Bishops say Equality Bill redefines who can be priest

I love the British sense of humor, especially some of the Monty Python skits and of course, Mr. Bean.

It's a pity this isn't a joke:

English, Welsh bishops say Equality Bill redefines who can be priest

By Simon Caldwell
Catholic News Service

LONDON (CNS) -- The Catholic bishops of England and Wales said they could be at risk of prosecution under a proposed law unless they accept women, sexually active gays and transsexuals as candidates to the priesthood.

They made their claims in a briefing for Catholic members of the House of Lords [some of who think the title 'lord' should be capitalized, apparently...], Britain's upper political chamber, ahead of a scheduled Dec. 15 debate on the Equality Bill, which aims to stamp out discrimination in the workplace [by discriminating against the Catholic faith].

The bishops said the bill defines priests as employees rather than officeholders. [Up next: prosecuting the Church for violating minimum wage laws, since priests probably are paid much less than minimum wage, considering how many hours they work.] Under the terms of the bill, the church would be immune from prosecution only if priests spend more than 51 percent of their time in worship or explaining doctrine.

According to the briefing, a copy of which was obtained by Catholic News Service Dec. 8, the government definition will, in effect, make it "unlawful to require a Catholic priest to be male, unmarried or not in a civil partnership, etc., since no priest would be able to demonstrate that their time was wholly or mainly spent either leading liturgy or promoting and explaining doctrine."

"The bill fails to reflect the time priests spend in pastoral work, private prayer and study, administration, building maintenance, etc.," the briefing said.

"This contentious definition was drafted without consultation and has been maintained by the government despite the concerns of the bishops' conference and representations made by most religious bodies in the U.K.," the briefing added. [So it's an "equality" bill in that, all things being equal, all religions are being discriminated against.]

The bishops asked Catholic lords to try to either strike out the contentious definition or widen it to protect priests and lay employees "whose credibility ... would be fatally compromised if their personal lives were openly at variance with the church's teaching."[Call me a conspiracy theorist, but isn't this what many people want? To destroy the credibility of the Church, so that it can be ignored as irrelevant? Yes, the priest abuse scandals have already done incalculable damage on that front. But to have the government openly working against the Church?]

In a Dec. 8 statement given to CNS, a government spokesman rejected the claims of the bishops, saying that an exemption "covers ministers of religion such as Catholic priests."

An amendment to the bill to protect the liberty of the churches was voted down in the House of Commons in November. [Why? Because this bill doesn't intend to protect churches.] The bill is likely to become law early next year.

Richard Kornicki, the bishops' parliamentary coordinator, told CNS in a Dec. 8 telephone interview that the bishops believe it is not possible to meet the criteria of the government definition of a priest. [Since when is government allowed to define who is a priest? Shouldn't they be looking at the Catholic Church's definition of who is a priest? But, alas, perhaps this is part of the Henry VIII legacy in England?]

According to legal advice received by the bishops, he said, this could lead to legal actions for sex discrimination if the church rejected women, married men, gays in civil partnerships or transsexuals who asked to join the priesthood.

"The government is saying that the church cannot maintain its own beliefs in respect of its own priests," he said. [Bingo. And that's frightening.]

Neil Addison, a Catholic lawyer who heads the Thomas More Legal Centre, which specializes in religious discrimination law, said that in the worst-case scenario the church could not only be sued but bishops could face imprisonment and unlimited fines and church assets could be sequestered. [As awful as this sounds, I wonder if such open and active legal persecution would help people recognize what's going on here. And I wonder how many bishops are fantastic speakers who could use some pithy British wit to denounce these actions while they head off to gaol.] He said the bill would have the effect of making it impossible for the bishops to discipline clergy who wanted to live "alternative lifestyles."

Earlier, the bishops said the bill could force Catholic schools and health care institutions to remove crucifixes from their walls in case they offend non-Christian employees. [If you're "offended" by Catholicism, why oh why would you want to work for the Catholic Church in its schools or hospitals?]

First, secular culture decided that religion should stay inside the church, and that people shouldn't let their faith affect their day-to-day lives. Now we have the government trying to tell the bishops how to deal with intrachurch matters. How about that for a slippery slope?

What is particularly disturbing about this is that the U.S. is probably next; President Obama has nominated Chai Feldblum commissioner of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Feldblum has argued that "sexual liberty" should trump religious liberty, and that the First Amendment should no longer apply to religious liberty.

From her paper, Moral Conflicts and Liberty: Gay Rights and Religion:

“...I want to suggest that the best framework for dealing with this conflict is to analyze religious people’s claims as belief liberty interests under the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, rather than as free exercise claims under the First Amendment.” (p. 3)

From "Banned in Boston," in the Weekly Standard (5/15/2006)

“I’m having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win."

“Sexual liberty should win in most cases. There can be a conflict between religious liberty and sexual liberty, but in almost all cases the sexual liberty should win because that’s the only way that the dignity of gay people can be affirmed in any realistic manner.”

I hope and pray that the Brits wake up and stop their government from discriminating against people of faith.

And that Americans take note and prepare for our own upcoming battles.

Patron Saint of the Day: St. Thomas More

St. Thomas More, Martyr (Patron of Lawyers) St. Thomas More was born at London in 1478...In 1534, with his close friend, St. John Fisher, he refused to render allegiance to the King as the Head of the Church of England and was confined to the Tower. Fifteen months later, and nine days after St. John Fisher's execution, he was tried and convicted of treason. He told the court that he could not go against his conscience and wished his judges that "we may yet hereafter in heaven merrily all meet together to everlasting salvation."