Total visitors right now: 91

Click here to check your private inbox.

Welcome to Stand Firm!

David Booth Beers was on the Drafting Committee of the “Principles of Canon Law”

Saturday, July 26, 2008 • 9:47 am


The Principles of Canon Law Common to the Churches of the Anglican Communion has yet to be published online. In the interest of keeping you informed, I will transcribe as much as I can over the next few days. I may not go in order, but I want as many Anglicans as possible to see what this book has in it and begin to think through the implications.

This afternoon I’ll start with the names of those who drafted the book and the table of contents.

Drafting Committee (from page 14)

...Those taking part were drawn from each of the different regions of the Communion and each brought penetrating insights which challenged and sharpened the colleagues at Cardiff University. We are indebted not only to Norman [Doe] and his colleagues for the immense amount of research and drafting they had undertaken, but to those who took part during these discussions (not all could be present all the time, due to other professional commitments, but all participated as fully as they could and some are the authors of the short notes which introduce each of the sections set out in the body of the text). For the record, they are:

Miss Philippa Amable: Chancellor of the Diocese of Ho, Province of Ghana

Mr. David Booth Beers: Chancellor to the Presiding Bishop, Episcopal Church, USA

Mr. Robert Falby: Chancellor to the Diocese of Toronto, Anglican Church of Canada

Mr. Bernard Georges: Chancellor of the Province of the Indian Ocean

Mrs. Rubie Nottage: Chancellor of the West Indies

Canon John Rees: Registrar of the Province of Canterbury, Church of England

Miss Fung-Yi Wong: Provincial Registrar of the Province of Hong Kong

Canon Dr. Gregory Cameron, as secretary of the Network, brought falicitous turns of phrase to difficult points of drafting, alerted members to potential difficulties with up to date references to sensitive issues in many parts of the Communion, garnered from his role as Deputy Secretary-General to the Anglican Consultative Council.

Table of Contents:                 

Part I: Church Order
Principle 1: Law in ecclesial society
Principle 2: Law as servant
Principle 3: The limits of the law
Principle 4: The sources and forms of law
Principle 5: The rule of law
Principle 6: The requirement of authority
Principle 7: The applicability of law
Principle 8: The interpretation of law
Principle 9: Juridical presumptions

Part II: The Anglican Communion
Principle 10: The fellowship of the Anglican Communion
Principle 11: The instruments of communion
Principle 12: Autonomy and interdependence
Principle 13: Mutual respect
Principle 14: Mutual hospitality

Part III: Ecclesiastical Government
Principle 15: Ecclesiastical Polity
Principle 16: Leadership and authority
Principle 17: Administration
Principle 18: Representative Government
Principle 19: Legislative competence an subsidiary
Principle 20: The diocese and diocesan legislation
Principle 21: The parish and parochial administration
Principle 22: Lay participation in government
Principle 23: Visitation
Principle 24: Due judicial process

Part IV: Ministry
Principle 25: The laity
Principle 26: Fundamental rights and duties of the faithful
Principle 27: Church membership
Principle 28: Service in public ministry
Principle 29: Ecclesiastical office
Principle 30: Lay ministry and offices
Principle 31: Threefold ordained ministry
Principle 32: Ordination: the holy orders of priests and deacons
Principle 33: The ministry of deacons and priests
Principle 34: Parish and other ministry
Principle 35: Admission to the order of bishops
Principle 36: Admission to the office of diocesan bishop
Principle 37: Diocesan episcopal ministry
Principle 38: Episcopal assistance
Principle 39: Archiepiscopal and metropolitical authority
Principle 40: Primacy: the office of primate
Principle 41: Clerical discipleship
Principle 42: Authorised public ministry
Principle 43: The professional ethic of public ministry
Principle 44: Pastoral care
Principle 45: Professional and personal relationships
Principle 46: Confidentiality
Principle 47: Termination of clerical ministry

more later, there are 100 principles


52 Comments • Print-friendlyPrint-friendly w/commentsShare on Facebook
Comments:

Sorry to post this again on another thread, but is the booklet based on this draft document from the Anglican Communion Legal Advisers Network?:

“Principles of Canon Law common to the Anglican Communion”
http://www.acclawnet.co.uk/canon-law.php

[1] Posted by Micky on 07-26-2008 at 10:03 AM • top

If David Booth Beers is one of the architects of the fifth instrument of communion, then we are well and truly screwed.

