THE CHRONICLE
OF CONVOCATION
Being a
Record of the Proceedings
of the
Convocation of Canterbury
Tredecima Convocatio Elizabetha Secunda Regnante
The Full Synod and
the Lower House
in the Sessions of
11 July 2014
Session III
Published for the Convocation of Canterbury.
© The Convocation of Canterbury
OFFICERS OF THE CONVOCATION OF CANTERBURY
President
HIS GRACE THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY
Lambeth Palace, London SE1 7JU
Prolocutor of the Lower House
The Venerable Christine Hardman
Pro-Prolocutors
The Reverend Prebendary David Houlding DD (Hon)
The Reverend Prebendary Stephen Lynas
Registrar of the Convocation
Mr Stephen Slack, Solicitor
Synodical Secretary, Actuary and Editor of the Chronicle
The Reverend Stephen Trott MA LLM
Ostiarius
Mr Clive McCleester, Custos and Head Virger,
Winchester Cathedral
STANDING COMMITTEE OF THE LOWER HOUSE
The Venerable Christine Hardman (Prolocutor)
The Reverend Prebendary David Houlding (Pro-Prolocutor)
The Reverend Prebendary Stephen Lynas (Pro-Prolocutor)
The Reverend Simon Cawdell
The Reverend Canon Robert Cotton
The Reverend Canon Dr Stuart Currie
The Reverend Mark Ireland
The Reverend Hugh Lee
The Reverend Anne Hollinghurst
CONVOCATION OF
CANTERBURY
Tredecima Convocatio Elizabetha Secunda Regnante
SESSION III
Friday 11 July 2014
Minutes of the Full Synod and the Lower House
SESSION III
Friday, 11 July 2014
Held at the University of York
CONVOCATION OF CANTERBURY
The Convocation of the Province of Canterbury assembled in FULL SYNOD
in Room PX 001 at the Exhibition Centre of the University of York at 1.15pm.
Full Synod
1.
PRAYERS
Opening prayers were said by His Grace the President.
2.
ASSESSORS
The President invited the Prolocutor to appoint Assessors for the day.
The Prolocutor appointed as her Assessors for the day the Revd Canon Gavin Kirk
(Lincoln); the Revd Canon Catherine Grylls (Birmingham); the Revd James DudleySmith (Bath & Wells); and the Revd Canon Rebecca Sawyer (Chichester).
3.
MOTION: DRAFT GUIDELINES FOR THE PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT OF
THE CLERGY
“That this Convocation:
(a) Express its gratitude to the Joint Working Party for its work in producing a revision of
the Guidelines for the Professional Conduct of the Clergy;
(b) Commend the revised Guidelines to the General Synod for its consideration;
(c) Request the working party to prepare a final version of the revised Guidelines for
approval by the Convocations following their consideration by the General Synod,
taking account of comments made in the course of their consideration by the
Convocations and by the General Synod.”
The President: Thank you very much. We now turn to the Draft Guidelines for the
Professional Conduct of the Clergy. This is a formal debate structured much as we do a
debate in the General Synod. It is Item 3, which I have agreed with the Prolocutor should
be considered in full Synod. My aim is that we should have completed the debate on this
item by no later than 2.15. If I need to shorten the speech limit at an early stage to achieve
that, I will do so. In any event, I would be grateful if members could keep their contributions
succinct and to the point.
I now call upon the Prolocutor to move the motion at Item 3. She may speak for up to ten
minutes.
The Prolocutor: I want to begin by saying how grateful I am on behalf of you all in the
Convocation to the Convocation Working Party for all the work that has been done on the
draft document that you have before you. I particularly want to thank Fr David Houlding,
as Chair of the Working Party, and its Secretary, Rev Stephen Trott, but all the members
have worked for rather longer than they thought they might have had to do on this, so it
was a sterling piece of work. Thank you. I also want at this point - and I shall return to it
later - to acknowledge our deep debt to Dr Francis Bridger for the superb Theological
Reflection that he has written for our Guidelines.
The Guidelines that you have before you in draft form are not a new document. They are,
of course, a revision of the 2003 version of the Guidelines which you will find on the web.
When Canon Hugh Wilcox, who was then Prolocutor and Chair of the then working party,
introduced the Guidelines to General Synod in 2003, he stressed that the Guidelines were
not draft legislation; they could not be set in stone; and they reflected good practice in the
context of the imperatives laid on every priest (and deacon and bishop actually) by the
Ordinal and by Canon Law. They were there to help those who, as Archbishop Ramsey
said, bear the burden of pastoral ministry, recognising the risks, the vulnerabilities and the
uncertainties that any pastoral encounter always brings. It was recognised in April 2003
that the Guidelines could not be the last word on the subject. This is a document that has to
be a moving document, a live document not set in stone, and it would be, they said in 2003,
for the Standing Committee of the Convocation of Canterbury and the assessors of the
Convocation of York to decide how to keep the subject under review and to bring forward
amendments as necessary from time to time. This is indeed what the Joint Standing
Committee did. In January 2010, so quite a while ago, the Joint Standing Committee of the
Convocations agreed to set up a small Working Group under the chairmanship of Fr David
to undertake what was called a “light revision” of the document in line with the principles
which had undergirded the original Guidelines, but recognising the need to take account
of the changing context.
