Let's not talk about sex, baby

Being prudish about gay sex can have consequences. The Victorians were only interested in male homosexual 'indecency', so lesbianism was never illegal. More recently UK MPs could not bring themselves to define adultery in the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act, which means consummation is not necessary and 'it-whatever-it-is' is not grounds for divorce in a same-sex marriage.

Revd Canon Neil Patterson suggests that some in General Synod may have inadvertently made the mistake of taking the same approach. Read more - in his blog - "What is Anglican Sex Anyway?".

In July 2025, Synod voted to remove the requirement for ordinands to order their lives according to the 1991 report, 'Issues of Human Sexuality'. While this decision was celebrated by both conservatives and progressives alike, Patterson proposes that it may have had unintended consequences for some. He writes, "It is just possible that one or two of those who voted for it did not appreciate the full significance of the change." That this concern was raised by Anglican Futures at the time, but dismissed by many involved, suggests he may be right.

So what is the problem?

Understanding the pickle that the Church of England has got itself into involves four key documents:

1) Issues of Human Sexuality (Issues) - a report of the House of Bishops, published in 1991, which until July 2025 was used as a standard for clergy behaviour. It said that clergy were not a liberty to enter into "active homophile relationships"

2) Marriage - a Teaching Document (M-TD) - a teaching document of the House of Bishops from 1999, which includes the key sentence: “Sexual intercourse, as an expression of faithful intimacy, properly belongs within marriage exclusively,”

3) House of Bishops Pastoral Guidance on Same-Sex Marriage (HoB -SSM) - guidance offered by the House of Bishops in 2014, which says that though clergy can enter into civil partnerships, "Getting married to someone of the same sex would, however, clearly be at variance with the teaching of the Church of England."

4) 'Guidelines for Professional Conduct' for Clergy (2015 GPCC) - the current guidelines which describe "what is desirable" in the conduct of ordained ministers. It was agreed by an Act of Convocation in 2015 and is currently in force.

5) Draft Guidelines for Professional Conduct for Clergy (Draft GPCC) - the first draft of an updated version of the GPCC, which can be amended and will eventually have to be approved by a majority of the House of Clergy and House of Bishops.

In July, the conservatives ensured that 'Issues' was replaced with the need to adhere to the 2015 GPCC. As the bishops explained, this did not alter the "the Church’s doctrine or canonical requirements", but it was necessary because "the tone, language, and some of the assumptions [used in Issues] are now considered inappropriate and offensive to many people."

Patterson hypothesises that conservatives were so pleased that the 2015 GPCC quoted the M-TD view, "Sexual intercourse, as an expression of faithful intimacy, properly belongs within marriage exclusively,” that they forgot that 'sexual intercourse' is defined in purely heterosexual terms. He thus infers that unlike Issues, (which remember was clear that clergy could not enter into "active homophile relationships"), the 2015 GPCC is silent with regards to sexual intimacy within homosexual relationships. While accepting that this does not allow clergy to enter into same-sex civil marriages, he believes it is still, "of significance to all ordinands and clergy in same-sex relationships."

All this is relevant because even though the bishops hope to bring the Living in Love and Faith process to an end next week, the reality is the next set of battle lines will be drawn before Synod even has a chance to meet - and the Draft GPCC will be at the heart of it.

On Monday, the clergy of the Church of England will meet in 'Convocation' - this means the clergy, including bishops, of each Province will meet separately and without any lay representatives. Both Convocations (Canterbury and York) will discuss three items that could impact on future debates about human sexuality.

The first, and the reason that the Revd Canon raises the question of 'sexual intercourse' at this time, is that the 2015 GPCC is under review and the Draft GPCC is up for discussion on Monday. In Patterson's view this new document will need to be amended primarily because the new Guidance, "enshrines the House of Bishops' guidance on same-sex marriage," (HOB-SSM, which might close the loophole he identified above.

