First priest in gay marriage, Jeremy Pemberton, loses employment tribunal

[liturgyluver]

churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2015/6-november/news/uk/pemberton-loses-employment-tribunal

CANON Jeremy Pemberton, who had his permission to officiate (PTO) removed last year after he became the first Church of England priest to enter into a same-sex marriage, has lost his case at an employment tribunal.

Canon Pemberton began tribunal proceedings against the Acting Bishop of Southwell & Nottingham, the Rt Revd Richard Inwood, under the Equality Act last year. He argued that Bishop Inwood, by removing his PTO and further refusing to grant him the necessary licence to take up a new post as an NHS chaplain, had discriminated against him, preventing him from taking up a new NHS chaplaincy appointment in the diocese.

On Wednesday the tribunal dismissed all his claims.

Bishop Inwood had withheld it because, by marrying his partner, Canon Pemberton had failed to comply with the House of Bishops’ pastoral guidance which had banned same-sex marriages among the clergy, and was, therefore, no longer in good standing with the C of E.

Bishop Inwood was also found to have not discriminated against Canon Pemberton on the grounds of sexual orientation. The Equality Act provides a defence against discrimination if the employment is for the purposes of an organised religion.

The tribunal ruled that the current doctrine of the C of E was clear — marriage should be between one man and one woman — and therefore Bishop Inwood was protected from the discrimination claim because adhering to the Church’s doctrine was a requirement of taking up the new NHS chaplaincy post.

Finally, Canon Pemberton had claimed that the Bishop’s actions had amounted to harassment. The tribunal disagreed. "We accept that the Claimant [Canon Pemberton] was clearly distressed and felt humiliated and degraded by what had occurred.

“We conclude in the context of matters, given that the Church . . . acted lawfully . . . it would be an affront to justice if we were to find that what occurred constituted harassment.”

 

[BeautyFromAshes]

This is absurd! Pemberton sounds like an irrational man. Why would you join a church or any organization knowing its rules go against your beliefs then expect it to change to suit you?

 

[SuperLuigi]

This is absurd! Pemberton sounds like an irrational man. Why would you join a church or any organization knowing its rules go against your beliefs then expect it to change to suit you?

That’s an interesting question.

The kind of thinking of expecting everyone to accommodate oneself is part of the entitlement mentality. The entire gay “marriage” movement is structured around the concept of entitlement, not equality. The difference is enormous.

People have been encouraged and rewarded with such thinking and told in so many words its fine because they are victims, and it’s someone else’s fault, or someone else should change for their benefit.

Really, if gay and straight relationships were truly equal, why aren’t more married straights calling for special attention from the Church? Better yet, why do people who are supposedly in this great and powerful personal relationship care what others think? People who are in good, stable relationships do not need to go to great lengths for third party support.

The notion of “the Church should change to suit me” or “You know, I’d be Catholic if they’d just do XYZ” isn’t really new. It’s old news, and the Catholic Church is not a popularity contest.

Jesus invites people to follow Him. He doesn’t change the rules to keep people from feeling sad . The Church has followed His example accordingly.

 

[SWolf]

This is absurd! Pemberton sounds like an irrational man. Why would you join a church or any organization knowing its rules go against your beliefs then expect it to change to suit you?

People infiltrate organizations all the time to corrupt it from the inside.

 

[johnnyc176]

This is absurd! Pemberton sounds like an irrational man. Why would you join a church or any organization knowing its rules go against your beliefs then expect it to change to suit you?

Protestants being protestant.

 

[Cider]

This is absurd! Pemberton sounds like an irrational man. Why would you join a church or any organization knowing its rules go against your beliefs then expect it to change to suit you?

It’s long established fact that people do such so they can try and change the organization from the inside.

 

[JonNC]

Protestants being protestant.

Ad hominem.
Anglicans are not Protestant, in the first place. They were not involved in the protest at the 2nd Diet of Speyer in 1529.
This is the action of a single priest. An entire communion should not be painted by the actions of one priest. Surely you as a Catholic would agree with that.

Jon

 

[ComplineSanFran]

Ad hominem.
Anglicans are not Protestant, in the first place. They were not involved in the protest at the 2nd Diet of Speyer in 1529.
This is the action of a single priest. An entire communion should not be painted by the actions of one priest. Surely you as a Catholic would agree with that.

Jon

Thank you, Jon. I think sometimes Roman Catholics think that anyone not Catholic is a Protestant.

And on the action of this one priest, didn’t we just read about a priest who worked in the Vatican who lost his job after coming out as a partnered gay man? Not exactly the same circumstances, but close enough to make your point.

