In response to the letter from the General Secretary, this House approves the proposal that would make provision for the transfer of clergy employed at the National Office to the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the Primate. CARRIED 10-2-82
It was agreed that the Committee on Organization be asked to study the many factors involved, recognizing that there must be a clear line of accountability. It was agreed, also, that the Organization Committee be asked to study the matter of transference of Diocesan titles.
Concern was raised regarding the House of Bishops' List. The Primate reported that the Rev. R. Johns is working on this and that he is to report to the Organization Committee and the House of Bishops.
The General Secretary noted that retired Bishops are, by Canon, now accountable to the Bishop in whose Diocese they reside.
The Chairman, the Bishop of Montreal, reported that there had been no time between the last meeting of the House and the present one, to meet, but it was hoped a report would be forthcoming before the close of the meeting. The committee, appointed by the Acting Primate, is composed of the Bishops of Montreal (Chairman); Toronto and Ottawa. Their Report was presented on Saturday evening in the form of a Table of Suggestions, together with particular recommendations for men who are on the Clergy List of the House of Bishops. These will be found as Appendix A to these Minutes.
That the House receive the Report of the Committee on the House of Bishops Clergy List and request each Diocesan Bishop to send to the Bishop of Montreal (for the Committee) comments regarding the Report of the Committee and present diocesan practice in order that the Committee may make recommendations at our next meeting to achieve, as far as possible,a common policy in all dioceses. CARRIED
HOUSE OF BISHOPS CLERGY LIST : APPENDIX A
Recommendations by the Committee accepted by the House of Bishops
1. That all priests not holding full licence should have their canonical status clarified in the diocese where they are residing, and also their relation to the Synod of that diocese.
2. That, while episcopal oversight in some dioceses may not be possible in the normal way, it is recommended that the bishop or his delegate, arrange an annual meeting of these priests for fellowship and mutual exchange of ideas.
3. That parish clergy be informed of the presence of such priests in their parish and that they and their families be welcomed into the life and worship of the parish.
4. That Rural Deans and Archdeacons be asked to invited these men to share in the gatherings of the clergy in the Rural Deanery or Archdeaconry.
5. That Canons XIX and XX be amended to provide these priests with the Right of Appeal to the Metropolitan.
6. That men be transferred to the Clergy List of the House of Bishops by Letters Dimissory and a Certificate of Standing be issued to them by the Secretary of the House of Bishops.
(see attached chart)
[Chart on page  of the Minutes not included in electronic database.]
Bishop Ferris presented his report on the status of the House of Bishops' List. He also gave a brief update on the work he and Bishop Hockin had done since the spring meeting of the House. Bishop Ferris reviewed the report which included the proposed recommendations discussed at the House of Bishops meeting held in Quebec City.
The report had nine recommendations. Recommendation #5 was: "That the Primate be requested to write to each of the bishops, giving the names, addresses and confidential files of those previously on the list from their dioceses." After some discussion point #5 was revised so that after "That the Primate be requested to write ..." the words `to the clergy on the List, outlining the changes in our process, and then write to ...' were added.
"That the House adopt the recommendations with the revisions." CARRIED Res. #HB-04-10-99
Bishop Mason suggested the initial step in the process of bringing the House of Bishops' List to an end, should be made by the Primate. He requested that consideration be given to having the Primate's Office send a letter to those people currently on the List (indicating it was being brought to an end), before they are contacted by their diocesan bishops. He suggested that the letter could say "The House of Bishops has passed the following recommendations and as a consequence you are now under pastoral oversight and discipline of the diocese which submitted your name to the list. You will be hearing from that diocese ... etc." The Primate said he would be happy to correspond with those on the House of Bishops' List.
Bishop Bedford-Jones asked about the possibility of having a discussion about letters bene decessit at a future meeting. There was consensus that such a conversation would be helpful.
Archbishop Peers thanked Bishop Ferris and Bishop Hockin for their work on the House of Bishops' List.
