1. Yes, this is definitely for real. And Bishop Stephen has always claimed to be an inclusive priest and even openly supported Jeffrey John’s nomination to the post he now holds himself. I have a sneaking suspicion this is down to the personal agenda of someone in his diocesan office. At least, I really hope it is.

  2. The thing is, it’s just not true – a specific sexual orientation being a genuine occupational requirement, that is. The Archbishop’s chaplain for part of the time I lived in Cape Town was clearly gay and eveyone knew it. I’m sure there are plenty of other precedents. I don’t see how this bishop guy can possibly get away with pulling such a stunt.

    This could backfire on him, big time.

  3. Himself, is of course probably correct in his interpretation but without seeing the additional paperwork, we cannot tell. It could be that the bishop is excluding heterosexuals from applying. In which case my former question remains.

  4. A post appears to have disappeared.

    My missing question, answers on a postcard please, is what function of the role or element of the job description requires a specific sexuality. What could a homosexual appointment do for the bishop that a heterosexual one couldn’t, or vice versa?

    In order to uce a GOR under the regulations this is what must be proven as ‘determining’.

  5. I understand Bishop Alec’s chaplain was extremely well skilled in picking up his boss’s sermon notes when he accidentally knocked them off the pulpit – a regular occurrence I believe. However, I’m sure he could have trained his dog to do it at no expense to the laity.

    I believe a current chaplain, not very far away from us, is quite good at taking minutes at the “senior” staff meetings. As the only woman at the meetings, she is, of course, the obvious choice for the job.