[2] Posted by Greg Griffith on 07-26-2008 at 10:08 AM • top

#1 That is interesting - as is the members list which has a number of Canadian, US and Australian lawyers together with John Rees of Winkworth Sherwood in England, but does not list Booth Beers.

The members list does not seem to list above.

[3] Posted by Pageantmaster ن on 07-26-2008 at 10:09 AM • top

By “falicitous turns of phrase” above, I hope your root word wasn’t “fallacy,” but that you actually meant “felicitous turns of phrase,” (originating from “felicity.”)

[4] Posted by heart on 07-26-2008 at 10:10 AM • top

And by “David Booth Beers” I hope you meant ....umm…..
....well, ummmm….someone else!

[5] Posted by heart on 07-26-2008 at 10:11 AM • top

Micky, yes, that is the draft. I am looking at the final copy

Pageantmaster, the members of the drafting group are not necessarily members of the community

[6] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 07-26-2008 at 10:12 AM • top

The members list does not seem to list above.

Because those listed above are not members of the Network but only advised it.

[7] Posted by Micky on 07-26-2008 at 10:13 AM • top

Has the Head Poacher been put on the Drafting Committee of the Gamekeepers’ Association?

[8] Posted by Pageantmaster ن on 07-26-2008 at 10:16 AM • top

Ha-ha but not really in that funny kind of way.

Matt, you can stop transcribing; I need to know nothing else.  I’ve easily concluded that the PURPOSE of the proposed “instrument of unity” is NOT NOT NOT unity. It’s winning property.

Yuck.

Carrie

[9] Posted by cityonahill on 07-26-2008 at 10:26 AM • top

#7 Must be - the registrars of Tanzania, Nigeria and Colombo and the Chancellors of Sudan and South Africa who were members were not included.

[10] Posted by Pageantmaster ن on 07-26-2008 at 10:31 AM • top

You really do have to look carefully at the small print of anything with which Gregory Cameron and the ACO have had a hand.

[11] Posted by Pageantmaster ن on 07-26-2008 at 10:34 AM • top

Doesn’t look as though it is going to be too far from the Draft 1 on the ACLAN website which also has 100 principles and which seems to be dated March ‘06.  Be interesting to see the comparison.  The trust for future generations TEC principle is at Principle 80:4 on page 41

[12] Posted by Pageantmaster ن on 07-26-2008 at 10:41 AM • top

Hmmm! 47 principles! Looks to me like something the Pharisees might have drawn up. Anybody remember what Jesus thought of what the Pharisees drew up?
Matt 15 ...Thus you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition. 7 Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying:  8 ‘These people draw near to Me with their mouth, And honor Me with their lips, But their heart is far from Me. 9 And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.

They were nothing but “vipers” to him.
Matt 3:7 - But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them, “Brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?

Matt 12:34 - Brood of vipers! How can you, being evil, speak good things? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.

Matt 23:33 - Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell?

Luke 3:7 - Then he said to the multitudes that came out to be baptized by him, “Brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?

[13] Posted by Mugsie1 on 07-26-2008 at 10:56 AM • top

Bernard Georges, Rubie Nottage, and Fung Yi-Wong were on the Panel of Reference.  Gregory Cameron was available as a staff member to the Panel of Reference.

[15] Posted by Jill Woodliff on 07-26-2008 at 12:10 PM • top

Philippa Amable is on the Anglican Consultative Council standing committee.

[16] Posted by Jill Woodliff on 07-26-2008 at 12:12 PM • top

Fung Yi-Wong is on the Lambeth Conference Design Group.

[17] Posted by Jill Woodliff on 07-26-2008 at 12:16 PM • top

LOL!  We keep praying for the same people over and over.

[18] Posted by Jill Woodliff on 07-26-2008 at 12:32 PM • top

I hate to say this, but without doing any research, it is apparent that several members of the group either directly or indirectly receive financial benefit from TEC
Trust is in short supply in the AC, and there are plenty of concerned lawyers who do not receive financial benefit from TEC.  I am appalled.

