness were not reinforced, where there was no failure to labour and sacrifice so that children might be born to serve God and the world. Then and then only could it fairly be claimed that there was no visible or palpable harm. (In practice, the very least harm that is done consists in the deepening of emotional neediness, not its healing, and a sense of alienation from the Creator of one’s body, which frequently manifests itself in the demand that the Church ‘bless’ and so whitewash what the individual knows to be deeply wrong.)
My point is a point of principle: must human reason be satisfied that the consequences of disobedience are obviously harmful before we will obey? Is not all sin fundamentally against God? Is there not sin which is against God only? Do I know better what love is than the Author of love, who loves me and all the others more than any of us can conceive? It is simply amazing, not only how little some Christian leaders have read, but how little they have used their heads. |
| Fiona | Posted: 2005/8/21 0:12 Updated: 2005/8/21 0:12 |
Home away from home ![]() ![]() Joined: 2005/1/18 From: San Francisco Bay Area Posts: 1071 |
This is disgusting. Even more so, since this man would have been my bishop if my family had remained in Halesowen.
I say "Amen" to all previous posts. Fiona |
| shytech74 | Posted: 2005/8/21 9:46 Updated: 2005/8/21 9:46 |
Home away from home ![]() ![]() Joined: 2005/4/23 From: Ontario Canada Posts: 1054 |
I wonder if the writer actually earned his "Dr."?
![]() |
| voxpop | Posted: 2005/8/21 13:13 Updated: 2005/8/21 13:13 |
Home away from home ![]() ![]() Joined: 2005/8/18 From: Gaul Posts: 222 |
Peter Selby certainly earned his PhD - he was a Professor of Theology somewhere, I seem to recall.
It just goes to show that the truth does not depend on having qualifications, however impressive. |
| shytech74 | Posted: 2005/8/21 15:33 Updated: 2005/8/21 15:33 |
Home away from home ![]() ![]() Joined: 2005/4/23 From: Ontario Canada Posts: 1054 |
Indeed voxpop...
I think the average Sunday School teacher...up to her knees in children and chalkdust... could give a better interpretation of Biblical standards of conduct and living. |
| mathman | Posted: 2005/8/21 22:11 Updated: 2005/8/21 22:11 |
Home away from home ![]() ![]() Joined: 2004/5/26 From: Rockville, MD Posts: 1064 |
Oh, Prisca. You make it too simple. You make it too clear. Where is the obfuscation? Where are the weasel words? Where is the whining? Where is the childish "but I WANT TO"?
You act far too much like an adult. You behave like someone accountable to God. You act as if you will stand before the Throne at the End of Days. You go, girl! |
| essodalori | Posted: 2005/8/22 2:14 Updated: 2005/8/22 2:14 |
Home away from home ![]() ![]() Joined: 2004/9/15 From: Posts: 4904 |
"What the House of Bishops of the Church of England has done by endorsing civil partnerships is a laughable farce."
--- There it is: the truth. With Christian love, Essodalori |
| essodalori | Posted: 2005/8/22 2:17 Updated: 2005/8/22 2:17 |
Home away from home ![]() ![]() Joined: 2004/9/15 From: Posts: 4904 |
"I should buy the “no harm” claim only in any case where there were no concomitant betrayed spouses, deserted children, confused adolescents, enemies of God caused to blaspheme, violated Christian consciences, dead-ended lives, broken-hearted lovers, eager never-married maidens or men, where emotional coldness and ruthless selfishness were not reinforced, where there was no failure to labour and sacrifice so that children might be born to serve God and the world. Then and then only could it fairly be claimed that there was no visible or palpable harm."
---- And more truth. (Thank you PRISCA.) With Christian love, Essodalori |
| ArthurDoxy | Posted: 2005/8/22 12:17 Updated: 2005/8/22 12:20 |
Home away from home ![]() ![]() Joined: 2005/3/1 From: Albany Diocese Posts: 265 |
bcwright said: "It's also quite possible to get it from heterosexual sex (though that would also be unchaste behaviour)."
