Religion & Law

More Church Autonomy Problems in the UK

By Thomas Berg

The BBC reports a disturbing ruling in Wales (HT to my colleague Teresa Collett):

A gay Christian who won a claim against the Church of England has been awarded more than £47,000 in compensation.

John Reaney took the Hereford diocesan board of finance to an employment tribunal after his appointment as a youth worker was blocked.

According to an earlier BBC story, Mr. Reaney seemed to be in line for the job but then, in a final-stage interview, the bishop of Hereford asked him a series of questions about whether he could remain celibate outside of marriage as the Church of England's rules require.  Reaney's claim was that the bishop wouldn't have asked these questions of a heterosexual applicant, and/or that such an applicant's assurances that s/he could remain celibate would have been accepted.  From the current story:

In his evidence to the original tribunal, Bishop Priddis said anyone in a sexual relationship outside marriage would have been rejected.

However the tribunal last month ruled Mr Reaney, who now lives in Cardiff, had been discriminated against "on the grounds of sexual orientation."

There is a distinction between orientation and extramarital conduct as grounds for employment actions; and one might criticize, say, the Catholic Church on theological grounds (as several MOJers have) for rejecting men with a "deeply rooted" homosexual orientation as priests regardless of whether they can convincingly claim a past and future commitment to celibacy.  (A counterargument here.)  But from what I can see, this case exemplifies why that distinctions should not form the basis for imposing liability on a church for its hiring -- especially for a position that appears pretty pastoral (Mr. Reaney speaks of "numerous young people who have become Christians due to my work and ministry among them").  It looks like there was indeed reason to raise questions about Mr. Reaney's commitment to celibate conduct, since according to the earlier story he had "resigned [a previous youth-worker position] after being asked to choose between his partner and his job."  With the prospect of a tribunal deciding after the fact whether any given line of questions was more than a straight applicant in similar circumstances would have faced -- and $100,000 in damages possibly at stake each go-round -- surely a lot of church interviewers will just let the celibacy subject drop.  The Hereford diocese spokeswoman puts a brave, but not altogether convincing, face on it when she says:

"We are now aware that when making such an appointment we must make it clear if it is a genuine occupational requirement that the post-holder should believe in and uphold the Christian belief and ideal of marriage, and that sexual relationships are confined to marriage."

Tom

Full post as published by Mirror of Justice on February 12, 2008 (boomark / email).