We write as your loyal diocesan
chapter of the Society of Catholic Priests in regard to the recent statement on
Living in Love and Faith issued by the House of Bishops, and we acknowledge
your Ad Clerum of the 5th on the subject. As you remind us
there, we remain aware of, and faithful to, our ordination oaths.
We are not all of one mind
regarding the substantive issues; we are, however, equally dismayed by the
current process.
In the statement, Archbishop
Stephen writes that some will find the decision ‘difficult and disappointing’.
It seems to us that the word ‘disappointment’ expresses how one might feel
opening the fridge to find that the milk had gone off, not the kind of situation
in which people’s futures and legitimacy in the work God has called them to do
is in question. Not a single word in the statement acknowledges the sense of
peril people with a same-sex orientation feel in the Church, as the minority
who want them gone seem to wield greater and greater influence. We appreciate
that in your letter you went somewhat further in expressing sympathy than the
Archbishop felt able to.
The bishops must be aware that
referring the matter of ‘bespoke’ liturgies to Synod and requiring a two-thirds
majority for change means change will not happen. Consensus is an admirable
aim, but there is clearly no consensus in the Church currently, nor is there
likely to be, and if we cannot proceed without securing that two-thirds
majority in Synod, we will not proceed at all. The bishops cannot seriously
believe otherwise. At no point do they express what they want to happen;
perhaps, not being of a common mind, they cannot, in which case it might be
better to say so and admit that the entire LLF process has produced all it can.
We feel that blessing of a
same-sex relationship sanctioned by society at large does not affect the
doctrine of matrimony because matrimony is not in question. We look forward to reading the advice of the FAOC, but at present the argument seems
to be ‘a standalone blessing service looks too much like a wedding’, and that
is pretty thin theology.
Even if the bar to potential
legislation regularising the status of clergy in same-sex marriages is lower,
we believe that our LGBTQ+ brethren are left in an invidious position. The
bishops cannot be unaware that there are numbers of clergy to whom this already
applies. And yet, again, the bishops give no indication of their thinking. The
law of the land allows clergy to contract a legal marriage with someone of the
same sex just as their parishioners can. The bishops gib at telling them this
is sinful, yet they refuse to follow the logic of that.
There may be no consensus, but we
feel consensus is not necessary. Difference in practice would not, as we would
say, be a breach of Catholic order. No one would argue that orders conferred on
a person in a marriage to someone of the same sex are invalid, whether
they agreed with it or not. Nor would such an ordained person be causing grave
offence to either society as a whole or the great majority of our laypeople. It
might be impolitic for them to be appointed to some churches, but then they
probably wouldn’t apply to them.
The position resembles that
relating to divorce. When your illustrious predecessor Bishop Reindorp was
translated to Salisbury in 1973 virtually his first act was to terminate the
licenses of 8 clergy who were divorced themselves or married to divorcees. Of
course George Reindorp felt he was doing absolutely the right thing and
enforcing ‘higher standards’ among clergy than those expected of laypeople, but
no bishop would do the same now and there would be outrage if they tried. We
have reached an accepted position on that, and this matter seems little
different.
Whatever our individual positions in the Chapter, we vigorously reject the idea that ‘orthodoxy’ should be defined as some pressure groups within the Church want, making a person’s attitude to some ambiguous and contested verses of Scripture the prime test of their faith. For us, ‘orthodoxy’ means the Catholic faith as expressed in the Creeds, formularies which many Anglican churches do not even use. ‘In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas’.

































