| Friday 18th April, 2008 You are here: Home - 18th April 2008 Index Page - 18th April 2008 Letters to the Editor |
Dean and Ordinary
It is regrettable that the Very Revd Victor Griffin, in defending his former position as Dean of St Patrick’s (Gazette, 4th April, Focus, pages 8 and 9), should resort to what can only be described as ‘special pleading’ in relation to what the Church Constitution clearly designates as a subordinate position.
Although the Canons of the Church (chapter nine of the Church Constitution) correctly state that there can be other "ordinaries" (persons in charge) than bishops of dioceses, this does not define the kind of ordinary the Dean of St Patrick’s is. That is reserved for the part of the Constitution dealing directly with St Patrick’s (chapter seven, sections 20-37) which makes clear that his authority is limited. He is the "immediate" ordinary, "for the purpose of directing the clergy and officials, and ordering the services". No more. No less.
Dean Griffin may well describe the concept of having an "immediate" ordinary who is in some sense subordinate to the ordinary in the full sense of the word (the Archbishop of Dublin) as "Gilbertian", but that is the position in Church law in general, as well as in St Patrick’s, as may be seen in the authoritative definition given in The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, third edition, p.1191.
As explained in my previous letter (Gazette, 15th February, Letters, page 9) on the subject, The Form and Manner of Making a Dean and other Forms used in the Cathedral and Collegiate Church of St Patrick Dublin (1912), edited by the renowned scholar-historian, the late Hugh Jackson Lawler D.D., explicitly recognizes the Archbishop of Dublin as having "ordinary jurisdiction" in St Patrick’s and this form was used when Dean Griffin was appointed, as well as his predecessors and successors in office - all of whom, including the present Dean, appear to have ignored what the forms say. Anecdotes about Archbishop Simms (an episcopal saint, but no authority on Church law or the statutes of our National Cathedral) are irrelevant to the issue.
It is regrettable that Dean Griffin also ignores the position of the Chapter - in which the Dean is no more than first among equals - which has authority over "all other matters relating to the cathedral" which are not specifically covered by the provisions of the Church Constitution. It is in his capacity as "ordinary" in the full sense that the Archbishop of Dublin approves the appointment of a Dean and exercises his jurisdiction as Visitor of the Cathedral.
Michael Kennedy (Canon)
(Prebendary of Yagoe in the Cathedral Church of St Patrick, Dublin)
60 Newtownhamilton Road
Armagh BT60 2PW
As those who have actively supported the current campaign to highlight the ethical implications of the Human Fertilization and Embryology (HFE) Bill, we are dismayed that the Bill of Rights Forum’s final report contains another attempt to change Northern Ireland’s abortion law. One of the concerns with the HFE Bill is the suggestion that English MPs may support an amendment which, if passed, could result in the extension of the 1967 Abortion Act to Northern Ireland. In recent months, a number of local politicians have expressed major reservations about such tactics, not simply for ethical reasons, but also because of the undemocratic nature of such a move.
It has become clear that the Bill of Rights Forum also favours attempts to bypass the Assembly when it comes to addressing the law on abortion. We feel there is a sense of imbalance within the Forum’s report. On the one hand, the report includes a clause regarding the right to "lawful reproductive health care". On the other hand, it excluded the suggested clause: "The child, by reason of physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth" - a clause enshrined in the UN Declaration of the Rights of the Child.
We are disappointed that the Forum felt it appropriate to highlight the right to "lawful reproductive health care", while, at the same time, overlooking the rights of the unborn child. Along with many others, we have already signalled our strong objection to MPs in Westminster about the threat to change the law on abortion in Northern Ireland by way of an amendment to the HFE Bill.
We are equally opposed to attempts to change the law on abortion by way of a Bill of Rights. The Northern Ireland Assembly is the appropriate venue for future decisions about the law on abortion and we believe many people will join us in asking questions about the undemocratic way in which the Bill of Rights Forum has dealt with the issue of abortion in Northern Ireland.
Vivien Hunter
Director Life NI
28 Bedford Street
Belfast
Karen Jardine
Public Affairs and Development Officer Evangelical Alliance
Downview House
440 Shore Road
Newtownabbey
Stuart Noble
Parliamentary and Development Officer CARE in Northern Ireland
Suite 271 Thomas House
47 Botanic Avenue
Belfast
BT7 1JJ
Bishops’ Appeal/Christian Aid not identical bodies
We very much appreciate the positive tone and intention of Dermot O’Callaghan’s recent published comments (Gazette, 4th April, page 1) concerning Christian Aid’s strategy in the area of HIV and AIDS prevention. Like him, we are most anxious to continue an informed and constructive discussion of this vital matter. We would want to stress, however, that Bishops’ Appeal and Christian Aid are not simply identical bodies.
Bishops’ Appeal has a close working relationship with Christian Aid and, through the years, has given it substantial support. However, Bishops’ Appeal also exercises an independent judgement regarding projects submitted to it by Christian Aid and the many other development agencies with which we co-operate.