Actually here has been quite a lot change in context. The change in society generally,
particularly our increased awareness of the need for superb safeguarding regulations and
rules, the use of computers and social media but also, and importantly, the introduction of
things like the Clergy Discipline Measure and the Ecclesiastical Offices (Terms of Service).
A lot has changed since 2003. This task has therefore been much lengthier than was
envisaged at the beginning.
It has to be said that there are two areas that I do need to draw to your attention that have
been the subject of much of our discussions as we have looked at these things. The first one
is section 3, the whole area of the Guidelines relating to the Seal of the Confessional. This is
clearly particularly sensitive, as was recognised right from the outset. This particular section
has received more scrutiny than any other section in the Guidelines, and we do believe that
it has been carefully scrutinised to ensure that it accurately reflects the legal position as it
stands at the moment. We had to come to acknowledge in the Standing Committee that
although there are still sensitivities, we are not ourselves in a position to be able to resolve
any further issues on this, which is a matter for the whole Church of England. We had not
got the authority to resolve any of these difficulties. It is as good as we could get it.
Also safeguarding is much, much, much more significant and in front of our face than it
ever was in 2003, thank goodness, so we are all conscious in the context and the light of
recent developments that this text now, which has a slightly different tone you will see,
takes account of suggested amendments from the National Safeguarding Officer, so that is
on that.
That is the history. A little bit of explanation about some of the difficulties and challenges
we have been facing. Why do we need these Guidelines at all? I would like to firmly
commend them to you as being something that is important for the clergy themselves, for
the Church as a whole and for our standing in the society in which we minister. Clergy
deserve to have some clarity about what is expected now in our context in terms of proper
and professional exercise of ministry. Society as a whole now expects all professions to be
open to scrutiny and to be accountable, and should the Church seek to avoid doing that we
would be damaging our mission and ministry in this country. We need to be open to
scrutiny. We need to show that we are not afraid to be so open. The Church itself needs
something like this as Guidelines, because, as Francis Bridger says in his superb reflection,
the misconduct of one minister reflects upon the standing of the Church and the trust that
people can place in the Church. Just being a professional no longer is enough. “Trust me, I
am a doctor” does not work in the medical profession and it would not work for us either,
and we need to acknowledge that. So pragmatic reasons are there why we need these
guidelines, but, beyond that, I really want to encourage you, if you have not read it, to today
if possible read that Theological Reflection by Dr Francis Bridger in the appendix, because
what he explains so profoundly and so well is the need to have a theology of
professionalism in which we root our vocation as ministers in the Church of England. He
explains to us that a theology of professional responsibility is where we should be rooting
ourselves and not to allow the words “professional” or “profession” to be hijacked by those
who would see it as managerialism and a list of competencies. He refers us back to look at
the proper meaning of “to profess”, “to make profession”, aligning having a vocation with
being a professional. With a theology of vocation it then becomes possible to reinvest, as he
writes, the idea of profession with a transcendent moral dimension. So this is not just a
pragmatic thing. This is about rooting our very understanding of what it is to be a priest,
deacon or bishop in the Church of England in a profound sense of vocation, rooted in the
proper sense of professional, and also rooted in the Ordinal which is still how these
Guidelines are structured. The Guidelines are rooted in a theology of vocation, set in the
context of the Ordinal. So that whatever else happens, that is something that can inform us
and help us and inspire us in those three concepts that Francis Bridger uses which is a
covenant, relationships having a covenant quality, agape and virtue. I think this is quite
significant and probably the most important part of the Guidelines almost.
Years ago I wrote a research report and I showed it to my husband who was a journalist
then and asked him to critique it. He said, “You could take out the whole of your
introduction and put it in an appendix.” When I got over my annoyance at this, I realised
that he actually was right. I have come to think with this report that actually the opposite is
true and what is in an appendix we may want to consider putting more upfront so that the
Guidelines are set in the context of the Theological Reflection that Dr Francis Bridger makes,
but that is for another day.
What is going to happen now? We are going to have a debate on this and you are going to
make your comments, which will be noted and carefully listened to, and then I am going to
urge you to pass the motion and commend the revised Guidelines to General Synod. They
will then be brought to General Synod for a ‘take note’ debate, if it is your will and we so
pass the motion today, and then having noted what was said in Convocation, and what is
then said in the General Synod debate, the Working Party will bring back a final version for
your approval in the Convocations. So that is the process. So in the light of all that, I would
like to strongly urge you to share your wisdom with us now and then pass this motion
when we come to vote on it.
The President: Thank you very much. The matter is now open for debate and those who
wish to speak, if they would be kind enough to indicate by standing in their places. The
initial speech limit is five minutes. There is a roving mike. Sorry, I should have said there is
a roving mike. You will have to forgive me, I have still got my ‘L’ plates on when it comes
to Convocations.
The Chair imposed a speech limit of five minutes.
The Revd Canon Robert Cotton (Guildford): Thank you, your Grace. I am grateful for all the
work that has gone into this, but I want to raise continuing serious concern about section 3.
