I would have thought that once a priest is suspended he is suspended full-stop. End of story. I don’t know how it works in other sacerdotal traditions.
The difficulty is that secular funeral officiants (and I understand not a few officially secular who'll don cassock and surplice for appearances) are now commonplace and there is nothing to regulate who can act as one. The CofE can't control a suspended priest doing funerals outwith the church any more than a school can stop a suspended teacher continuing to privately tutor students.
Presumably a sacked priest could just start up their own church outside the CofE too. Which is why it is so important that they are reported to the secular authorities and treated by the church as criminals rather than just as sinners who might repent.
I would have thought that once a priest is suspended he is suspended full-stop. End of story. I don’t know how it works in other sacerdotal traditions.
The difficulty is that secular funeral officiants (and I understand not a few officially secular who'll don cassock and surplice for appearances) are now commonplace and there is nothing to regulate who can act as one. The CofE can't control a suspended priest doing funerals outwith the church any more than a school can stop a suspended teacher continuing to privately tutor students.
Presumably a sacked priest could just start up their own church outside the CofE too. Which is why it is so important that they are reported to the secular authorities and treated by the church as criminals rather than just as sinners who might repent.
Legally anybody can take a funeral - I did a friend's a few years back as requested by his family.
I totally agree with you regarding reporting. Sadly there are plenty of cases where evidence falls short of thresholds for prosecution (particularly where sexual crimes are concerned). Tudor was acquitted on appeal on a technicality. And there are always those who think that their beloved charismatic leader has been falsely accused.
Safeguarding operates on a civil burden of proof, as does employment law. However, criminal courts do not - it’s comparitively rare for abuse cases to meet evidentiary threshold for prosecution and this mismatch causes all sorts of problems.
Thank you @BroJames - am I right in thinking that a bishop can, however, suspend a priest, so that they cannot continue with their clerical duties?
Thank you again. I thought that was probably the case, and note that (as others have said) it doesn't necessarily mean a complete cessation of activity outside the church.
Ok. I get that. Thing is, nobody thought @Twangist was a clerk in holy orders when he led his friend's funeral nor that I was a priest or minister when I conducted my mother's funeral either.
I'm wondering whether some sanction can be introduced for suspended clergy but can't imagine how that might be enforced.
Ok. I get that. Thing is, nobody thought @Twangist was a clerk in holy orders when he led his friend's funeral nor that I was a priest or minister when I conducted my mother's funeral either.
I'm wondering whether some sanction can be introduced for suspended clergy but can't imagine how that might be enforced.
I suppose you could broadly word licensing rules so that leading even non-CofE services while suspended would be a further disciplinary offence.
Ok. I get that. Thing is, nobody thought @Twangist was a clerk in holy orders when he led his friend's funeral nor that I was a priest or minister when I conducted my mother's funeral either.
I'm wondering whether some sanction can be introduced for suspended clergy but can't imagine how that might be enforced.
I can’t help feeling that we’re skating ever closer to poking the hornet’s nest marked ‘what are orders?’ in massive glowing neon letters…
If NatWest Bank (for example) dismisses a branch manager then they are no longer a bank manager.
If the CofE removes PTO from a priest they’re almost always intrinsically still a priest to those who share that theology. Which, at least officially includes the CofE, though not everyone in the CofE would believe that…
Unfortunately the staff answer included in the 39 Articles is likely to be met by bafflement from the public at large, but it is the official position.
Article XXVI essentially boils down to ‘never mind the unworthiness of the individual minister concerned, if they’re a priest going by the book then what they’re doing is valid.’
How on earth does any church with that theology of ordination go about navigating that one effectively?
How on earth does any church with that theology of ordination go about navigating that one effectively?
Even the RCC is able to laicise offending clergy, "defrock" as the press traditionally called it in the CofE. In any case even if you hold that priesthood is a permanent state (as I was taught and largely agree) there is always a distinction, if I may use RC terminology, between "valid" and "licit". You can be capable of doing something but nonetheless be legally barred from doing so.
Article XXVI essentially boils down to ‘never mind the unworthiness of the individual minister concerned, if they’re a priest going by the book then what they’re doing is valid.’
Further the focus of this article is on avoiding Donatism. Given the more centralised picture at the time; it's understandable that it would concentrate on the downstream effects of a priests ministry prior to them being sanctioned, rather than what happened after they were sanctioned.