Archbishop Peers began the session on the House of Bishops' List by speaking about two principles. They were, the breadth of information as directed in the canons and then, the internal standard within the House.
The Primate reminded the bishops that one of the standards of the House is that its members do not talk about individuals (on the House of Bishops' List) by name in an open session.
The Primate referred to the canons on licensing and discipline Canon 17, Canon 18 (relinquishment), and Canon 19 as an introduction to the conversation about the House of Bishops' List. He pointed out that the information sent to various people differs in the canons. For example in Canon 17, bishops, metropolitans and the primate are informed. However when the issue is suspension then there is obligation only within the diocese, and the bishops and the clergy are informed. The focus of the discussion at the meeting of the House of Bishops was on relinquishment and abandonment, for which the obligation is to inform only the bishops.
The Primate's Principal Secretary spoke of an incident which occurred when the editor of the 'Anglican Journal' asked to see the House of Bishops' List. He asked "who should have access to the list" ? The canons state that the list should be kept by the Primate's office, and so he said his question was about the availability of information beyond what is canonically required.
During the discussion, which followed, it was suggested that the role of "priest", is a public position and that all have the right to know. The manner for informing should be by circulating information of who is active. Questions about specific people should be referred to the bishop. To do otherwise (listing those who are relinquished) might be viewed as undermining an individual's reputation in the community.
Bishop Bedford-Jones requested time on a future agenda to discuss the national standards about letters bene decessit.
The House reviewed the House of Bishops' List. Canon Light reminded the House that being put on the list was quite different from having anything to do with relinquishment and abandonment. Names are put onto the list by Letters of Bene Decessit to the Primate. He reminded the bishops that (at their meeting in the fall 1999) the Primate had agreed to send a letter to those on the House of Bishops' List. A draft of that letter was distributed to the members. Canon Light said that along with the letter there would be a form asking for information (correct address, next steps - preferred action to be taken...etc.). Canon Light requested that the bishops assist him in getting correct addresses and determining the status of those people currently on the House of Bishops' List.
"That the House ask the Primate in consultation with the Chancellor of General Synod, to propose recommendations for a common standard among dioceses with respect to licensing and transfer of clergy in the Anglican Church of Canada, including a clarification of the implications of such a common standard for legal liabilities". CARRIED Res.#HB-08-05-00
Bishop Mason requested that copies of the Primate's letter mailed to those on the House of Bishops' List, be sent also to the bishop of canonical residence, as well as the bishop of the area in which the individual lives. The primate agreed to do so.
The Bishop of Keewatin asked if it would not be possible in the case of clergy on leave from active duty in their diocese and who are resident in another diocese to transfer them to the clergy list of the diocese in which they reside, and show them as 'on leave' on the clergy list of that diocese. It was apparent that most Bishops have this same problem with men who are 'on leave' from active duty but the Bishops, are reluctant to accept responsibility for such men when they come into their dioceses. The House was reminded that this matter was referred to in last year's meeting, at which time no conclusion was reached, through it was realized that the House must give serious attention to this problem at the earliest possible opportunity. (See 1965 Minutes, page 20).
The Bishop of Ontario reported that the Committee on Constitution and Canons is working on a Canon on men who abandon their ministries without relinquishing orders. Later in the meeting he distributed to members of the House copies of a draft of a Canon entitled "Title or Appointment and Conditions of the Tenure of Title." The House did not find the time to consider this draft.
The Primate introduced a letter from the Bishop of Kootenay asking that the House authorize experimentation in new ways of carrying out the Church's ministry.
"That the question of special status of men in special ministries and of men 'on leave' for other reasons be referred to the above Committee to be appointed by the Primate."
Bishop Bothwell shared with the House the text of a response from Professor S. Ryan on the Guidelines on Licensing approved in December, 1974, and responded to his comments.
"That the question of the Primate licensing national staff as outlined in Section 4. of the Guidelines approved at the December 1974 meeting of the House be referred to the Commission on the Primacy." CARRIED