This is about confidentiality and the Confession. This is going to be about both substance
and indeed presentation. The Carmi Report was published I think only a week or so ago,
something modelled on the serious case review about various happenings in and around
Chichester Diocese and Cathedral. It was written ten years ago but it was only published
last week. Reading that, there is clearly still serious contradiction between what that group
is recommending and what is now in front of us published in section 3. Firstly, they draw
attention to the dangers of a culture of closed communication, and therefore in the
introduction to the Guidelines when on page 2 it says that this is written by clergy to clergy,
I am concerned that that underlines that we are going into a dangerous space if it is seen
largely as clergy telling other clergy how to behave.
But more important than that, the Carmi Report refers to the difficulties that surround times
when confession has been sought. Note, nothing about whether absolution was granted,
which is the sort of let out that is used in the Guidelines in paragraph 3.6, but the difficulties
that come when confession is sought, referring to circumstances that include child abuse
and then nothing is done about it, no reporting, no further action. Our paragraph 3.6 in the
Guidelines still allows that to happen. Even ten years ago that was saying this is not
acceptable. What is odd is even more the conflict between paragraph 3.8 and what is
recognised in the Carmi Report as the diocesan procedures that were extant even in 2004
and may well have been changed and tightened up in the last ten years, where it says very
clearly, a phrase that we might be familiar with, “the welfare of the child is paramount”.
Yes, it acknowledges there is a general presumption in favour of confidentiality but, even
in the light of that presumption, the welfare of the child is paramount. Those are words
found in the Chichester diocesan procedures ten years ago and I am still not convinced that
3.8 fully acknowledges that.
But more important even than that is what comes up towards the end of this section of the
Carmi Report where, in coming down to a fundamental appreciation of how you combine
a need for confidentiality and a recognition of a responsibility of reporting, the group that
wrote this report said, “We fell into two different camps; there was no consensus.” One
group said, “We believe that in the end the confidentiality of the Confessional must be
preserved”, and that is what is present within our section 3 here in the Guidelines. But
clearly half the Steering Committee who wrote this report said, “We cannot adopt that. We
cannot support that. That does not allow us to put the welfare of the child paramount.”
Acknowledging that a group of professionals, which included Church people split into two
groups, could not agree, if that is the context I think it is very dangerous that our Guidelines
take one side only. I cannot support section 3 as it is written and I believe it is unwise to so
clearly take one side of the argument. We need a section 3 that is more nuanced, recognising
that we are become pulled in different directions, and I urge us to accept the Guidelines as
they stand without endorsing section 3.
The President: Thank you. After this speech I will reduce the speech limit to three minutes.
The Revd Dr Philip Plyming (Guildford): I would like to thank all those who have worked so
hard on updating and expanding these professional Guidelines. They are helpful in many
respects and there is no doubt that they outline very clearly the high calling which clergy
have, and that is certainly right.
I want to draw our attention, however, to one place where I think there is a risk that the
Guidelines expect more than can actually be delivered. The area I mean is the entirely new
paragraph 2.2 and in particular the second sentence: “They [clergy] should be unbiased in
their exercise of pastoral care, and be seen to be impartial, especially when providing
pastoral care to one party in a dispute between two people”.
I can understand the motivation behind this sentence that clergy should not be known for
frequently taking sides, and most of us here have experienced the complexities of
parishioners going through a divorce. However, phrased as it is, the Guidelines leave
certain important questions hanging, particularly regarding impartiality.
For example, in a situation where a clergyperson becomes aware of domestic abuse within
a marriage of parishioners, is it his or her calling really to be impartial? Or, to make it more
concrete, if he or she were to see both parties separately and, after listening and reflecting,
counsel the one to move out of the home to a safe space and to offer the other party, among
other things, a rebuke for their behaviour, would that fail to meet the impartiality test?
Would it not be the case that the clergy person would be open to a complaint by the abuser
for not being impartial in offering pastoral care?
My point is that for clergy to be seen as impartial all the time is an impossible demand.
Ministry involves making judgements all the time, including in a pastoral context involving
two or more people. We have to be free to let other considerations of justice and truth
modify the desire for impartiality. If impartiality becomes the trump card then I fear that
could lead to clergy being very distant in their pastoral care, not wanting to offend one
person or the other, and that, I suggest, would not be consistent with the calling expressed
in the Ordinal to be Messengers, Watchmen and Stewards of the Lord.
I agree that clergy cannot give up on people who are in their cure. Provision of pastoral care
is important to all those who seek it. However, this paragraph promises far more than that.
My suggestion is that it is amended to refer to “provision of pastoral care” rather than
“exercise of pastoral care” and that the phrase referring to impartiality is omitted otherwise
this guideline, if followed, will result in clergy being fearful of making any judgements in
pastoral care situations. That may not be the intention but it may well be the result. Thank
you.
The President: Could you also say your name and number when you speak, it would be
very helpful.
The Chair imposed a speech limit of three minutes.
The Revd Canon Dr Hazel Whitehead (Guildford): I am the Director of Discipleship, Vocation
and Ministry for the Diocese of Guildford. I have been that for nine years, a member of the
Bishop’s Staff and a member of the Appointments Meeting which deals with all these very
things, and so my observations are based, as others are, not on hypothetical situations but
actual examples that we have every week in every month.