I'll check out the Orthodox position on this. I know a former priest in the US as well as people I can ask here. I'd probably be best asking them rather than him ...
But I get the impression that if you are defrocked or suspended then that's pretty much it.
How on earth does any church with that theology of ordination go about navigating that one effectively?
Even the RCC is able to laicise offending clergy, "defrock" as the press traditionally called it in the CofE. In any case even if you hold that priesthood is a permanent state (as I was taught and largely agree) there is always a distinction, if I may use RC terminology, between "valid" and "licit". You can be capable of doing something but nonetheless be legally barred from doing so.
When I tried to get my head around the theology of this, I thought of it as being like parenthood. Once you have had a child, you are a parent. You might be a good or bad parent - you could be banned from all contact with your children for ever, you could murder them, they could murder you. You would still have become a parent. It is a thing that has happened and that is that.
How on earth does any church with that theology of ordination go about navigating that one effectively?
Even the RCC is able to laicise offending clergy, "defrock" as the press traditionally called it in the CofE. In any case even if you hold that priesthood is a permanent state (as I was taught and largely agree) there is always a distinction, if I may use RC terminology, between "valid" and "licit". You can be capable of doing something but nonetheless be legally barred from doing so.
When I tried to get my head around the theology of this, I thought of it as being like parenthood. Once you have had a child, you are a parent.
I don't think this is a very good analogy in this case, as the Article makes clear the efficacy of the sacraments so received rests on Christ rather than some kind of ontological status of the Priest
"Neither is the effect of Christ's ordinance taken away by their wickedness, nor the grace of God's gifts diminished from such as by faith and rightly do receive the Sacraments ministered unto them; which be effectual, because of Christ's institution and promise, although they be ministered by evil men."
[Which is incidentally much closer to the Lutheran than the RCC view]
IOW, a Eucharist celebrated according to the rites and ceremonies of the C of E is valid, and effectual, despite the possibility of the priest being (unbeknownst) a vicious criminal of some sort?
This always seemed to me to be a sensible and pragmatic view.
The RC position on the priest or indeed bishop is 'tu es sacerdos in aeternum' (you are always a priest). Laicisation means that you are not publicly allowed to celebrate the eucharist or administer other sacraments in the name of the local bishop or the wider Catholic Church. However a 'laicised priest' remains a priest and can in emergency situations provide priestly care to individuals.
I';ve heard it said that if an Orthodox priest gives up priestly ministry for any reason he is no longer considered to be a priest.
I've read recently in secular newspapers that Archbishop Carey has 'quit the Church of England' and that he has 'left the priesthood' Would that be the actual case or is it simply a matter that he will not exercise any priestly role in the CofE.
For RC clergy while priestly or episcopal status cannot be taken away other ranks and dignities could be removed, such as status as a cardinal or a position of authority in a diocese or a parish.
AIUI, George Carey has given up his *Permission To Officiate*, so he will no longer be able to minister as a C of E priest. I don't think that means he's left the C of E - he continues to be a member of the church, but will presumably have the same status as any non-ordained person.
Whether or not he could provide priestly care in an emergency situation is another question.
AIUI, George Carey has given up his *Permission To Officiate*, so he will no longer be able to minister as a C of E priest. I don't think that means he's left the C of E - he continues to be a member of the church, but will presumably have the same status as any non-ordained person.
Whether or not he could provide priestly care in an emergency situation is another question.
Mostly, but not quite. He can’t be on a parish Electoral Roll or be elected as a lay member of a PCC or any other church body.
The electoral roll is not really a church membership list but, as the name implies, those entitled to vote for laity positions on a Parochial Church Council. I understand that retired clergy can be appointed to a PCC.
"Retired" clergy are still ordained, and they are still clergy - they don't revert to being laity. (Unless they've executed a deed of relinquishment under the Clerical Disabilities Act 1870.)
This is why they can't be on the electoral role, or do any of the things that are restricted to laity (which includes voting in the election of any parochial representatives of the laity).
Specifically in relation to the PCC, other clergy (not automatically members or authorised to chair PCC meetings), retired clergy and laity can be co-opted to a PCC, provided (according the current Church Representation Rules):
M15(1) The members of the PCC are –
...
(k) any clerk in Holy Orders, or any actual communicant aged 16 or over, whom the PCC decides to co-opt as a member, with the number being determined under paragraph (10).
...
