Some social analysis – a view from the naughty step

THIS PAST year has seen controversy in relation to my entering a legal union with my male partner of twenty years. This was a relationship about which there was no secret nor any lack of transparency regarding my identity as a gay man. In this context I was appointed to a range of full-time and part-time lecturing positions in the Church of Ireland [six in all] after which I was nominated and installed as Dean of Leighlin and Director of Adult Education in the Cashel and Ossory diocese. In spite of the transparency regarding my relationship, the registering of our Civil Partnership became the focus of controversy. Much of the reaction has had a highly personal focus, both negative and positive. There has certainly been a robust and public expression of views not least in the convening of the Cavan conference on Human Sexuality. This article is a contribution to the discussion. As I am the one who appears to have been the “cause” of the controversy, it is a thus a view from the Naughty Step.

Two diverging cultural identities One of the most palpable tensions around the present debate is that of a perceived North / South divide. The Archbishop of Armagh alluded to this in a BBC Radio Ulster interview in September 2011, an interview which was widely taken-up by the press.. The Archbishop commented that the reaction in the North had been “relatively strong” whilst the response in the Republic, “has been much more relaxed – it’s not been a major issue”. The Archbishop’s comments were in the context of a perceived attitudinal fault-line between North and South. Certainly, this has been a growing feeling within the Church of Ireland in recent years. By way of illustration, an article on the Reform Ireland website [now removed] presented a map of the island of Ireland purporting to illustrate a North / South distinction in matters of sexual ethics. The Northern theological culture was mapped in vibrant blue which then morphed into vivid pink for the South. In general terms these perceived distinctions might be defined by the dual borders of political jurisdiction and the ecclesiastical provinces of Armagh and Dublin. Certainly, the distinctions are manifested in the differing reactions to the current Civil Partnership controversy. In my own diocese, and generally in Southerly dioceses, the matter is hardly an issue. However, as has been seen, the reaction in the Northern dioceses has been very different. Against these tensions, it has been interesting to observe the more recent tendency to play them down. From the perspective of seven months distance, the Archbishop of Armagh provided a more unifying analysis at the Cavan press conference. He proffered that, “There is more diversity within the two jurisdictions than is thought”, and that the Church of Ireland is characterised by an, “instinct for unity”[1] These sentiments are also reflected in correspondence in the Church of Ireland Gazette[2] and were articulated in the 2012 Synod debate,warning against simplistic assumptions in the matter of North / South difference. Whilst such caution is wise, the differences between North and South could in fact hardly be more pronounced. The recent survey by the Northern Ireland Equality Commission[3] reveals an increased hardening of attitudes towards lesbian, gay and transgendered people in the North. Indeed, the indices of prejudice across a range of minority groups [including disabled people] showed a significantly upward trend [We need to know about the sample here] For example, in 2012 27% of respondents indicated they would mind having a gay or bisexual person living next to them, up from 14% in 2005. Similarly, 42% of respondents stated that they would be unhappy having such a person becoming an in-law, a rise of 13%. Gay, bisexual and transgendered persons were second only to Travellers in the negative perceptions afforded to them. Such attitudes are at odds with those in the Republic as illustrated in a range of attitudinal surveys. On the matter of the legal recognition of same-sex partnerships, for example, only 23% supported civil partnership laws in Northern Ireland[4] in 2008. In the same year, however, a widely-publicised[5] survey of the Republic commissioned by MarriagEquality (Lansdowne Market Research) recorded an 84% support for some form of same-sex partnership legislation. More recent findings such as that of the RED C poll conducted in January 2012 for the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform[6] now indicate that the Republic has arrived at a 73% level of support for the formal recognition of same-sex marriage in the Constitution. Other trends are equally important. The attitudinal changes in the Republic not only signal the full inclusion of gay people but also identify a movement away from traditionalist sexual ethics. In this regard, a survey conducted by the Association of Catholic Priests[7] in February 2012 reveals that 75% of people regard church teaching on sexuality as having no relevance to their lives. Furthermore, more than six out of ten people disagree with traditional teaching on homosexual sex. This is contrasted with ethical perspectives within Irish Protestantism. Protestants, particularly in the North, are consistently found to be less tolerant towards gay people than their catholic counterparts.[8] The various surveys in both jurisdictions highlight the dramatically divergent contexts in which the Church of Ireland now exists. Cavan and the General Synod Initially, the bishops’ decision to set-up the Cavan conference would seem to have recognised this complexity. Whilst the conference contained many frustrations, it was nonetheless a signal event in terms of mature reflection across the church’s spectrum of opinion. Certainly, the feedback from the majority of participants was highly positive. It was therefore puzzling that such an encouraging beginning was so soon to give way to a highly divisive episcopal resolution at General Synod. Not only did this expose a lack of consensus among the bishops themselves, but it palpably reframed the debate in terms of winners and losers. It also revealed what the implementation of such a resolution might look like. Harking back to the Cavan conference, a prominent Belfast rector gave a presentation on the pastoral care of gay people in church from a conservative perspective. Of key importance was the imperative of eucharistic discipline whereby he advised that partnered gay people should be refused communion. Not surprisingly, given the attitudinal distinctions outlined above, a number of participants, mostly from the Republic, walked out. This indicates the strongly-held and conflicting opinions between traditionalists and those committed to a visibly inclusive church. The scenario has troubling implications for the church in the widely differing contexts of North and South. In all of these factors, the insights of social analysts on how the Church of Ireland absorbs and reflects societal prejudices would seem to be of crucial importance. Indeed such insights offer an interpretive key for an understanding of the Church’s response to situations of conflict. For Irish Christians, this is particularly true where the challenge of difference and otherness is a troubled one. In this respect, one wonders to what extent the Church of Ireland has taken to heart recent critiques of the churches’ role in the “Troubles”.