Like others, I really, really welcome this Report, the progress that has been made, the
Theological Reflection and overall I am really very supportive of it. Especially I welcome
the intention to do something which is quite difficult, which is to hold the affirmation and
wellbeing of clergy alongside the equally important need for accountability. As the
Guidelines say, and as the Ven Christine Hardman has already said, this is for the sake of
the clergy but also the sake of the Church and, dare I say, the Kingdom.
Within that context, I have just a few headings and I will try to keep them brief.
I endorse everything Robert Cotton said about absolution, so I will leave that one out, but
in terms of safeguarding training, which is coupled with that, I think this needs to be
tightened up. In paragraph 2.1 we say that clergy should ensure others have safeguarding
training, which is good, and in 2.9 it says, “Clergy must have appropriate current training”,
but this could be spelt out more clearly because it might mean they should have it provided;
it does not actually say they have to do it in a mandatory fashion and that there will be a
penalty if they do not.
In 6.6 and 6.7 where we speak about those with “permission to officiate” there is no mention
of safeguarding training for them. In Guildford, if you ask for PTO you have to do
safeguarding before it is granted.
In the areas online and social media, I welcome this new addition but also would make it
stronger, especially in terms of email access and Facebook. We have had a clergyperson
whose address was janetandjohn@thevicarage, or something similar, where you had to
assume that if you wrote to Janet, the vicar, her husband John might just as easily answer
the email and definitely read it.
When we come to schools, 4.6, the Bishop of Oxford has spoken recently in our diocese on
the importance of seeing all schools and all schoolchildren as our mission field and part of
our duty of care. This section speaks very well of Church schools but I would like that
changed to include all schools, where possible, and all children. It is exclusive in a way
which we are trying not to be.
The President: Just coming to the end if you could.
The Revd Canon Dr Hazel Whitehead (Guildford): Finally, the balance between duty and family
care. The reflection at the end tells us the rights of the helper are less than the rights of others
and I see this as being very in favour of clergy, which is good, but not enough
accountability, and I quote: “We didn’t do Ash Wednesday this year because it was halfterm”.
The President: Thank you. If I can remind you it is a three minute speech limit.
The Revd Andrew Dotchin (St Edmundsbury and Ipswich): There are some things that we
obviously need to address about this, but firstly I would like to say well done. All in all it is
an incredibly well-crafted piece of work and if any bishop were foolish enough to invite me
to lead an ordination retreat I suspect I might quarry my address as in this Report.
There are some particularly important parts. I note in our own deanery the reminder to
parochial clergy that “funeral care is for everybody in your parish” in 12.12 would be very
important.
Again, coming back to paragraph 3, my particular concern here is mentioning an offence in
3.6. For example it says, “the abuse of children or vulnerable adults”. I hope the press have
not seen that. If they do, I hope they hear from this Convocation that we do not like that
wording, we are still working at it and we need to do something different about it. Yes, I
understand there is a chicken and egg situation, it needs to be the mind of the Church of
England, not the mind of the Convocation, but please let us have something put in train,
that has happened in other provinces throughout the Anglican Communion, that
specifically excludes these offences or we will find ourselves very soon in a situation where
we will be breaking civil law or Canon law or breaking Canon law and complying with civil
law.
The Revd Canon Dr Simon Taylor (Derby): Again, can I echo the thanks to all involved in
putting this together, it is a superb piece of work. Part of my job entails working with
curates and each year we look at the guidelines for the professional conduct of the clergy
and I look forward to the year when this can be the text in front of them.
I cannot be alone in finding the reference in 3.5 to the “unrepealed proviso to Canon 113 of
the Code of 1603” a little difficult to comprehend. I did go and chase that down. It stands in
the supplementary material to the Canons, so some guidance as to its legal validity given it
is supplementary material would be interesting, and it states that, “We do not in any way
bind the minister by this our Constitution but do straitly charge and admonish” whereas
the Guidelines in front of us say very bluntly that it “forbids” a parish priest to give word
to what has happened under the Seal of the Confessional. The kind of result of the
unrepealed, what is it, unrepealed proviso, talks about the “pain of irregularity”. I am not
sure what that is and some guidance for that would be helpful. It is not a very satisfactory
matter to leave it with this kind of language, with this very obscure piece of legal text, so I
would like to echo everything that Robert Cotton said earlier, this stuff does need to be
changed.
One last point, which is that in 3.4 it speaks of “guidance from the House of Bishops”. I am
not aware of any such guidance in existence. If such guidance does exist perhaps it could
be more widely publicised or perhaps the House might like to help out the clergy by
providing such guidance. That would be greatly appreciated, I think.
The President: Thank you very much.
The Revd Canon Simon Butler (Southwark): Thank you, your Grace. It is by the nature of this
document that as you read it you reflect on your own ministry and the things that are
actually live for you, and what is live for me at the moment, not in terms of my own
reception of ministry from others but the practice of my ministry, is section 11, which is at
the reception and exercise of discipline. This is an area, I think, where we all fear to tread.