In that context, we were content to give wholehearted support to the particular Christian Aid project, ANARELA+, which benefitted from our recent Lent campaign ‘The Body of Christ has AIDS’. A TearFund project based in Liberia was an equal beneficiary of that campaign. Both Christian Aid and TearFund co-operated with us constantly in relation to the resourcing of our campaign and for that we are most grateful.
Christian Aid plays a vital and distinctive role on behalf of many Churches in Ireland and Britain in addressing the issues which cause world poverty and in campaigning of behalf of the poor who long to hear Good News.
Inevitably, such campaigning will, at times, lead to creative debate and discussion and we acknowledge the part played by Mr O’Callaghan and others in focusing such debate.
At this stage and, above all, we would want to thank parishes throughout Ireland for their generous support of ‘The Body of Christ has AIDS’ - in the near future, we hope to provide a full picture of the results of the campaign.
+Michael Cashel and Ossory
Acting Chair, Bishops’ Appeal Advisory Committee
Ian Poulton
Honorary Secretary, Bishops’ Appeal
Martin O’Connor
Education Adviser, Bishops’ Appeal
Need for transparency in ministry training information
I entirely agree with the Revd Ted Wood’s concerns (Gazette, 28th March, Letters, page 7) in relation to the honours degree access requirement (or equivalent) of the new ministry training proposals. As a member of staff at the Church of Ireland Theological College, I am dismayed at how this will exclude so many people who have previously gone on to become mainstays of our Church’s ministry. Many such clergy now occupy senior positions in the Church of Ireland and beyond. Has our experience of them as nongraduate applicants really been so disastrous?
I myself was heavily involved in drafting the initial curriculum for the new M.Min. Nothing, however, of the present proposals reflects the vision of a wider, not narrower, access, where generous provision was intended for the recognition of existing ministerial experience as Accredited Prior Learning. (The M.Min. is a professional degree in ministry, not academic theology, a distinction which appears to be lost in the present proposals.)
Whilst intellectual rigour is an essential element in ministerial formation, the blanket manner in which the new honours requirement is being imposed has no basis in Scripture or Christian spirituality. Furthermore, what of those non-graduates who have deferred commencement of training from a previous selection conference and now find that they do not meet the new requirement? In such cases, are the bishops asking them to believe that the Holy Spirit has had a rethink?
One can only guess at the vast funding involved in this project, given the unnecessary use of expensive venues for meetings and the costs of a professional manager. In spite of these trappings of business managerialism, I have found the information available to be so lacking in transparency as to be actively misleading.
Major aspects of this project have the potential to cause great harm to the life of the Church of Ireland. As such, the bishops need to give a much fuller account of their decisions in this matter, if they are to retain credibility in their control of ministry training.
Tom Gordon
Consultant Director of Pastoral Formation and NSM Ministry
The Church of Ireland Theological College
Braemor Park
Dublin 14
I fear I do not share Mrs Simpson’s sentiments (Gazette, 11th April, Letters, page 7) concerning ecclesiastical vesture and the sign of the cross. Bishops, above all clerics, are expressive of the universality of the Church and it would seem odd if, alone in the worldwide Anglican Communion, our bishops were compelled to be the odd ones out.
Dislike of a cope is a matter of taste, but to see a large piece of silk as theologically offensive, but a narrower band, in the form of a stole or a black silk scarf, as neutral is particularly quaint. The cope is merely a cloak like that often worn at the graveside. Copes have none of the associations with disputed interpretations of sacrifice in sacramental theology which are (in my view wrongly) attached to the chasuble. It is, I would argue, not a vestment in Irish Anglican terminology ("The priest shall wear a vestment or cope": Irish Prayer Book of 1551, English 1549). It may be worn by lay people; the stole and black scarf are not. It is used as academic dress in many ancient universities and is, when worn by the clergy of the Church of Ireland, no more an illegal ornament than the blue scarf of the Reader, or those rather unfortunate neck medals or scarf badges adopted by some deans and chapters. At any rate, the bishops may wear "the customary apparel" of their order.
I wonder can Mrs Simpson be a regular reader of the Gazette? It would seem that the cope is customary apparel. To my knowledge, you have offered us pictures of both archbishops and several other bishops in cope and mitre. Copes are also in use in many of our cathedrals, collegiate and parish churches. For many, they add to the visual sense of worship, both for cradle Anglicans and the many from other shores and other communions who assist at our celebrations of the Eucharist. That all this has not impinged before upon Mrs Simpson suggests that all this has been done with customary Church of Ireland sensitivity and generosity. We are right to triumph in the victory of the empty cross, but ours is also a faith founded on the incarnation and, with the late Archdeacon Jenkins, we may believe in the potential worth of human ingenuity, gestures and signs and the necessity for beauty. Surely our Church is large enough to include Mrs Simpson and the likes of me?
Michael Thompson (The Revd)
Soane et Loire
71460 France