[9] If we disregard such insights, the Church of Ireland may have few resources to bring to the present controversy. Such resources are especially needful in terms of self-awareness, understanding conflict and the treatment of minorities and/ or those who represent difference within its own theological community. Certainly, the narrative of sectarian collusion and the treatment of gay people have many recognisable themes in common. What sort of leadership response? As indicated above, it is clear that understandings of sexuality are both changing and conflicted within the Irish context. Such diverse understandings bring with them particular leadership challenges for the Church. In the present controversy, the issue of clerical leadership has been a major focus. My appointment as Dean of Leighlin has been presented by some as a liberal conspiracy cooked-up between myself and the Bishop, and perhaps encouraged by the Archbishop of Armagh’s perceived inaction. This is in spite of the fact that the appointment was the result of the usual canonical process of parochial and diocesan consultation, lay and clerical, and in full knowledge of my identity as a partnered gay man. In reaction, there have been outraged calls that the diocesan bishop should be disciplined - or resign. There is too a generalised suspicion that the willingness of certain other bishops to sign up to the Synod Resolution does not actually tally with their position “off record”. Clergy, it would seem, are of primary importance in either misleading the church or keeping it on a clear path of orthodoxy.[10] This focus on clergy and church hierarchy is doubtless to be expected in conflicted church debates. It would seem, however, that little is to be gained from it in developing effective leadership, even for those whose orthodoxy it is intended to serve. Professor Robin Gill points out[11] that clergy and their hierarchies invariably follow behind congregations in matters of changing sexual attitudes. This is true whether in relation to divorce, sex before marriage or co-habitation. He also notes that, in turn, congregations similarly follow behind non- or irregular churchgoers in these matters. [This process relates to some of the earlier assertions made in this article about the impact of wider societal change on faith communities]. By way of illustration, Gill tracks the progress of firm and traditionalist leadership in respect of one aspect of sexual ethics in the Roman Catholic church, that of contraception. Noting various surveys, he draws attention to the fact that before the publication of Humanae Vitae [1964] only 32% of catholics supported the use of contraceptives. [59% actively disapproved.] This was in contrast to a general societal support of between 79% and 81%. By 1995 however – and despite a strongly traditionalist line which has been vigorously maintained - 72% of Roman Catholic young people disagreed with the proposition that contraception is wrong. Quoting from earlier work, and with perhaps some relevance to the current controversy in the Church of Ireland, Professor Gill notes the following:[12] Almost alone in any major Christian denomination, this hierarchy has decided to take a stand against prevailing mores and uphold a traditional sexual standard. It may even have done this despite the alienation of many of its own sexually active churchgoers. Yet the evidence suggests that this stand has not substantially altered either the practice of Catholic laity or even the attitudes of young Catholics. Robin Gill’s work also alludes to another important consideration, namely the clear generational differences in matters of sexual ethics. In this respect, Gill’s work resonates with the survey by the Association of Catholic Priests referred to above.[13] Identified as being important are issues of poverty, inequality, social exclusion and the environment; not sexuality. From such findings, it would seem that a myopic focus on sex, clergy and clerical hierarchy in the maintenance of orthodoxy is a singularly unprofitable response in the church’s engagement with society. In reflecting on this lack of homogeneity between differing age groups and between clergy and laity, one other aspect has relevance for leadership in the current debate. That is the changing dynamics within some strands of religious conservatism itself. The USA’s federally-funded General Social Survey[14] has monitored the American public's views toward gay relationships over many years. Not only does it chart how attitudes have changed but it also indicates shifts within faith perspectives themselves. In 1988 for example, two-thirds of white Americans disapproved of homosexual relationships. This included 85% disapproval from those who identified as born-again Christians. By 2010 however, both groups showed greater acceptance. Whilst born-again Christians still opposed homosexuality, their replies mirrored those of the wider population in the 1980s. In 2010, only two-thirds of evangelicals disapproved of homosexuality compared to 30% of others.The survey predictably revealed the same generational split amongst evangelicals - 44% of younger evangelicals strongly oppose same-sex marriage against 63% of older ones. Interesting too is the fact that 17% of younger evangelicals present as inconclusive, compared to only 7% of older evangelicals. Assuming these shifts will inevitably play out in an Irish context, it is difficult to imagine how the present situation post-Synod can productively advance. On the one hand, those desirous of a bold restatement of traditional sexual mores have definitively achieved it. Presumably too, Resolution 8a will be followed by measures to encourage its implementation. However, what the bishops’ resolution has done is to set the Church of Ireland on a trajectory which the Roman church has already travelled. That Church’s reaffirmation of traditional sexual ethics and its intolerance of dissent, has arguably been one of the most significant factors in undermining its authority in public life. In this respect, the corrosive use of obscurantist language has undoubtedly played its part. Likewise therefore, the use of the term “normative” has a strikingly similar ring to that of the cryptic language of Roman Catholic moral theology. Indeed synod attendees had to be given a linguistic