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

10 responses to “Tented Villages”

TIm

28/10/2011

This would be fine & well if one has reason to believe one’s cathedral to be under some kind of threat.

I don’t see that being the case in St Paul’s – the evidence I’ve seen so far is that the various Occupations have been entirely peaceful apart from when the police start bullying them. The published “uh, think of the fire hazard” document reads like the most specious excuse they could invent to justify playing victim – let’s not forget it’s *their own* front door they’ve *chosen* to shut in the face of population, diocesan Mission directives notwithstanding. It’s about being Establishment versus free natives of the planet with a Christian-compatible social & justice message; I see St Paul’s have chosen their side.

Reply
1. kelvin
  
  28/10/2011
  
  I must admit that for all my liberal instincts and progressive values, I don’t see this issue as being nearly so clear cut as that.
  
  Reply
Uncle Al

28/10/2011

I wonder what Oscar Romero would have done?

Reply
1. kelvin
  
  29/10/2011
  
  Probably call the nation’s attention to the scandal of poverty. Unlike any of the players in this drama so far.
  
  Reply
william

29/10/2011

Point to explore:
When Jesus said – that the poor we would always have with us – what point do you consider he was making, and therefore would want to make to us today in the UK, about the scandal of poverty?

Reply
Zebadee

30/10/2011

Dear William It is not a question of what others would do about the scandel of poverty the question is what are YOU doing about it? Having worked at a drop in centre and at other places that attempt to deal with this problem in the UK I know that there are no easy answers but have come to a conclusion that it is an individual responce more than a corporate one.

Reply
Agatha

30/10/2011

William, perhaps Jesus was well ahead of himself and was referring to relative poverty. My grandfather’s family were so poor he trapped rabbits, his brother got ends of bread from the vicarage and another brother picked up the vegetables that had got dropped on the ground from market stalls. A century later and the “poor” organise protests via blackberry.

Reply
Ryan

30/10/2011

Agatha,

Isn’t that still progress of sorts, or should we be pining for the days of absolute poverty in the UK? Poverty, absolute or otherwise, is surely always worth challenging?

Gap Yah types and their blackberry diversions will probably be with us always too, alas.

Reply
Rosemary Hannah

31/10/2011

More flat-footedly, Jesus’s remark was in a context – a perceptive woman in a moment of love and gratitude, seeing the cost of her brother’s having been liberated from death, poured an entire jar of expensive anointing perfume over his feet. Judas carped. Jesus defended the woman: the moment was right, the action prophetic. That does not mean Jesus wanted to keep the poor poor. He was saying that if Judas felt that strongly about their plight he would have plenty of time to take action over it. That moment, that particular moment, belonged to Jesus. We no longer have his physical feet, but we do still have his poor. We are not absolved from taking action in the world because we love him.

Reply
Agatha

31/10/2011

Ryan, of course its progress. But lets not forget there are people in the world that are still in absolute poverty. And I know which I would rather champion, those without food and water, not those who can only afford a 32″ TV.

Reply