What is in Kelvin's Head?

I respectfully disagree…

02/07/2022

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

6 responses to “The Scottish Episcopal Church and the "Listening Process"”

Brian (from Australia)

28/03/2007

The Scottish and Australian churches have in common that most of their efforts (commendable in themselves) have been directed to talking through theological documents about gays and lesbians rather than listening to gay and lesbian people themselves. The Australian statement acknowledges, moreover, that attempts by some dioceses and parishes to conduct ‘listening’ have more often than not resulted in acrimonious arguments between opinionated participants.

Reply
kennedy

28/03/2007

I don’t know who wrote it but according to the ACNS, +Idris approved it.

http://www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/articles/42/50/acns4270.cfm

says
Each of the summaries has been compiled in cooperation with the Primate of that Province. “The summaries have drawn upon public statements and further research,” said the Listening Process facilitator Canon Phil Groves of the Anglican Communion Office. “Each Primate has approved the final text.”

Each Province has submitted reports, statements and papers. In addition, Groves has taken time to speak with Primates and their representatives from each of the Provinces in order to produce these summaries. The Primates asked for the summaries to be “made more fully available across the Communion for study and reflection.”

Reply
Roddy

28/03/2007

I get a bit confused as to what the process of ‘listening’, in any sphere of modern life, means. What it so often seems to mean is, “We don’t really want to get involved or change, but we’d like to appear as if we care, even though we don’t.”

I find the whole concept of being listened to a wee bit patronising, as it has overtones of being regarded as a bit of a nuisance but given a short period of attention to keep you quiet.

I’m not gay but the whole debate about gays and lesbians in the Anglican Communion appears to be about control of a rather large minority in the church more than anything religious or spiritual. A much more daring approach for the SEC would have been to say the subject is a matter of disinterest to the Church; that is the argument of someone’s sexuality is now of minimal relevance to church life for either gays or straights and that there are better and more important things to do.

Or have I got this hopelessly wrong?

Reply
kennedy

28/03/2007

Roddy said:
‘that is the argument of someone’s sexuality is now of minimal relevance to church life for either gays or straights and that there are better and more important things to do.’

I think, and I hope, that that is what the American Episcopal Church is starting to say.

Kennedy

Reply
vicky

28/03/2007

I’m with Roddy on this one…it almost seems as if the Anglican Communion has become a one issue Church…and that issue is sexuality. it would be nice to have this level of debate going on about the beatitudes rather than sexual-attitudes………..

Reply
steg

01/04/2007

I’m not a church goer, but was brought up one and can’t understand why the church – or anyone for that matter – gets so wound up about homosexuality. Dorothy L Sayers had it right when she wrote:

‘As I grow older and older, And totter toward the tomb, I find that I care less and less, Who goes to bed with whom.’

Reply