I don’t think the current process of electing a new Bishop of Glasgow and Galloway has been conducted Canonically.
I’ve said this before, and it remains my view. The Bishops of our church in proclaiming the moratorium (which amounts to a ban on some gay clergy from being nominated) have tried to change the way in which bishops are elected without the authority of General Synod backing. They have effectively amended Canon 4 by decree.
There are a number of consequences to this.
Firstly, the authority of the Episcopate in our church is in danger of being undermined.
Secondly, the process itself has been undermined. (I’d say we spent more time at the first Electoral Synod meeting discussing the effect of the moratorium on the process than discussing the needs of the Diocese. That in itself must have made it harder for the preparatory committee to match candidates to what is needed).
Thirdly, there are consequent risks to our charitable status as a church, if there is outside influence (ie from Lambeth Palace, the Church of Nigeria, or anywhere else in the Communion) on how our leaders are chosen. It is, after all, a departure from due process in how our legal trustees are appointed.
we have very nicely tied ourselves in knots over the moratoria — which have never been maintained around the communion, which I don’t think ever could have (or should have) worked, and which cause further division as some people say ‘we can’t possibly apply these’ and others say ‘we hate this but we must.’
I used to think we had no choice — that when the covenant came, we would have to sign; that when the moratoria were given, we had to comply. But now, I cannot see any good coming from trying to ‘buy time’ with these things. We need to hold to the things we believe are true and get on with it — and yes, that will mean we have to go through the pain of naming what we believe is true, and some of us will find ourselves on the ‘wrong’ side of it.
Almost all of us have become complicit in the discrimination by our silence, as a voice cries in the wilderness.
I’m sorry. We have left you alone in this too often.
Hi Kelvin,
This is important enough to end my self-imposed period of gracious restraint in commenting on blogs.
You may recall that, at the Preliminary Meeting of Synod, I made the point that neither General Synod nor G&G’s Synod had been consulted or invited to participate in the moratoria – that participation had been the decision of the College of Bishops alone. I did so, partly because I wanted to strangle at birth the notion that “the SEC” had signed up, but principally to try to ensure that no-one (other than, presumably, a Bishop) should feel constrained in making a nomination.
BUT, under Canon 4.10, the College of Bishops has an absolute veto on any nominee, and for any reason: “…any person who is not agreed as acceptable by the College of Bishops may not be included in the list of names of candidates.” The names of rejected nominees and the reasons for their rejection remain confidential to the College. The Bishops evidently felt that, having signed up to the moratoria, they were obliged to declare in advance that no partnered gay Priest would be an acceptable nominee under Canon 4.10. That is their privilege – though I can’t imagine it was a comfortable decision for them.
I don’t believe, therefore, that the process itself has been corrupted in the way you suggest, and I do urge you (as a fellow-sufferer from outbreaks of inconvenient candour) not to pursue the idea that the election is somehow unsafe. That’s wrong in principle and may prove horribly counter-productive in practice.
David
It is sad Father Kelvin that this topic appears to be a bit to toxic and your usual participants have scattered in fear of being associated with this particular conversation.
As well, Mr. Bain’s last paragraph appears ominously to be a warning against dire consequences for you personally.
It is too bad that this Scottish House of Bishops is not ready to stand on its own over against Lambeth Palace as did the bishops of Scotland in 1874.
Thanks to both Davids for commenting.
I’m aware or course of Canon 4.10 and am supportive of it. The trouble is, there is a huge difference between the bishops meeting to consider a list of names and deciding that someone is unsuitable and declaring that there is a new class of priests who are somehow unsuitable for the Episcopate and who cannot be so considered.
There is also the business of Canon 4.33 which does seem to rule out litmus tests for the Episcopate. “No promises, either written or spoken, other than the subscriptions prescribed in Canon 12 shall be required from of given by any person as a condition of proposal as candidate for the bishopric or election as Bishop.”
I know both how horrible and how inconvenient it is for me to say this, but that does matter and has the same authority as Canon 4.10.
I think that the effect of creating second class priests (when we had not long since made a decision that it was wrong to treat priests who are women in that way) is of greater and more lasting significance than this single election.
What has been done is wrong.
It feels utterly miserable to have to say these things.
I am very much in agreement with Kimberly and and Kelvin on this issues. I think the point about a class of persons being excluded is very important and, yes, I agree, a dangerous precedent. It’s deeply distressing to know that this is happening, but as a lay person who has very little involvment in the election process I am very grateful to hear more about it, distressing as it may be. These may be unpopular sayings, but they need to be said. And heard.
Thanks Elizabeth.
One of the things that I’ve realised recently is that there are a lot of people in our church and in this diocese who don’t know that this ban has been put in place.
I’ve spoken to a number of people who are utterly horrified to discover what our bishops have done and find it difficult to believe.
To Kelvin:
Your point about Canon 4.33 sent me scurrying back to the Code for another look – and I really don’t think it bears significantly on the Bishops’ rights under 4.10. That doesn’t make the actual decision any less unjust or distasteful, but it is canonically defensible and doesn’t damage the election process. Your later observation, about the Bishops’ decision to sign up to the moratoria being generally unknown, is well-made.
To David:
Kelvin and I have been fellow-members of the Cathedral Chapter long-enough for him to know (I hope) both that I am generally supportive of his ministry and that I don’t operate by implicit threat. I was contemplating the potential for a protracted row at the Electoral Synod, for postponement, litigation, the possibility of a voided election, more litigation, another election, and a Diocese left divided and soured with its new Bishop (poor soul!) in a next-to-impossible position. That’s why I was urging no further challenge to the process. There’s quite enough genuine injustice about without seeing a threat where none was intended. And thank you for correcting the spelling of my name – it seems I’ve been getting it wrong for decades.
My apologies Mr. Bayne, I got myself in a preview situation with my post where I could not see the other comments and see my error with your surname. English, and its spelling idiocyncricies, are not my first language.
Woops, there is another one!
Thanks, David. Any suggestion that I’m getting a little crotchety in my old age is………probably quite justified. (That’s crotchety as in “grumpy” – nothing to do with Kelvin’s knitting.)