Posts
The Anglican Church of Canada’s Council of General Synod (COGS) has finished a four-day meeting to formulate resolutions for recommendation to this June’s General Synod meeting. Here are the motions on same-sex unions to be presented to General Synod:
The Chancellor moved that three of the resolutions proposed be sent to General Synod:
- 2. That resolutions 3 and 4 below be deemed to have been carried only if they receive the affirmative votes of 60 per cent of the members of each Order present and voting and if a vote by diocese is requested, only if they receive the affirmation of 60 per cent of the dioceses whose votes are counted.
- 3. That this General Synod resolves that the blessing of same-sex unions is consistent with the core doctrine of the Anglican Church of Canada.
- 5. That this General Synod requests the Council of General Synod to consider revision of Canon 21 (On Marriage) including theological rationale to allow marriage of all legally qualified persons and to report at the next General Synod (2010).
The motion carried.
Those motions appear to me to contradict the Handbook of the General Synod of the Anglican Church of Canada. From page 16 of the pdf version, under Section 11 Amendments, subsection (c) Canons, paragraph (i):
All Canons dealing with doctrine, worship, or discipline, and all alterations to such Canons, shall require to be passed by a two-thirds majority in each Order voting at two successive sessions of the General Synod, the Canons and alterations proposed having been referred for consideration to diocesan and provincial synods, following the first approval of the General Synod.
The Handbook contains no provision for votes requiring a 60% majority to pass. It refers only to simple majority votes or votes requiring a two-third majority. The sixty percent figure was just pulled from a hat with no justification.
Archbishop Andrew Hutchison stated his opinion at COGS that same-sex marriage is a matter of discipline, not doctrine.
The Primate opened the discussion. He said that council’s goal must be to assist the conversation at General Synod and not to manipulate an outcome. He said his view is that the 2007 synod should make a clear decision and not put the matter off another three years, which a canonical change would require. “Another three years does us no good whatever because in the eyes of the Communion we will have crossed the Rubicon and whatever damage has been done will have been done.” He said he is not convinced we are dealing with a matter of doctrine except that all we do is related to doctrine. He said he believes this is a matter of pastoral discipline.
The distinction between “doctrine” and “pastoral discipline” would appear to be irrelevant according to the paragraph under Canons cited above, which refers to “All Canons dealing with doctrine, worship, or discipline, and all alterations to such Canons . . . “
Even if this is a matter of “pastoral discipline” only, the handbook still calls for a two-thirds majority at two consecutive General Synods. Furthermore, passage of those motions demands that Canon 21 (“Marriage in the Church”) be amended because it contains references to “man and wife”.
I don’t see how the requirement for a two-thirds majority at two consecutive General Synods can be avoided (but I’m not a canon lawyer).
Abp Hutchison’s opinion also contradicts the St Michael Report of June 2005, authored by the Primate’s Theological Commission.
It is the determination of the Primate’s Theological Commission that the blessing of same-sex unions is a matter of doctrine.
Why bother having a Primate’s Theological Commission if the primate is going to toss aside the collective expertise of its members without explanation?
In sum: COGS blandly states that the three motions need only a 60% majority, apparent contradictions with the Handbook of General Synod notwithstanding. It would appear very difficult to reconcile that sleight of hand with our primate’s statement that the council's “goal must be to assist the conversation at General Synod and not to manipulate an outcome”. To me, the motions look manipulative in the extreme.
Reactions from other Canadian Anglican bloggers:
- Peter at The Age To Come
- Rev Steve London at Our Hearts Are Restless
- sameo416 at Musings from the Muse
Previous related posts:
[...] (Heh, and another – who let the Canucks out then?) [...]
This smacks of abuse of power and authority, as well as blatant disregard of due and established process and canon law. Safeguards within the ’system’ were designed against such abuses as these. We cannot conduct an ‘end-run’ around established principles to meet a predetermined and manipulative end. We must uphold and consider Lambeth 1:10, Dromantine, and now Tanzania, as definitive direction of our Primates.
How dare CoGS deliver such an erroneous and and egregious slap in the face to our World wide communion in these days? Counterposition could not be more abundantly clear! This ‘body’ is serving other purposes and mandates, and must be called to task for its error.
Pity, that no Covenant exists now to order the parameters of ‘life’ and ‘discipline’ and ‘correction’ for the Canadian Church.
We look now to General Synod only! Lord have mercy! We know too well how imperfect that body is!
[...] – THE MIGHTY, MIGHTY Scott at Magic Stats is on fire: Council of General Synod tries to pull a fast one … (magicstatistics) [...]
[...] – THE MIGHTY, MIGHTY Scott at Magic Stats is on fire: Council of General Synod tries to pull a fast one … (magicstatistics) [...]
[...] Council of General Synod tries to pull a fast one [...]