(10) The number of members under paragraph (1)(k) is either two or any greater number which does not exceed one-fifth of the number of members under paragraph (1)(j) [being the number of elected lay representatives].
Recent posts have been illuminating. I belong to a “priesthood of all believers” set up, as does Baptist Trainfan. I’m pretty sure that’s true for Methodists, Pentecostals and all of us who belong in any of the nonconformist tribes. Pastors and ministers, if we have them, are appointed to an office (if we have such). There may be some laying on of hands during those appointments but that is not the same as ordination. We’re a functional lot. Our sense of apostolic succession, if we have one, does not require conveying by the laying on of hands for special service or authority.
But I see the difficulty. I remember a discussion years ago with Trisagion, a former Catholic Shipmate about the irrevocability of priesthood. It does produce problems of comprehension, not just for nonconformists but for folks outside the church. We understand sacking for gross misconduct.
Well, other Orthodox will correct me if I'm wrong, but in essence we don't have an issue with the 'priesthood of all believers.'
It's one of those both/and things.
In effect, from what I can gather, if an Orthodox priest decides for whatever reason to step down from the role - and there are various reasons why they might - they can remain in good standing but not perform sacramental functions.
A priest can also be dismissed for misconduct, heresy or not keeping the canons and 'laicised' too - as in the RCC.
From an Orthodox perspective, the differences between the RCC and Orthodox in these matters - as in much else - is more a question of emphasis. The RCs tend to ratchet things up more tightly than we do.
We'd go along with the 'irrevocability' thing but perhaps counter-intuitively, wouldn't say that gives a dismissed or stepped-down priest the right to carry on doing all the stuff.
Mind you, Orthodoxy does have it's wild and wooly aspects of course. The former priest I mentioned once maintained on social media that you could always tell the skulls of priested monks in medieval Orthodox ossuaries because they had cross-shaped sutures.
Hmmm ... that's the sort of thing that would make me wany to turn up at Beige Street Baptist or Moderate Mews Methodist...
I do, of course, understand the 'non-conformist' stance on this sort of thing. I've been a Baptist in times past.
It’s probably a tangent! We don’t see Holy Orders as a a sacrament and everything flows from that.
And it would be quite wrong in this thread to open up the vast topic of sacraments and the associated denominational variations. But it’s a fascinating topic.
In the 'both and' category the RC Church would teach about the 'priesthood of all believers' also but there is as well the 'ministerial priesthood'
All the baptised have the role of 'prophet,priest and king'.
Recent posts have been illuminating. I belong to a “priesthood of all believers” set up, as does Baptist Trainfan. I’m pretty sure that’s true for Methodists, Pentecostals and all of us who belong in any of the nonconformist tribes. Pastors and ministers, if we have them, are appointed to an office (if we have such). There may be some laying on of hands during those appointments but that is not the same as ordination. We’re a functional lot. Our sense of apostolic succession, if we have one, does not require conveying by the laying on of hands for special service or authority.
In my experience, there are many members of the CofE, both clergy and laity, who believe in the "priesthood of all believers". There are clergy in the CofE who became ordained because that's how you become a minister in the CofE - they don't see themselves as being inherently different from the people they serve, other than having been trained and being qualified to celebrate and administer sacraments.
Yes, from my background reading, the CofE acknowledges only two sacraments (Baptism and Eucharist) in the gospel but is somewhat ambiguous about the other 5. Where that leaves Holy Orders within the CofE is not entirely clear to me. It seems that the “higher” the church, the more Catholic the understanding. The big tent again?
You'll find Anglican vicars who insist on being referred to as 'ministers' rather than 'priests' and others who would make an RC Cardinal or Orthodox Patriarch look like a member of the Plymouth Brethren.
It's one of the things that makes the Anglican Communion so loveably inconsistent.
It’s probably a tangent! We don’t see Holy Orders as a a sacrament and everything flows from that.
And it would be quite wrong in this thread to open up the vast topic of sacraments and the associated denominational variations. But it’s a fascinating topic.
I'm tempted to say, 'We start with the faith once revealed to the saints and not the disputes within Western Christianity in the 16th century...' 😉
But that would be unfair and off topic.
But as Forthview has indicated it's not as if the more Catholic traditions eschew the idea that individual believers collectively form a 'royal priesthood' with a prophetic, priestly and 'regal' role (in the servant sense).