 

[ComplineSanFran]

It’s long established fact that people do such so they can try and change the organization from the inside.

Yes, I believe many DO want to change the organization from the inside. I’m thinking specifically of women in my church community who were the forerunners of today’s priests. I’m also thinking of many of my gay clergy friends who are out within the Catholic church, hoping to be witness to so many others still in the closet and wanting change to happen from within.

 

[chris62]

That’s an interesting question.

The kind of thinking of expecting everyone to accommodate oneself is part of the entitlement mentality. The entire gay “marriage” movement is structured around the concept of entitlement, not equality. The difference is enormous.

People have been encouraged and rewarded with such thinking and told in so many words its fine because they are victims, and it’s someone else’s fault, or someone else should change for their benefit.

Really, if gay and straight relationships were truly equal, why aren’t more married straights calling for special attention from the Church? Better yet, why do people who are supposedly in this great and powerful personal relationship care what others think? People who are in good, stable relationships do not need to go to great lengths for third party support.

The notion of “the Church should change to suit me” or “You know, I’d be Catholic if they’d just do XYZ” isn’t really new. It’s old news, and the Catholic Church is not a popularity contest.

Jesus invites people to follow Him. He doesn’t change the rules to keep people from feeling sad . The Church has followed His example accordingly.

100 percent correct.

Pemberton seems like your typical gay activist.

 

[sps49]

Ad hominem.
Anglicans are not Protestant, in the first place. They were not involved in the protest at the 2nd Diet of Speyer in 1529.
This is the action of a single priest. An entire communion should not be painted by the actions of one priest. Surely you as a Catholic would agree with that.

Jon

Given their history, this is not an ad hominem comment at all. Protestant ideas and reforms were resisted by Henry VIII, but after that, not so much. Anglicans were indeed heavily influenced by the protestant reforms, and incorporated the ideas into the English Reforms. Depending on which Anglicans you ask, and what they are espousing, they can be Protestant, Catholic, Anglican, Via Media, or some other identifier. I would argue that Anglicans as a group have no idea what they are, yet strong protestant influence remains embedded in their identity, history and documents, such as the 39 Articles and BCP.

 

[Cider]

Ad hominem.
Anglicans are not Protestant, in the first place. They were not involved in the protest at the 2nd Diet of Speyer in 1529.
This is the action of a single priest. An entire communion should not be painted by the actions of one priest. Surely you as a Catholic would agree with that.

Jon

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia which is so often quoted on this site

There can be no doubt that the English Reformation is substantially a part of the great Protestant Reformation upheaval of the sixteenth century, and that its doctrine, liturgy, and chief promoters were to a very considerable extent derived from, and influenced by, the Lutheran and Calvinistic movements on the Continent.

 

[JonNC]

Given their history, this is not an ad hominem comment at all. Protestant ideas and reforms were resisted by Henry VIII, but after that, not so much. Anglicans were indeed heavily influenced by the protestant reforms, and incorporated the ideas into the English Reforms. Depending on which Anglicans you ask, and what they are espousing, they can be Protestant, Catholic, Anglican, Via Media, or some other identifier. I would argue that Anglicans as a group have no idea what they are, yet strong protestant influence remains embedded in their identity, history and documents, such as the 39 Articles and BCP.

It was precisely an ad hominem, because it was an attack on the character and motives of protestants in general, and then linking the motives of all protestants to the actions of one Anglican priest. That’s text-book ad hominem.

And the entirety of your comment about what Anglicans are is not the point. The poster claimed that the actions of one Anglican priest are typical of all protests; “Protestants being protestants”. That’s ad hominem. Not all protestants (there isn’t even a group/communion/ tradition called “Protestant”) act the same, or do things the same. The grouping itself, if understood beyond a loose, general name for non-Catholic western Christians, lacks integrity.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia which is so often quoted on this site

I would respectfully suggest that the Catholic Encyclopedia is not the place to find a definition of Anglicanism, anymore than a Baptist source, for example, is the first place to look for a definition of Catholicism. Let the Anglicans define themselves. As our friend GKC says, Anglicans are a motley bunch, but it still is up to Anglicans, not Lutherans or Catholics, to define them.

Jon

 

[Cider]

I would respectfully suggest that the Catholic Encyclopedia is not the place to find a definition of Anglicanism, anymore than a Baptist source, for example, is the first place to look for a definition of Catholicism. Let the Anglicans define themselves. As our friend GKC says, Anglicans are a motley bunch, but it still is up to Anglicans, not Lutherans or Catholics, to define them.