[19] Posted by Jill Woodliff on 07-26-2008 at 12:51 PM • top

Putting Beers on there is like putting a trial lawyer in charge of tort reform.

[20] Posted by Newbie Anglican on 07-26-2008 at 01:10 PM • top

<blockquote>Heavenly Father,
We bring to you in prayer David Booth Beers, Philippa Amable, Robert Falby, Bernard Georges, Rubie Nottage, John Rees, and Fung-Yi Wong.  In simple trust we commit them into your hands.  We thank you that you love them more than we do and understand their every need.  Do for them, O Lord, what we cannot do, and what you see is most for their good; for Jesus’ sake. 
Also, dear Lord, we bring our own hearts.  Help us to lean on You and not on our own understanding.  Amen.

[21] Posted by Jill Woodliff on 07-26-2008 at 01:23 PM • top

Matt, you’re in for a lot of typing to transcribe what appears to be more BOHICA.

[22] Posted by Ralinda on 07-26-2008 at 01:26 PM • top

I have some probably naive questions.. Where did they find all these chancellors, just walking down the street, or perhaps they all just happened to be taking the air at Lambeth?

ALSO, when did they pick them, before OR after they were certain the orthodox provinces would NOT be there?

And, who invited them? Surely, IF the orthodox bishops were aware that their chancellors would participate in such an endeavor, things might have been different.

It may be premature, but I think the scent of “SETUP” is in the air, and that fool RW is most certainly to pitch the orthodox out on their heads, regardless of screen door accidents.

Just the thought of DBB having ANYTHING to do with ANYTHING, gives me a sick feeling in the (you know where).

AND, now we know why that press briefer talked about property being held in trust for further generations.

Sorry, I know I’m not supposed to “rant”, but this smells to high heaven..
Grannie Gloria
a

[23] Posted by Grandmother on 07-26-2008 at 01:51 PM • top

Who decided who was to be on the drafting committee? Does anyone know?

[24] Posted by Marion R. on 07-26-2008 at 01:51 PM • top

Hey, Jill, they just keep replaying Casablanca and “round up the usual suspects!”  LOL

[25] Posted by bigjimintx on 07-26-2008 at 03:03 PM • top

#23 & #24 The Drafting Committee included Prof. Norman Doe and members of the Cardiff University Centre for Law and Religion (http://www.law.cardiff.ac.uk/clr/) and the Anglican Communion Legal Advisers’ Network (the members of which can be found here - http://www.acclawnet.co.uk/who.php). Others advised on the state of Canon Law in their own provinces. The document is the result of studying 44 Anglican codes of law in order to discover common principles among them.

[26] Posted by Micky on 07-26-2008 at 03:18 PM • top

So far David Booth Beers hasn’t been that successful in court. A few Conn. wins, but “the firm” has lost badly in Virginia and after having favorable hearing on the appeals level The California Supreme Court offered to rule which isn’t good for them. The Virginia case is bad lawyering on their part. The judge found for the 11 parishes almost with prejudice. 1. they should have known they had the losing hand and at least spent less while showing the flag. That concept was beyond them. They were given an unlimited budget, and they exceeded it. So much for the church’s claims of being good shepards for the wills of dead rich sheep. It is a good moral lesson for us all. Whatever we possess in this life will be wasted and misspent after our passing by those that we trusted most. Carpi diem!

[27] Posted by ctowles on 07-26-2008 at 04:02 PM • top

#26 I went to a series of lectures organised by Cardiff University Law Department - it was off the point for practitioners, and worse…........it was desperately boring!!!

[28] Posted by Pageantmaster ن on 07-26-2008 at 05:44 PM • top

Well that’s what you get - rubbish in, rubbish out.

Worse this is a committee of Rowan’s appointees and we now see the clearest evidence of him actually assisting [as I have suspected for some time] the persecution program of the Nasty Church.

Shame on you Dr Williams.

[29] Posted by Pageantmaster ن on 07-26-2008 at 05:48 PM • top

This report is direct interference in the US litigation.

[30] Posted by Pageantmaster ن on 07-26-2008 at 05:51 PM • top

Just printed a hard copy and will be hanging it in the out house for something really useful.

