Day 2
Bill No 3 Seeks to Address Breakdown of Relationships in Parishes
A Bill which seeks to introduce a mechanism to address situations where “an intractable breakdown of relationships” has occurred between an incumbent and members of his or her parish through no particular fault of either party was presented at General Synod on Thursday afternoon. Discussions on 13 amendments to the Bill took place on Friday morning.
The Bill, in the names of Archdeacon Barry Forde and Canon Nicola Halford, arises from the work of the Working Group to Review Clergy Tenure.
The group noted that there was no mechanism currently to deal with such situations. Up until now they have fallen into a grey area with regards to the Constitution.
While there may be no wrongdoing on the part of the incumbent which could be dealt with under disciplinary proceedings in Chapter VIII, the breakdown in relationships within the parish structure could put the ongoing viability of the parish or cure and/or the mental and spiritual well–being of the incumbent in jeopardy.
The Bill aims to introduce a mechanism to resolve the situation so that an incumbent may have their tenure terminated with the freedom to apply for ecclesiastical office elsewhere. The group has included a similar mechanism to deal with cases of intractable breakdown between a bishop and his or her diocese.
Proposing the Bill, Archdeacon Forde said: “This Bill does not redefine tenure or introduce a new type of appointment. It does not predetermine outcomes but creates careful space within which tenure may be brought to an end after all other reasonable endeavours to bring about resolution have been undertaken.”
He outlined the stages of the proposed process which begins with a ‘statement of serious concern’ which may be brought by the bishop, archdeacon or rural dean; or the incumbent; or a specified number of members of the General and Select Vestry. The matter would then be referred to the Diocesan Council which would examine the issue and if appropriate appoint a Committee of Inquiry. Its primary role is to seek resolution and encourage local resolution of a problem. If this is not possible it may proceed with its inquiry. If the committee concludes that the situation is such that the viability of the parish or cure is materially jeopardised, it may certify that conclusion to Diocesan Council which, with the bishop will consider the next steps.
Archdeacon Forde said that while much of the working group’s energy was focused on parochial breakdown, it proposed that the core principles be adopted for episcopal tenure, in which case Standing Committee would act in place of Diocesan Council.
He concluded: “This Bill provides a framework that honours tenure, works within the existing life and structures of the Church. In a synodical church it takes seriously the views of clergy and laity, parish and diocese. In an episcopal church it seeks the discernment of fellow priests and the oversight of the bishop. And it recognises that there may come a time when it is reasonable to conclude that the cost of unresolved breakdown is far greater than the cost of careful, fair, and compassionate intervention”.
In seconding the Bill, Canon Halford emphasised the safeguards that ensure the framework proposed is fair, proportionate and not misused. “I want to assure Synod that Working Group has sought to ensure that Safeguards are embedded at every stage of this process, and not least has availed of the wisdom and feedback of Standing Committee to embolden the checks and balances,” she said.
She listed these safeguards in the areas of scope, threshold, who may initiate the procedure, oversight and discretion, independence and conflicts, fair process, outcomes and appeal. “Chair and members of Synod, the proposals in the Bill are carefully designed to be: limited in scope, fair in process, accountable in decision–making; and supportive in outcome,” she said.
There was one amendment to the Bill to which there was no objection from the proposer or seconder.
Speaking to the principle of the Bill Canon Paul Arbuthnot expressed his deep and grave concerns. He urged Synod to reject the Bill because he said it endangered the wellbeing of clergy and all would rue its passing. He said it endangered the essence of clergy who are not employees. Instead of looking forward to Godly possibility, the Bill would have clergy frightened and looking over their shoulders, he contended adding that clergy and their families could be made homeless in the middle of a housing crisis. He said a malicious complaint would remaine in the pews of the parish and the incumbent would continue to have to face the complainant. In the removal from office, clergy in the Republic would not be able to claim unemployment benefit because of their PRSI band, he stated and parishes which make a complaint about their incumbent would find it difficult to find someone to serve there again. “We are Anglican and we cherish the threefold order of bishop, priest and deacon … if you value the Church of Ireland you will vote no,” he concluded.
Archdeacon Mark Hayden (Cashel Ferns and Ossory) said he had been incumbent for 25 years and is a happy priest, parent and husband. But he said he is not a happy archdeacon because much of his ministry is taken with trying to resolve issues at the coalface of the diocese. He said it breaks his heart to hear the upset and anger in the previous speakers voices and for quite some time I would have shared some of his concerns but through careful consultation he urged Synod to vote in favour of this Bill. He stated that it is not always the fault of the congregation or the cleric and not everything is perfect in every parish. “We have to have legislation to help where help is needed,” he said. “Situations cannot be allowed to run on for years.” A parish in a situation where nothing is happening will die, he added and urged people to think of the places where there were broken hearted clergy, parishioners and archdeacons.