It is one of those things, like safeguarding, that really causes us to lose sleep, how we
exercise discipline, how we care for others in the exercise of that ministry as well.
As I read section 11, I find it entirely satisfactory in terms of the second questioner’s point
about accepting the discipline of the Church but entirely absent is any reference to the
ministering of the discipline of the Church and how we might exercise that ministry in a
way consistent with professional and Gospel standards. It seems to me that it would be
helpful if in the revision of this document, which I fully support, we could have a little bit
more guidance in a very general way, because this is by nature a general document, that
will assist us in reflecting on what it means in those very difficult moments where the
exercise of pastoral discipline and the way it borders on capability in terms of licensed and
unlicensed ministers can be exercised. I would find that extremely helpful. Thank you.
The Revd Dr Patrick Richmond (Norwich): Thank you, your Grace, for calling me. I would like
to echo all that has been said about the section on reconciliation and add that later in section
12.5 more comments are made about confidentiality. I think it would make sense to move
those at the very least to that earlier section on reconciliation which is so dominated by the
Confessional and its Seal. If repetition is a problem then I think it makes sense for it to come
earlier in the document. The instructions about seeking legal advice and advice on child
protection would seem to me to be something that we need repeated, but if not repeated
then to see it straight up in an attempt to gain the balance that is required.
I would also like to express my thanks for the theological reflection and just say that as a
first time incumbent I was very aware that there were all sorts of different sorts of power
and I found that though I might have some formal and authorised power, there were many
people who at least looked older than I was and had an established role in the parish and
these relationships and power relationships were set up very early, much earlier in fact than
the pastoral guidance I received from the powers that were set in authority over me. So one
can be very vulnerable to manipulation and to coercion, both from a vicar and by
parishioners dealing with a new vicar who is a lot wet behind the ears, and so I would
encourage the guidance to recognise the different forms of power, the way that bullying
can be exercised by incumbents and clergy and bullying can be exercised by parishioners
and encourage those with pastoral care, particularly for newcomers, to establish realistic
expectations from the very word ‘go’. Thank you.
The Very Revd Andrew Nunn (Southwark): I am also on section 3. I teach the IME course on
hearing confessions and safeguarding in the Diocese of Southwark and I would never give
people the advice - which section is it - in 3.6 that I would get somebody to agree that they
will go to see the police and I, on the basis of that, would give them absolution. I think the
withholding of absolution is something within the process of getting somebody to disclose
what has been going on and accompanying that person. That is the kind of advice that we
would normally give and is in accordance with the guidance of the House of Bishops which
is in all the documentation about safeguarding.
It is 3.8, I think, which is particularly concerning because I think one of the riches of
sacramental confession and the very particular context means that confidentiality there is
very specific to those circumstances whereas the idea that just because we can be trusted
therefore everything carries the same level of confidentiality is absolutely unworkable in
relation to safeguarding as people need to know that if the conversation goes in that
direction we have to go and report that. It just does not apply in the same way. I think that
section is very seriously wrong and could get us into a lot of very serious difficulties.
The Revd Prebendary David Houlding (London): I think it is very important for us to
understand what this document is and what it is not, and it is a reflection of the law as it is
rather than what we might want it to be or ways in which we might seek to change it.
Therefore, it is a document written by the clergy for the clergy and at the end of the day I
am very grateful for the general affirmation that I am hearing about it but nonetheless we
will hope to make it into an Act of Convocation. That would be the very final part of this
process.
It is not a safeguarding document in itself though issues of safeguarding have had to be
included and whenever you come across them in the document the word “must” is used.
So there are issues which have the “must” category as opposed to some other issues which
are addressed in the “should” category, and that is inevitable. It does, of course, at the same
time slightly change the nature of the document and there is no way round that. Wherever
there are safeguarding issues to be addressed the document always points to further points
where information on those issues can be found.
I hear what is said about section 3. It has been said before and we have spent a lot of time
with the lawyers trying to work out how to address it. I also, I think, understand that we
have not got it right yet. I think that is coming across very clearly. You will appreciate that
to leave out the paragraph on reconciliation altogether would also not be doing justice to
what is there in the Ordinal and what we understand the priestly vocation to be about, the
authority to forgive sins in the name of the Lord, and therefore we have obviously got to do
more work how we preserve what is there in the Canons of 1603 and in the tradition of the
wider Church as well as the Church of England the confidentiality of what is said and at
the same time to address, as it were, where we are in the safeguarding issues that are around
at the time. I am not sure what the answer to it is at the moment but I can just give that
guarantee that we will obviously have to do more work.
This document is about excellence. The Prayer Book describes the priestly vocation as one
of excellence. It is about setting the standard. It is about having something to aspire to. We
often talk about the vocation of all the baptised and we encourage all the faithful to see their
Christian lives in terms of vocation, but we also need to understand that our own calling as
priests, deacons, bishops is a wonderful vocation from God, a glorious vocation. In Ely
yesterday in the Cathedral we had a marvellous --The President: Could you be drawing to a close, please?
The Revd Prebendary David Houlding (London): I will. We had a marvellous funeral for a
young priest supported by so many other clergy present and it was a reminder of just how
excellent the calling to be ordained really is. Thank you.
