Cavan human sexuality conference plaudits; Motion on marriage ruled out – Point of order prevents motion describing Church’s understanding of marriage
The debate on the motions from the House of Bishops and in the names of the Archbishop of Dublin and the Bishop of Down was scheduled, as customary, for examination after the presentation of the Standing Committee’s Report. During this page by page review of the report two speakers in particular, the Bishop of Cork and Rev D McCallig, took the opportunity to highlight the contribution of the conference organised in Cavan to examine the issue of Christian belief and human sexuality.
Bishop Colton who was prevented by an impending family bereavement from attending the conference said that he knew people who had had serious misgivings about attending the conference but who were very positive afterwards. The conference was designed to take the heat out of the situation, he said.
He deplored of the naming of a specific individual in the Standing Committee’s Report on the conference. In so identifying him, General Synod had done something it had never done before in this respect.
He recalled and commended the remarks of the Archbishop of Wales, Barry Morgan, which he said were very helpful. Bishop Morgan had said, “There are no easy answers to complicated ethical problems…”. He had continued commenting that those persons in same sex partnerships were already within the Church and many were giving various forms of service and ministry.
The Reverend Darren McCallig, Chaplain at TCD, commended the workshop at Cavan conducted by the Reverend Doug Baker and said “these were complex, difficult matters which we need to take time with”. He referred to the summary comments of the “listener” bishop at the conference, Gregory Cameron, who reported that, “It is quite clear there remains no consensus in the C of I”, and who went on to ask, “Can one viewpoint, whichever it is, be allowed to suppress the other?”
Mr McCallig said, “We cannot rush”, and stated that in Cavan “We began a process which moved beyond an adversarial one… it would be a mistake to throw that away in a rush to judgment”.
When the motion (8a) which was the precursor of two others (8b & 8c), was placed before the synod, the Dean of Cork, the Very Reverend Nigel Dunne, raised a point of order. The general thrust of this was that the matters in the motion represented a change in the C of I stance on marriage and in effect required a bill because the understanding of marriage posited in the motion was in fact a change in the C of I’s understanding of marriage.
This led to whether or not the marriage services in Rite 1 and Rite 2 were of equal validity in the formularies of the Church. There was no doubt that Rite 1 was “kosher”, but discussion questioned whether Marriage Rite 2 was because it had been at an experimental stage.
Bishop Colton advised, and the Primate was also of the opinion, that “We need to be absolutely clear legally before we proceed”.
The legal assessor stated that the Dean of Cork was correct in his view that a change of doctrine required a two-thirds majority support in synod. However, he could not determine matters regarding the modification of doctrine which lay outwith his remit and responsibilities. Basically his advice was, if it is a change of legislation, and there is any doubt, that it would not be safe to proceed.
The Archbishop of Armagh was of the view that whilst the language of the two marriage rites was different, there was no change in the doctrine of the Church as a result of the changes in language. Two member of the Liturgical Advisory Committee which had dealt with the matter in the preparation of the 2004 Prayer Book said that the Archbishop’s remembrance was accurate.
Dermot O’Callaghan said he was very disturbed to think that the synod would find a doctrinal difference between the older and newer forms of service.
Lady Brend Sheil said that the motion was “bringing forward a new thing which will need a Bill” and she drew attention to the bullet points in the text.
Ven Robin Bantry White said that both marriage services had become formularies of the church when the bill regarding BCP 2004 had been accepted by Synod.
The Archbishop took this point that the understanding at that time was that there was no change in doctrine.
However, the Archbishop continued stressing that in a debate of this seriousness, the overriding concern is the avoidance of doubt. Consequently due to the issues raised by certain points in motion 8a he was going to rule that it could not be taken. He was sorry to have to take this step but it was necessary “for the avoidance of doubt” about variations in the doctrine of the church.
The bishops withdrew motions 8b & 8c.
The matter could be monitored or progressed by Standing Committee if it so decides.