ANOTHER VOICE
A terrible dilemma for the Church of England at the present moment in time
AUBERON WAUGH
It was sad and slightly shocking to see the Bishop of Gloucester, the Rt Revd John Yates, attacked on Sunday for de- fending the right of homosexual clergy to remain silent about their predilections. He has just been appointed chairman of the General Synod's Board of Social Responsi- bility, which is currently engaged on a major study of the whole question of homosexuality: Is it a good idea? Should it be taught in schools? How far have you got to go before you can plead an orientation?
But on this occasion the Bishop of Gloucester was not concerned to preach that homosexual behaviour is perfectly acceptable so long as it is a result of some oriental predestination, is monogamous, caring or meaningful. In fact he produced all the appropriate holy noises on this subject as long ago as 1979, when he was chairman of a working party on the sub- ject. It caused a certain amount of con- troversy at the time, as I remember. But on this occasion he was addressing himself to the smaller question of whether homosex- ual clergymen have a moral obligation to' announce their preferences (nowadays cal- led an 'orientation') or whether they can keep quiet about them.
His conclusion trod the tight-rope be- tween the positions of obscurantist judg- mentalism and gay triumphalism. In fact it was a good advertisement for the Church of England's traditional spirit of comprom- ise: the orientation of a man's sexuality was a personal and private matter 'which no one should be asked to declare unless there was some particular reason . . . My own view would be that only if a priest is in actual relationship with someone else homosexually in such a way as to affect his ministry, should he then declare it.'
In other words, only if a clergyman's homosexual activities are so demanding that they interfere with his work — prevent him attending his Parish Council Disabled Toilets Action Committee or Senior Citizens Coffee and Sunshine Study Group — should he point out that he had to be in bed with a curate or choir school prefect at the time. That seems clear enough. But it was not good enough for the Reverend Anthony (`Tony') Higton, founder of Ac- tion for Biblical Witness to Our Nation (ABWON). He said: 'Any Christian leader that doesn't accept that homosexual prac- tices are wrong must bear some responsi- bility for the dreadful spread of Aids.' Harsh words. I draw attention to these bickering clergymen in the first week of the great election campaign purely to ask whether Mr Neil Kinnock may not soon have to dissociate himself from the support he is receiving from these quarters, just as he has cleverly managed to dissociate himself from the black extremists, the anti-hunting fanatics, the inner city mili- tants, hard left lesbians and other groups who make up such a large part • of his support.
My earliest advice to the Conservatives, if they wish to win this election, was to link their traditional orgies of socialist bragging (`Spending on the National Health Service up by £4,500,000 — 31 per cent more than inflation; 6,000,000 more patient cases treated every year; 63,000 more nurses and midwives; 12,000 more doctors and de- ntists') with a mammoth Aids scare. That was before the statement released by the Committee of Eight Inner City Bishops for a Labour Victory. It would be a sad and terrible thing if all the energies directed against Labour, representing it as the party which has been working to spread Aids throughout the land, were to rebound on the dear old Church of England.
It would be most unfair. Nobody who has studied the matter can seriously sup- pose that the Hands Across Britain demon- stration, planned by various clergymen for three weeks ago and still to take place, was secretly a plan to bring Aids to previously unaffected regions, like the village of Combe Florey, in the rural deanery of Taunton Vale. Apart from anything else, it is well known (and the Princess of Wales has demonstrated) that you cannot catch Aids by shaking hands. If so, it is most unlikely that you can catch it by clasping hands across Britain, especially if you wear condoms on all your fingers. But so long as `How about seasonally adjusting the Church of England exerts itself to secure a Labour victory, the suspicion will remain that something is up.
The Bishops' main attack is a curious one, having nothing to do with the joys of homosexuality or any of the normal reasons for voting Labour. As the Bishop of Liverpool (or Bishop David, as I feel we should more properly call him) put it, the problem is that after eight years of Con- servative government there are no longer enough poor people around to secure a socialist victory. The poor can no longer help themselves to whatever they want simply by voting for it, because they are in a minority. Society has changed from being a pyramid with masses of poor at the bottom to a diamond shape, with a wide, reasonably affluent middle.
In order to change this disgraceful state of affairs, says Bishop David (with two other Bishops David, Bishop Thomas, Bishop James, Bishop Stanley, Bishop Ronald and a Bishop Keith) we should overlook our own political beliefs — and our own best interests — and cast our votes for the poor, i.e. vote Labour. In no time at all, we will have the old pyramid shape back again.
All of which provides food for serious thought. Appalled by the volume of printed material and the hours of television time already devoted to this election, I hope not to have to write too much about it myself. Instead I will meditate for three weeks on the inner cities and on the outer cities, on the suburbs, the small country towns and smaller outlying villages. If I have time I will even meditate on people living in deserted farms and crofters' cot- tages. Then I will vote for Mrs Thatcher, like everyone else.
But I hope that the Church of England is not seriously damaged by association with the next great Aids scare. It really should be more careful. There are certain things one cannot afford to be controversial about, and Aids is up there in the front, along with heroin addiction and child abuse. If the Board of Social Responsibil- ity knows its onions, it will urge the provision of condom dispensers in every church toilet and coffee room. It might even institute Condom Dedication services to be held before the start of a meaningful relationship. This is not the time for the Church of England to adopt another pic- turesque lost cause.
Previous page
