Without commenting on this case in particular, in general, ecclesiastics tend to be just as fair and as unfair as any secular boss. All appropriate labour laws ought to be enforced in church settings just as in every other field of employment.

Apparently, the response from the Primate was alone the lines of “the church is not bound by the civil law.”  These cases, and are there more than two, are to do with the “faithfulness is service” document designed to set down how clergy are to behave.  This may be the end of the old “but clergy are office holders, not employees” debate.  The Privy Counsel in England decreed thus a year or two ago when it upheld a ruling for the reinstatement of a clergy person who had an affair with one of the elders.  She had not done anything illegal, and therefore the presbytery had no ground to dismiss her.

There are real problems in Newcastle, and having served under Brian Farran I am not surprised.  He has an exaggerated view of the Episcopate, while viewing the priesthood as purely functional.

If a heirarch says the Church is not bound by civil law, we all can be sure that person is using the term “Church” as a circumlocution for the word “I”.

The summary of that Privy Council case would worry me if it were applied in Australia, i.e. that a church may not dismiss a priest if caught out in moral turpitude (depending on the circumstances).

The issue here appears to be different (and I emphasise that I have no personal knowledge of the facts), in that it appears these two priests are denying that any wrongdoing occurred at all, legal or moral, and that they have been wrongly stigmatised. 

It will be an interesting test of the professional standards protocols as the article states, although it may end up being more a question of how they are applied.

“All appropriate labour laws ought to be enforced in church settings just as in every other field of employment”.

I wish; in America that varies state-to-state.  In my state, the clergy don’t have a leg to stand on in this respect, regardless of the garbage heaped on them.

MichaelA, Correct, the two priests involved deny anything happened.  One of them the retired Dean of Newcastle, was given a civic farewell after twenty five years as dean.  In this case the second is alleged to have been present when the alleged incident occurred.  His crime, he told no one about something which both clergy deny happened.  The accusation has not been tested in court, and in any event was probably, if it happened at all, not illegal.  There is a lot going on here.  The new dean (from the UK) has managed to alienate both the cathedral congregation and the civic authorities in a very short period of time.  It may be the retired dean advised the congregation (unwisely it now seems) to make a complaint.  There has also been a complain made against the Bishop to the national church over his handling of this, and other matters.  Given Brian’s support of Gay rights it is rather poetic, that he is acting against a clergyman who allegedly engaged in gay sex.  The case has implications for the Archbishop of Perth as well who was bishop of Newcastle when the alleged incident occurred.

The latest on the above, “http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/anglican-sex-priests-fight-for-holy-orders/story-fn3dxity-1226062159532”