The N H S Chaplaincy again

[Rhiannon]

This sort of cock-up is an inevitable consequence of having two systems running side-by-side simultaneously. As a private individual the man is perfectly legally entitled to marry his same-sex partner in a civil wedding from which all religious references are excluded. His occupation, or rather his employer, says that he can't.

But in this case the employer is the NHS. The CofE gives him a license but did not employ him.

[Shaker]

But in this case the employer is the NHS. The CofE gives him a license but did not employ him.

OK, fair enough - I wasn't actually clear on that.

[Rhiannon]

OK, fair enough - I wasn't actually clear on that.

This is where it bothers me - the CofE shouldn't have the right to force the NHS to discriminate.

And even if his own bishop wanted to grant him a license, he can't. All priests and bishops swear to obey the bishop above them and the chain goes up to Welby. Which brings us round to the lack of justice and freedom of belief within the CofE, especially for its clergy.

The evangelical wing tried to introduce laws preventing clergy from committing heresy, oh, must be about fifteen years ago now.

[ippy]

Dear Leonard,

Undo millions of years of evolution ( even monkeys are religious ) good luck with that one.

Gonnagle.

One minute you haven't got a clue about how evolution works and it now looks like the next minute you're telling us about some form of religious evlutionary developments we have shared with monkeys for millions of years; well that's a new one Gonners, tell me more about that, it should be interesting.

ippy

[Brownie]

There's already been a case where the CofE revoked the license of a gay priest who worked as an NHS-funded chaplain because he married his partner. Without a license he couldn't do the job.

It's not the priests who discriminate, but the CofE.

I've met many NHS chaplains and knew two of them quite well.  They were all gay*.  Very kind people who really cared about patients, and staff.   I am really surprised that the CofE revoked the licence of the priest you mentioned, they could have turned a blind eye surely?  There are so many gay vicars, in long term partnerships too that everyone knows about.  The Church presumably wouldn't have taken his licence away had he had a civil partnership.

*Never thought about it before but known a couple of gay prison chaplains.  Is there something about chaplaincies that attract gay people?

[Sassy]

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/feb/22/spirit-of-healthcare-the-nhs-chaplains-religion

I've no objection to any religious person being a hospital chaplain, I just think whatever religion supplies the chaplain should be the ones financing their chaplain, it's not the taxpayers place to be involved with any religious practices including the newly placed humanist, at present financed by the N H S.

ippy

The cost is not just the chaplains it is the upkeep of the small chapels in the hospitals. When my sister, parents and other family members died, I felt it a comfort to be able to go to the chapel and sit and pray for a while whilst everything going on around us. The chapel could be used by anyone even just as a place to sit and collect your thoughts and feelings.
I do not begrudge people being able to take communion on their sick bed or have the comfort of talking to someone. The elderly especially those living alone and isolated found company when the chaplains visited them.
One of our vicars was such a chaplain and he was brilliant in that you knew he really cared for those people he visited and prayed for them. It wasn't just a job to him. It isn't a easy job either. So fair do's to them and God bless them for all their hard work and care they give...

[Rhiannon]

I've met many NHS chaplains and knew two of them quite well.  They were all gay*.  Very kind people who really cared about patients, and staff.   I am really surprised that the CofE revoked the licence of the priest you mentioned, they could have turned a blind eye surely?  There are so many gay vicars, in long term partnerships too that everyone knows about.  The Church presumably wouldn't have taken his licence away had he had a civil partnership.

*Never thought about it before but known a couple of gay prison chaplains.  Is there something about chaplaincies that attract gay people?

Clergy cannot be sexually active with or married to a partner of the same sex. Hence the loss of license.

As for chaplaincy work, it does appeal to those for whom parish work isn't suitable. I think it entirely likely that a gay priest who has a partner would find more security and less judgement and hassle if he or she undertook chaplaincy work rather than a parish.

[ippy]

The cost is not just the chaplains it is the upkeep of the small chapels in the hospitals. When my sister, parents and other family members died, I felt it a comfort to be able to go to the chapel and sit and pray for a while whilst everything going on around us. The chapel could be used by anyone even just as a place to sit and collect your thoughts and feelings.
I do not begrudge people being able to take communion on their sick bed or have the comfort of talking to someone. The elderly especially those living alone and isolated found company when the chaplains visited them.
One of our vicars was such a chaplain and he was brilliant in that you knew he really cared for  those people he visited and prayed for them. It wasn't just a job to him. It isn't a easy job either. So fair do's to them and God bless them for all their hard work and care they give...

