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

11 responses to “A Form of Benediction for Married Persons”

Rosemary Hannah

13/02/2014

If it is proof reading you have got ‘those who are to be married’ p 13 when the liturgy earlier told us they were married. Same p 15.

As to the situation – plainly it is nuts. I assume it is a softly softly approach designed so that in fifteen years time somebody can say ‘But we have been marrying people in all but name for fifteen years, and nobody has ever objected’ – the not wholly unreasonable belief being that people tend to just-come-round to things. Not wholly unreasonable as this appears to have happened in British society. It takes no account of the difficulties and miseries these fifteen years will cause. Largely because they will not be caused to those formulating the policies, I imagine. And because many of those involved are, in fact, of the generation which has most struggled with the (to me) blindingly obvious that gender is irrelevant to love. That marriage is aobut love, and not gender roles (and women are not subservient in society) (which is what those who actually do believe that marriage is only for the straight all seem to me to believe).

Reply
1. Kelvin
  
  14/02/2014
  
  Thanks Rosemary. That’s exactly the kind of correction I need. I’ve amended the document.
  
  I think the worry about waiting for 15 years before finding that we’ve been doing this all along is that vast numbers of people are presuming the church to be poisonous simply because they hear a public message which is that church isn’t for you if you have decent views about gay people.
  
  Reply
Kelvin

14/02/2014

Anyone wanting to see the Scottish Episcopal Church’s actual marriage liturgy to see how completely and utterly different, oh its so different you wouldn’t believe it, you really won’t be able to comprehend how different, it is from what is posted above can find it here:
http://scotland.anglican.org/index.php/liturgy/liturgy/marriage_liturgy_2007/

Reply
Marnie Barrell

15/02/2014

I’m puzzled by this expression in one of the prayers – never heard the word.
“Together we now handsel them.”

Reply
1. Kelvin Holdsworth
  
  15/02/2014
  
  Check out the notes in the marriage liturgy. It is an old Scots word.
  
  Reply
Rosemary Hannah

15/02/2014

Oh yes, I quite agree it it a poisonous situation. But ‘all’ it causes is slow death. People believe that is inevitable (I do not, but they do) and they can face that. What they cannot face is a row. Others in their faces saying things which they have to reply to.

At least, I assume that is the reason for delay, for the policy of attrition. If anybody can thing of anything else, do tell me.

Handsel – gift or positive good wish given at the start of an enterprise, or at a significant stage upon it, to wish it well upon its way. Scots word.

Reply
Rosemary Hannah

15/02/2014

I am afraid both working for managed decline and the idea that loving somebody of one’s own gender is in any inferior are both ideas which I have no sympathy with or understanding of. We all have out limitations.

Reply
Rosemary Hannah

15/02/2014

‘in any way inferior’ sorry.

Reply
Bro David

18/02/2014

The US or Canada would be a great Honey Moon destination and the happy couple could easily find a number of Anglican parishes in either nation where they could celebrate their wedding nuptials in style!

Reply
1. Kelvin Holdsworth
  
  24/06/2014
  
  The possibility of doing things in style has never been in doubt.
  
  Reply
Alan McManus

26/06/2014

Bro David that’s a welcome suggestion. Also welcome is the offer of a good friend on many of us at St Marys who is a minister of the United Presbyterian Church of America (apologies if not exact title) who is now legally and ecclesiastically empowered to conduct marriages between any two persons and intends to do so here in Scotland. Methinks that all this silly shilly shallying about may come to an end when the powers that be realise that where there’s a calenderfull of nuptials there’s noodles of cash. And what church will say no to a sizeable contribution to the roof or organ fund?

Reply