The legal battle between ANiC and the Diocese of New Westminster reached another milestone today. The appeal was against the last ruling in favour of the diocese; the whole appeal ruling is here.
A lot of it seems to be a rehash of what has already been said. Some parts of interest included the following sentence where the judges seemed keen on displaying their perceptual acuity:
I could not help but feel that counsel’s respective submissions were like two ships passing in the night, as were the legal authorities on which they relied.
Imagine that: no indabas going on here.
This next section is an illustration of why a secular court is probably never going to side with the theologically conservative. From a secular perspective, doctrine is changeable – ephemeral – and it is up to the officially recognised Anglican Church in Canada to set doctrine as it pleases: doctrinal change is a matter for the General Synod. The conservative view that some doctrine is unchangeable, having been instituted by God, is not even believed by the Anglican Church of Canada, so it’s never going to wash with a secular judge.
And clearly, the judges recognise only one official Anglican Church in Canada – the one recognised by Lambeth – and that body has control of all the diocesan Mammon:
I am not convinced that Anglican worship or ‘Anglicanism’ can be separated in Canada from the notion of the ACC’s episcopal authority. As Mr. Dickson observed, the Anglican Church of Canada is a “quintessentially hierarchical” body. It sends bishops to international conferences and its members accept certain creeds and beliefs shared by other Anglicans around the world, but in terms of substantive decision-making power, the organizational structure in Canada is clear: the ACC is autonomous and doctrinal change is a matter for the General Synod. That body has chosen to permit same-sex blessings, albeit in the rather unenthusiastic wording of the 2007 resolution, and the Bishop and Diocesan Synod of New Westminster have chosen to pursue the matter to the extent they have – despite the opposition of many of their parishioners.
I prefer to rest my conclusion that the appeal must be dismissed, however, on the basis that the purpose of the trusts on which the parish corporations hold the church buildings and other assets is to further Anglican ministry in accordance with Anglican doctrine, and that in Canada, the General Synod has the final word on doctrinal matters. This is not to say that the plaintiffs are not in communion with the wider Anglican Church – that is a question on which I would not presume to opine. I do say, however, that members of the Anglican Church in Canada belong to an organization that has subscribed to “government by bishops.” The plaintiffs cannot in my respectful opinion remove themselves from their bishop’s oversight and the diocesan structure and retain the right to use properties that are held for purposes of Anglican ministry in Canada.
One small consolation is the recognition that Michael Ingham will find himself ministering to empty churches; he could become – as we like to say in business – a free floating apex:
Presumably the Bishop and the Synod have chosen to take the risk that the policy allowing same-sex blessings will indeed prove to be ‘schismatic’; or that clergy in the Diocese will for the foreseeable future find themselves ministering to vastly reduced or non-existent congregations. That, however, is their decision to make in the structure that the Anglican Church takes in Canada. Anglican ministry in Canada is “as defined by the ACC.”
