A Grievance Brought Under the Declaration on the Ministry of Bishops and Priests (Resolution of Disputes Procedure) Regulations 2014, Reg
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
A GRIEVANCE BROUGHT UNDER THE DECLARATION ON THE MINISTRY OF BISHOPS AND PRIESTS (RESOLUTION OF DISPUTES PROCEDURE) REGULATIONS 2014, REG. 10 BY THE PAROCHIAL CHURCH COUNCIL OF THE PARISH OF LULLINGTON WITH ORCHARDLEIGH IN RESPECT OF CERTAIN ACTS AND OMISSIONS OF BISHOP PETER HANCOCK, BISHOP OF BATH AND WELLS AND OF BISHOP RUTH ELIZABETH WORSLEY, BISHOP OF TAUNTON Submitted by S P McKie Esq. on behalf of the Parochial Church Council of the Parish of Lullington with Orchardleigh 3rd November 2020 INDEX SECTION SECTION NO. I Introductory matters 1 The purpose of this Paper 2 Interpretation 3 Further correspondence and discussion 4 The reasons for the length of this Paper 5 The structure of this Paper II The relevant facts: background information 1 The Parish: Its place in the Diocese and its geographical characteristics 2 Our ministry 3 Our theological and liturgical tradition III The relevant facts: The PCC’s theological conviction as to the ordination and consecration of women 1 A theological impossibility 2 The consequences of that conviction 3 The consistency of scriptural headship and the long-standing practice of the worldwide church 4 The ministry of an incumbent is indivisible 5 The practical effects of the PCC’s theological conviction IV The relevant facts: The Alternative Oversight Resolutions 1 The resolution under the Priests (Ordination of Women) Measure 1993 s.3 2 The 2016 Resolution 2 of 271 © Parochial Church Council of Lullington with Orchardleigh SECTION SECTION NO. 3 The 2018 Resolution 4 The failure to comply with paragraph 22 of the Declaration V The relevant facts: The Benefice’s deference towards and expectations of the Diocesan Personnel 1 An inherited deference and trust 2 Deficiencies of the Diocesan Personnel during the Suspension 3 Deficiencies in the Registrar’s advice 4 The Benefice’s continuing deference towards, and trust of, the Diocesan Personnel VI The relevant facts: The initial proceedings in respect of filling the Vacancy 1 Mr and Mrs McKie had then no substantial involvement in respect of the Vacancy or in the Parish 2 The PCC’s lack of access to independent expert advice 3 Before the Section 11 Meeting 4 The PCC Representatives under The Patronage (Benefices) Measure 1986 s. 11 VII The relevant facts: After the Section 11 Meeting until the Announcement and its immediate aftermath 1 A lack of relevant information 2 The Benefice Representatives’ view that they were under a comprehensive duty of confidentiality 3 The Section 12 Meeting 4 No discussion of the implications of the Declaration Resolutions 5 The Joint Statement 3 of 271 © Parochial Church Council of Lullington with Orchardleigh SECTION SECTION NO. 6 Advertisement of the position 7 The sole applicant 8 Interview of Prebendary Crossman 9 Bishop Hancock’s decision to appoint Prebendary Crossman 10 The Announcement 11 Was the consent of the Benefice Representatives given and, if so, how? 12 Why did the PCC Representatives consent to Prebendary Crossman’s appointment? 13 Wider concerns in the Benefice as to the proposed appointment 14 The PCC’s Grievance is concerned only with the theological validity of the ordination of Prebendary Crossman VIII The relevant facts: After the Announcement and its immediate aftermath until the 26th April 2020 Letter 1 Mr and Mrs McKie’s involvement in the Parish 2 The meeting on 4th March 2020 IX The relevant facts: The 26th April Letter 1 The PCC’s concern at Bishop Hancock’s delay 2 Tentative proposals X The relevant facts: After the 26th April Letter until immediately before the 22nd June Resolutions are passed 1 The chasing email of 13th May 2020 2 The further chasing email of 16th May 2020 4 of 271 © Parochial Church Council of Lullington with Orchardleigh SECTION SECTION NO. 3 An inadequate response on 16th May 2020 4 An email of 18th May 2020 emphasising the urgency of the matter 5 A lackadaisical response on 22nd May 2020 6 The email of 25th May 2020 enumerating Bishop Hancock’s failure to fulfil his duty under the Declaration 7 3 rd June 2020 - another lackadaisical reply 8 Reiterating Mr Bridges’ concerns at the unnecessary delay 9 The telephone conversation on 4th June 2020 10 The 8th June Zoom Meeting 11 Bishop Hancock’s inaction between the 8th June Zoom Meeting and 22nd June 2020 XI The relevant facts: From the 22nd June Resolutions to the 1st July Zoom Meeting 1 The 22nd June Resolutions 2 Mr Bridges’ email of 22nd June 2020 3 Mr McKie’s chasing telephone call and email of 26th June 2020 4 The 26th June Bishop Hancock Letter and the responses to it XII The relevant facts: From the 1st July Zoom Meeting to immediately before the Licensing 1 Mr McKie’s attempts to reach a compromise 