Sir, – I am distressed to read that the general synod of the Church of Ireland intends to rush to vote on a motion tomorrow that “faithfulness in marriage is the only normative context for sexual intercourse”. I was appointed dean of Tuam in 1997 and contributed to a briefing paper for the debate on homosexuality at the Lambeth Conference of Anglican bishops worldwide in 1998. Its judicious reporting in your paper caused such an uproar in the Church of Ireland – not elsewhere – that I felt obliged to resign. There was no support from Robin Eames, the archbishop of Armagh, who, ironically, went on to chair the committee which produced the Windsor Report, the Anglican communion’s lame response to the issue.
However, since then many who left the cathedral at the time have written to me to apologise or have welcomed me back warmly on subsequent visits. At the time I even had support in the highest offices of State and in the Roman Catholic Church.
Ireland has changed, and, for most people, being gay is no longer an issue. Yet the elderly male leadership of the Church of Ireland lags far behind its laity in showing an inclusive welcome to gay and lesbian people, many of whom try hard to remain loyal to it, and fails conspicuously to engage with contemporary scholarship. Do we have to conclude that the Irish people as a whole are more Christian in their compassion than their churches, and that the bishops lack the vision and courage of the laity? – Yours, etc,
Sir – To be debated at the Church of Ireland’s general synod in Dublin this week is the matter of the church’s acceptance of its gay and lesbian members, including clergy of same-sex orientation.
While it is well known that the church has always had its gay clergy, many of whom have been great pastors and teachers, it is also a fact that serving clergy are reluctant to “come out” for fear of rejection, and that “homophobia” in some parts of the church means they have good reason for this fear. (This is also true of church members who are gay or lesbian.)
The recent “Conference on Human Sexuality” called by the bishops in Cavan enabled participants to listen to one another’s views on these matters and to realise that the church needed to engage in a deliberate and intentional “listening process”, so that all church members could prayerfully consider the issues in dialogue with those with whom they might disagree – and in particular with gay and lesbian individuals, who were seriously under-represented at the conference. The point was made repeatedly that this listening and mutually respectful dialogue needed to take place before the church proceeded to any final decisions this area.
Many synod members are now dismayed to be faced with a motion affirming in very strong terms the church’s teaching on faithful lifelong marriage as the “only normative” context for sexual intercourse.
While this is indeed the traditional teaching of the church, its regulations have become less rigorous, with the remarriage of divorced persons allowed, and the practice of engaged couples living together before marriage widely accepted by clergy.
Now there is fear that this motion, if passed in its present form, will be used as a stick to beat those who accept the ministry of gay men and women, as well as the gay clergy themselves. To assist discussion at the synod, Search – A Church of Ireland Journal is pre-publishing three articles deriving from the Cavan conference which will be available at the general synod.
Many of us are hoping that common sense will prevail to the extent of postponing any formal agreement on the issues, other than committing the church to promote in every diocese in Ireland truly open dialogue in which homosexual people will be offered a safe space to share their experience, their thinking and their feelings of alienation from church life.
If this is not done, we will lose many faithful followers of Christ from the ministry, worship and witness of the church. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – As Church of Ireland members, who are lesbian, gay or bisexual, we were not consulted as the bishop of Down and Dromore and the archbishop of Dublin drafted the resolutions on sexuality before general synod this week.
Had we been, we would have been clear that writing 655 words about people in same-gender relationships without one good thing to say about us is unacceptable. By stating that faithfulness within marriage is the only “normative” context for sex, synod resolution 8A imposes a condition that people in faithful same-gender relationships cannot comply with. The implication that members of the Church of Ireland in relationships other than marriage are in breach of the catechism gives legitimacy, for the first time, to excluding lay people in same-gender relationships from holy communion.
At the conference on homosexuality in March, some clergy said they refused the sacrament to people in faithful same-gender relationships. The bishops have done nothing to challenge such behaviour yet claim the right to lecture us about our relationships with the people we love.
Resolution 8A provides a pretext to launch witch-hunts against gay clergy in liberal dioceses. This has happened in the Anglican church in Australia since similar motions were passed by their general synod in 2004.
Although resolution 8A has been drafted to say all things to all people, once an official statement of policy is passed, the intentions of its drafters are irrelevant. History is littered with motions and legislation that functioned in ways contrary to the wishes of their drafters.
Nine years ago, our bishops promised to start listening to us. This year, they see fit to table high-handed motions at general synod while kicking the long-promised listening process into touch for another year.
Most people would find the idea of beginning a consultation process after passing official policies odd, to say the least.
These resolutions should have been brought through the normal democratic procedures of the Church of Ireland, but were not. They have been sprung upon members of general synod allowing no time for wider debate in the church. By doing so, those bishops disrespect our church’s democracy.
Putting off this debate for a year or two to allow real listening will hardly kill us. – Yours, etc,