House of Bishops' List:
https://archives.anglican.ca/link/official7585
- Date
- 2000 May 8-12
- Source
- House of Bishops. Minutes
- Type
- Resolution 08-05-00
- Mover
- Bishop Ingham
- Seconder
- Bishop Spence
- Prologue
- 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.
- Text of motion
- "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
- Notes
- 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.
- Subjects
- House of Bishops' List
- Anglican Church of Canada - Clergy - Licensing
- Church discipline - Anglican Church of Canada
- Freedom of information - Religious aspects - Anglican Church of Canada