What is in Kelvin's Head?

  • I respectfully disagree…

    I respectfully disagree with the latest College of Bishops statement on Aberdeen and Orkney and I do so in two respects.

    Firstly, there is no mention of a mediation process in Canon 53. If the College of Bishops wishes to use Canon 53 section 11 and subsequent sections, then they should follow the procedure laid down there and name the bishop who is hearing the dispute. The bishop in question should publish the terms under which they are going to determine the dispute and the date on which the hearing will take place. Canon 53 does not allow for the resolution of such disputes to be outsourced to other individuals or organisations. (Sections before section 11 do not apply to disputes within a diocese). The procedure outlined in Canon 53 Section 11 and the following sections is clearly a decision making process and not a process of mediation. (In any case, my personal view is that mediation processes are seldom appropriate in cases where bullying is alleged and where there are discrepancies of power between the parties involved).

    Secondly, anyone making a claim of bullying against a serving bishop or any serving bishop wishing to make a claim that they have themselves been bullied by anyone subject to the Code of Canons, should be explicitly invited by the College to make a complaint under Canon 54.

    Canon 54 can only be initiated by someone who is a member of the church. My view is that the College should make public appropriate arrangements for the bringing of a complaint by anyone who has subsequently left the church – specifically that the complaint would be passed to a (communicant) diocesan registrar or the clerk to the Episcopal Synod to be initiated formally.

    Making vague references to the “Disciplinary Canonical process” of the church in a press release is unhelpful. Canon 54 is what the process is and the College of Bishops should long ago have insisted that people use it to bring allegations.

    This is not the first statement by the College of Bishops with regard to these matters that has given me cause for concern. In a statement last December the College asserted that neither the Primus nor the College of Bishops had the power to suspend a bishop. The Code of Canons is very clear that bishops can be suspended and that only the Primus can do so and that this can only be upheld or not by the Episcopal Synod (which is the same body of people as the College of Bishops). The due processes governing how these things can come about are found in Canon 54 (Of Offences and Trials) and Canon 6 (Of Diocesan Bishops and their Jurisdiction and of Bishops’ Commissaries).

    For the last few years I’ve been a member of a review group which has been carefully considering whether the disciplinary canonical processes of the church need to be updated. In time, I hope that they are. However, the canons that we currently have remain in force. Bishops require clergy to take oaths to uphold the Canons. Bishops themselves take oaths that they in turn will uphold the canons of the church.

    I regard members of the College of Bishops as colleagues and friends and remain willing to discuss these matters with any of them or indeed with any member of the church. A number of the members of the College of Bishops have heard me say privately what I now assert here, that for the good of the whole church, the College of Bishops needs to return to the Canonical norms of the Scottish Episcopal Church.

    I will not be discussing this matter with any journalists. The opinions expressed in this post are explicitly with regard to the College of Bishops and do not constitute a comment on anything that may or may not have happened in the Diocese of Aberdeen and Orkney, about which I have little knowledge.

    The Code of Canons of the Scottish Episcopal Church can be found here: https://www.scotland.anglican.org/wp-content/uploads/Code-of-Canons-2020.pdf

4 responses to “+Katharine Jefferts Schori – interview”

  1. ryan Avatar
    ryan

    Hurrah! Evidence, like the interview with +Gene a few years back, that you’d make a great ecclesiastical chat show host Kelvin 😉 I’d watch it!

    Reply
  2. Martin Ritchie Avatar
    Martin Ritchie

    Loved her vision of the church as holding different perspectives in tension. Hard work, but much better than settling for a monochrome church!

    Reply
  3. Revd Ross Kennedy Avatar
    Revd Ross Kennedy

    Yes – a well produced and conducted interview. But why no quesions asked that might challenge +Katharine. E. g. why does she seem so determined to turn the TEC into a monochrome (i.e. liberal) church by driving out those who hold conservative theological views? Why is she so intent ( using the full weight of secular law) to grab the church properties from those Episcopal parishes which have decided to realign with another Province? Of course, legally in the USA the church buildings do belong to the denomination. But morally? After all most of those churches have been built and maintained by the local people with not a penny being contributed by TEC. Bishop Katharine impresses me in many ways although she is at the opposite end of the theological spectrum. I just find it so sad that since she became PB the TEC has become increasingly fragmented. And just in case I am asked – I do not support the action of parishes that have decided to defect. I believe they should stay and continue to witness to their understanding of the Faith.

    Reply
    1. kelvin Avatar
      kelvin

      Well, I guess its a matter of perspective. I did kind of think that the oil spill affecting the US coast and the most devastating earthquake in recent history were kind of big stories. They also both related to the Synod that +Katharine was at. We were discussing ecological stuff quite a lot and we gave money directly to Episcopal Sisters in Haiti.

      It seems to me that the US church ownership thing is a bit of a non-story in the long run, however emotive it might be today. The SEC here and the Church of England down south would surely behave in exactly the same way to any vicar and congregation claiming they own the buildings and church fabric. Indeed, I think that in Scotland at least, it might well be the case that the charity regulations would make the Diocesan Trustees liable if they were not to press such a case.

      I’m no lawyer, I’m a priest. And I’m not as brave as you are, Ross, if you really think that the law of the land in the US (or in the UK) and moral values are not more closely linked than you seem to suggest.

      In Scotland we have no choice. Our canons acknowledge that our church will be governed in accordance with Scots Law.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Previous Posts

  • World AIDS Day Forum

    Here’s a video of a conversation I had with one of the members of St Mary’s last Sunday. Andy Winter was chatting to me about the way treatment and perception of HIV has changed over the years. We talked about new PrEP medicines, reducing stigma and the extraordinary news that the epidemic could be ended…

  • Sermon for Advent 1 – 29 November 2015

    Here’s the sermon I preached yesterday   You can’t beat a good quiz on the internet. Two minutes completing a set of multiple choice questions and some computer somewhere out there gives a verdict on what kind of person you are. Thus is was that this week I followed a facebook link and found myself…

  • Making Scotland’s Sex Trade Safer

    The recent death of Cynthia Payne provides a helpful reminder of the two-faced attitude to prostitution that we often hold. Ms Payne managed to cultivate a populist and almost comic Carry on Whoring image. She invited the great and the good to her home in Streatham and offered sandwiches and “services” merely in exchange for…

  • This ain’t persecution

    Getting a religious ad “banned” by a company that doesn’t show religious advertisements is evidence not of religious persecution but of the idiocy of the Church of England’s press office. We should be thanking God that religious (and political) ads are banned in cinemas.