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

10 responses to “Response from the College of Bishops”

Father Ron Smith

12/01/2015

Thank you, Fr, Kelvin, for making the contents of the SEC Bishops’ Response to the Letter from 50 people concerned about their attitude towards the openness of the Church to the prospect of its eirenic treatment of clergy and Church members – desirous of solemnising Same-Sex monogamous relationships in the context of Marriage.

It seems to me – an outsider, but a member of the New Zealand Anglican Church – that the Letter has challenged your Bishops to positive action on behalf of Christians – and others – who consider faithful Gay relationships to be equally acceptable to God as those of heterosexuals. The Church, surely, must act to affirm faithful monogamous relationships on both sides of the spectrum.

Let’s hope your General Synod will move ahead to affirm such relationships, so that the Church may get on with other aspects of its mission; knowing that human justice for ALL people is paramount in the propagation of the Gospel. If SEC is pro-active in this important matter, it can only encourage churches like my own – in ACANZP – to follow suit.

Reply
1. Kelvin
  
  12/01/2015
  
  The General Synod is, to some degree, inhibited from sorting this out until the bishops themselves decide to back a proposal which would allow all to flourish in the church.
  
  The synod contains the bishops and they have an effective veto on canonical legislation.
  
  I’m baffled at the moment as to why they have not rallied around a position which allows all of us, both those in favour and those against, to act according to our consciences in this area. I think that this is a position which would re-unite the church again. I know those who disagree with me on the substantive question about lesbian and gay relationships who are as mystified and as frustrated as I am that we are taking so long to deal with this and who, like me, want to get on with the business of letting Scotland’s people know that God loves them.
  
  Everyone I know says they want to come to a resolution which does not de-church other Episcopalians. The position that the bishops have taken comes very close to de-churching some of us and I remain greatly concerned for the Province as a whole.
  
  Reply
2. Christine McIntosh
  
  13/01/2015
  
  Amen.
  
  Reply
Pam

12/01/2015

From my reading, it’s a carefully worded document that attempts not to pre-empt what may happen at Synod. Talking to each other face-to-face is always better than written communication, in my opinion. This issue does need a resolution and I’m sure that people on both sides of the debate, in good faith, would want to honour each other. Bishops have a tough job but so do the people who don’t get the opportunity to attend Synod, for whatever reason.

Reply
Chris Hansen

12/01/2015

I don’t know about you, but I’m tired of being talked about by people who would rather not talk to me. This “listening process” that the C of E is going through is bull. They’ve been doing variations on that for years. Nothing comes out of it except more conversations. No progress is made thereby.

The trick is to push the bishops to take a stand and do some prophetic leading.

Reply
1. Kelvin
  
  12/01/2015
  
  The current process in the Church of England is related to the Cascade Process that we’ve had in Scotland.
  
  Some people have benefitted from the process here. There’s no getting away from that. It has been a good thing for some but by no means all.
  
  Some have felt very disappointed and upset that the bishops themselves now appear not to have been working in accord with the principles of the process itself.
  
  And some, like me who have been working for change in this area for years, were excluded from the design of the process and from its major set piece provincial event.
  
  Reply
FakePete

13/01/2015

I feel very angry reading that.

Reply
Steven

13/01/2015

Dear Kelvin

Interesting developments. Not much in that letter really.

What would you do if you were Primus?

The reality is the SEC has always (at least in my mind) been open to a more progressive stance on this kind of issue and yet does contain those for whom this would be (very?) difficult.

Would you seek to maintain unity by some kind of compromise (CoE and women Bishops) or would you forge on ahead with prophetic change leaving those who didn’t like it to make their own choices (like the Episcopal Church)…?

The New Testament Christians didn’t seem to care much for unity at the expense of integrity and justice.

For my own part I think it is better for churches not to try and fudge this issue (look at the terrible mess in the Church of Scotland) but to agree a position and then firmly pursue same, come what may. People would not tolerate an institution that allowed a minority of people to adopt racist positions and so it should not really be any different for those who want to maintain positions that discriminate against same-sex couples.

All this is – of course – easy for me to say.

Steven

Reply
1. Kelvin
  
  13/01/2015
  
  What would I do if I were the Primus? Well that’s a good question.
  
  The first thing I’d remember is that the Primus is simply the spokesperson for the College of Bishops and doesn’t have the authority that, for example, an archbishop might think he possesses.
  
  I would however as a bishop argue in a favour of a solution which allowed people to act according to their conscience in this area. I don’t agree that people should be forced to “firmly pursue” a particular stance over this issue. It isn’t who we are. In fact I think the problem at the moment is that people are being forced to pursue a position that they don’t agree with and that situation is unsustainable.
  
  The reasons for not forcing people to marry gay couples are these:
  
  1 – No gay couple wants to be married by someone who has been forced to do so but who would really prefer not to.
  
  2 – It would be illegal anyway and our canon law determines that we will abide by Scots Law.
  
  3 – We already have a precedent with divorce – no-one is forced to marry anyone who is divorced, they can chose whether or not to do so. I think that is a reasonable compromise and it has served the church well.
  
  4 – I don’t think anyone should be compelled to marry anyone and that is the situation that we currently have.
  
  However there are some positive things that a Scottish bishop could do at the moment. Although I agree that same-sex marriages cannot take place in churches or be done by SEC priests until there is a decision made by General Synod I don’t agree that it is the case that someone cannot affirm allegiance to the canons of the church because they happen to be in a same-sex marriage.
  
  I think de-coupling those two issues is urgent.
  
  I would argue in favour of an equal opportunities policy for the church.
  
  I would try to seek a way of bringing forward a synodical resolution which would allow same-sex marriage, allow those who don’t want to be party to it not to have to be and I’d argue in favour of that as a godly compromise that would allow us to get on with our gospel business of sharing the good news.
  
  If I were the Primus I would probably be encouraging the College of Bishops to allow me to say publicly that we regretted that some people had been excluded from the Cascade Process and I’d seek to commit the College to a more consultative leadership style. In particular I’d want to say that there should never be a process about people that did not include them in the design of the structures of the conversation. I’d want to say that we would never construct a conversation about the ministry of women without women being involved, we would never construct a conversation about ethnic minorities in the church without appropriate consultation with people who belong to ethnic minorities and I’d commit the church never to make the mistake that has been repeatedly made of constructing a conversation about LGBT people without their involvement.
  
  If I were wise, I’d be learning a lot more about the experience of trans people because I’d realise that trans issues are inevitably coming our way.
  
  Does that answer the question?
  
  Reply
  1. Steven
    
    13/01/2015
    
    Yes, it does rather. Thanks.
    
    For the avoidance of doubt I would not advocate forcing anyone to marry anyone. When I said it is better to adopt a position and then pursue that I meant in terms of whether or not to permit equal marriage in the SEC (which is not the same as saying that all priests would therefore be compelled to marry gay folk).
    
    We have just filed an equal marriage petition in Belfast, so thoughts and prayers all welcome!
    
    Steven
    
    Reply