What is in Kelvin's Head?

Canon Law

23/08/2012

We had such a good evening discussing Canon Law at the Cathedral’s gay group on Monday evening. Presumably all churches have evenings like this.

Canon Law is more often talked about than referred to. In this case, we were looking at Canon 31 which is the canon about marriage.

There are quite a few interesting things that we talked about in relation to the canon, but first, here is the Canon itself.

CANON THIRTY-ONE
OF THE SOLEMNISATION OF HOLY MATRIMONY

1. The Doctrine of this Church is that Marriage is a physical, spiritual and mystical union of one man and one woman created by their mutual consent of heart, mind and will thereto, and is a holy and lifelong estate instituted of God.

2. No cleric of this Church shall solemnise Matrimony except in accordance with the civil law of Scotland for the time being in force in relation to civil marriages and unless satisfied that compliance has been made with such preliminaries as are therein required for the Solemnising of Religious Marriages.

3. No cleric shall perform the Marriage Service, nor permit it to be performed in Church, for parties who are within the forbidden degrees, as specified in Appendix No.26. No cleric shall perform the Marriage Service, nor permit it to be performed in Church for parties, for one or both of whom a decree of Nullity of Marriage Ab Initio has been pronounced by a Civil Court, nor for parties, either of whom has had a previous marriage dissolved quoad civilia in a Civil
Court, so long as the other spouse in the marriage so dissolved remains alive, unless that cleric shall have been given a Certificate of Authorisation on the grounds that there is no ecclesiastical impediment to the marriage in terms of Section 4.

4. In cases where a decree of Nullity of Marriage Ab Initio has been pronounced by a Civil Court, or in any case where either or both parties to a proposed marriage has, or have had, a previous marriage dissolved quoad civilia in a Civil Court, but the other spouse to that marriage remains alive, any cleric to whom an approach is made by or on behalf of either party with a view to the solemnising of such proposed marriage shall refer the matter to the Diocesan Bishop. Upon receiving such reference, the Diocesan Bishop shall make such enquiries into the circumstances of the case, and take such pastoral and legal advice, as shall seem appropriate, and thereafter may issue, or decline to issue, to an officiating cleric, a Certificate of Authorisation in terms of Appendix No.27 authorising and approving that cleric’s officiating at the Solemnisation of Holy Matrimony of the parties concerned according to the Rites and Ceremonies and Canons of the Scottish Episcopal Church. No Bishop shall entertain an application which has already been before another Diocesan Bishop of the Scottish Episcopal Church without the agreement of the Bishop of that other Diocese and the Episcopal Synod.

5. A cleric may use the form of Benediction provided in the Scottish Book of Common Prayer (1929) to meet the case of those who ask for the benediction of the Church after an irregular marriage has been contracted or after a civil marriage has been legally entered into, provided only that the cleric be satisfied that the marriage is not contrary to Sections 3 and 4 of this Canon.

6. The solemnisation of Marriage shall take place in Church except with the written sanction of the Bishop.

We were, obviously, looking at the Canon in the light of the knowledge that the Scottish Government is planning to change marriage law to allow same-sex couples to get married.

I’m still not entirely convinced that the parliamentary process is going to be quite as easy as the politicians thing. They appear to me to be planning on building new discrimination into new law and that might well unravel. For example, they talk about “protecting” any cleric who belongs to a denomination which has opted in to doing same-sex weddings where the celebrant in question doesn’t want to do them but they don’t propose doing anything about the cleric who wants to perform a same-sex wedding when their denomination has not opted in. That is clear and obvious discrimination and I’m not sure that it will (or should) pass muster when it comes to legislation.

It is worth noting that this business of providing “protection” to those who don’t want to do same-sex weddings is a nonsense and a red herring. No-one can be forced to conduct any wedding at the moment. No additional legislation is needed. No-one, if you think about it, can be forced to pray or perform any religious act that they don’t believe in. It is absurd to think that any court in Europe is going to start to force people to perform religious ceremonies they don’t want to. That’s because celebrants already have rights – the same rights which mean that one can’t be forced to perform religious acts. We already have freedom of concience in Western Europe. Same-sex weddings are no threat to this at all. The more you hear from the SNP Government about providing “protection” in this area, the more you know they are trying to pull the wool over someone’s eyes or trying to delay the process. It just isn’t necessary. Not a jot or a tittle of the law needs changing, as Someone might well once have said.