Archdeacon Ross Styles (Glendalough) identified with his archdeacon colleague in saying not every situation is ideal. Parish ministry is a great blessing, to be able to serve God and the communities, to see the time and talents people give their parishes to share the message of God’s love, he stated adding that ministry is not without difficulties. He said there are uncertainties in early ministry. Once in place there is the difficulty in becoming part of a community and all the other important requirements. With such a people focused role it is not surprising that there can be disagreements, he said but stated that he does not feel that what is being presented to Synod is the instrument to help with this. “This Bill takes a sledge hammer to the small crack in our system. Disagreements can and should be worked through and a middle ground found. Bill No 3 removes the core of mutual consensus,” he commented. He said if the Bill passes all incumbents will hesitate in expressing difference. Being removed from your job, your home, your family’s home, sounds like punishment, he suggested. The Bill if passed would fundamentally alter the relationship of pastor and parish.
Canon Trevor Sergeant (Cashel, Ferns and Ossory) said he hadn’t heard an alternative proposal and thanked the working group for their work. The status quo cannot continue where in many parishes there is a level of toxicity which stifles the work of God, he stated. He said he knows a number of parishes which have an incumbent and yet they do not enjoy a meaningful incumbency. “I speak with sympathy for unhappy clergy and bishops and frustrated parishioners. We must provide clarity for clergy and for the parish which is suffering in a position where people are more alienated,” he said adding that it was not just necessary for parishioners but also for non members of the Church. And it is not just for parishioners, the parish is also here for its non members and urged members to vote in favour.
Dean Stephen Farrell (Cashel Ferns and Ossory) said the Church of Ireland is really one big family so it is a cause of sadness when there are situations of pastoral breakdown in parishes. Pastoral breakdown is hugely complex. It is impossible to identify all the things that led to it. He stated that the Bill suggests that it implies no fault on the part of the cleric but he suggested that closer inspection could reveal that every aspect could be blamed on the cleric and they must pay the highest price– removal from their home, removal from the family home, changes to children’s access to school, possibly affecting the spouse also. “Pastoral breakdown is a huge burden on the parish but I would say it is not equitable to take that burden and place it on one family – the one in the rectory. We are people of the resurrection. The idea of choosing one person or one family to bear the sins of the community is not a good look and I ask if it would address the situations we hope it would address,” he stated. He agreed it was a complex issue and a way forward must be found but said this Bill is not it.
Thomas Cooke (Cashel Ferns and Ossory) said as a diocesan lay reader he got around to a lot of different churches and said the vast majority of rectors do their job. Most parishioners are self employed or employed by companies and know if they don’t perform they are out the door, he said. With that in mind they don’t understand, in situations where there is an intractable breakdown, why there is no mechanism to deal with it. The vast majority of parishioners are good people and the insinuation is that they are cruel and hard people stirring up situations. He suggested that if a mechanism to resolve this was not found more and more people will quiet quit and turn away from the church.
Michael Trimble (Connor) said he had some concerns in relation to the Bill. It is not always possible to live in harmony with people, he stated and said that those who preach the Gospel are actually called in some instances to offend. He expressed concern that if the Bill is adopted that people who are offending in preaching the Gospel will be unseated from their position.
The Revd Jonny Campbell Smyth (Connor) said he favoured this Bill having experienced trauma in his first curacy when he was not ready for what would happen. He expressed concerns but the matter was never resolved and he said he and his family had to leave to take up a second curacy which was went well. He asked what mechanism was in place when a curate raised concerns. He said the Bill was the right thing to do to ensure that issues he experienced would be addressed.
The Revd Trevor Johnston (Connor) said that Standing Committee had put immense effort into the Bill. However, he had concerns about it. He acknowledged that there were rotten apples but he said the Bill was a sledge hammer to deal with rotten apples. How is breakdown determined, he asked – is it reduction in giving, lower numbers, tensions in vestry meetings. Where are the objective metrics, he asked noting that all parishes experience these issues at some times. “This Bill risks turning a sacred long term agreement between clergy and parishioners into a short term contract,” he said and urged people to keep focus on the long term fruit of the Gospel rather than the short term gain.
Archdeacon Peter Thompson (Armagh) said he had seen pastoral breakdown in many places and the Bill aims to deal with that. There is a post covid issue where people think they are always right and clergy are at the front line of this in an era where so much human interaction has been removed. But he said that in the church there is nowhere to bring those frustrations so he welcomed the scope to resolve pastoral breakdown and to take a step forward. “We need to invest significant energy in local pastoral resolution as a starting point. We need to be committed to placing ourselves in the others’ shoes and accepting occasional abuse. Because that is where these issues are resolved,” he said.
In reply Archdeacon Forde thanked all who had made comments and expressed opinions. The working group has wrestled with a lot of what has been expressed and does not want to come across as trying to attack clergy, he stated. He explained that it is about dealing responsibly with extreme circumstances and is an ecclesiastical process. He said it is about a statement of serious concern when the viability of a parish or cure is jeopardised not just because the cleric has annoyed someone. The committee of inquiry is a discernment process and there is a mediation process to try to bring people together, he commented adding that these situations are a reality and there is a cost to the parish if intractable breakdown is allowed to continue.
On Friday morning members of Synod considered 13 amendments to the Bill before agreeing to enable the Bill to proceed to its final stage tomorrow morning.
Voting was by orders.