THE General Synod voted on Tuesday afternoon on a personal members’ motion to remove the canonical impediment to ordination in relation to divorce — either of the candidate from a former spouse, or of a candidate’s current partner, who has previously been married, and whose former spouse remains to be living.
Canon Mark Bennet (Oxford) described his motion as a “modest but essential reform”. He was not proposing a change in doctrine, but in practice. Nor would his proposal end “appropriate enquiries into the suitability of candidates for ordination”. Separating the very fact of marriage after divorce from the broader picture led to “a spread of anomalies and inconsistencies”, and was an accident of history, he suggested.
Under Canon C4, a college from an Archbishop was required for candidates for ordination who were divorced (with a living spouse) or married to someone who was divorced (with a living spouse). This now affected one in six ordinations, he said, but had originally been designed for a small number of outstanding cases. The process often involved contact with former spouses, and this gave rise to safeguarding issues when a wedding had been abusive. He agreed that candidates’ previous relationships should, “after all”, be regarded as a part of assessment, ideally carried out by individuals who knew the candidate. But the Canon needed to be modified.
The Revd Eleanor Robertshaw (Sheffield) is a divorcee who has married again; so the subject was near her heart, she said. Her first marriage had broken up a few months into her curacy, and her diocese had been “amazing”. The only two judgements made were from other Christians. “We are a faith called to forgive and never to evaluate,” she said. “And yet, due to the Canon 4 faculty process, this is precisely what we appear to do.”
It was unfair, because, although she was separated before being ordained priest, she was not divorced and remarried, so didn’t need a college to be ordained. “Why should anyone who has faced the trauma of a wedding break-up need to undergo this intrusive process?” She warned that the Synod was sometimes “holding marriage as much as be like heaven”.
The Revd Chris Moore (Hereford) said that, in 2009, he had required a college because his wife was divorced. There were some things in the college which he had found good and helpful: it was a crucial defence against the charge of hypocrisy, and helped the Church to acquire a superb balance between law and style, he said. “Let not a priority over process result in be abandonment of principle.”
Carys Puleston (Exeter) had experience of Canon C4 within the discernment process, because her husband had been married before. It involved having to ask him to “dredge up painful memories” and be questioned about them, and to involve his former wife, too. “The complexity, intensity, and sheer length of the method, and the sense of distant judgement hanging over him, took its toll.” After ten months, the college had been granted.
The assessment might be made, she said, “more quickly, more sensitively, and with less trauma” through a diocesan director of ordinands or a diocesan bishop. She was because of be ordained in June, and was celebrating her twentieth wedding anniversary this yr.
The Revd Jenny Bridgman (Chester) had worked with candidates for ordination for greater than a decade. The discernment process must be “searching and thorough” — the rigour had increased after the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA). Candidates were being asked to reflect on areas including “use and abuse of power, family history, addictive and destructive behaviour, relationships, vulnerability, authority, personal boundaries, and their use of social media”. The “seeds” of something to switch the Canon C4 process were there.
The Revd Dr Andrew Atherstone (Oxford) brought an amendment, supported by Canon Bennet, that may revise the Canon in order that a diocesan bishop, or acting diocesan bishop, could grant the college, “with national assessment guidelines issued by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York acting jointly to make sure consistency across dioceses”. The Canon sought to uphold the Church’s teaching that marriage must be lifelong — a perfect held in balance with the pastoral realities of living in the true world, he said. This balance must not be destabilised, he warned, and reminded the Synod that the agreement to remove the impediment to ordination had been “hard fought” on the ground of the Synod 30 years ago.
The Archbishop of York said that each he and the Archbishop of Canterbury welcomed the amendment, and could be completely happy to develop the proposed guidelines. He said that he had never yet known a college to be turned down.
The Revd Chantal Noppen (Durham) didn’t feel that the Church had develop into less committed to the perfect of marriage as lifelong. She didn’t like having to state on a job application that she had married someone who was divorced: “It’s not relevant to my suitability for a job.” Her partner couldn’t face going through the method once they had felt called to ordination. Abuse was far too common, she said, and girls often bore more of this. It was damaging to place marriage on a pedestal, she suggested; and lots of within the room weren’t in a position to get married.
The amendment was carried.