[31] Posted by midwestnorwegian on 07-26-2008 at 06:02 PM • top

Heh. After all the calls for ‘discipline’ it’s not as much fun when discipline might actually affect ‘reasserters’ too. grin

[32] Posted by Micky on 07-26-2008 at 06:06 PM • top

#32 Discipline is fine; but it is ridiculous for the ABC to be toadying to a church under Communion discipline -and far from dealing with the elephant in the room - he is poking it with a stick.

[33] Posted by Pageantmaster ن on 07-26-2008 at 06:10 PM • top

Is this the fix - calling for restraint from TEC on gay bishops and blessings and return selling out the persecuted conservative US congregations?

[34] Posted by Pageantmaster ن on 07-26-2008 at 06:12 PM • top

Here are the authors:
Miss Philippa Amable: Chancellor of the Diocese of Ho, Province of Ghana
Anglican Consultative Council standing committee
Delegate to the UNCSW
International Anglican Women’s Network

Mr. David Booth Beers: Chancellor to the Presiding Bishop, Episcopal Church, USA

Mr. Robert Falby: Chancellor and lay canon to the Diocese of Toronto, Anglican Church of Canada
Deputy prolocutor to the General Synod
Anglican Communion Legal Adviser’s Network
Vice-president of the Canadian Compass Rose Society
Author of ssb resolutions in the Canadian Synod

Mr. Bernard Georges: Chancellor of the Province of the Indian Ocean
Panel of Reference
Anglican Consultative Council

Mrs. Rubie Nottage: Chancellor of the West Indies
Lambeth Commission on Communion
Panel of Reference
Covenant Design Group
Supreme Court Justice of the Bahamas

Canon John Rees: Registrar of the Province of Canterbury, Church of England
Legal Adviser to the Anglican Consultative Council
Vice-Chairman of the Legal Advisory Committee of the Church of England.
Legal consultant to the Lambeth Commission on Communion
Treasurer of the Ecclesiastical Law Society
Vice-chair of the Church of England’s Legal Advisory Commission

Miss Fung-Yi Wong: Provincial Registrar of the Province of Hong Kong
Panel of Reference
Lambeth Conference Design Group
Anglican Consultative Council
Board member of the Anglican Centre in Rome
Compass Rose Society

Gregory Cameron
Secretary of the Anglican Communion Office
Director of Ecumenical Affairs for the Worldwide Anglican Communion
Deputy Secretary General of the Anglican Consultative Council
Research fellow, Centre for Law and Religion
Secretary to the Lambeth Commission on Communion
Covenant Design Group

[35] Posted by Jill Woodliff on 07-26-2008 at 06:17 PM • top

#32 I think you are misunderstanding this document. This is not new canon law. This is a distillation of canon law principles which are already found throughout the Anglican Communion, as found in a study of 44 Anglican canon law systems. So these principles are already what the majority of the communion agree on in some form or other in their canon law. Some of it those in the US (on BOTH sides) will find some principles uncomfortable. E.g. In most provinces all property is held in trust by the province - it would be impossible for a congregation to leave with the property. That is how the majority of the communion legally feel. ‘Dicipline’ under common canon law principles will affect both sides.

[36] Posted by Micky on 07-26-2008 at 06:22 PM • top

#36 There is no evidence whatever to suggest that this is a distillation on the area of property other than some wishful thinking by a committee to which for some inexplicable reason Williams allowed a party to the US litigation which the Primates had asked to desist to be appointed.  No it is nothing of the sort.

[37] Posted by Pageantmaster ن on 07-26-2008 at 06:30 PM • top

The whole area of litigation which the Nasty Church has insisted on undertaking is sensitive and this is Williams going along with the TEC manipulation of any handle it can get its hands on.  Williams must know that if Conference gives this a pass, Beers will use the report he authored.

Williams interference in this is disgraceful.

It has been aparent to me that Williams may split the Anglican Communion and it has become apparent to me recently that under his leadership he may split the Church of England.

