1/ Heresy and English Canon Law – The first of two threads. #churchlaw #canonlaw
Unsurprisingly, this thread was prompted by a Twitterstorm over the last day or so. I will turn to the specifics of that, very briefly, at the end of the second thread.
Unsurprisingly, this thread was prompted by a Twitterstorm over the last day or so. I will turn to the specifics of that, very briefly, at the end of the second thread.
2/ But I don’t want to focus on specifics and won’t be engaging with the substance of what was said in that debate.
This first thread is about the nuts and bolts of how a heresy case would work in the CofE.
This first thread is about the nuts and bolts of how a heresy case would work in the CofE.
3/ Is heresy a disciplinary offence? Yes, even though the word is not used in our disciplinary legislation.
4/ The legislation incorporates it by reference, it being ‘an offence against the laws ecclesiastical involving a matter of doctrine’ (Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure s14(1)(a)).
5/ We have a small number of cases setting out what heresy is - there were at least four cases heard in the 19th Century.
6/ One was Voysey v Noble, the Revd Mr Voysey was deprived of his living for heresy, or rather for having “maintained and promulgated doctrines contrary and repugnant to, or inconsistent with, the Articles of Religion and formularies of the Church of England”.
7/ Mr Voysey’s charge sheet included that he denied the doctrine of original sin, atonement, and reconciliation to God through the sacrifice and vicarious punishment of Christ; that he denied the doctrine of justification by faith;
8/ ...that he denied the second coming of Christ, the Trinity, and the incarnation and godhead of Christ; and that he denied the divine inspiration of the Gospels.
9/ Another case, Williams v Bp of Salisbury set out the necessary ingredients for a heresy case. A complainant must:
(1) distinctly state the [heretical] opinions which the clerk has advisedly maintained
(2) set forth the passages in which these opinions are stated
(1) distinctly state the [heretical] opinions which the clerk has advisedly maintained
(2) set forth the passages in which these opinions are stated
10/ (3) specify the doctrines of the Church which such opinions or teaching of the clerk are alleged to contravene and
(4) the particular Articles of Religion, or portions of the Formularies, which contain such doctrines’
(4) the particular Articles of Religion, or portions of the Formularies, which contain such doctrines’
11/ And that’s about the extent of guidance that we have for disciplinary cases of heresy.
12/ Historically, cases would be heard at a Diocesan level (Consistory Court), with appeal to the Court of Arches (or Court of Chancery in the northern province) and appeal from there to the Privy Council.
13/ This was changed in 1963 when the Court of Ecclesiastical Causes Reserved was founded. A 1954 report held that the necessary expertise for doctrinal disciplinary cases was difficult to maintain at diocesan level, and so the proceedings were ‘nationalised’.
14/ In 57 years the Court has never met to hear a doctrinal disciplinary matter!
15/ In 1996 a report proposed a replacement statutory offence of “recommended a new offence of ‘teaching, preaching, publishing or professing doctrine or belief incompatible with that of the Church of England’”. This never happened in England (but did in the Church in Wales).
16/ So how would a case work under the 1963 Measure? A complaint is made in writing to the relevant Bishop (the Diocesan, or the Archbishop in the case of a complaint against a Diocesan Bishop).
17/ Certain clergy may complain (a Curate’s Incumbent, an Incumbent’s Curate), or a GROUP of laity (for an Incumbent, six people on the electoral roll). Complaints against a Bishop need a larger group of clergy and laity from that diocese.
18/ Or an individual by be made an “authorised complainant” by a Bishop.
19/ The Bishop may either dismiss the Complaint or refer it for an Inquiry. An Inquiry involves an appointed Committee of Bishops, clerics and Diocesan Chancellors who deem whether there is a ‘case to answer’. If so then the Court will meet and determine the complaint.
20/ The maximum sanction for a first offence is a monition (order not to do it again). On a second offence, removal from office is possible.
21/ Given the Court has not met once in 57 years for one case such as this, the chance of meeting and ‘convicting’ twice for the same cleric seems rather remote. We’re not going to see any heretical clergy removed from office any time soon.
22/ A second thread will focus on reflections on the process, why it is important that it exists, and why I think it should be used occasionally! Probably tomorrow. [end]
@threadreaderapp unroll please
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
