Bishop's letters: December 05 +James

CIVIL PARTNERSHIPS

This month the Civil Partnership Act 2004 (CPA) comes into effect. For the first time, two people of the same sex will be able to acquire a new legal status by registering a civil partnership with each other. The Government has estimated that many thousands of such partnerships may be registered during the next five years. This raises a number of important – and potentially contentious – issues for the Church. Five of them deserve particular mention.


The first is Marriage, which is regarded by the Church of England as ‘a creation ordinance, a gift of God in creation and a means of his grace’. Marriage between a man and a woman is central to ‘the stability and health of human society’ and there is some understandable concern that it will be undermined by the new legislation. The Government insists that a ‘civil partnership’ is not a same-sex marriage, even though its provisions are clearly based on marriage and civil partners will have approximately the same rights as married couples. There is a real danger that, in practice, the introduction of civil partnerships will ‘erode the unique position which marriage has previously occupied’. This means that, in future, clear teaching by the Church about marriage will be more important than ever.

A second issue is sexual intercourse. Again, the Government insists that civil partnerships are ‘not predicated on the intention to engage in a sexual relationship’. At the same time, it prohibits such partnerships between close relatives, and suggests that “the absence of any sexual activity within a relationship might be evidence of unreasonable behaviour leading to the irretrievable breakdown of a civil partnership”. There is real ambiguity here, and many will no doubt see the legislation as simply providing lesbian and gay people in active relationships with marital rights. Once again, the Church has a responsibility to emphasise its traditional, biblical teaching about sex as ‘an expression of faithful intimacy which properly belongs within marriage exclusively’. All sexual relationships outside marriage, whether heterosexual or between people of the same sex, are regarded as falling short of God’s purposes for human beings.

Third is liturgy. Because of the ambiguity inherent in the legislation, there will be no authorised public liturgy in connection with the registering of civil partnerships. As the Archbishop of Canterbury has made clear, “It is through liturgy that we express what we believe”, and the House of Bishops affirms that “clergy of the Church of England should not provide Services of Blessing for those who register a civil partnership” since some at least will not be living consistently with the teaching of the Church.

Closely connected with this is a fourth issue of Discipline. The Church’s teaching on sexual ethics remains unchanged, which means that any clergy who may wish to register a civil partnership will have to give assurances that the relationship is “consistent with the standards for the clergy set out in ‘Issues in Human Sexuality’”. This reinforces a distinction between homosexual orientation and practice, and makes it clear that while the former is no bar to ordained ministry, the latter is not acceptable. However, lay people who have registered civil partnerships will not be asked to give assurances about the nature of their relationship before being admitted to Baptism, Confirmation and Communion.

The final issues is that of Friendship. The Church ‘should not collude with the present assumptions of society that all close relationships necessarily include sexual activity’. We want to affirm the value of committed, sexually abstinent friendships and recognise their significant place in the Christian tradition.

Some will undoubtedly feel that we didn’t need a ‘Civil Partnership Act’ to rectify injustices relating to mutually dependent relationships of care and trust in our society. At the same time, to quote the House of Bishops, we will all want to respond ‘pastorally and sensitively’ to those who enter into such partnerships ‘in the light of the circumstances of each case’.


James Newcome