The President: Thank you.
The Revd Christopher Hobbs (London): I am on section 10. If I was a clergyman in one diocese
who had my permission to officiate taken away and told that I could not get a licence for
something else, or if I was a clergyman in another diocese that has recently married
someone and waiting to find out what would happen, I would expect that I would find
some reference in Guidelines for the Professional Conduct of the Clergy if I was going to be
disciplined for such a matter. I can see that if I am adulterous that is unbecoming or
inappropriate conduct. I wonder why there is no reference to that category.
The President: Thank you.
The Revd Simon Cawdell (Hereford): I have heard, as we all have, the wise words of both the
Prolocutor and the Pro-Prolocutor which draw our attention to the fact that section 3 has
been drawn up in the light of the current law. They may be offering us a hint here and I
wonder whether we can, from Convocation, suggest to the House of Bishops or perhaps
have conversations in another place about a Private Member’s Motion inviting the Synod
as a whole to look again at the proviso to Canon 113 of the Code of 1603 and how it might
turn out in the modern age.
My other point, which is also to do with safeguarding, and again has ramifications in a
discussion that we will be having later in these sessions, is there is nothing here that I see
in section 6 which talks about the vesting of clergy who are retired, and that might be
helpful because in another place we will be discussing Measures that place upon an
incumbent a duty to ensure that nobody vests in their churches unless they have permission
to officiate or a licence. It would be very helpful if these Guidelines made it quite clear there
was also a responsibility on professional clergy, whether licensed or not, that they did not
vest unless they had a licence or permission to officiate. I have encountered such a situation
myself and will comment on that if called later.
The Revd Mark Steadman (Southwark): I wonder if I could just pick up on something that Fr
Houlding was saying earlier on about the categories between the way the Guidelines are
phrased in terms of “should” and where “must” is used. Of course, as soon as you start
saying you “must” do something the document tends to move away from being guidance
to being more in the nature of a code. If you expect the clergy to do something in particular
situations, then surely there must be a consequence of not doing that thing? If that is the
case, and if these Guidelines are going to end up being used to provide the substance of
clergy discipline cases, then perhaps it would be helpful to spell out right at the start of the
Guidance the consequences of not following certain parts of it. That too would help the
clergy in the exercise of their ministry and in the life to which they are called.
If I can also touch on the question of the confidentiality of the Confessional. This continues
to be a difficult subject, I realise. There was a learned article by Rupert Bursell in the
Ecclesiastical Law Journal of a few years ago which sets out this whole area in some detail
and does repay study.
I also believe there is a resolution of this Convocation underlining the commitment to the
Seal of the Confession, and perhaps the Synodical Secretary will be able to advise us more
about that. If there is to be a wider debate that needs to be in the context of seeking to change
the Canons, which has always been a difficult matter, and indeed in the 1960s, when the
current Code was promulged, it was considered too difficult a question even then, which is
why I think we still have the unrepealed proviso.
The President: Thank you. It is good to find someone else who has back copies of the
Ecclesiastical Law Journal as their bedtime reading!
The Bishop of Truro (The Rt Revd Timothy Thornton): Just an observation to check that left and
right hand know what is going on. I am very aware of what David Houlding and others
have said about recognising the situation as it is now. Some of you may be aware that
Bishop Paul Butler, the Bishop of Durham, has his name down to an amendment to the
Serious Crime Bill being discussed this coming week in Parliament that would make it a
criminal offence not to report an allegation of child abuse. I think we need to be careful as
we move forward that we are in line with the law as it is and as we are talking about it
rather than as it has been.
The Bishop of Bath and Wells (The Rt Revd Peter Hancock): Can I just invite the Convocation to
reflect a little bit on what we are doing this for because I think there are some assumptions
coming through which are not necessarily helpful. When I write an appointment letter to
invite someone to be appointed to a particular parish, I say to them, “You are invited to take
up this appointment and I invite you to do that within the context of the Ordinal, the Canons
of the Church of England and the Guidelines for the Professional Conduct of the Clergy and
have regard to those things”. What we are putting in place here is not something that has
the same status as the Canons or the Ordinal. Those are things which we make particular
profession about when we are ordained or when we swear again canonical obedience.
These are guidelines. Please therefore let us try and be careful about not suggesting that this
is a vade mecum whereby you sweep up absolutely everything you need to know about being
a priest. We do not operate like that. It is not a legalistic code. Nor yet, as we drew up these
Guidelines, did we suggest that we could include absolutely everything. You will find lots
of places where we cross-refer, and therefore we need to be intelligent about not including
everything, but saying, “If want to know more about this, go and read the Canons”. This is
not a manifesto for laziness. You have to go elsewhere in order to discover what you are
entitled to do and what you are meant to do. The “shoulds” and the “oughts” and the
“musts” are very carefully worded in this document in order to flag what it is that we
should be about. Please think about how this is to be used. I think it is a great document. I
think it is worthwhile and it has helped us a lot, but it is not a legalistic code and it is only
something that points you to other places in how you operate.
The President: Thank you. One more and then I will ask the Prolocutor to respond.