I'm sure that a lot of people gain a lot of comfort from the chaplaincy service, please note I wouldn't want to see this service curtailed in any way, there must be areas in hospitals where people can go for a bit of peace and quite, you can call it a chappel, a left handed swivel shop or whatever you would like to call this room, I just think whatever belief it is that supplies the chaplincy service should be the ones paying for the chaplains or any special room they require, say one of these groups was a belief in fairies belief group why should the state have anything to do with paying these people to go through whatever belief in fairies groups go through with those in hospital or payment for rooms or the upkeep of whatever room they use?

And ditto any other form of chaplaincy service whatever the belief happens to be the only other thing is I think that it's the principle for the beliefs finance their own chaplains is more importent than how much it costs per chaplain whether it's a large or small amount.
ippy

[Sassy]

This is where it bothers me - the CofE shouldn't have the right to force the NHS to discriminate.

It didn't. The CofE was clear that they allowed them to enter into civil partnership but not marriage.
The person in this case knew he had done what was not allowed. He therefore broke the terms of contract for his licence.
That said, the action was taken as it would be for any vicar breaking any of the rules for a licence...the licence was suspended.,

And even if his own bishop wanted to grant him a license, he can't. All priests and bishops swear to obey the bishop above them and the chain goes up to Welby. Which brings us round to the lack of justice and freedom of belief within the CofE, especially for its clergy.

His Bishop will not go against the rules he stands to uphold. It isn't about freedom of belief because the tenets of faith are clear.
It is about entering into an agreement where the agreement rules are defined in law. If you break those rules for whatever reason then you lose your licence. Nothing to do with freedom of belief because all clergy enter the agreement knowing the facts. He knew he could have a civil partnership but he could not marry.
He therefore broke his contract and therefore lost his license.

The evangelical wing tried to introduce laws preventing clergy from committing heresy, oh, must be about fifteen years ago now.

It really has nothing to do with the guy breaking the contract himself by doing what is contrary to his agreement.

[ProfessorDavey]

It didn't. The CofE was clear that they allowed them to enter into civil partnership but not marriage.
The person in this case knew he had done what was not allowed. He therefore broke the terms of contract for his licence.
That said, the action was taken as it would be for any vicar breaking any of the rules for a licence...the licence was suspended.,

But the chaplain is employed by the NHS, not by the CofE.

[Bubbles]

But the chaplain is employed by the NHS, not by the CofE.

I can only think if he lost his job with the nhs, it was because he no longer held a license to act as a religious chaplin.

He won't have lost it because of his sexuality or because he married someone of the same sex.


If you lose your driving license and driving is your job, discrimination doesn't come into it.


The c of  e took away his license, which may have had an impact on his job.

If it was a requirement for the nhs chaplaincy, then it wasn't the nhs who discriminated.

The nhs would have just been following procedure.

It's not fair, but unfortunately life is like that.

[Rhiannon]

So losing your driving license due to drink driving or dangerous driving is the moral equivalent of losing a license to work as a chaplain due to marrying one's partner?

There are laws in this country to ensure fairness and equality in the workplace. The CofE is allowed to piss all over them, not only within its own organisation but within the NHS also.

[ProfessorDavey]

So losing your driving license due to drink driving or dangerous driving is the moral equivalent of losing a license to work as a chaplain due to marrying one's partner?

There are laws in this country to ensure fairness and equality in the workplace. The CofE is allowed to piss all over them, not only within its own organisation but within the NHS also.

And this hits at the heart of the issue - hospital chaplains are effectively religious positions within a secular organisation (and in this case paid for and employed by that secular organisation) - they aren't secular roles. So you could have a fantastic and qualified counsellor who is also a priest and in the post of chaplain - yet he will lose his job if another organisation (CofE) who doesn't pay him nor employs him decides he should lose his licence for doing something that is entirely legal (getting married) and indeed the NHS would normally be required to consider with out discrimination (marital status and sexuality). Yet no doubt he would remain perfectly able to provide excellent psychological and spiritual support in that role.

In a secular organisation (the NHS) those employed should be fulfilling a secular role, as there is no justification for the NHS providing religious services. The NHS should be providing clinical services on the basis of patient need not patient religion. If there is a need for patients to receive religious support in a hospital (which is of course the case for some, but by no means all patients) then that responsibility for both providing and paying for the chaplains must rest with those religious organisations. And indeed this is the situation in many cases - someone will correct me if I am wrong but I believe that religious support for RCC patients is provided by and paid for by the catholic church, and not the NHS - that is as it should be.

