91Èȱ¬

« Previous | Main | Next »

Bishops and fiefdoms

Post categories:

William Crawley | 18:59 UK time, Wednesday, 18 June 2008

RichardChartresPA_228x396.jpgThe Bishop of London, Richard Chartres, has written a very strongly-worded letter of rebuke to the priest who conducted the same-sex service of blessing at St Bartholomew's Church. The letter to Dr Martin Dudley, which is included in full below the fold, ends with these pretty hard-hitting words:

"St Bartholomew's is not a personal fiefdom. You serve there as an ordained minister of the Church of England, under the authority of the Canons and as someone who enjoys my licence. I have already asked the Archdeacon of London to commence the investigation and I shall be referring the matter to the Chancellor of the Diocese. Before I do this, I am giving you an opportunity to make representations to me direct."

The Reverend Dr Martin Dudley,
St Bartholomew the Great Parish Office,
6 Kinghorn Street,
London,
EC1A 7HW.

Dear Martin,

You have sought to justify your actions to the 91Èȱ¬ and in various newspapers but have failed more than two weeks after the service to communicate with me.

I read in the press that you had been planning this event since November. I find it astonishing that you did not take the opportunity to consult your Bishop.

You describe the result as "familiar words reordered and reconfigured carrying new meanings." I note that the order of service, which I have now received, includes the phrase "With this ring I thee bind, with my body I thee worship".

At first sight this seems to break the House of Bishops Guidelines which as I explained in my letter of December 6th 2005 apply the traditional teaching of the Church of England to the new circumstances created by the enactment of Civil Partnerships.

The point at issue is not Civil Partnerships themselves or the relation of biblical teaching to homosexual practice. There is of course a range of opinion on these matters in the Church and, as you know, homophobia is not tolerated in the Diocese of London. The real issue is whether you wilfully defied the discipline of the Church and broke your oath of canonical obedience to your Bishop.

The Archbishops have already issued a statement in which they say that "those clergy who disagree with the Church's teaching are at liberty to seek to persuade others within the Church of the reasons why they believe, in the light of Scripture, tradition and reason that it should be changed. But they are not at liberty simply to disregard it."

St Bartholomew's is not a personal fiefdom. You serve there as an ordained minister of the Church of England, under the authority of the Canons and as someone who enjoys my licence. I have already asked the Archdeacon of London to commence the investigation and I shall be referring the matter to the Chancellor of the Diocese. Before I do this, I am giving you an opportunity to make representations to me direct.

Yours faithfully.

The Rt Revd & Rt Hon Richard Chartres DD FSA

Comments

  • Comment number 1.

    interesting blog, what are you implying about?

    i can get the geist of your item...

    :(

  • Comment number 2.

    For you were straying like sheep.

  • Comment number 3.

    Typical bishop - thinks the issue is one of obedience to his authority and never mind the substantive issue of human sexuality and marriage as a sacrament established by Christ.

  • Comment number 4.

    I agree smasher. The statement from the bishop says it all. He's lost the plot. I support gay marriage and I hope the church will decide to offer that grace to gay and lesbian people in the future. This was not marriage, it was a blessing for a same-sex relationship. The issue seems to be that the priest used the Book of Common Prayer marriage service and changed the words here and there to make it into a blessing. That was bound to be a massive controversy. I heard the priest interviewed and he seemed amazed at the controversy, which shows how wet behind the ears he is. Its less than 2 months to the Lambeth Conference and he has placed Rowan Williams in a more difficult situation now.

  • Comment number 5.



    Can anyone refute the following with chapter and verse rather than heat and rhetoric?


    - Psychiatric patients have a complete ethical right to request orientation therapy if they wish.

    - Psychiatrists are professionally obliged by ethics to help patients set their own therapy goals.

    - Unwanted same sex attraction is a mental condition recognised by the WHO.

    - There are plenty of credible studies which show it is possible.

    - The Royal College of Psychiatrists has no policy or ethic to discourage patients from seeking such therapy nor to discourage counsellors from giving it.

    - It merely says that some treatments in this field may be damaging. If they are shoddy treatments no doubt they will be damaging but that is not the same thing as saying that all therapies in this field will be damaging.

    That is merely promoting ideology through rhetoric and is not an objective statment on the matter in any sense.



    SOURCES;-

    WHO says Egodystonic sexual orientation is where;-

    "The gender identity or sexual preference (heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, or prepubertal) is not in doubt, but the individual wishes it were different because of associated psychological and behavioural disorders, and may seek treatment in order to change it."

    The orientation itself is not the disorder nb but WHO affirms that the patient may still seek to change "sexual preference".


    professional studies for successful change cited here;-




    testimony here;-

  • Comment number 6.

    orthodox-tradition, interesting comments but could you repost them under another article realted to conversion therapy, since this post is about the marriage service specifically. Thanks.

  • Comment number 7.


    "St Bartholomew's is not a personal fiefdom. You serve there as an ordained minister of the Church of England, under the authority of the Canons and as someone who enjoys my licence."

    I would have thought that the C of E wasn't a personal fiefdom either, but rather one part of the people of God who enjoy the licence of the Great High Priest, Jesus, and who live under His authority.

    Seems to me that the bishop has more than one problem here.


  • Comment number 8.

    "I am giving an opportunity to you to make representations to me direct."

    "By the power vested in me, I now pronounce you husband and husband."

    It seems to me those words speak for themselves. Which one didn't the bishop understand? There is nothing more to be said by the priest that matters, even if he is defrocked.

    It will be interesting to see if the marriage is annulled by the church. How will church and state view it? What are the legal ramifications?

  • Comment number 9.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 10.

    I don't like the looks of this guy. I don't know if it's that little beard and mustasche, his demeanor and expression, his costume or the whole package. I know you aren't supposed to judge a book by its cover but sometimes I feel I lived long enough to take a pretty good guess what people will be like just taking one look at them, and this is one I do not like. It wouldn't surprise me if he turns out to be a sex pervert too.

  • Comment number 11.

    Orthodox-tradition

    Are you PB in disguise?

    Ps. I have no wish to defame or insult by this comment.

Ìý

91Èȱ¬ iD

91Èȱ¬ navigation

91Èȱ¬ © 2014 The 91Èȱ¬ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.