Very few women contract HIV (they comprise less than 8% of all people infected) and when women do become infected it is usually by way of IV drug use or through submitting to anal sex. Unfortunately, be it a male or female, anal sex is number one common denominator. As for "blood transfusions," that hasn't been an issue in the Western world since the 1980's. |
| polyphemos | Posted: 2005/8/22 12:47 Updated: 2005/8/22 12:47 |
Home away from home ![]() ![]() Joined: 2005/6/29 From: και Θηος δη μεχανη Posts: 630 |
Arthur-D,
Agreement Here! Daisy the Wonderdog |
| polyphemos | Posted: 2005/8/22 12:59 Updated: 2005/8/22 12:59 |
Home away from home ![]() ![]() Joined: 2005/6/29 From: και Θηος δη μεχανη Posts: 630 |
Prisca was the wife of the Emperor Diocletian. She bore him a daughter named Valeria, who was apparently the second wife of the Emperor Galerius. Although she was a Christian or favorably disposed to Christianity, she was forced to sacrifice to the gods during the Great Persecution of 303. Her husband had built her a home in Nicomedeia. When Galerius died in 311, she and her daughter were exiled to Syria by the Emperor Maximinus Daia . She was later arrested and beheaded by the Emperor Licinius in 315.
No good deed goes unpunished. DTWD |
| Damascus | Posted: 2005/8/22 19:40 Updated: 2005/8/22 19:40 |
Home away from home ![]() ![]() Joined: 2004/9/26 From: Republic of Karelia Posts: 640 |
ArthurDoxy:
The figures that you show do not match what I have seen. The figures that I have seen indicate that male to female transmission is much more efficient than is female to male transmission. They tend to show that it is relatively hard for men to get HIV from women. In cases where men do become infected, there tends to be numerous female partners, male partners, or IV drug use. Heterosexual anal intercourse is a factor in parts of the developing world where it is pervasive as a means of avoiding pregnancy. In these cases, however, as in gay sex, the recipient is most prone to becoming infected. If you study places where AIDS is or is becoming a huge problem, women and children are suffering most. In sub-Saharan Africa, India, China, and Russia, the number of women infected with HIV is growing rapidly. The number of children infected by their mothers and the number of AIDS orphans in Africa is a tremendous tragedy. If you look at AIDS outside of the developed western countries, it is an increasing problem for heterosexual women who have no direct link to high-risk activities. In many cases, unfaithful husbands infect them. All of this aside, the main point that one should draw from this is that HIV can't be spread if both partners only engage in sexual activity inside of faithful marriages. If everyone lived up to biblical standards of morality, HIV and many other STDs that are now rampant would be seen in miniscule numbers and not in the epidemic proportions that we see today. Do you suppose that someone actually understood human nature pretty well when the Judeo-Christian moral code was created? To hear Frank Griswold and his ilk talk, you would think that our understanding of the world and human nature is much greater than that of previous generations. The opposite is true. We have grown to believe that we can control our environment and are not subject to the laws of nature. This is a dangerous assumption. God gave the law to his people because he loved them and wanted to protect them. When we decide that we know better than God does, we are endangering both our mortal lives on Earth, as well as our eternal life with the Father. |
| ArthurDoxy | Posted: 2005/8/23 1:53 Updated: 2005/8/23 1:53 |
Home away from home ![]() ![]() Joined: 2005/3/1 From: Albany Diocese Posts: 265 |
Damascus,
The media would have everyone think that "HIV/AIDS is an equal opportunity disease." It isn't. The overseas situation you have mentioned reflects anal sex as a culturally based "male domination act" in some countries, while it is used as a poor man's form of birth control in other areas such as Africa. (Note: there is no HIV/AIDS problem amongst lesbians. Likewise, it is very difficult for a woman to infect a man, although not impossible). The men who are responsible for spreading the infection tend to be bi-sexual. A woman's reproduction system is, by design, very durable and resilient, whereas the rectal area, by it's design, is delicate and tears (damages) easily. Thus, the path of HIV/AIDS infection. On a sidenote, gay men have the highest incident of hard to treat urinary tract infection. Seems the penis was not designed to come into forceful contact with feces. (Hence, the Biblical prohibition against anal sex makes perfect sense when you consider a world where there wasn't any sulfa drugs or antibiotics). Remember, amongst orthodox Jews and Moslems, any contact with feces, even with the hand, was considered a defilement. |



