[38] Posted by Pageantmaster ن on 07-26-2008 at 06:34 PM • top

#37 Well, the answer to that is to name any other Anglican province where a congregation could leave and legally their buildings with them. There are few if any. This is therefore a ‘Principle of Canon Law Common to the Churches of the Anglican Communion’ as the title suggests. If you want a common AC discipline then you’ll have to take the rough with the smooth.

[39] Posted by Micky on 07-26-2008 at 06:40 PM • top

Six of the eight authors are affiliated with the Anglican Consultative Council.  In the 2008 budget of TEC, the line item allotment for the Anglican Communion is $1,662,940.  This is not further broken down.  If my memory serves, the Anglican Consultative Council receives between $600,000 and $700,000 per annum.  Perhaps the difference is for the Lambeth Conference.
In addition, David Booth Beers’ primary income is from TEC.
Why did these seven authors not recuse themselves from serving in this group due to a financial conflict of interest?

[40] Posted by Jill Woodliff on 07-26-2008 at 06:44 PM • top

#39 That is largely untested but as you know in the province where it is being tested which is presumably yours, so far in Virginia it has failed completely and the position elsewhere in the US will become clear in the future.

Of course TEC could have done what was asked of it and made some effort with the Dar Communique instead of giving it the heave-ho.

[41] Posted by Pageantmaster ن on 07-26-2008 at 06:46 PM • top

#41 It doesn’t need to be ‘tested’. The constitution and canons of most provinces make it perfectly clear who legally owns the property. Why do you think +Jensen will never formally break with Canterbury - because legally he’d lose everything. TEC is the anomaly in this regard, and even ‘reasserters’ may find parts of the American democratic ideal they take for granted in TEC are parts they don’t want to lose to the wider AC ‘discipline’.

[42] Posted by Micky on 07-26-2008 at 06:52 PM • top

#42 The issue here is TEC and possibly ACoC, heaven forbid that we get to the stage where the cancer from North America and its divisions spreads elsewhere.  All churches operate under the law of their own countries; the legal principles of those countries will decide the ownership of property, and I suspect if it ever got that far it would be a case by case question for each province.  I don’t see that any such generalisation as you make can be drawn.

I have no idea what +Jensen thinks; nor I suspect do you.

As for the issue of wider “AC discipline” well of course those provinces who have given safe temporary haven to US and Canadian congregations are the majority of the Communion by numbers.  I believe “no taxation without representation” is a US maxim and similarly no discipline without representation is applicable.  They will not be brought on board by arrogantly presented reports, fixed Indabas or any of the other groups of Rowan’s chums who claim to be this or that Communion body.

The only way there will be effective Communion discipline which I would welcome will be if the missing majority of the Communion are brought on board.  Stuffing the odious and self-serving Beers on this board is hardly likely to contribute to that.

[43] Posted by Pageantmaster ن on 07-26-2008 at 07:04 PM • top

I do hope that those who have communications with bishops currently at Lambeth have noted the point made by Pageantmaster above- namely that one of the authors of the report is in direct conflict of interest, since he is the chief litigator in lawsuits against 7 Anglican provinces and their churches in the US.  Not to mention the conflict of interest of the ACC.  And there are no checks and balances whatsoever.
Of course, if what is suggested in this report is not acceptable to the Gafcon primates, it is essentially DOA in any case.
What this seems to be is an end run around the Covenant by the fellow who has been its main proponent.  This gives +Rowan a way to kick the can another decade down the road.  Can’t suggest discipline without a Covenant, can’t actually enforce discipline without canons, and then we allow the defendant to write the law that they will be tried under.  It is all very convenient for TEC.

[44] Posted by tjmcmahon on 07-26-2008 at 07:38 PM • top

Pageantmaster, Thank you for your clarity.
Intercessor

[45] Posted by Intercessor on 07-26-2008 at 07:44 PM • top

Mickey…
You’re carrying on about equal justice, and taking the rough with the smooth…How is it equal justice when these canons are allowed to be massaged by prominent combatants so as to reflect their particular ideology? And how is it equal justice if only the conservatives are disciplined? In the past decade or two, plenty of canon law has been broken or badly bent by liberal American bishops, including sexual misconduct or harboring sexual misconduct, allowing/encouraging same-sex marriages, ordinations of actively gay women and men,improper legal and ecclesiastical procedures, and probably much more…and no one was disciplined. Go on, name one liberal bishop, apart from Bennison, who has been disciplined for anything in the past decade or two. And even he might well get off with a slap on the wrist. I remarked to my bishop last year that it didn’t seem likely much would change so long as the HOB was unwilling to discipline itself. He told me that this was about to change, and so right away, and with questionable due process, they deposed an old man with a terminally ill wife for ordaining Christian men to the priesthood.

