It appears that several more parishes are considering motions of "realignment" away from the Anglican Church of Canada and toward the Southern Cone. Bishop Michael Bird of the Diocese of Niagara has had a pastoral letter issued (available on the diocesan website):
If a meeting of this nature is to be held, however, I want to assert that the Bishop and the Diocese have a role to play in that debate and need to be represented. As your Bishop, I would require notification of any such meeting and I expect to be invited to send a personal representative who will make a statement on behalf of the Diocese of Niagara and be available to answer any questions.
An informed decision can only be made after hearing all sides of a very complex issue. I would also like to reaffirm my strong commitment and willingness to uphold the best interest of our diocesan family in the wake of any action a parish may decide to take in this matter.
I echo the words of our Primate in his letter to the other Primates of the Anglican Communion that acknowledges with gratitude and great respect, that while conservatives struggle with the issues that face us at the present time, many have indicated clearly that they intend to remain within the fellowship of the Anglican Church.
In Victoria on Vancouver Island, there is a report that two priests have been inhibited in anticipation of the possibility of such a motion/vote at the parish AGM:
The two priests of St Mary of the Incarnation, in Victoria (Metchosin) were inhibited late Friday afternoon by Diocesan Archdeacon, the Venerable Bruce Bryant-Scott.
The Venerable Sharon Hayton, rector, and the Rev Andrew Hewlett, assistant priest, received notice late Friday afternoon (February 15), that disciplinary action was being commenced against them although no charge was given under the Church’s canons (bylaws).
Prior to receiving the letter, the clergy had been summoned to meet with the Archdeacon, in the Bishop’s absence, and were told to stop any motion called for by parishioners which would affect their future in the Anglican Church of Canada. Parish members are considering accepting the offer of episcopal oversight (pastoral care) from Bishop Donald Harvey, moderator of the Anglican Network in Canada, under the Primatial authority of Archbishop Gregory Venables and the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone. The parish meeting to consider this motion is tomorrow, Sunday, February 17, at 2pm.
I do sense two different approaches here, although I suspect that some will be a bit more cynical than I. The first approach seems to me to be understandable: "You may be considering leaving. Let the Bishop or his representative have a voice at that discussion."
In the case of the parish of St Mary’s, Metchosin, Vancouver Island, the priests have been inhibited before the meeting took place. Before the discussion happened.
Undoubtedly there will be more rumblings in the press, in the blogs and anywhere else a soapbox may be erected. I suspect the resolution to all of this will only come about by prayer and fasting.
related posts:
St John's Shaughnessy votes to realign with Southern Cone
St John's Shaughnessy will vote on staying in Anglican Church of Canada
Joseph, you are a well-behaved man, much better than your more knee-jerk 'news of the world' type blogger ;-)
Mind you in Ottawa, they chose to keep the meeting closed-session and the Bishops representative was not invited.
Blessings,
Peter
PS From what I have heard and read, I think I may be indeed more cynical about Niagaras best intentions.
PPS I pray that all things will come together for the glory of God. I'm glad the Boss is still in control.
Posted by: Peter | February 16, 2008 at 11:25 PM
The "tabloids" of the blogging world? :^)
When in doubt, just go play the Israel Kamakawiwo'ole video.
Posted by: joseph | February 16, 2008 at 11:33 PM
Sharon Hayton grew up a 1/4 of a mile south of me and was confirmed in our church. Her brother, a barrel chested farmer on the same land they grew up on, reported tonight she'd been fired, rather than inhibited.
Posted by: Leslie | February 16, 2008 at 11:49 PM
I may be showing my limited knowledge of Anglican polity again, but doesn't inhibition require a credible charge of a violation of canon law? I don't recall seeing any specific charge mentioned. Or can a priest be inhibited at the whim of the bishop (or, in this case, the official occupying the bishop's seat while he's out of the country)?
Posted by: Scott Gilbreath | February 17, 2008 at 09:05 AM
Scott, although I don't know the specific canons from that ecclesiastical province, it does seem that one would at least be expected to have a specific canon, or at least a specific charge, named if there is an inhibition.
Posted by: joseph | February 17, 2008 at 12:33 PM
I think perhaps we start to see with greater clarity just how this all works. I think perhaps we have been labouring far too long under the delusion of a fair playing filed.
Posted by: Peter | February 17, 2008 at 03:29 PM
Matters of licensing and discipline are covered by the Canons of General Synod for the most part, so they fairly consistent across dioceses.
The Canons of General Synod offer this (Canon XVII - http://www.anglican.ca/handbook/217_canon_XVII.pdf):
"When a diocesan bishop has reasonable grounds to believe that a bishop, priest or deacon who does not hold a license or temporary permission from the diocesan bishop is officiating or is about to officiate in the diocesan bishop's diocese, the diocesan bishop may, by notice in writing to such bishop, priest or deacon, inhibit such person from officiating in the diocese."
Inhibition is usually only applied when someone from outside the diocese is entering and seeks to minister without authority. I wonder if they were subject to "revocation with notice" which is the usual route to de-license clergy of the diocese.
The same canon says this about revocation:
"The bishop having jurisdiction may, in accordance with this section, revoke a license in any circumstance other than those mentioned in section 10 [when guilty of an ecclesiastical offence]"
So the bishop can remove a license, but there is a specific due process in that canon afterwards...a conference, appointment of a commission, new appointment or pay and benefits in lieu of notice. The bishop is also supposed to aid the deposed in obtaining employment.
If anyone was really that interested...
Posted by: Matt | February 17, 2008 at 04:17 PM
As a follow-on comment, I would be interested to see if the Archdeacon had been properly appointed to act with the bishop's authority. Some authorities can not be delegated and I have a hunch that revocation of a license might be one of them.
In any event, if he 'inhibited' these diocese clergy the action would be void as you can not inhibit someone who holds a diocese license - by definition holding a license means there is nothing to inhibit.
If he was not properly authorized to do so, even the action of revocation would be ultra vires - beyond his authority and would also be void.
Were I in their shoes, and having been inhibited, I would be continuing in ministry with no change.
Posted by: Matt | February 19, 2008 at 10:52 AM