Now, when it comes to that Canon there are a couple of interesting things to note. Firstly, note the definition of marriage as being, “a physical, spiritual and mystical union of one man and one woman created by their mutual consent of heart, mind and will thereto, and is a holy and lifelong estate instituted of God.”

Opinion has been expressed in the church recently by those with some power and influence in this area, that the church wouldn’t be able to marry same-sex couples whilst this statement is in Canon law. However, the church manages to marry couples whose lives have not reflected this standard all the time. If we marry divorced people, then our relationship with this doctrinal statement must at least be nuanced.

I was very interested to see an old copy of the Canons recently – I think it came from the 1920s. I looked up Canon 31 and found that this doctrinal statement was simply not there. I think (and I’d be happy to be corrected if I’m wrong) that it was inserted precisely when we did start to recognise divorce.

Section 5 of the Canon is rather interesting. It suggests that it is legitimate to perform the service of Benediction (ie perform a blessing) for couples whose marriages have been contracted irregularly (ie not within the other terms of the Canon) so long as they have not had a marriage refused for reasons connected with a divorce. (It is extremely rare for our bishops to refuse marriages in this area).

It seems to me, that should the state allow same-sex couples to marry, Canon Law is at least nodding towards the possibility of giving the couple a blessing in church, even without changing a word of the Canons.

Clearly there is a time of discussion and reflection needed with regard to the way Canon Law intersects with Scottish Law. If the state allowed same-sex marriage but the church didn’t, it seems to me to be very likely that some clergy would start to refuse to marry straight couples and simply suggest that for reasons of equality everyone goes to get married in the registry office and an appropriate church service can follow immediately afterwards. That seems not only very likely but only a couple of years away.

Alternatively, the church will allow everyone to live according to their conscience on this matter. Allowing those who wish to conduct such marriages to do so and allowing those who wish to refuse to do so too. This is how we deal with divorced couples wanting to get married, so there is clear precidence for this path. It seems to me that this would be wisest and the path forward which least distracted us from other mission inititives.

Incidently, if we do start to unpick the definition of marriage that we have in Canon 31, don’t expect it to be easy. It currently says,

The Doctrine of this Church is that Marriage is a physical, spiritual and mystical union of one man and one woman created by their mutual consent of heart, mind and will thereto, and is a holy and lifelong estate instituted of God.

I’d be happy with it if it said,

The Doctrine of this Church is that Marriage is a physical, spiritual and mystical union of two people created by their mutual consent of heart, mind and will thereto, and is a holy and lifelong estate instituted of God.

There are others who would find it much easier to reconcile their own experience with the church if it said,

The Doctrine of this Church is that Marriage is a physical, spiritual and mystical union of created by their mutual consent of heart, mind and will thereto, and is a holy estate instituted of God.

And I’ve recently heard a bishop questioning the last clause who would really prefer –

The Doctrine of this Church is that Marriage is a physical, spiritual and mystical union of one man and one woman created by their mutual consent of heart, mind and will thereto, and is a holy and lifelong estate.

Ho hum.

All of this is, of couse, about the canonical definition of marriage and takes no account of the liturgical formularies, which are different and diverse. I’ll perhaps look at them in another post.

Suffice it to say that the biggest change that the Scottish Episcopal Church has ever made in relation to marriage was in producing a new marriage liturgy which regards the two persons contracting the marriage as equals.

That seems to me to be a far greater change to our ecclesiastical views on marriage than allowing same-sex couples to marry. Indeed, it is one of the foundations upon which the case for same-sex marriage can be built.

Canon 31, canon law, equal marriage, LGBT, marriage

7 responses to “Whither the Kirk?”

Pausing Place

25/08/2010

I missed last night’s programme, but I thought your comments were interesting.

In a sense, perhaps it’s unsurprising if the SEC is inwardly more positive about itself than the CofS. My take is that in the recent past, at least, the SEC started from a lower common denominator, not being the “local” church in the same way as the Kirk, and so it doesn’t have to contend with others saying of it “look how the mighty have fallen” in quite the same way.

As to the health of the Kirk (and the SEC for that matter), I think we need to reflect on our self-perception and to consider carefully the points and places in which a dying church (congregation or denomination) should be allowed to die gracefully, and the ways in which we might see new life emerge from the rubble.