[46] Posted by Shumanbean on 07-26-2008 at 09:23 PM • top

I have thought about this some more.  I can’t see any legitimate reason for the inclusion of Beers in this group.  Appart from his clear conflict of interest [something he seems to be used to] he is only going to put the Episcopal Church’s arguments they are trying and largely failing with so far in Court.  I would very much like to believe in Rowan Williams’ bona fides, but I see nothing of the desert fathers in his lack of pastoral response or even common sense in his dealings which affect faithful Anglicans in North America.

[47] Posted by Pageantmaster ن on 07-27-2008 at 07:47 AM • top

This notice of publication from the Centre for Law and Religion gives details of the background to the document. Note that the project was begun in 2001 under ++Carey, and has been fully supported by the Primates Meeting since then. And of course Beers was consulted. Like it or not, he’s TEC Chancellor. Provincial Chancellors and Registrars were consulted from throughout the Communion.

The statement of Principles of Canon Law Common to the Churches of the Anglican Communion has now been published (ISBN 978-0-9558261-3-9). The statement will be discussed at the Lambeth Conference.

The canon law project has its roots in the Primates` Meeting, convened by the then Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey in 2001. The Primates’ Meeting discussed (for the first time) the contribution (or not) made by the laws of the member churches to global communion in Anglicanism. It did so on the basis of a paper delivered at the Meeting by Norman Doe on “Canon law and communion”.

At the request of the Primates, an Anglican Communion Legal Advisers Consultation met at Canterbury in 2002 (the first time for such a meeting) and proposed that there are principles of canon law common to the churches of the Communion.

The Primates` Meeting of 2002 recognised that “the unwritten law common of the Churches of the Communion and expressed as shared principles of canon law may be understood to constitute a fifth ‘instrument of unity’” (alongside the Archbishop of Canterbury, Lambeth Conference, Anglican Consultative Council and Primates`Meeting).

The ACC at Hong Kong in September 2002 established a Network of Anglican Legal Advisers to produce a statement of the principles. In October 2003, the Primates urged completion of the work, as did the Lambeth Commission in its Windsor Report (2004). The Network is to present the published statement of the principles at the Lambeth Conference this summer.

The Centre for Law and Religion at Cardiff has made an important contribution to this project. Professor Norman Doe, Director of the Centre, and Gregory Cameron, Research Fellow, collaborated with Bernard Georges and Rubie Nottage, both of whom are graduates of the Cardiff LLM in Canon Law,and John Rees, who has been a member of the Colloquium of Anglican and Roman Catholic Canon Lawyers. They, with others, were on the drafting group of the Anglican Communion Legal Advisers Network.

Norman Doe is extremely grateful to colleagues at the Centre for their invaluable assistance with this project, particularly Eithne D`Auria, a research associate at the Centre.

http://www.law.cardiff.ac.uk/clr/newsandevents/news_display.php?id=“515”

[48] Posted by Micky on 07-27-2008 at 08:03 AM • top

#48 Micky
Thank you for linking the Notice of Publication from Cardiff University dated 17th June.

I have also found digging around in the web pages of the Anglican Communion Legal Advisors Network interesting.  They link a number of pages and documents. 

Attendees and the drafting committee
From this page it is apparent that ‘The 2002 Legal Advisers Consultation, Canterbury’ had the Attendees [not merely members as you suggested]linked on this page .
Beers is not among them.

At some stage between the Legal Advisers consultation in 2002 [and we all know what promptly happened in 2003], Beers was appointed to the drafting committee, having previously not even been an attendee at the conference.