Indeed not. What I find so very odd is that no-one seems to have the authority to sack a priest even if their conduct is clearly unacceptable.
From what I understand of the Tudor situation he received a penalty (a slap on the wrist, then restored to ministry) for the cases that came to light in the 1980s (plus the criminal conviction that was then overturned). So he couldn't be removed/have any further action taken as a result of those cases, because that would have meant punishing him a second time for the same offence.
When a further offence came to light in 2019 he was immediately suspended, and has now been banned from ministry.
As the mother of teenage daughters I am as horrified as anyone that he was allowed to continue in ministry. But given that double jeopardy is a widely accepted legal principle I am not sure what Cottrell could do until the further offence came to light.
What should he have done, that would have been legally compliant?
Does it matter what his churchmanship was? I can't see any correlation between theology and worship 'style' and the propensity to abuse trust, position or power.
These things can and do happen at all levels up and down the candle and across the theological spectrum.
On the refusal to accept Welby's donation, I'm half expecting some books or other publications to be pulled.
Carey's part in the Tudor affair deserves scrutiny. Also, what was Tudor's churchmanship? 'Sound' or up the candle?
What is “Sound” churchmanship?
And does any other denominations have the sharp distinctions of churchmanship that the CofE has? My impression is that such distinctions have mostly blurred in the (American) Episcopal Church. Yes, you’ll find very Anglo-Catholic parishes and very “low” parishes, particularly in certain parts of the country, but the distinctions of churchmanship don’t seem to carry anything like the weight I get the impression they carry in England.
Fair comment about double jeopardy; nevertheless my original post stands - why is it so hard to sack CofE clergy?
The short answer is that clergy are not employed in the first place. (Since 2011, they hold office under an arrangement called Common Tenure, although there may still be some around that continue to hold office under previous arrangements.)
In relation to the removal of clergy from office for (serious) misconduct, there is the Clergy Discipline Measure, which dates from 2003 (with updates in 2013 and 2016). And which itself amends "the law relating to ecclesiastical discipline, to amend section 3 of the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure 1963 and section 5(5) of the Ecclesiastical Judges and Legal Officers Measure 1976, and for purposes connected therewith."
Clergy can be and are removed from office under the CDM, as recorded on this page, which records a penalty of "prohibition for life" for 6 clergy in the last two years.
And does any other denominations have the sharp distinctions of churchmanship that the CofE has? My impression is that such distinctions have mostly blurred in the (American) Episcopal Church. Yes, you’ll find very Anglo-Catholic parishes and very “low” parishes, particularly in certain parts of the country, but the distinctions of churchmanship don’t seem to carry anything like the weight I get the impression they carry in England.
I think it's partly the tyranny of small differences, the weight associated with being an 'official church' and the fact that a minister/church that is significantly different from the parent organisation in the US can usually leave to find a denomination that is closer to their perspective.
Imagine a PC(USA) containing all the past and subsequent splits as factions.
Carey's part in the Tudor affair deserves scrutiny. Also, what was Tudor's churchmanship? 'Sound' or up the candle?
What is “Sound” churchmanship?
And does any other denominations have the sharp distinctions of churchmanship that the CofE has? My impression is that such distinctions have mostly blurred in the (American) Episcopal Church. Yes, you’ll find very Anglo-Catholic parishes and very “low” parishes, particularly in certain parts of the country, but the distinctions of churchmanship don’t seem to carry anything like the weight I get the impression they carry in England.
'Sound' is generally a conservative evangelical term over here, but you can hear it in other contexts. In the North of England it can be heard in secular contexts, as a term of affirmation rather like 'Cool!' or 'Ok' or 'Spot on!' Etc.
It used to be common in university Christian Unions where it tended to be applied to those who were Reformed (or reformed) but not hyper-Calvinist and who were not given to charismatic flights of fancy or High Church flummery and rah-rah-rah.
An Anglo-Catholic priest observed to me once that the various tribes within the CofE could pretty much co-exist without much rancour until such a time that attendance got so low that they became more aware of one another.
I think there's some truth in this.
I also imagine the US Episcopalian experience is different insofar as you probably don't have parishes cheek-by-jowl as we do and they don't operate as the 'national church.' So there is less scope for conflict and jockeying for position.
Imagine a PC(USA) containing all the past and subsequent splits as factions.
But in that case, we’re primarily talking about the conservative–moderate–liberal spectrum, which seems to me at least a little different. Though maybe not.
