For up to date news about the Anglican communion see Thinking Anglicans and Anglicans Online. More news links here.

News Archive February 07

Letter from Jonathan Clatworthy in the Church Times

Sexual Orientation Regulations: Statement from the Modern Churchpeople's Union

LETTER TO THE CHURCH TIMES – 9 February 2007

I believe an important point has been missed in the gay adoptions debate; namely the failure of the Roman Catholic church to explain the theology behind its thinking. It has focused instead on the issue of church versus state, and the latter's apparent determination to impose on religious people laws which they find abhorrent.

The impression thus given is that here is a new and sinister threat to all faith groups, who in future will be forced to make a choice between obedience to their religion and obedience to the state.

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.

Margaret Mead (1901 - 1978)

The reality is rather different. Religious affiliation on its own is not sufficient reason for being excused from laws which apply to everybody else. Demanding exemption from legislation forbidding discrimination against homosexuals purely on the ground of religious principle, without giving reasons which can be debated by society as a whole, is effectively to opt out of public discourse and claim superior moral insight by reason-trumping divine revelation.

The Roman Catholic Church's argument, originally from natural law, is that the purpose of the genitals is to reproduce. Any other use of them is, by their definition, immoral. This is what informs its attitude to homosexual practice and this is the argument it should present for public scrutiny, but outside Roman Catholicism nobody credits this argument with any force at all. Are we to consider it immoral to balance our spectacles on our noses unless we believe, with Dr Pangloss, that God designed noses for that very purpose?

Christians have in the past engaged in public debate (on religious education, divorce, abortion, for example) explaining why they hold the views they do and trying to convince people that their reasoning is sound.

How the state then responds is another matter. It may decide they are right and legislate accordingly. It may decide they are wrong, in which case believers will have to decide whether to break the law and accept the consequences. Or it may find the argument unconvincing but respectable, and design the legislation with an opt-out clause for religious conscience.

But until it is prepared to have the debate the Roman Catholic Church cannot with integrity demand exceptional treatment on this or any other legislation.

Jonathan Clatworthy

No opting out of gay equality laws

Statement from the Modern Churchpeople's Union on the Sexual Orientation Regulations

The MCU believes religious opposition to the Sexual Orientation Regulations, and special pleading for faith groups on the gay adoption issue, undermines the credibility of religious belief and cannot be justified.

"The Roman Catholic Church, supported by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, argue that the church should be exempt from discrimination laws on the grounds that their religion does not permit equal treatment. We reject that argument," says MCU general secretary, Jonathan Clatworthy.

If accepted, he says, it would set a precedent for religious groups to adopt or oppose any practices at all, merely by claiming that their religion requires it.

"On this logic we could expect, for example, revived claims for the right of Christian groups to discriminate against Jews."

The MCU also rejects the idea that discriminating against anyone on the basis of their sexuality can be either an article of faith or a matter of conscience, and endorses anti-discriminatory legislation as one way by which commitment to the Christian gospel may be translated into public policy.   

The current argument has centred on Roman Catholic adoption policy, but the issue is a much broader one with particular implications for the Church of England, says Jonathan.

"As the established church, it enjoys a favoured position through which it can contribute to the debate about statutory legislation. In return, establishment requires it to support the nation's laws once they have been passed and to refrain from undermining them.

"Demanding exemptions from legislation for religious organizations – employment laws, and  the rights of women and gays – makes a mockery of its established position, and presents the Church as a counter-cultural organization which has its own set of values and no longer expects the nation to share its Christian ethos."

The MCU recognizes the rights of faith groups to oppose particular social practices, but the onus is on the religious leaders to explain those reasons, and to offer a public defence. This they have failed to do.

"Unlike the abortion laws, to which this legislation has been compared by religious leaders, there has been no public debate. Rather, they have attempted to close down the debate by saying simply: 'This is what our religious belief demands and you must accept it.' That is not enough," says Jonathan.