[Brownie]

I googled and found this:  https://www.healthcareers.nhs.uk/explore-roles/corporate-services/chaplain

It seems that the Catholic chaplains receive a salary from the NHS, not just the CofE.

Prison chaplains of all shades receive a salary.

It seems to be that the CofE adhered to the letter of the law, rather than the spirit, by revoking the chaplain's licence because of his marriage.  It is quite hypocritical - although strictly speaking it is within the rules of the CofE, not illegal - when so many are in same sex relationships.

[ProfessorDavey]

I googled and found this:  https://www.healthcareers.nhs.uk/explore-roles/corporate-services/chaplain

It seems that the Catholic chaplains receive a salary from the NHS, not just the CofE.

Prison chaplains of all shades receive a salary.

It seems to be that the CofE adhered to the letter of the law, rather than the spirit, by revoking the chaplain's licence because of his marriage.  It is quite hypocritical - although strictly speaking it is within the rules of the CofE, not illegal - when so many are in same sex relationships.

I stand corrected

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And this hits at the heart of the issue - hospital chaplains are effectively religious positions within a secular organisation (and in this case paid for and employed by that secular organisation) - they aren't secular roles. So you could have a fantastic and qualified counsellor who is also a priest and in the post of chaplain - yet he will lose his job if another organisation (CofE) who doesn't pay him nor employs him decides he should lose his licence for doing something that is entirely legal (getting married) and indeed the NHS would normally be required to consider with out discrimination (marital status and sexuality). Yet no doubt he would remain perfectly able to provide excellent psychological and spiritual support in that role.

In a secular organisation (the NHS) those employed should be fulfilling a secular role, as there is no justification for the NHS providing religious services. The NHS should be providing clinical services on the basis of patient need not patient religion. If there is a need for patients to receive religious support in a hospital (which is of course the case for some, but by no means all patients) then that responsibility for both providing and paying for the chaplains must rest with those religious organisations. And indeed this is the situation in many cases - someone will correct me if I am wrong but I believe that religious support for RCC patients is provided by and paid for by the catholic church, and not the NHS - that is as it should be.

But there is no role for a secular chaplain.
They should provide scientists to remind people that they or their relatives are in the process of becoming wormfood/starstuff (delete as applicable) and to walk about the wards with an app on their phones which plays ''always look on the bright side of life''.

[Shaker]

But there is no role for a secular chaplain.

Yet humanist chaplains exist. What is it that you think (I use the word loosely, out of necessity) they do?

[ProfessorDavey]

But there is no role for a secular chaplain.

Perhaps if you see a chaplain as having a specifically religious role.

But there is certainly a role for the highest quality pastoral and psychological support for people in hospital that is available to all equally regardless of their religion or lack thereof. Don't forget that the non actively religious majority also need care and support that isn't just standard clinical/physical care to support them through illness and hospitalisation. That group of people is poorly supported in the current system, as many are deeply suspicious of the motives of a religious chaplain and will therefore chose not to ask for their support and are therefore left without appropriate support as there is a lack of a secular alternative who is able to cater for all.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yet humanist chaplains exist. What is it that you think (I use the word loosely, out of necessity) they do?

Wheel people onto the veranda to catch a final reassuring glimpse of the Atheist Bus.

[Shaker]

Wheel people onto the veranda to catch a final reassuring glimpse of the Atheist Bus.

Ah. Incapable of genuine discussion, then. Quelle surprise.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Ah. Incapable of genuine discussion, then. Quelle surprise.

I have no problems with Humanist chaplains

[Shaker]

I have no problems with Humanist chaplains

Apart from them having (in your view) no role.

[Sassy]

But the chaplain is employed by the NHS, not by the CofE.

But the chaplain cannot work without the license from the CofE and would have known in his contract with the NHS he had to have the license.

[Brownie]

I found this:
http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/archives/006986.html

[Hope]

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/feb/22/spirit-of-healthcare-the-nhs-chaplains-religion

I've no objection to any religious person being a hospital chaplain, I just think whatever religion supplies the chaplain should be the ones financing their chaplain, it's not the taxpayers place to be involved with any religious practices including the newly placed humanist, at present financed by the N H S.

ippy

I've always understood that the NHS has a responsibility for the physical, mental and spiritual well-being of its 'clients'.  Why, if that is the case, should one of those elements not be paid for by the tax-payer?  After all, religious and other organisations across the county provide services that the state is meant to be providing but can't or won't - for whatever reason.