Truth as a Defense in English Heresy Trials?

Truth is an absolute defense in a defamation lawsuit; in fairness, a similar principle ought to apply in the heresy trials being proposed in the Church of England — which could make things really interesting. 

The Times reports that, under a proposal being pushed at the Church of England’s General Synod, clergy who challenge orthodox doctrine, or who preach politically-incorrect views, could be put on trial and defrocked:

CLERGY
who deny the Virgin Birth or the bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ
will be tried as heretics under a new measure voted on yesterday at the
General Synod of the Church of England.

The measure could also be used to try clergy who preach liberal doctrines on homosexuality from the pulpit.

More than 150 lay synod members met separately at the synod at
Church House, in Westminster, Central London, yesterday to discuss ways
of bringing unbelieving clergy to book. The synod’s house of laity
voted by 121-35 for heretic clergy to go on trial.

*  *  *

Although the laity have no power as a house
to push the measure through on their own, they are understood to have
the support of the bishops.

Margaret Brown, an Anglican Catholic traditionalist from the
Chichester diocese, put a motion before the laity making it possible to
try clergy on doctrine grounds alone.

Clergy suspected of error would be reported by parishioners to
their bishops, who would investigate them and, if action was deemed
necessary, would bring them to trial before a tribunal of bishops,
theologians and laity, chaired by a legally qualified person.

Ultimately, a heretic clergyman or woman could be removed from
office — in effect defrocked. But a bishop could also dismiss a
complaint as malicious or frivolous.

The bishops are understood to be sympathetic to the call from
the laity, and heresy trials are expected to come back before the synod
in 2006.

Truth as a Defense?

In fairness, an accused heretic ought to have the right to show that his challenge of orthodoxy is well-founded.  This would correspond to the ancient legal principle that, in a defamation case, truth is an absolute defense.

EXAMPLE:  Suppose I were loudly to call you a thief in front of a crowd of
people.  You could sue me for damages, because publicly calling someone a thief is generally considered defamatory per se. 

But suppose also that, at trial, I were to prove that you were once pled guilty to shoplifting.  In other words, I’ve shown that my statement, while defamatory, was also true. 

I would expect the judge to summarily dismiss your case — because in a defamation case, truth is generally an absolute defense. 

Now suppose that an
English priest says in a sermon that it’s OK to be skeptical about the Virgin Birth.  An outraged parishioner reports the priest to her conservative bishop, who convenes a heresy trial.   What evidence would be admitted at trial?

The heresy court ought to consider the evidence supporting the doctrine of the Virgin Birth.  Viewed objectively, that evidence is unimpressive.  The relevant Gospel passages are the epitome of hearsay; moreover, we have no idea how the (anonymous) authors of the documents themselves heard the story.  (Those passages seem just as as likely to have been polemical efforts to "prove" that Jesus was the Imanuel described in Isaiah 7:14.) 

Moreover, we now know a lot about the biological mechanics of conception.  So far as we know, the laws of nature do not permit a female to conceive a male child without male DNA somehow being introduced into the picture.   That’s not dispositive — we can’t presume to impose natural-law limits on God — but it’s certainly entitled to serious consideration. 

So, it seems to me:

• On the one hand, people really ought not make categorical statements that a male virgin birth could never happen.  We certainly don’t know everything about conception, and plenty of things we once thought were impossible, have turned out to be anything but.
• But on the other hand, it ought never to be improper to raise honest questions about the factual underpinnings of any doctrine.

What if the Brits Actually Go Through With This?

It’s ludicrous that English clergy could be defrocked for denying a doctrine where skepticism is not just defensible, but demanded.  At a minimum, C. of E. heresy trials ought to give accused clergy the right to adduce evidence of the truth of their "heretical" statements.

Such a heresy trial could be the Scopes monkey trial all over again — a highly-publicized debate that had real-world consequences.  My guess is that the eventual outcome would be official tolerance for skepticism about received doctrines.  That would be a Good Thing for the church on several different levels, IMHO

But if the English church were to categorically refuse to permit accused heretics to defend themselves thusly, it would be guilty of idolatry, of worshipping doctrine instead of God.   In such a situation, the U.S. Episcopal Church ought to consider breaking communion with the C. of E.

(Hat tip to TitusOneNine)