Development of the ‘Principles’ of the Anglican Communion.
this page ‘What was discussed at the [2002] consultation’ contains a link to what looks like the first draft of the ‘Principles’ here dated 24th February 2003.  Church Property is dealt with as follows:

Part VI: CHURCH PROPERTY
Principle 16
Sanctity of church buildings
1. A church building is a place designated for public worship according to the service books of the particular church.
2. The consecration, dedication or other act by which a building is set aside for the purposes of God as a place of worship may be performed by a bishop or other minister authorised to do so by the law of the church.
3. Any action in a church building or other place of worship inconsistent with the uses of God to which it is set aside is forbidden.

So at 24 February 2003, the Anglican ‘principle’ of ecclesiastical ownership had not yet been invented by ACLAN, at least as far as these principles set out by Prof. Norman Doe.

Also referenced is the report of 12th March 2002 which at Appendix III deals with the soundings of the Advisors’ views on various issues including church property:

V. CHURCH PROPERTY
1. The central assembly of my church has authority to make law concerning the property of the church.  For example, it can determine what church authority is the owner of that property.
Qualified Yes
-  must take account of the effect of civil law

Certainly at this stage the certainty set out in the final report presented to Lambeth did not exist.  The reference to the churches rights subject to the civil law of the jurisdiction has been airbrushed out.

What also concerns me with these ‘Principles’, is the absence so far of cross-reference to evidence, usually found in English legal opinions in the body of the text or in footnotes.  If this is not provided then one is left with the impression that this work involving this Welsh law department work is a bag of windy ‘reflections’, the same criticism I had in my prior experience of Cardiff University.

At what stage Beers was brought in and the impact that and his co-appointees had, perhaps you can ferret out Mickey?

[49] Posted by Pageantmaster ن on 07-27-2008 at 10:04 AM • top

Bravo, Pageantmaster!
We all suspected as much, and knowing that such radical changes came with the addition of DBB, with no communion-wide practice or principle as foundation, exposes that the purpose of the document when pertaining to property is to mislead, create an advantage in litigagtion, and chart a new direction (yet again.)  How could others on this committee have gone along? Did DBB work alone on this part of the document?
Time for DBB to join VGR - Resignation.
Carrie

[50] Posted by cityonahill on 07-27-2008 at 12:34 PM • top

I do hope that any of you who are in good touch with Bishops at Lambeth will comment to them about the patent unbalance of this group (just on the face of it, looking at the members and the conflicts of interest).  And send along the specific information in Pageantmaster’s #49.  Maybe Fr. Matt and Sarah have contacts who could raise these issues.  (And we could write in to other blogs or letters to editors.)  People attending a conference don’t have time and facilities to look into all these details, but the orthodox bishops should be aware what self-serving duplicity is on full display here.  Below I am repeating some of the comments from previous writers on this thread.

“Six of the eight authors are affiliated with the Anglican Consultative Council.  In the 2008 budget of TEC, the line item allotment for the Anglican Communion is $1,662,940.  This is not further broken down.  If my memory serves, the Anglican Consultative Council receives between $600,000 and $700,000 per annum.  Perhaps the difference is for the Lambeth Conference.
In addition, David Booth Beers’ primary income is from TEC.
Why did these seven authors not recuse themselves from serving in this group due to a financial conflict of interest?”  —Jill Woodliff

“I have thought about this some more.  I can’t see any legitimate reason for the inclusion of Beers in this group.  Appart from his clear conflict of interest [something he seems to be used to] he is only going to put the Episcopal Church’s arguments they are trying and largely failing with so far in Court.”—Pageantmaster

“I do hope that those who have communications with bishops currently at Lambeth have noted the point made by Pageantmaster above- namely that one of the authors of the report is in direct conflict of interest, since he is the chief litigator in lawsuits against 7 Anglican provinces and their churches in the US.  Not to mention the conflict of interest of the ACC.  And there are no checks and balances whatsoever.” —tjmcmahon  

Plus ALL of Pageantmaster #49.

[51] Posted by Paula on 07-27-2008 at 01:17 PM • top

As TEC has claimed ownership of parish property, could not the AC claim ownership of TEC property, and return it to the parish that actually endowed and created it?

[52] Posted by MasterServer on 07-28-2008 at 10:51 AM • top

Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.


Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere about the crisis in our church. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments that you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm, its board of directors, or its site administrators.