Forced resignation goes beyond the public humiliation meted out by the church authorities. Media seize on the word 'collude' and vilify Lord Carey for supposed implication in the crimes of Peter Ball. Invitations to minister in Churches in England and America are suddenly withdrawn. He has committed the unforgiveable sin -- systemic mistakes were made, which he admits, on his watch, so he personally has to carry the public opprobrium.

Meanwhile his successor, Rowan Williams, and all the episcopal and legal advisers involved, suffer no penalty. Lord Carey's penalty bears no relation to safeguarding: at 82 he is a threat to no-one. He carries no authority to permit any one to minister. His penalty can only be punishment which the Church feels necessary to preserve its place in the public square.

On the other hand the past few years have seen a procession of clergy, some highly placed, deliberately flout the teaching of the Church of England which they have sworn before God to uphold, and its canons which they have sworn to observe in obedience to the office of their bishop.

Some in high office along with members of General Synod deliberately question and oppose the teaching of the Bible and of the Anglican Communion on marriage and sexuality.

Others have placed 'facts on the ground'. For example, under the leadership of its dean, Southwark Cathedral advertises availability of prayers for a civil partnership, while noting the Church has no authorised prayers or service of blessing.

One dean has called on the Church to embrace gay marriage, revealing that he has previously held services of blessing for same sex couples at another Cathedral and would consider doing the same again. Did he seek permission from the Archbishop of York before going ahead with the ceremonies? (See further below)

A parish clergyman entered into a same-sex marriage, specifically forbidden to members of the clergy, and remained in post. Both the deans and the vicar remained on General Synod which makes the laws of the church. Yet calls are made to remove Lord Carey from the Lords because a lawbreaker cannot be a lawmaker.

These actions and their justifications convey a feeling of 'being above the law'. We recognise the struggles of Christians to relate their sexual experience with the teaching of the Bible and the church. We are not suggesting exclusion from Christian fellowship or ministry or that they are involved in any criminal discourse. But when the Church has an agreed teaching put in Canon Law, we are concerned that attempts to change the law should not be made by flouting it.

Currently those entrusted with authority in public office are allowed free rein to act above the law and are not touched. Such lack of discipline signals that the church has already given up on maintaining the teaching of Jesus and the Bible on sexual matters, knows better in the light of modern knowledge, and wants to be acceptable to the mores of secular society.

Secular society attacks vulnerable people who disagree with and oppose its pagan morality. But when the church leadership fails to stand up, and even inflicts further wounds on people caught in this storm, it reveals its moral and ethical ambiguity and weakness.

Why are double standards being applied? Those who self-confessedly question and flout biblical teaching, upheld throughout history and by the vast majority of Anglicans, especially in the area of sexual behaviour, appear to be a protected minority in the church.

Those who publicly make the case for traditional Christian ethics, as Lord Carey has done, are regarded as "toxic" to the Church of England brand, which must distance itself from them as speedily as possible.

A survey of public opinion reported to Lambeth Palace that orthodox church teaching was 'toxic', whose reaction prompted some on the Evangelism Task Force to resign quietly out of conscience. Of what or whom is the Church hierarchy afraid? Headlines in the press by the mediocracy?

They appear supine to never ending demands from those who are never satisfied; after calling for allowing lay people to enter into same-sex partnerships, clergy put facts on the ground by entering same-sex partnerships themselves; some then want to ban people who are troubled by unwanted same-sex desires ( such as a married man who has a night of madness and does not want to lose his family) from praying to the God who made them for his help directly or from seeking help through skilful counsellors.

Where is this heading? Will the ranks of Church of England clergy be depleted of men because of the threat hanging over anyone who teaches the bible of engaging in spiritual abuse, or of mishandling a false allegation, or being falsely accused themselves as happened to Lord Carey's son, a former social worker now a successful church planter?

If Church Reviews do not include legal counsel, and proceed to judgement without trial, can the call for completely independent legal reviews be resisted? This would reverse Magna Carta and hand over church discipline totally to the state. Given the palpable double standards now operating, that does seem attractive.

Vinay Samuel, former General Secretary of EFAC and Chris Sugden is a former member of General Synod

AM website Endnote: Fulcrum website reported that " the new Dean of St Paul's Cathedral, the Rev'd David Ison, has called on the Church to embrace gay marriage, revealing that he has previously held services of blessing for same sex couples at Bradford Cathedral and would consider doing the same at St Paul's (The Times, 8 March 2012)".

A recent article goes into greater depth of the evidence about the Dean of St Paul's advocacy pointing out that . 'Billing himself as an evangelical, he (Ison) announced back in 2012 that he had performed ceremonies for homosexual couples who had had civil partnerships when he was Dean of Bradford.....The net effect of his clear public advocacy for same-sex marriage resulted in St. Helen's Church, Bishopsgate, a well-known evangelical Anglican center of ministry in the City of London with a number of church plants saying they would no longer send its candidates to the cathedral for ordination.'

Read here http://www.virtueonline.org/bishop-london-must-not-be-juggler-words-lacking-integrity-and-truth)