A week in which the C of E acquired a new, merged, diocese and was trying to come to terms with same-sex marriage for clergy – and our site crashed…

Marriage of CofE clergy to same-sex partners

The Telegraph reported that Canon Jeremy Pemberton, Deputy Senior Chaplain with the United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust, wed his long-term partner Laurence Cunnington on Saturday 12 April. In addition to the uncertainties on the application of ecclesiastical law which we discussed earlier, here and here, added complications in the case of Mr Pemberton are that his employer is the NHS, not the diocese of Lincoln, that he also has permission to officiate in the Diocese of Southwell and Nottingham, where he is a lay clerk at the Minster and that the See of Southwell and Nottingham is currently vacant, although there is an acting diocesan bishop. Amidst this legal uncertainty it seems incongruous that some of those putting forward both pro- and anti- same-sex marriage points of view are so convinced on how this might be addressed within the existing regime.

(43+1) -3 +1 = 42

On Easter Day, the new Church of England Diocese of West Yorkshire and the Dales, formed from the former Dioceses of Bradford, Ripon & Leeds and Wakefield, begins its existence.[1]  Under section 5 Bishoprics Act 1878 the then Bishop of Ripon and Leeds and Bishop of Wakefield will cease to be members of the House of Lords; but its “Buggin’s turn provisions” will mean that the new Bishop of West Yorkshire and the Dales, the Rt Revd Nick Baines, will not immediately take their place in the Lords, although the CofE’s Parliamentary Unit indicates that this is “likely later in 2014”.

Described as a “mega diocese”, the Diocese of West Yorkshire and the Dales will be the largest in the Church of England[2] and this raises the question of the present relevance of the criteria within the 1878 Act, an issue of growing importance as officials are said to be looking for ways to fast-track women who become bishops into Lords.

Section 1(1) Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013: Extension of marriage to same sex couples, states that “Marriage of same sex couples is lawful”, i.e. that within the statutory legislation of England and Wales, the term “marriage” now encompasses both same-sex and opposite-sex marriages solemnized within these provisions and those of the Marriage Act 1949, as amended.  Strictly speaking, therefore, the term “same-sex marriage” is incorrect in the context of statute law insofar as it implies that its status is different in law from “opposite-sex marriage”. It is not.

In a similar vein, although the adjectival use of “women” in the context of “women bishops” is not incorrect in law at present, we are aware that it is a source of irritation to some and we likewise attempt to avoid its use wherever possible[3]. However, once the draft Measure and amending Canon receive Royal Assent, the term “women bishops” will be unnecessary since “a man or a woman may be consecrated to the office of bishop” (Canon C2). The remaining problem will then be the style by which women who become Lords Spiritual are addressed.[4]

The Council of Europe on sects

We noted the outcome of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe’s deliberations on The protection of minors against excesses of sects. The text as agreed turned out to be much more nuanced and much less muddled than the original draft submitted by the Assembly’s Legal Affairs and Human Rights Committee.

Property rights and the applicability of Hindu law

We also noted the extremely complicated case of Singh v Singh & Anor [2014] EWHC 1060 (Ch), about a property dispute in a Sikh family in England and whether or not the principles of the Mitakshara – the 11th-century legal code which forms the basis of the orthodox system of Hindu and Sikh law that prevails in most of India – applied to the situation.

Our take on it was from the point of view of the potential applicability of a foreign system of religious law in the English courts. In a comment, however, Jen Smith argues that the point of the case is, rather, that because India does not have a unified secular system of family law, the applicable law (which would include Mitakshara) in a particular situation depends on the faith of the person concerned – so Hindu family law is merely the secular family law of India for Hindu and Sikhs. On reflection, hers may be the better view.

This Armet, I suppose, was meant to ward off blows . . . . .

On Monday, the Church of England issued a Statement following the judgment of the Court of Arches[5] that “reaffirmed the principle that Treasures from Churches, including those on loan to museums should only sold in exceptional circumstances”, even if for security reasons there is no prospect of such items ever being returned for use or display in a church.

However, perhaps the Court has unwittingly solved the Richard III dilemma: at para. 94 it states that “ … we would hope that it might be possible to secure from [the Royal Armouries Museum in Leeds] such a fibreglass replica of the armet. This could then, subject to faculty, be hung in the church above the effigy of Sir Thomas Hooke … “.

If two fibreglass or resin replicas of Richard III’s bones are made, both York and Leicester can have a set and put them on display (just like the plaster casts of the Pompeii victims) and the real ones can go back in the car park as some have suggested, or perhaps somewhere more respectful but “neutral”.  As in Pompeii, the cathedrals’ audiences are likely to be curious tourists rather than devout pilgrims who have travelled to see a holy relic[6] and the punters are unlikely to be deterred, as the recent increased visitor figures to Leicester, senza Richard, have shown.

And finally … witches, guinea pigs and a dilemma over censorship

Third Sector reported a curious case of religious beliefs intruding into the workplace when Martin Edwards, Chief Executive of the Dorset children’s hospice Julia’s House, offered to read a story to preschool children at a community outreach group run by the hospice. He takes up the story as follows:

“People probably thought it was quite sweet that the chief exec would do the story-time slot. But our staff asked in advance what my choice of reading matter would be, perhaps fearing that I might choose to read from a strategic plan or a commissioning contract. Winnie the Witch, I replied, which I had read to my young children so many times I could almost recite it in my sleep. What could be better, I thought, than this fun and beautifully illustrated children’s book about the amusing mishaps of Winnie and her fluffy black cat Wilbur. But how wrong I was. Word reached me that this choice was not acceptable to certain staff. The word ‘witchcraft’ wasn’t said overtly, but it was clear that the objections were on religious grounds”.

Julia’s House is a secular institution open to children and families of all faiths or none. But Edwards points out that many staff in hospices, as in many charities, are deeply religious – so to avoid offence he chose instead to read My Best Friend Bob, an innocuous story about two guinea-pigs. “Was it wrong to censor my first choice?” he asks – and concludes that “sometimes it’s better just to keep the peace and save our energy for providing services to our service users”.

And a happy Easter to all our readers.

[3] The term “Boy Bishop”, however, has been in widespread use since the Middle Ages and relates to a custom whereby a boy was chosen among cathedral choristers to parody the real bishop, commonly on the feast of Holy Innocents.

[4] Presumably as “The Right Reverend Prelate the Lady Bishop of [Barchester] –though it was some time after her appointment before the title of the first female member of the Court of Appeal (Butler-Sloss LJ) was changed to “Lady Justice”.

[5] Re St. Lawrence Oakley with Wootton St. Lawrence [2014] Court of Arches.