But yes, I’d imagine the official/national nature of the CofE is a major factor here, and that it might lead to something akin to division into political parties, maybe?
And @Gamma Gamaliel, along with parishes not bring check-by-jowl, it’s also the case that parishes here are not geographical. That may be a factor as well.
Imagine a PC(USA) containing all the past and subsequent splits as factions.
But in that case, we’re primarily talking about the conservative–moderate–liberal spectrum, which seems to me at least a little different. Though maybe not.
Yeah, it's not an exact parallel - but even in that range you are talking on very different practises of worship - ranging from exclusive psalmody through to mega-church like evangelical, very strong ideas on the need to commune infants and so on.
But yes, I’d imagine the official/national nature of the CofE is a major factor here, and that it might lead to something akin to division into political parties, maybe?
The official nature means a certain cultural dominance that has played into a reluctance to leave it and go elsewhere, coupled with the fact that its formation merged multiple strands of the Reformation (from Lutheran and Reformed) as well as completely secular reasons for starting a new church.
Imagine a PC(USA) containing all the past and subsequent splits as factions.
But in that case, we’re primarily talking about the conservative–moderate–liberal spectrum, which seems to me at least a little different. Though maybe not.
Yeah, it's not an exact parallel - but even in that range you are talking on very different practises of worship - ranging from exclusive psalmody through to mega-church like evangelical, very strong ideas on the need to commune infants and so on.
Yes, I can see the parallel, even though as you say, it’s not an exact one.
But yes, I’d imagine the official/national nature of the CofE is a major factor here, and that it might lead to something akin to division into political parties, maybe?
The official nature means a certain cultural dominance that has played into a reluctance to leave it and go elsewhere, coupled with the fact that its formation merged multiple strands of the Reformation (from Lutheran and Reformed) as well as completely secular reasons for starting a new church.
And yes, that makes sense, too. I guess I was just comparing the CofE to the Episcopal Church here, which had only one breakaway prior to the 1970s and the dead-horse issues (the formation of the Reformed Episcopal Church in the late 19th C.), and which seems have moved from clearly defined Anglo-Catholic/High Church, Evangelical/Low Church and other churchmanships in the 19th C. to significantly more homogeneity by the mid-20th C.
But maybe I’m an outsider oversimplifying or misreading what happened here.
Comments
Presumably a sacked priest could just start up their own church outside the CofE too. Which is why it is so important that they are reported to the secular authorities and treated by the church as criminals rather than just as sinners who might repent.
Legally anybody can take a funeral - I did a friend's a few years back as requested by his family.
I totally agree with you regarding reporting. Sadly there are plenty of cases where evidence falls short of thresholds for prosecution (particularly where sexual crimes are concerned). Tudor was acquitted on appeal on a technicality. And there are always those who think that their beloved charismatic leader has been falsely accused.
Thank you again. I thought that was probably the case, and note that (as others have said) it doesn't necessarily mean a complete cessation of activity outside the church.
I'm wondering whether some sanction can be introduced for suspended clergy but can't imagine how that might be enforced.
I suppose you could broadly word licensing rules so that leading even non-CofE services while suspended would be a further disciplinary offence.
I can’t help feeling that we’re skating ever closer to poking the hornet’s nest marked ‘what are orders?’ in massive glowing neon letters…
If NatWest Bank (for example) dismisses a branch manager then they are no longer a bank manager.
If the CofE removes PTO from a priest they’re almost always intrinsically still a priest to those who share that theology. Which, at least officially includes the CofE, though not everyone in the CofE would believe that…
Unfortunately the staff answer included in the 39 Articles is likely to be met by bafflement from the public at large, but it is the official position.
Article XXVI essentially boils down to ‘never mind the unworthiness of the individual minister concerned, if they’re a priest going by the book then what they’re doing is valid.’
How on earth does any church with that theology of ordination go about navigating that one effectively?
Even the RCC is able to laicise offending clergy, "defrock" as the press traditionally called it in the CofE. In any case even if you hold that priesthood is a permanent state (as I was taught and largely agree) there is always a distinction, if I may use RC terminology, between "valid" and "licit". You can be capable of doing something but nonetheless be legally barred from doing so.
Further the focus of this article is on avoiding Donatism. Given the more centralised picture at the time; it's understandable that it would concentrate on the downstream effects of a priests ministry prior to them being sanctioned, rather than what happened after they were sanctioned.