2 The 3rd July Bishop Hancock Letter 3 The 6th July McKie Email 5 of 271 © Parochial Church Council of Lullington with Orchardleigh SECTION SECTION NO. XIII The relevant facts: the licensing 1 A last-minute modification to Prebendary Crossman’s licence 2 The licence 3 Postponing submitting a Grievance under the Regulations Reg. 10 XIV The relevant facts: a sea change 1 The 10th July Bishop Hancock Email 2 An expression of appreciation XV The relevant facts: Bishop Worsley’s powers over Resolution Parishes 1 The explanation in the 10th July Bishop Hancock Email 2 The delegation of powers over Resolution Parishes revealed 3 Another failure to fulfil the duty imposed by the Declaration XVI The relevant facts: the 13th July Zoom Meeting 1 A failure to have thought about the relevant issues before the 13th July Zoom Meeting 2 Lack of prior thought led to a misunderstanding of basic concepts 3 The scope of the phrase ‘The Ministry of Women Bishops and Priests’ 4 The failure to address matters at the correct time made alternative options more difficult to implement 5 Protecting Prebendary Crossman 6 of 271 © Parochial Church Council of Lullington with Orchardleigh SECTION SECTION NO. XVII The relevant facts: Prebendary Crossman purports to exercise powers over the Parish 1 Prebendary Crossman’s Email of 17th July XVIII The relevant facts: the 23rd July Zoom Meeting and the proposal for a dialogue with the Registrar 1 A much more positive meeting 2 Bishop Worsley’s powers over Resolution Parishes 3 The Registrar’s Paper 4 The proposed dialogue with the Registrar 5 The Arrangement Criteria 6 The normal characteristics of discussions between professionals XIX The relevant facts: Bishop Hancock’s illness followed by an immediate deterioration in the conduct of the discussions 1 Initial confidence 2 Bishop Hancock’s illness 3 The Diocesan Personnel’s change of approach XX The relevant facts following Bishop Hancock’s withdrawal: the legal enforceability of the Arrangements 1 The 11th August Zoom Meeting 2 Re statement of intention to draft a Memorandum of Understanding 3 The first draft of the Memorandum of Understanding 7 of 271 © Parochial Church Council of Lullington with Orchardleigh SECTION SECTION NO. 4 The 21st August Bishop Worsley Letter 5 The 25th August Telephone Conversation XXI The relevant facts following Bishop Hancock’s withdrawal: requests for relevant information and documents 1 Did Bishop Worsley receive any legal advice? 2 Bishop Worsley’s undertakings 3 Bishop Worsley’s failure to comply with her undertakings XXII The relevant facts following Bishop Hancock’s withdrawal: comparable parishes 1 Bishop Goodall’s previous statements 2 Bishop Worsley’s assertions 3 Mr McKie’s enquiries XXIII The relevant facts following Bishop Hancock’s withdrawal: interim relief 1 The issue is raised with Bishop Hancock 2 The 22nd September McKie Email 3 The 25th September McKie Email 4 Bishop Worsley does not respond XXIV The relevant facts following Bishop Hancock’s withdrawal: the extent of Bishop Worsley’s powers 1 The request for the Instrument 2 A review of the Instrument reveals the doubtful extent of Bishop Worsley’s powers 3 The 24th August McKie Email 4 The PCC has no interest in Bishop Worsley not having the power to facilitate Declaration Arrangements 5 Further correspondence on the issue 8 of 271 © Parochial Church Council of Lullington with Orchardleigh SECTION SECTION NO. 6 The 9th September McKie Email XXV The relevant events following Bishop Hancock’s withdrawal: Bishop Worsley’s refusal to facilitate the making of Declaration Arrangements for the Parish 1 It becomes apparent that Bishop Worsley will not facilitate the making of Declaration Arrangements for the Parish 2 The 11th September Resolutions 3 The expiry of the PCC’s offer 4 The submission of the Grievance under the Regulations, Reg. 10 XXVI The Declaration: its importance and function 1 The importance of the Declaration in the life of the church 2 Protecting the Theological Minority XXVII The Declaration: its nature and effect 1 The nature of the Declaration 2 The Regulations 3 The Clergy Discipline Measure 2003 XXVIII The Declaration: principles of construction 1 Do the normal principles of legal construction apply? 2 Legal construction is purposive not narrowly literal 3 The persuasive authority of the Independent Reviewer’s decisions XXIX The Declaration: its key provisions 1 The theological conviction which is protected by the Declaration 9 of 271 © Parochial Church Council of Lullington with Orchardleigh SECTION SECTION NO. 2 The nature of Declaration Arrangements 3 Recently Lawful Priests or Bishops and Resolution Priests or Bishops XXX The Declaration: the construction of the phrase the ‘ministry of women bishops and priests’ 1 The ‘ministry of women bishops and priests’ 2 Conclusion as to the construction of ‘the ministry of women