From a talk I gave Nov 2006:
I could see an argument being raised at General Synod that goes something like this: the canons require that General Synod have two successive Synods voting on matters of doctrine, but that canon is only referring to ‘core doctrines’. Since marriage is not a core doctrine it does not require two votes.
COGS’ approach is not far off, by saying, ’same-sex blessings are already consistent with core doctrine, so such a resolution needs only one vote’.
There are some very crafty legislators working to draft these resolutions. I would suggest that a General Synod delegate needs to prep and submit an orthodox resolution of their own.
The plan is to deal with same-sex blessings by resolution of General Synod, rather than canonical amendment. Canonical change would require the 2/3 majority in successive General Synods, but a resolution would normally require a simple majority of 50% plus one. However, in this case they are suggesting in resolution 2 that GS should raise the bar on resolutions 3 and 4 by requiring 60% to pass.
Ken, I understand the plan.
The plan appears illegitimate because the resolutions entail changes in canons.
The fact that the Primate’s Theological Commission was struck to deal with this very question and concluded that the desired changes were doctrinal, only to be pushed aside without explanation, makes it clear that the resolutions are an attempt to circumvent the Handbook of General Synod. It’s a sham.
Also, as I said, the handbook contains no provision for 60% majority votes. That, too, is baseless.
I think they would tell you that ‘no canons will be harmed in the passing of these resolutions’. What COGS is proposing is a sneaky end run around the intent of the canons.
The whole thing is a sham. However, these resolutions were introduced by a lawyer who drafted them to be ‘legal’. There is enough interpretation room in our canons that all those motions could be passed, and would be binding.
Note there is no overt motion to change canons, only to pass a simple (nonsense) statement about consistency with core doctrine. Setting the 60% limit is within their authority (Synod can establish a higher bar through a vote, just not a lower bar). A legislative body receiving a report is under no obligation to adopt any of the conclusions of that report (stupid, but permitted).
The real mission out of COGS is to set Synod up to pass the local option resolution (deferred from 2004).
…and that is exactly what they’ve done. Check out the complete list of resolutions and find out where the missing resolution 4 fits in: http://www.anglican.ca/news/news.php?newsItem=2007-03-16_cogs.news
It’s far from a fast one.
Synod already has on the table the deferred resolution from 2004 (#4 from the CoGS report). The Primate’s Theological Commission has reported that the issue is a matter of doctrine, but adiaphora. A lot of people ASSUMED, when the St. Michael Report came out, that its conclusion required an amendment to Canon XXI or creation of a new canon on SSBs. But nowhere does the report say this. Indeed, a lot of other doctrinal issues (such as holy orders) are not covered in the canons. A canonical amendment would only be required to allow the marriage of same-sex couples (the process which would be set in motion by #5).
The 60% standard is totally made-up. But, I suspect the justification is, as Bishop Ingram imposed in New Westminster, that such a change should be supported by a substantial majority rather than just bare majority. That standard will come before Synod as a motion to suspend the rules of Synod, for the purposes of these resolutions, to require 60% rather than 50%+1 for passage. As I read the rule of procedure, that motion (not subject to debate) would require a 2/3rds vote. If it fails, the SSB questions would then require only 50%+1 to pass.
Based on voting and sentiment at GS2004 (assuming no major changes in the composition of delegations), at 50% the resolution will pass. At 60%, it could go either way, especially among the Bishops.
Jim,
So, General Synod can do whatever the heck it wants. Why bother having a Handbook?
[...] Council of General Synod tries to pull a fast one [...]
[...] Actions by the Diocese of New Westminster have played a leading role in bringing the Communion to the point of schism; and, if the Anglican Church of Canada passes the motions recommended by Council of General Synod, it could well get the bum’s rush be shown the door at the next primates’ meeting. [...]
[...] You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. Leave aReply [...]
[...] You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. Leave aReply [...]
[...] Think we can hire Deacon Payne to work the upcoming General Synod of the Anglican Church of Canada? [...]
[...] You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. Leave aReply [...]
[...] A185 specifies that the other two motions must be passed by 60% majorities in each of the two orders—bishops and clergy/laity–as well as by 60% of the dioceses. As I blogged in March when CoGS announced the motions, the 60% figure was pulled out of a hat. It has no logical basis or historical precedent. The most obvious interpretation of the 60% rule is that it attempts to soften the blow of dispensing with the more usual requirement of 2/3 majorities in two consecutive synods—in other words, a sop to SSB opponents. [...]
[...] As a result of today’s decisions, I think there will be a serious loss of trust between Canadian Anglicans who oppose SSBs and those who approve them. Council of General Synod presented the motions along with a concocted 60% majority requirement. These came to the floor of General Synod as three separate motions, with the artificial majority requirement being voted on first. Once that was disposed of, the stage was set for approval of SSBs with the bar set at 50% + 1. The whole scenario smacks of low cunning and dirty tricks. [...]