The Revd Mark Ireland (Lichfield): Looking at paragraph 10, again it is a tremendously helpful
document and I am conscious of all the work that has gone into it, but, as somebody who
was single as a priest for more years than I have been married, I find it fascinating that there
is no clear statement about whether sexual relationships are permissible for those who are
single. In paragraph 11.19 it seems to be that it is very clearly specified that if a sexual
relationship is with a vulnerable adult or an under-age person, that is out of bounds, but
actually I still understand the Church’s teaching commends two states of life, which are
marriage and singleness. If sexual relationships are inappropriate outside of marriage, then
I think that needs to be reflected slightly more clearly in the document.
The President: There being no-one else standing, I invite the Prolocutor to respond, for five
minutes please, Christine.
The Prolocutor: Thank you, Archbishop. You will understand that in five minutes I cannot
give a detailed response to all the very significant points that have been raised in the debate.
Not surprisingly, much of this debate has been concerned with section 3, and you will
understand why we too have been concerned with section 3 and why it is now four years
since the Working Party first initiated its work. There is a dilemma around section 3 in the
context of what we now expect in terms of disclosure and safeguarding. I suspect that
dilemma has always been there in that it is not only safeguarding issues that may be
confessed; it could be that a serial murderer has come to confession and the moral dilemma,
in a sense, remains. What we have got in section 3 is as clear a statement as we can of what
the lawyers tell us is the legal position in the Church of England at the moment. The Legal
Advisory Commission have been considering this, and are still considering it, and they too
believe that if anything is to change this is a matter for the House of Bishops. I believe the
House of Bishops is going to look at the whole issues surrounding confidentiality and the
Seal of the Confessional.
We had a choice. Either we wait until all that has happened and we have no Guidelines or
we live in the provisionality of where we are at the moment. We are being told, and I believe
it is true, that our clergy and the Church at large deserves something which is a provisional
document to give help to clergy in being aspirational about the best way that they can
exercise their ministry. Of course, it is not perfect and section 3 highlights that lack of
perfection, but I do urge you not to have the illusion that we are going to get something that
we have the power to change the situation we find ourselves in and that we delay issuance
of any Guidelines until that situation has been changed. I think a pragmatic approach here
is important.
On the issue of how different paragraphs relate to each other, I think there is some work we
can do there. Andrew Nunn raised the question of the paragraph relating to confidentiality
in general. Safeguarding is not mentioned in that paragraph but because of its positioning
it could be that we assume that is what it is talking about; it is not. But it may be that moving
that section into the trust section, for example, may be a more sensible place to put it.
We were reminded in the Legal Advisory Commission that issues of confidentiality in our
world extend far beyond the Seal of the Confessional and we are under an obligation in
most circumstances as professionals to hold confidence. Actions for breach of confidence
happen not just amongst the clergy but in the world at large, so something about stating
the importance of keeping confidence when it is appropriate to do so, which is most
situations, clergy do need a reminder of that. They do have an obligation to hold confidence
in almost every context, even when it is not the formal Seal of the Confessional.
I have noted very carefully a lot of the other points that were made. Christopher Hobbs and
Mark Ireland raised section 10, which again we did have some discussion on. Section 10 has
tried to be careful not to be too detailed or prescriptive actually. We are wanting to hold
here the notion of integrity of relationships and all that means; the honouring of people in
relationship and the obligations into which we enter. You may think we have got that
wrong but we felt that it was important to have that broader focus rather than a detailed
list of do’s and don’ts.
I am grateful to Bishop Pete for his very clear exposition about the status of this document.
It is not a legal document, it is a provisional document, it is a time-limited document, and I
only hope that when we come to revise it, if indeed we get that far, and have it brought out
this time that it will not take as long next time as it has this.
I urge you to support this Motion and commend this draft document to General Synod for
further comment.
The President: Thank you very much. We come therefore to vote on item 3 in the form set
out on the agenda.
This motion was put and carried.
That completes the business of the full Synod and the Upper House will now withdraw.
(His Grace the President and their Lordships of the Upper House then withdrew)
Lower House
The Prolocutor: Friends and colleagues, to signal a change of mode I will now move seat.
We now move into the final part of our meeting, which is the meeting of the Lower House
of Convocation. The agenda for that is on the reverse of your blue sheet.
Commemoration of Deceased Members
My first task in this Lower House of Convocation is to commemorate those members who
have been past members of Convocation who have died during the past year. Amongst
those who have been bishops we remember the Rt Revd Colin Bennetts, who was Bishop
of Coventry, the Rt Revd John Austin Baker, who was Bishop of Salisbury, and the Rt Revd
John Satterthwaite, who was the Bishop of Gibraltar in Europe.
In the Lower House of Convocation we remember the Revd Canon Patience Purchas. I think
it is particularly appropriate that we are, in this meeting of Convocation, remembering and
giving thanks for the life of Patience Purchas who was, for those of you who have been
around, as I have, a long time, the most redoubtable and wonderfully feisty debater in this
House, a great servant of Synod, and who was passionately in favour of the ordination of
women first to the priesthood and latterly to the Episcopate.