commentary on its intended meaning. The Church of Ireland’s restatement of traditional sexual ethics may bring with it a certain “feel-good” factor for a largely middle-aged church. But as has been demonstrated, wider society – and in particular the younger generation - receives such statements as irrelevant, discriminatory or plain homophobic. In leadership terms, then Synod 2012 is likely to create more problems than it solves for the Church of Ireland’s continuing mission in society, especially in the Republic. The Dynamics of Prejudice A striking aspect of the Civil Partnership controversy is the lack of any attention to theories of prejudice. In an Irish context this would seem to be a dangerous omission given that our experience of religion has carried with it often destructive agendas of identity and belonging. It is a particularly curious omission given the much-vaunted Hard Gospel project. Yet understanding theories of prejudice is vital. Howard Ehrlich[15] helpfully defines prejudice as an unfavourable attitude towards those perceived to be outside a group norm [outgroup]. Such judgements are seldom based on empirical data but on negative stereotypes. At an individual level, attention is drawn to the relationship between prejudice and authoritarian personality types.[16] It can also be seen that an implicit corollary of prejudice is the need for scapegoats. In other words, the authoritarian self-image of clarity and decisiveness are notionally maintained by the condemnation or driving-out of that which does not conform. Translated into the wider social context, the majority [the ingroup] acts prejudicially because of perceived threats from the outgroup. Crucially, this does not derive from actual threats or personalities but from constructed perceptions and stereotypes. In practical terms, this process of stereotyping requires the depersonalisation and distancing of the individual or outgroup. Certainly, this was one of the most prominent aspects of my own experience over the past year. One was quickly divested of flesh and blood existence, of deep and long-standing relational connections, or of simply being known as a familiar friend or colleague. By way of example, I was described in the diocesan magazine – in the full knowledge of a long ministerial involvement with my home parish in Tuam diocese - as follows:[17] ...one senior Church of Ireland clergyman has himself entered into a civil partnership. This took place within our own diocese, although the priest involved is not one of our own diocesan clergy. Such an example indicates how deep personal and human connectedness can come to be publicly re-scripted towards depersonalisation. In these processes of depersonalisation, there is then scope fr the in-filling of stereotypes. These range from assertions that homosexual orientation is a wilful “life-style choice”[18] to the recent comments of former Ulster Unionist politician, Lord Maginnis, that gay relationships were a ‘rung on the ladder towards bestiality’.[19] Such utterances prominently identify gay persons as morally disordered and undermining of the common good. This is particularly so in relation to such things as the institution of marriage and public morals. There is also the frequent unwarranted association between gay identity and criminality, including paedophilia. Such views are strongly suggestive of the kind of prejudicial behaviour identified by Adorno et al.[20] Specifically, these behaviours demand conformity to traditional [middle-class] values and a need for strong moral authority figures within the ingroup. There is also a tendency to reject, condemn and censure those who violate these conventional values and a corresponding disposition to think in rigid categories. Strength and toughness are prized as well as the belief that dangerous things are happening which threaten the well-being of the ingroup. Of particular interest is an exaggerated concern over sex, especially what the ingroup understands as sexual impropriety. These insights on the dynamics of prejudice bring to light dangerous themes. More alarming however are the tangible consequences. Alport’s[21] analysis of prejudice identifies a number of ingroup behaviours. These include the social avoidance of a particular outgroup and the public verbalisation of hostile opinions toward, and negative portrayals of, that outgroup. More seriously, the ingroup will act in intentionally destructive ways which include discrimination, physical assault and extermination. In the Irish context such analyses are far from hypothetical. The continuing reality of discrimination is evidenced in such things as exemptions to the Employment Equality Act [Republic]. In the North various studies[22] identify the harassment and violence experienced by gay people. And so from the defining of homosexual orientation as a “disease”[23] to the horrific murder of the Revd David Templeton in 1997, the social context of the Church of Ireland embraces the full spectrum and its worst extremes. The silence of he Church What is notable about the Church of Ireland’s response to verbal and physical violence towards gay people is its silence. In examining the Church of Ireland press releases of 1997, no official comment from the Church’s leadership was made regarding the murder of David Templeton. Nor has there been comment by any bishop on the more recent inflammatory remarks of political figures mentioned in this article. In the Civil Partnership controversy of the past year, much has been made of the mantra that gay people are welcome in the Church of Ireland with the equal dignity afforded to all human persons. In reality however, little of this concern is born out in practice. Indeed, it would be difficult to imagine such silence if similar comments were made about black people, Travellers or immigrants. An engagement with the dynamics of prejudice is a key to self-understanding. Without such understanding other Christian imperatives lack content and appear as nothing more than the formulaic platitudes of church people. Without such engagement, the core Christian imperatives of repentance, reconciliation and the inner integrity of the Church’s witness are not possible. Given the present debate, it can only be suggested that there are lessons on prejudice which have yet to be learned. In conclusion, the issue of human sexuality has touched the rawest of nerves in the Church of Ireland. Indeed, it would seem that neither the sectarian conflict of the “Troubles” nor the present economic crisis facing Irish society has hitherto stirred the Church of Ireland to such impassioned debate. Such passions reveal the church’s pre-occupying concerns and its foremost priorities for its mission in the 21^st century. It remains to be seen whether these priorities and concerns can frame a vision which society at large finds worth exploring. NOTES:

