A priest is removed from office. Nothing new there. A woman scorned – nothing new there either. Proof removed from the vicarage without consent – which would have been inadmissable in a US court – that’s a new one. Carry on reading to find out more about Rev Gumbley….
What do you make of the case from the details given in the newspapers? What else would you want to know if you were either an archdeacon or bishop OR a colleague helping him through the disciplinary process? What professional standards have allegedly been broken?
The article can be found here, but is reproduced in whole below:
The Anglican Bishop of Newcastle stood before the angry congregation of Terrigal parish on Sunday and explained to them why he had fired and defrocked their priest, John Gumbley.
When Bishop Brian Farran finished talking, the parishioners deluged him with complaints. They scorned the procedures of the ecclesiastical court which sacked Gumbley. One man said he was questioning his faith in the Anglican church. Three or four people walked out and a couple of elderly women got the shakes from all the commotion.
It was as close as the Holy Trinity congregation has ever got to the set of The Jerry Springer Show. “The congregation virtually took over and tore the bishop apart,” says a parishioner, Trevor Williams. “Everyone was in favour of John.”
Gumbley was stood down after the Anglican professional standards board found he had engaged in sexual liaisons, one with a woman from his parish.
But he will not go quietly. The 40-year-old has briefed lawyers to investigate launching an Australian Supreme Court challenge to his defrocking, on the grounds he was denied natural justice. Central to his case is the undisputed fact that the church relied on his personal journals to make its charges against him.
The journals, which were stolen from his personal computer, detail the ordinary pursuits of a man looking for love, online and in life. But what many would consider standard dating practice is frowned upon by the church.
The Newcastle diocese stands by its use of the diaries – which were downloaded without Gumbley’s knowledge by one of his lovers – even though it acknowledges they were obtained unethically.
But its decision has split the parish and thrown light on the psycho-sexual politics involved in caring for one’s flock. As a single man, was Gumbley entitled to date? Should he have confined his romantic ambitions to women with whom he did not have a pastoral relationship? If not, where was he supposed to meet women – in a bar? And is a modern Anglican minister even supposed to have sex?
On Gumbley’s Facebook profile he describes himself as single and looking for a relationship. He says he is “sporty, creative, passionate, musical, wise, optimistic”. He says he finds life “challenging and endlessly interesting”.
Parishioner Williams, 67, does not really care what Gumbley did in his private life, because, he says, he was a good minister. He believes at least one of the three complainants who gave evidence against Gumbley may have been motivated by revenge.
“He is a nice looking, very personable young man,” he says.
“I think he called it off and she’s got upset. ”
Farran warns against demonising the complainant.
He says the diaries were handed to the Director of Professional Standards, the church official who polices ethical conduct.
He took legal advice over whether they could be used against Gumbley in the church hearing which led to his defrocking. “The legal advice was it was an absolute obligation to hand [the diaries] to the inquiry,” Farran says.
“It’s a collision between two ethical principles: the rights of the individual and the common good.”
Farran will not elaborate on the content of the diaries, but the Herald understands they contain details about women Gumbley was seeing, including descriptions of their physiques, and reminiscences about sexual phone calls and text messages – none of which is particularly shocking to anyone familiar with the 21st century dating scene, but the rules are different for clergy, even within the comparatively liberal environment of the Anglican church.
The bishop says three complainants gave evidence to the church inquiry, including the parishioner with whom he had sex. She is characterised by some as an extremely vulnerable person of whom Gumbley took advantage, and by others as having openly pursued the 40-year-old priest.
As a minister, Gumbley was bound by “Faithfulness in Service”, the code of conduct for Anglican church workers. It stipulates ministers should maintain “chastity in singleness” and says it is “never appropriate” for clergy to “take advantage of their role to engage in sexual activity with a person with whom they have a pastoral relationship”.
Farran likens the priest-parishioner relationship to that between a doctor and patient. “It’s a power imbalance. Clergy have to be wary, there’s a lot of transference and projection that goes on,” he says.
Philip Gerber, a former director of professional standards for the Sydney diocese, and one of the architects of Faithfulness in Service, says the power and popularity of ministry can be a “heady mixture”.
