Oh no you can’t
Could a new province be set up for traditionalists without reference to General Synod? Matthew Chinery offers a pessimistic analysis of the legal arguments
I
n August’s New Directions Fr Robert Van Der Weyer submits that traditionalists could seize for themselves the new province which Synod has denied them. It is
a beguiling prosect which has certainly excited certain congregations in the PEV Sees. However, I do not believe it can withstand a close legal analysis. I submit that the unilateral creation of a new province would necessarily, as a mater of law, mean leaving the Church of England and the Anglican Communion, if not permanently, at least temporarily. If that is correct, it will be impossible to retain churches and parsonages for the use of this new province. Tis article is concerned solely with the legal arguments.
Needless to say, such acion would be expensive, fiercely resisted by the establishment and perhaps pastorally damaging. It would further delay our oſt-stated aim to ‘get off the batlefield and onto the mission-field’. Tat debate I leave to others.
Terminology Precise terminology is key. What
is the Anglican Communion? Self- identifying as Anglican is clearly not enough, a fact amply demonstrated by the array of continuing Anglican churches. Nor can communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury, of itself, be sufficient; the Old Catholics and Porvoo churches are ‘in communion’ but not ‘of the communion’. My definition would be along the lines of ‘an international association of separate churches and provinces in the Anglican tradition and in full communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury’. I must also define what I mean by ‘the Church of England’.
Te Church of England is those two provinces of the universal Church, established by law with the monarch as Supreme Governor and the Archbishop of Canterbury as Metropolitan and Primate of All England. As an established church, the alteration of the borders of a province requires either an Act of Parliament (as in 1541 when Chester and Sodor & Man transferred from Canterbury to York) or a piece of suitably authorized delegated legislation (such as the Diocese of Southwell Transfer Measure 1935). Erection or suppression of dioceses is no less legalistic, with modern procedure laid out in the Dioceses, Pastoral & Mission Measure 2007.
ACNA example When a new province springs up, is it automatically
recognized as part of the Anglican Communion? Te spread of Anglicanism throughout the world in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries cannot be a suitable precedent in the way Fr Van Der Weyer suggests. Bishops were sent to the colonies under the direct jurisdiction of the Archbishop of Canterbury or York. First in the United States and then elsewhere, these direct jurisdictional ties were amicably cut
and the new provinces came to life. Unilaterally forming a new province within the existing
territorial boundaries of York and Canterbury is clearly very different. ACNA serves as a useful example. Te recent General Synod motion (February 2010) declares ACNA to be within the ‘Anglican family’, but not currently within the Anglican Communion. It notes their desire to be within the Communion and asks the Archbishops to report to Synod in 2011 about whether this can be achieved. Despite the claim that ACNA is recognized by 80% of Anglican provinces, the legal position must currently be that ACNA is not in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury and therefore not within the Anglican Communion.
Outside the Communion Applying this to the secifics, a unilaterally declared new
do not expect the property
laws to be on your side if you leave the CofE in this way
province would only become a member of the Anglican Communion once full communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury was restored. Temporarily at least, it would be outside the Anglican Communion. Without legal authority for its creation, it would also be outside the established Church of England. Parishes, dioceses, clergy and congregants would be
removing themselves from both these structures by joining the new province. Tis brings us to the question of property. Whilst legal
arguments about the precise extent of the ecclesiastical freehold are fascinating, I merely point to s56(2) of the Pastoral Measure 1983, which states: ‘it shal not be lawful to sel, lease or otherwise dispose of any church or part of a church… except in pursuance of powers under this Part or section 30.’
Property ownership Te incumbent and churchwardens are office holders
in the Church of England and hold church property for themselves, the parish and their successors. By leaving the Church of England, they leave their office and a vacancy would arise. In order for the outgoing incumbent and churchwardens to retain legal ownership of the church, a sale, lease or disposal would be necessary. Such transfer is unlawful unless the procedures in the Pastoral Measure are followed, and suffice to say these procedures would not deliver the desired result. Te position with parsonages is similar enough to warrant no separate analysis. Please do not expect the property laws to be on your side
if you leave the Church of England in this way. Tere may be some interesting legal debate over other assets, such as trusts held for PCCs or by independent Anglican charities. If and when Synod fails traditionalists for the final time, I suggest time be beter sent by investigating these avenues, rather than building up hope on a scheme doomed to expensive failure.
ND October 2010 ■ newdirections ■ 9
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40