Geoff Crawford/Church TimesThe Revd Eleanor Robertshaw (Sheffield)
The Revd Jeremy Moodey (Oxford) moved an amendment, supported by Canon Bennet, to state that the guidance given to dioceses should ensure “that enquiries of previous spouses will only be made in exceptional cases”. He had been divorced and married again before starting the discernment process. Canon C4 had been “distressing”, and had almost led him to offer up on his sense of calling. At one point, he was told that his three children from his first marriage might must be contacted. He had been sent to a BAP with the college still lying unapproved; if it was a formality, then what was the purpose of it? Canon C4 could be a “stumbling block for a lot of”, and, in some ways, amounted to “indirect discrimination”. He asked what could possibly be gained from contacting former spouses.
The Bishop of London, the Rt Revd Sarah Mullally, spoke in support of the motion, but was undecided in regards to the amendment. She was aware of marriages that had broken down in cases of abuse.
The Revd Alicia Dring (Derby) spoke as her diocese’s “C4 person”. She had worked with people in the method who had had to position their future into the hands of those that had “abused their trust, minds, and bodies”. She asked: “Where is our trauma understanding of all that they’ve been through?” It was “invasive and archaic”, she said.
The Revd Lis Goddard (London) echoed her Bishop’s point, having walked with former spouses who had said “I need my voice to be heard. I need them to listen to what happened.” She questioned how the “exceptional circumstances” mentioned within the amendment could be judged.
Canon Andrew Cornes (Chichester) said that, in parish ministry, while listening compassionately to stories of marital difficulty, he would think, “I’m pretty sure there’s one other side to this story.” He spoke of the “very tough teaching” of Jesus, who had always brought up the query of marriage, even when asked about divorce. Canon Cornes described it as adultery, while giving exceptions. Therefore, a college couldn’t be merely a formality, and it was essential, he said, that bishops take into consideration as much of the circumstances as possible. “It will often be right to listen to the opposite side of the story.”
The Archdeacon of Knowsley and Sefton, the Ven. Pete Spiers (Liverpool), said that, for him, exceptional meant “unusual” and “rare”. He opposed the amendment. The issue was more nuanced than had been suggested.
The amendment was lost.
The Bishop of Gloucester, the Rt Revd Rachel Treweek, said that guidelines were essential, and needed to be suitable for every one. She knew of individuals in clergy marriages wherein there was abuse.
The Revd Ross Meikle (Oxford) said that, as a single person, he noticed “how easy it seems to [be to] change the foundations around marriage, divorce, remarriage, and relationships when it affects white, straight people”. He supported the motion, but additionally heard the pain of those that couldn’t be married in any respect.
The Revd Dr Patrick Richmond (Norwich) said that it was rare to be told that there was some problem or objection to a wedding in church after divorce, however it did occasionally occur. That was something to take into consideration. In terms of the talk’s references to judgement, there was also language of discernment in scripture: not condemnation, but in search of the correct type of people to be “overseers”. The image of marriage within the Bible was used for Jesus and the Church. This did have a robust place in Christian life and faith, and clergy had a component in modelling that, he argued.
John Wilson (Lichfield), the one lay person to contribute to the talk to this point, said that he was horrified by what he had heard in regards to the hoops that clergy had needed to jump through. What would the impact of retaining the Canon be on increasing the variety of ordinands, he asked.
Lucy Docherty (Portsmouth) said that Bishop Mullally’s point about abuse was essential and asked who would produce the rules mentioned.
The Archdeacon of Ludlow, the Ven. Fiona Gibson (Hereford), said that the Synod had been working on the idea that the possible ordinand was the one that was the victim or survivor of marital abuse. It was not unknown for an ordinand to have manipulated their way through the method. “It could also be that the one way wherein coercive controlling behaviour on the a part of a prospective ordinand would come to light could be by chatting with a former spouse.”
Canon Rachel Mann (Manchester) praised the close working of Canon Bennet and Dr Atherstone across differences in a contentious area, and the character of the talk. Could this be a chance for the Synod to find a recent form of theological, pastoral, and spiritual imagination, she asked: to see or a minimum of glimpse the longings of those that had been excluded from the institution of marriage.
The motion was carried by 300-12, with seven recorded abstentions.
That this Synod request that the Archbishops’ Council introduce the needed laws to revise Canon C4.5 in order that a diocesan bishop or acting diocesan bishop may grant a college to remove the impediment under Canon C4.4, with national assessment guidelines issued by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York acting jointly to make sure consistency across dioceses.