Church of Ireland Gazette. March 16, 2012 page 1
‘Letters’. September 23, 2011
NIEC [2012]: Do You Mean Me? http://www.equalityni.org/archive/pdf/DYMMSurveyMainReport(webB).pdf]
Northern Ireland Life and Times survey. as reported in the ARK Northern Ireland Research Update [No 66, March 2010. http://www.ark.ac.uk/publications/updates/update66.pdf]

Belfast Telegraph, March 31, 2008.

[http://per.gov.ie/wp-content/uploads/OIReferendum-Report-Final-2003-corrected.pdf]
Association of Catholic Priests [2012]: Contemporary Catholic Perspectives. http://cdn.thejournal.ie/media/2012/04/Contemporary-Catholic-Perspectives.pdf
Equality Commission Report [2012] above
Religion, Civil Society and Peace in Northern Ireland (Oxford University Press 2011. John Brewer, Gareth Higgins and Francis Teeney].
With Friends Like These... [http://reform-ireland.org/blog/?p=32]
Quoted in Gill, R. [2002], Changing Worlds. Cambridge: Edinburgh: T&T Clark [p57]
Gill, R. [1999], Churchgoing and Christian Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press [p161]
Association of Catholic Priests [2012]: Contemporary Catholic Perspectives. http://cdn.thejournal.ie/media/2012/04/Contemporary-Catholic-Perspectives.pdf [p34]
Published in Christianity Today article Bailey, Tobin & Grant, Sarah PulliamHow Evangelicals Have Shifted in Public Opinion on Same-Sex Marriage General Social Surveyhttp://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2012/mayweb-only/evangelicals-shift-same-sex-marriage.html?start=1
Ehrlich, Howard J. 1973 The Social Psychology of Prejudice. New York: Wiley [p 3-8]
Forbes, Hugh D. 1986 Nationalism, Ethnocentrism, and Personality: Social Science and Critical Theory.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.[p 152]
Tidings - The Tuam Diocesan Magazine. Jan/Feb 2012.

EFIC article Neville Hughes

Ken Maginis

Adorno, T. W., E. Frankel-Brunswik, D. J. Levinson, and R. N. Sanford: 1950 The Authoritarian Personality. New York: Harper. [p 228]
Allport, Gordon 1954 The Nature of Prejudice. Boston: Beacon. [p 15]
Neil Jarman and Alex Tennant [2003]: An Acceptable Prejudice? Homophobic Violence and Harassment in Northern Ireland. Belfast. Institute for Conflict Studies
23. Belfast News Letter. August 18, 2012.

* Full article available in printed copies.

Tom Gordon

is Dean of Leighlin and director of Adult Education and Continuing Ministry Education for the diocese of Cashel and Ossory.