But I get the impression that if you are defrocked or suspended then that's pretty much it.
When I tried to get my head around the theology of this, I thought of it as being like parenthood. Once you have had a child, you are a parent. You might be a good or bad parent - you could be banned from all contact with your children for ever, you could murder them, they could murder you. You would still have become a parent. It is a thing that has happened and that is that.
I don't think this is a very good analogy in this case, as the Article makes clear the efficacy of the sacraments so received rests on Christ rather than some kind of ontological status of the Priest
"Neither is the effect of Christ's ordinance taken away by their wickedness, nor the grace of God's gifts diminished from such as by faith and rightly do receive the Sacraments ministered unto them; which be effectual, because of Christ's institution and promise, although they be ministered by evil men."
[Which is incidentally much closer to the Lutheran than the RCC view]
This always seemed to me to be a sensible and pragmatic view.
I';ve heard it said that if an Orthodox priest gives up priestly ministry for any reason he is no longer considered to be a priest.
I've read recently in secular newspapers that Archbishop Carey has 'quit the Church of England' and that he has 'left the priesthood' Would that be the actual case or is it simply a matter that he will not exercise any priestly role in the CofE.
For RC clergy while priestly or episcopal status cannot be taken away other ranks and dignities could be removed, such as status as a cardinal or a position of authority in a diocese or a parish.
Whether or not he could provide priestly care in an emergency situation is another question.
Quite so!
Oh, why is that?
This is why they can't be on the electoral role, or do any of the things that are restricted to laity (which includes voting in the election of any parochial representatives of the laity).
Specifically in relation to the PCC, other clergy (not automatically members or authorised to chair PCC meetings), retired clergy and laity can be co-opted to a PCC, provided (according the current Church Representation Rules):
But I see the difficulty. I remember a discussion years ago with Trisagion, a former Catholic Shipmate about the irrevocability of priesthood. It does produce problems of comprehension, not just for nonconformists but for folks outside the church. We understand sacking for gross misconduct.
It's one of those both/and things.
In effect, from what I can gather, if an Orthodox priest decides for whatever reason to step down from the role - and there are various reasons why they might - they can remain in good standing but not perform sacramental functions.
A priest can also be dismissed for misconduct, heresy or not keeping the canons and 'laicised' too - as in the RCC.
From an Orthodox perspective, the differences between the RCC and Orthodox in these matters - as in much else - is more a question of emphasis. The RCs tend to ratchet things up more tightly than we do.
We'd go along with the 'irrevocability' thing but perhaps counter-intuitively, wouldn't say that gives a dismissed or stepped-down priest the right to carry on doing all the stuff.
Mind you, Orthodoxy does have it's wild and wooly aspects of course. The former priest I mentioned once maintained on social media that you could always tell the skulls of priested monks in medieval Orthodox ossuaries because they had cross-shaped sutures.
Hmmm ... that's the sort of thing that would make me wany to turn up at Beige Street Baptist or Moderate Mews Methodist...
I do, of course, understand the 'non-conformist' stance on this sort of thing. I've been a Baptist in times past.
And it would be quite wrong in this thread to open up the vast topic of sacraments and the associated denominational variations. But it’s a fascinating topic.
All the baptised have the role of 'prophet,priest and king'.
Yes, from my background reading, the CofE acknowledges only two sacraments (Baptism and Eucharist) in the gospel but is somewhat ambiguous about the other 5. Where that leaves Holy Orders within the CofE is not entirely clear to me. It seems that the “higher” the church, the more Catholic the understanding. The big tent again?
You'll find Anglican vicars who insist on being referred to as 'ministers' rather than 'priests' and others who would make an RC Cardinal or Orthodox Patriarch look like a member of the Plymouth Brethren.
It's one of the things that makes the Anglican Communion so loveably inconsistent.
I'm tempted to say, 'We start with the faith once revealed to the saints and not the disputes within Western Christianity in the 16th century...' 😉
But that would be unfair and off topic.
But as Forthview has indicated it's not as if the more Catholic traditions eschew the idea that individual believers collectively form a 'royal priesthood' with a prophetic, priestly and 'regal' role (in the servant sense).
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/dec/20/childrens-society-charity-rejects-archbishop-of-canterbury-christmas-donation
Ouch!