I have a wonderful memory of her when she came to be on a panel being addressed by
ordinands at the St Albans and Oxford Ministry Course and she was one of the panellists
answering questions and she had on a very vivid raspberry coloured clerical shirt and
somebody asked her about this, she said, “Yes, I rather like it. I call it ‘crushed bishop’.” For
me particularly she was a very dear friend of mine and it is very appropriate, I think, at this
Synod to be remembering her and Colin and the two Bishop Johns, so shall we stand.
(Prayers)
I now invite our Secretary to introduce new members to the Convocation.
Introduction of new members to the Prolocutor
The Synodical Secretary (The Revd Stephen Trott) (Peterborough): Item 2. I am aware of a
number of new members since Convocation last assembled. They include Bishop Peter
Hancock, Bishop of Bath and Wells, Bishop Robert Attwell, Bishop of Exeter, and Bishop
Nigel Stock, Bishop to the Forces. In the Lower House, the Revd Brian Llewellyn of Europe
Diocese - is he here? - the Revd Mark Garner from the Southern Universities and the Revd
Mark Gilbert of the Diocese of Chichester.
The Prolocutor: I think in their absence we welcome them.
The Synodical Secretary (The Revd Stephen Trott) (Peterborough): Are there any more
volunteers? I am sure we will go out of our way to welcome them in the course of the Synod.
Mark Gilbert I believe was elected yesterday so perhaps he can be forgiven.
The Prolocutor: Thank you. I now invite our Secretary to move the Minutes.
Minutes
The Synodical Secretary (The Revd Stephen Trott) (Peterborough): This is a mediaeval timesaving device. It saves us having to circulate Minutes and sign them. I shall read the Minutes
to you.
“The Convocation of Canterbury assembled in Full Synod at 1.15 on Friday 11 July 2014 in
Room PX/001 of the Exhibition Centre, the University of York.
Item 1. His Grace the President, led the prayers.
Item 2. The Prolocutor named her assessors for the day: the Revd Canon Gavin Kirk
(Lincoln), the Revd Catherine Grylls (Birmingham), the Revd James Dudley-Smith (Bath
and Wells), the Revd Canon Rebecca Swyer (Chichester).
Item 3. Motion: Draft Guidelines for the Professional Conduct of the Clergy.
“That this Convocation:
(a) express its gratitude to the Joint Working Party for its work in producing a revision of
the Guidelines for the Professional Conduct of the clergy;
(b) commend the revised Guidelines to the General Synod for its consideration;
(c) request the Working Party to prepare a final version of the revised Guidelines for
approval by the Convocations following their consideration by the General Synod, taking
account of comments made in the course of their consideration by the Convocations and
the General Synod.”
In the debate which followed the following members spoke: the Prolocutor introduced the
debate, Canon Robert Cotton (Guildford), Philip Plyming (Guildford), Hazel Whitehead
(Guildford), Andrew Dotchin (St Edmundsbury and Ipswich), Simon Taylor (Derby),
Simon Butler (Southwark), Patrick Richmond (Norwich), the Very Revd Andrew Nunn
(Southwark), Preb David Houlding (London), Christopher Hobbs (London), Simon
Cawdell (Hereford), Mark Steadman (Southwark), Bishop Tim Thornton (Truro), Bishop
Pete Broadbent (Willesden), Mark Ireland (Lichfield). I hope I have got everybody’s names
faithfully recorded.
The Prolocutor, the Venerable Christine Hardman, replied to the debate and the President
then put the Motion to the vote, which was carried on a show of hands.
The Upper House withdrew.
In the Lower House.
Item 1. The Prolocutor invited prayers for deceased members, including the Rt Revd Colin
Bennetts, the Rt Revd John Austin Baker, the Rt Revd John Satterthwaite, the Revd Canon
Patience Purchas.
Item 2. The following new members were welcomed and introduced: the Revd Brian
Llewellyn (Europe), the Revd Mark Garner (Southern Universities) and the Revd Mark
Gilbert (Chichester).”
Perhaps we had better tell them all later.
The Revd Nigel Irons (Lichfield): Point of order. I am also a new member and you did not
mention me.
The Prolocutor: And you are here. Please stand so we can --The Revd Nigel Irons (Lichfield): My name is Nigel Irons and, more to the point, I bothered
to turn up as well.
The Prolocutor: A warm welcome.
The Revd Nigel Irons (Lichfield): Thank you.
A Speaker: Another point of order. It was reported that the Prolocutor “invited prayers for”.
I would rather that it recorded “The Prolocutor invited us to remember with thanksgiving
to God” or something like that.
The Prolocutor: “Prayers of commemoration”.
The Synodical Secretary (The Revd Stephen Trott) (Peterborough): With those amendments:
Item 3. The Minutes were read by the Synodical Secretary.
Would you like to approve Sunday’s Minutes as well just in case!
A Speaker: It depends what they say.
The Synodical Secretary (The Revd Stephen Trott) (Peterborough): They will be largely the same!
Do I have your approval for the Minutes? (Approved) Thank you very much. That concludes
the entertainment.
The Prolocutor: That concludes our meeting of the Lower House of the Convocation of
Canterbury. Can I ask us to stand to say the Grace together?
The Prolocutor gave the Blessing, and the House stood prorogued.