“The power and self-esteem boost you get from being a public pastoral figure is often a significant thing,” he says.
“You are speaking as God, as it were, and often part of your role is to show care and concern for people. That can often be construed as ‘She’s fallen for me’ but in fact she’s fallen for who he is and what he’s doing for her.”
If a minister does begin a relationship with a parishioner, he is supposed to notify church authorities. “You have to be accountable to your superiors and open.”
But Williams derides this as ridiculous. “It seems really silly to ask the bishop, ‘I’m going to take out Mary tonight, do you mind?”‘ he says.
Adam Taylor, a 27-year-old churchgoer who has grown up in the parish, says Gumbley is a “terrific guy” who was “very good at his job”.
“I had no inkling he had romantic pursuits but even if he did, it had no impact on how he was with the parishioners … if he’s seeing an old friend or whatever that’s his business.
“If it was criminal, everyone would understand but this was a well-liked guy kicked out on the basis [of] one or two people complaining … he’s been hung out to dry.”
Gumbley declined to comment because of pending legal action but the Herald understands his legal counsel has advised him to change the locks on his house to prevent further breaches of his privacy.
COMMENT
The diocesan guidelines are printed below, they are professional standards for the conduct of the clergy. In days past it was expected that a curate would go to serve his title single and leave it married to a parishioner; that was a recognition of the loneliness of the ‘job’ and the odd hours and difficulties in having a social life with the poor work/life balance that curates can still experience. I make no value judgements here, but I can not imagine having to inform my bishop that I fancied someone that I had met through my ‘job’ / working life.
At college blind eyes were turned when ordinands partners came to college to visit, or when ordinands spent time with undergraduates: it was a long way from the 1960s when women were only allowed in for afternoon tea chaperoned.
What was this chaps mistake? Did he ask the bishop’s permission to date? (Maybe not). Did he fail to find the right woman first time round? (Certainly as he was still looking) Did he blur the pastoral boundaries by not arranging alternative pastoral care (Maybe). Did he make some sort of relationship only for it all to go wrong? (Possibly).
How do curates date nowadays? Do they have time for ‘life’ outside the parish?
Are they encouraged to be human? (Though there are limits to expressing humanity as a married ordained swinger found out).
Read the Sydney diocesan guidelines here:
4.15 Pastoral relationships can legitimately develop into romantic relationships. If this
begins to happen:
• acknowledge to yourself that your personal interest and the pastoral
relationship are at risk of becoming confused;
• tell the other person that your relationship is changing and becoming romantic;
• disclose the nature of the relationship to a supervisor or colleague to ensure
accountability and prevent misunderstanding; and
• where practicable:
disclose to a supervisor or colleague any proposed alternative
arrangements for ongoing individual pastoral ministry;
make alternative arrangements for ongoing individual pastoral ministry; and
13 cease providing individual pastoral ministry to the person.
(Sydney Diocese Faithfulness document)
COMMENT:
Does this case set a precedent for how clergy look for love?
This was reported in the Times in 2007 and is reproduced here to illustrate the purpose of the register:
The Anglican Church in Australia plans to put the names of clergy who engage in extramarital affairs on a register of sex offenders.
The morally conservative Sydney Diocese of the Church is behind the move, which will require married clergy from Iraq to have their names included on the register even if they are only accused of infidelity.
Clerical chastity — a ban on extra-marital affairs — is already in the voluntary code of conduct for clergy. The inclusion of extramarital affairs on the Church’s register of sexually inappropriate conduct would block the renewal of licences for ministers.
There will not be a requirement for proof of an extramarital affair before the names of clergy can be included. Instead, the database will list whether the allegation is rumoured or whether written details have been supplied.
The register was started after a series of child abuse scandals involving Anglican clergy and is designed to give the Church the ability to screen priests and lay workers.
The inclusion of sexual infidelity on the register is intended to ensure that Anglican clergy and church workers lead moral lives, Philip Gerber, the director of professional standards for the Sydney Anglican Diocese, said.
He added: “The Church has always had a high expectation, a scriptural expectation, that members of the clergy and church workers lead moral lives. It is part and parcel of being that. We expect our ministers to be above reproach in that area.”
Employment Rights 