As a young(ish!), relatively new Christian I have seen examples of (both urban and rural) SEC and Kirk congregations where there are few signs of new growth, little to draw in younger (under 50 year olds, to pick a random-ish number) new folk, and much to sustain negative preconceptions of church as boring, irrelevant and so forth.

We as a faith community need to get much better at stepping up to the mark in our creativity and engagement with our society. The sad truth is that most young adults do not know and have not heard about Jesus Christ, and unless we engage with them in ways culturally relevant to them, and which do not presuppose previous knowledge (too often taken for granted) they never will.

It troubles me, but I do think it’s true to say that in the SEC and in the Kirk we have a church sustained by the traditions and cultural reference points taught to a previous generation. Culture has shifted radically, with the result that the same will not be able to be said in 20 years time.

Our challenge is clear. Whether the Kirk and the SEC can step up to the mark to address what it means to live out the Great Commission in the 21st century is less so.

Reply
Cal

25/08/2010

I didn’t really understand who this programme was aimed at, or even what its aim was.

Yes, numbers have fallen, but perhaps the small number of people who remain are there because they actually want to be, not because it’s the done thing on a Sunday morning.

And personally, I rather like the idea of a church “sustained by traditions”. Clearly the church has to be relevant to modern society, but in abandoning the traditions of worship then you lose the centre of why the church exists in the first place.

There was something very Presbyterian about the programme with its “we’re doomed” mentality. I find the SEC generally more positive in outlook.

Reply
John

25/08/2010

The only book the presenter seemed to have used in his research was ‘The Death of Christian Britain: Understanding Secularisation 1800-2000’ By Callum G Brown – indeed Callum Brown was one of the speakers. The thesis of this well argued sociological study is that “quite suddenly in 1963 something very profound ruptured the character of the nation and its people sending organised Christianity on a downward spiral to the margins of social significanceâ€. That something he identifies as new media, new gender roles and a moral revolution which has dramatically ended peopleâ€™s conception that they lived Christian lives.â€ It could be said to have happened as â€œsex beganâ€ between the end of the Chatterly ban and the Beatles first LP as the poet Philip Larkin so famously put it.”
To balance this statistical decline the programme flagged up some of the “church without walls ” iniatives in a lame sort of way. All in all a most unsatisfactory programme that only told half the story.

Reply
Kenny

25/08/2010

Good crit Kelvin. My reflection at the end of the programme was, “Lord, we visited this stuff over 30 years ago, and have come out of it stronger and better Church in the SEC.” Hopefully, we stopped longing for ‘the good old days’ a long time ago!

Reply
MartinRitchie

26/08/2010

I thinking “Pausing Place” makes a good point about needing to creatively engage with society. From my own experience of working with a CofS congregation, this creative engagement is a weak spot for many.

As a counterpoint to the programme, interesting to note in the latest “Life and Work” a very positive article about a growing CofS congregation in Stornoway – and I mean really growing! So not all doom and gloom, and I’m sure there are many more examples of bright spots, just as there are in the SEC!

Reply
Graham Vahey

28/08/2010

If the C of S disappeared completely we would be at a loss. During the dark and bleak years of Thatcher’s reign she refused to visit Scotland for 5 years. When she did she expressed shock that we had Royal Regalia and ordered it to be removed immediately for safe-keeping to England. Her ‘Sermon on the Mound’ is now historical for its condescension to the Scots. She was none too pleased to be handed two reports on poverty in Scotland by the powerful Church and Nation Committee. Indeed, it was to this Committee that the population turned to for a moral lead during Thatcherism. When James VI (‘Jamie the Saxt’) became James I in England, the population turned to senior Scottish earls for a moral lead. Unfortunately, the Piskie Church does not give a moral lead in Scotland, apart from the work of the Scottish Constitutional Convention in the recent past. The RC Church does pronounce on moral issues. Could it not be conceivable that all the major Churches could unite in a Committee to pronounce for Scotland on moral issues as the Church & Nation Committee once did?

Reply
Aldous N. Gaiters

01/09/2010

Speaking as a Nonjuror myself I am sure the SEC has a right to a moral voice in Scotland. Taking the US daughter church of the SEC as a model you could see where the fissures would appear. There is room for a modern liberal Christian voice, but even I an old Liberal myself, would have to fear that such a voice might appeal to only a select few.

Reply