Different aspects concerning the status of Church of England clergy have been in the news recently:

• In December, the disciplinary tribunal considering Re Hawthorne [2015] addressed the court’s jurisdiction over a former Anglican priest who had joined the Ordinariate; this emphasized that clerks in Holy Orders must satisfy the provisions of the Clerical Disabilities Act 1870 before they cease to be subject to ecclesiastical law;
• In January, the CofE’s legal office issued guidance relating to retired and other clergy who do not hold office and who purport to conduct funerals on a “freelance basis”;
• Also in January, in relation to the alleged wearing of a clerical collar by a former vicar, deposed from Holy Orders following a custodial sentence for indecent assault, the Archbishop of Canterbury is quoted as saying:

“Regrettably, although we can ban someone from ever officiating at worship and wearing robes for worship, or passing themselves off as a priest in good standing, we cannot prevent them from using the title ‘the reverend’ or even wearing a clerical collar … anyone is able to wear such dress, providing they do not do so for illegal purposes. It is not contravening any law unlike, say, dressing as a police officer.”

We covered these issues here, here, and here, respectively. One feature which is common is the recognition of someone in Holy Orders by their style and dress, and the latter is addressed in relation to the Draft Amending Canon No.34, accompanying the draft Safeguarding and Clergy Discipline Measure, which will be discussed by General Synod on Thursday 12 February[1].

Clerical dress and vesture

Clerical dress and vesture was one of the issues on which the Archbishop’s Council sought a view in its consultation on the proposed legislative changes resulting from the Chichester visitation, GS 1896[2]. These comprise paragraphs 41 to 47 of the consultation document, which indicates that the Commissaries recommended:

(a) clergy who have been prohibited or suspended, or who have no licence or permission to officiate, should be prevented from robing or wearing clerical vestments in church;

(b) it should be a disciplinary matter to allow a prohibited or suspended cleric to robe or wear clerical vestments in church; and

(c) clergy who are prohibited or suspended should not be permitted to wear any clerical dress on any occasion.

Clerical dress

A distinction needs to be drawn between the everyday clerical dress perceived to be distinctive of that of a priest, and that worn during divine service. The Church’s ecclesiastical law addresses these separately: Canon C 27 Of the dress of ministers; and Canon B 8 Of the vesture of ordained and authorized ministers during the time of divine service. The consultation notes [42] “the rationale behind the recommendations appears to be that clergy who do not have authority from the bishop to officiate should not be permitted to hold themselves out as if they were so authorised by the bishop”. This was considered problematic in a number of respects:

• clerics wear ‘dog collars’ as a sign of their ordination as deacon or priest, not because they hold preferment or a permission to officiate[3]. On these grounds, therefore, limiting their wear to authorized officiants would be illogical, and would be discriminatory towards retired and other clergy in good standing who are members of the congregation. We considered the “indelible” nature of ordination in our earlier post.
• there is no distinctive attire specific to Church of England priests, although this is generally taken to mean a priest’s clerical shirt and collar. Canon C 27 is non-prescriptive: the apparel of a bishop, priest, or deacon must be “suitable to his office; and, save for purposes of recreation and other justifiable reasons … such as to be a sign and mark of his holy calling and ministry as well to others as to those committed to his spiritual charge.”
• the consultation noted that a measure which precluded clerical wear for prohibited or suspended clergy “could be ineffective as a measure designed to protect the public. There is no distinctive uniform for Church of England clergy – a cleric in a black shirt and priest’s collar could be Anglican, Roman Catholic, or Methodist, or belong to any number of small catholic or protestant sects that have no connection with the Church of England.”

Vesture

Although “diversities of vesture” are permitted by Canon B 8, a minister is not permitted to change the form of vesture in use in the church or chapel in which he officiates without the approval of the PCC, or the bishop in cases of dispute. Nevertheless, sections §3 to §5 indicate what may be worn at Holy Communion, Morning and Evening Prayer on Sundays, and at the occasional offices.

The consultation document indicated [45] that a provision to forbid a prohibited cleric from robing in church would be relatively straightforward and could be done by canon. However, it also suggested that there would be no effective sanction available against a person who is already subject to a long period of prohibition for serious misconduct, and such a provision would in practice need to be supplemented by a prohibition on priests with the cure of souls from knowingly allowing such clergy to robe in their church. The situation is more complex with regard to clergy who have been suspended since the notice of suspension served on a respondent expressly states that suspension does not mean any view has been formed as to whether the complaint of misconduct is true or likely to be true.

These proposals were further discussed by the Council and the House of Bishops, GS 1941, prior to their first consideration by General Synod in July 2014[4] at both were approved and submitted to a Revision Committee. The February 2015 Synod will consider the revised Measure and Canon in the light of the report of the Revision Committee which contains the rationale for the present form of the draft[1], [emboldening in original],

“DRAFT AMENDING CANON No. 34

(Of relations with other Churches, Of ministers exercising their ministry, Of diocesan bishops. Of risk assessment, Of the licensing of readers, Of the admission and licensing of lay workers)

[…]

2.(1)Canon C 8 (Of ministers exercising their ministry) is amended as follows.

[…] 

2(3) After paragraph 5 insert—

“6. A minister who does not have authority to officiate in accordance with this Canon or is prohibited or suspended under the Clergy Discipline Measure 2003 from exercising the functions of his Orders may not vest in a church or chapel during divine service.

7.The minister having the cure of souls of a church or chapel or the sequestrator when the cure is vacant or the dean or provost and the canons residentiary of any cathedral or collegiate church may not allow a minister to officiate or vest in the church or chapel if they know that the minister does not have authority to officiate, or is prohibited or suspended, as mentioned in paragraph 6.“

Comment

The provisions on vesture form one component of the proposed legislation on safeguarding. It is also important that the Church avoids sending out mixed messages, particularly in the light of the motion approved at the General Synod in York approved the motion[5]:

“That this Synod call on the Business Committee to introduce draft legislation to amend the law relating to the vesture of ministers so that, without altering the principles set out in paragraphs 1 and 2 of Canon B 8. the wearing of the forms of vesture referred to in paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of that Canon becomes optional rather than mandatory.”

[1] The papers for this session are: GS 1952A, Draft Safeguarding and Clergy Discipline Measure; GS 1953A, Draft Amending Canon No.34; and GS 1952-3Y, Report by the Revision Committee.

[2] The reports of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Commissaries to the Diocese of Chichester (‘the Chichester Commissaries’) made a number of proposals for legislative change to enable the Church of England to deal more effectively with safeguarding issues.

[3] Since December 2007, the Archbishop of York, the Rt Rev John Sentamu, has not worn a dog-collar as a sign of solidarity with the people of Zimbabwe, who have lost their identify under the rule of President Mugabe.

[4] Special Agenda I, Pages 3 and 4 of the Business Done report.

[5] See GS 1944A and GS 1944B.