Patterson proposes that the Bishops may want to revisit the HOB-SSM, because it relies heavily on the language used in "Issues " which they have said is "inappropriate and offensive." He is also confident "that the clergy in Convocation will be able to make their voices heard on these matters, and it seems unlikely that with the present balance of the House of Clergy the draft Guidelines will be endorsed unamended."

But this is not the only dilemma raised by the new draft GPCC.

In the past, it was accepted that clergy could enter into civil partnerships on the basis that such relationships were not necessarily sexually active, and that assurances were given that clergy were ordering their lives according to "Issues in Human Sexuality." Now 'Issues' has been 'binned' and there is no clear prohibition against clergy entering 'active homophile relationships' the draft GPCC seems to be dancing around the issue of gay sex in a way that could be seen as unhelpful to both progressives and conservatives.

For example, paragraph 7.2 states:

7.2. The clergy should set an example of integrity in personal relationships, and faithfulness in marriage and civil partnership.

Conservatives may wish to raise the question of what "faithfulness" means when applied both to marriage and a supposedly celibate civil partnership, particularly in the light of paragraph 7.7:

"7.7. Clergy must abide by the discipline of the church in their relationships. This

is set out in documents from the House of Bishops. Marital infidelity and

domestic violence are regarded as “inappropriate conduct” for the purposes

of clergy discipline".

It is good that the GPCC recognises that domestic violence may occur in any home, but the current wording of paragraph 7.7 seems to suggest that only 'marital' infidelity (and therefore not infidelity in a civil partnership) would be regarded as 'inappropriate conduct'. A cuckolded civil partner may consider this to be a very personal form of discrimination.

Similarly, the question of whether sex before marriage (or civil partnership) should be considered a matter of 'inappropriate conduct' for clergy is not addressed. Such silence might suggest that a vicar can bring any number of lovers into the vicarage, as long as they are not commmitted to any one of them.

Perhaps these conundrums will be sorted out by the panel of "eminent theologians and liturgiologists"? They are the focus of the second battle, when clergy will discuss a report about the formation of a panel to advise the Court of Ecclesiastical Causes Reserved, should there be future litigation involving, "matters of doctrine, ritual or ceremonial". The Court has only met twice since it was constituted in 1963 - once with regards to a statue of Mary and a second time to determine whether a communion table made by Henry Moore had a sufficient 'tableness' about it. The House of Bishops, however, were recently advised that it would be wise, "that processes were established and resourced ahead of any litigation," many assume that mentions of "legal challenge" by The Alliance could be behind this decision, thus it is likely to be questions about sex rather than stautues which will be litigated.

The report under discussion suggests that names have already been put forward, and "preferred candidates are now being approached,". This will not stop clergy doing all that they can to ensure that the panel of advisors includes those who will sway any tribunal in a progressive, or conservative, manner depending on their own theological convictions.

Finally, the bishops will withdraw and the Lower House (clergy) will debate whether they believe it is right for the Acting Diocesan Bishops to have both voice and vote when the House of Bishops meet. While less directly related to the ongoing debates about human sexuality, it is likely that this too will become a proxy battle focused on future voting patterns. Acting Diocesan Bishops are appointed by Archbishops rather than the Crown Nomination Commission. At the moment there are six Acting Diocesan Bishops (out of 50 in the House), which could be a significant voting block. Some clergy may be concerned that this will in effect mean that the Archbishops can gain greater control in the House if they appoint 'allies' to these posts.

The Convocations traditionally meet behind closed doors. In this case, it might be hoped that this lack of transparency will allow for an open, honest, adult conversation without fear of tabloid headlines, and that that in turn might lead to clearer guidance for all clergy, whatever their sexual orientation, about how they should conduct themselves.

if not, conservatives might rue the day they voted to replace "Issues of Human Sexuality" with a politer, but less precise, set of guidance.

With thanks to Father James from Unsplash for the image.

---

General Synod 9-13th February, 2026

Anglican Futures will bring you all the news.

Don't miss out

Subscribe