Jon

As a Catholic, and this being a Catholic apostolate website, we do

 

[JonNC]

As a Catholic, and this being a Catholic apostolate website, we do

We do what?

Jon

 

[sps49]

It was precisely an ad hominem, because it was an attack on the character and motives of protestants in general, and then linking the motives of all protestants to the actions of one Anglican priest. That’s text-book ad hominem.

And the entirety of your comment about what Anglicans are is not the point. The poster claimed that the actions of one Anglican priest are typical of all protests; “Protestants being protestants”. That’s ad hominem. Not all protestants (there isn’t even a group/communion/ tradition called “Protestant”) act the same, or do things the same. The grouping itself, if understood beyond a loose, general name for non-Catholic western Christians, lacks integrity.

Jon

It sounds like you are “intellectually offended” by the comment, but that does not make it invalid, inaccurate or misleading. As a “Protestant” yourself, I imagine you may wish to have more control over that particular term, due to identity concerns. The three words “Protestants being protestant” was taken by me to be an observation, not an indictment. Possessing an economy of words, it was an especially effective observation.

It may “not be the point” to your good self, but it is a valid point, or points nonetheless. In fact, the definition of, and influence by the Protestant Reformation on the English Reformation is very much on point. Unfortunately, history does not exclusively grant identity naming rights to the entity being described. The integrity complaint is hogwash; Protestants have alternately used and not used it for their own ends over the centuries, making it “integral” to their own designs.

 

[JonNC]

=sps49;13421845]It sounds like you are “intellectually offended” by the comment, but that does not make it invalid, inaccurate or misleading. As a “Protestant” yourself, I imagine you may wish to have more control over that particular term, due to identity concerns. The three words “Protestants being protestant” was taken by me to be an observation, not an indictment. Possessing an economy of words, it was an especially effective observation.

Then an invalid observation. For someone to say a protestant being protestant assumes that there is some particular way that protestants are. One could say that they are not Catholic, and that they are Christian. There are some things western non-Catholic Christians agree on. So, one might assume the poster must mean one of these two, though the context doesn’t lend itself to that.

It isn’t a matter of being offended in any way. It is a matter of accuracy. By any context, to say that the actions of this Anglican priest is typical of protestants can be described only as ad hominem.

It may “not be the point” to your good self, but it is a valid point, or points nonetheless. In fact, the definition of, and influence by the Protestant Reformation on the English Reformation is very much on point. Unfortunately, history does not exclusively grant identity naming rights to the entity being described. The integrity complaint is hogwash; Protestants have alternately used and not used it for their own ends over the centuries, making it “integral” to their own designs.

But that isn’t for you, or me, to decide. Anglicans get to choose that designation. They get to say what the influence of the various central European reformation era groups was.
There is no doubt that there was influence, but if Anglicans choose not to be identified as protestant, it becomes polemical to argue with them otherwise.
You are right, however, that naming rights are not exclusive. I self-identify as Evangelical Catholic, as that is the historical identity of the Lutheran reformers and reformation churches, as noted by Lutheran scholars from John Gerhard to Arthur Carl Piepkorn. Those in communion with the Bishop of Rome do not hold exclusive control over the name Catholic.

Perhaps the poster who made the “protestants being protestants” observation could explain it. Otherwise, its clearly ad hominem.

Jon

The term protestant can be used with integrity, if used in its proper sense. Historically, it refers to those who participated in the protest of the 2nd Diet of Speyer in 1529, which was a protest of government action to limit religious free exercise. The second, being a loose, general category of western non-Catholic Christian communions, traditions, and denominations.

 

[steve_b]

I would respectfully suggest that the Catholic Encyclopedia is not the place to find a definition of Anglicanism, anymore than a Baptist source, for example, is the first place to look for a definition of Catholicism. Let the Anglicans define themselves. As our friend GKC says, Anglicans are a motley bunch, but it still is up to Anglicans, not Lutherans or Catholics, to define them.

Jon

I would respectfully disagree and suggest, Anglicans aren’t the place to find the definition of what is Catholic.

No one can define themselves as Catholic who aren’t Catholic. The Catholic Church has been here from Pentecost. The Catholic Church defines who her members are.

 

[JonNC]

I would respectfully disagree and suggest, Anglicans aren’t the place to find the definition of what is Catholic.

No one can define themselves as Catholic who aren’t Catholic. The Catholic Church has been here from Pentecost. The Catholic Church defines who her members are.

Agreed. Anglicans are indeed not the place to find a definition of what a Catholic in communion with the Bishop of Rome is. But as I said, the those in communion with the Bishop of Rome do not have exclusive claim to the title Catholic.

Jon