From what I understand of the Tudor situation he received a penalty (a slap on the wrist, then restored to ministry) for the cases that came to light in the 1980s (plus the criminal conviction that was then overturned). So he couldn't be removed/have any further action taken as a result of those cases, because that would have meant punishing him a second time for the same offence.
When a further offence came to light in 2019 he was immediately suspended, and has now been banned from ministry.
As the mother of teenage daughters I am as horrified as anyone that he was allowed to continue in ministry. But given that double jeopardy is a widely accepted legal principle I am not sure what Cottrell could do until the further offence came to light.
What should he have done, that would have been legally compliant?
Interestingly the recent independent audit of safeguarding in Newcastle diocese found, while generally making good progress, there is a lack of scrutiny and resourcing of safeguarding staff (a 'critical lack of capacity'). https://d3hgrlq6yacptf.cloudfront.net/5fbc2ba5a8086/content/pages/documents/ineqe_independent_safeguarding_audit_newcastle-final-.pdf
If it were he could have been sacked for gross misconduct on the balance of probabilities conviction or no conviction.
AFAICT, just with Welby - it was presumably a personal, rather than an official, donation.
These things can and do happen at all levels up and down the candle and across the theological spectrum.
On the refusal to accept Welby's donation, I'm half expecting some books or other publications to be pulled.
And does any other denominations have the sharp distinctions of churchmanship that the CofE has? My impression is that such distinctions have mostly blurred in the (American) Episcopal Church. Yes, you’ll find very Anglo-Catholic parishes and very “low” parishes, particularly in certain parts of the country, but the distinctions of churchmanship don’t seem to carry anything like the weight I get the impression they carry in England.
In relation to the removal of clergy from office for (serious) misconduct, there is the Clergy Discipline Measure, which dates from 2003 (with updates in 2013 and 2016). And which itself amends "the law relating to ecclesiastical discipline, to amend section 3 of the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure 1963 and section 5(5) of the Ecclesiastical Judges and Legal Officers Measure 1976, and for purposes connected therewith."
Clergy can be and are removed from office under the CDM, as recorded on this page, which records a penalty of "prohibition for life" for 6 clergy in the last two years.
I think it's partly the tyranny of small differences, the weight associated with being an 'official church' and the fact that a minister/church that is significantly different from the parent organisation in the US can usually leave to find a denomination that is closer to their perspective.
Imagine a PC(USA) containing all the past and subsequent splits as factions.
'Sound' is generally a conservative evangelical term over here, but you can hear it in other contexts. In the North of England it can be heard in secular contexts, as a term of affirmation rather like 'Cool!' or 'Ok' or 'Spot on!' Etc.
It used to be common in university Christian Unions where it tended to be applied to those who were Reformed (or reformed) but not hyper-Calvinist and who were not given to charismatic flights of fancy or High Church flummery and rah-rah-rah.
An Anglo-Catholic priest observed to me once that the various tribes within the CofE could pretty much co-exist without much rancour until such a time that attendance got so low that they became more aware of one another.
I think there's some truth in this.
I also imagine the US Episcopalian experience is different insofar as you probably don't have parishes cheek-by-jowl as we do and they don't operate as the 'national church.' So there is less scope for conflict and jockeying for position.
But yes, I’d imagine the official/national nature of the CofE is a major factor here, and that it might lead to something akin to division into political parties, maybe?
And @Gamma Gamaliel, along with parishes not bring check-by-jowl, it’s also the case that parishes here are not geographical. That may be a factor as well.
Thanks to you both.
Yeah, it's not an exact parallel - but even in that range you are talking on very different practises of worship - ranging from exclusive psalmody through to mega-church like evangelical, very strong ideas on the need to commune infants and so on.
The official nature means a certain cultural dominance that has played into a reluctance to leave it and go elsewhere, coupled with the fact that its formation merged multiple strands of the Reformation (from Lutheran and Reformed) as well as completely secular reasons for starting a new church.
And yes, that makes sense, too. I guess I was just comparing the CofE to the Episcopal Church here, which had only one breakaway prior to the 1970s and the dead-horse issues (the formation of the Reformed Episcopal Church in the late 19th C.), and which seems have moved from clearly defined Anglo-Catholic/High Church, Evangelical/Low Church and other churchmanships in the 19th C. to significantly more homogeneity by the mid-20th C.
But maybe I’m an outsider oversimplifying or misreading what happened here.