Nolo episcopari

The Crown Nominations Commission (CNC) for Durham met and nominated a candidate for the See of Durham, which is one of those whose bishop is a Lord Spiritual ex officio. On Monday, the CNC announced that the candidate decided to “withdraw from the nomination”. Having decided in November not to nominate a reserve candidate, the CNC has now agreed to reconvene later in the year to continue the process of discernment. The CNC meetings currently planned are listed on the website of Peter Owen. 

There is an urban myth that it was customary and decorous for any candidate for a bishopric to decline the office twice by use of the expression nolo episcopari, and only a third use of which would indicate a true intention of refusal. In our report in November 2024, Rt Revd Rachel Treweek was quoted as saying, “Anyone who wants to be the Archbishop of Canterbury absolutely needs their head reading”. Since then, this sentiment has been echoed by other bishops.

Religious male circumcision

On 6 February, Lord Scriven (Lib Dem) tabled the question:

“To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the case of R v Mohammad Siddiqui [2025], in particular the remarks of HHJ Lucas KC that ‘safeguards and protections must now be put in place and put in place as a matter of urgency, to ensure that babies and young children are protected from ritual circumcision’.”

On 17 February, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in the Ministry of Justice, responded as follows:

“The Ministry of Justice has no responsibility for non-therapeutic male circumcision or its regulation. The Government does, however, understand and sympathise with the children and their families who experience harm or trauma as a result of the behaviour of unregulated and irresponsible practitioners. It is important that those who engage in these activities, and do not comply with the required regulations, are brought to justice.

Male circumcision performed for any other reason than a physical clinical need is termed as ‘non-therapeutic male circumcision’. The Government is aware that parents for religious reasons, or to incorporate a child into a community, may request such a procedure. The Government would encourage all parents to ensure that in seeking such a procedure, that they discuss the matter first with their GP or healthcare practitioner.

Where a registered healthcare professional wishes to carry out non-therapeutic male circumcision, they must be registered with the Care Quality Commission to carry out the regulated activity of surgical procedures. Even where a healthcare professional is acting in a religious or spiritual role, they cannot ‘opt out’ of their core duties and responsibilities”.

How not to answer a PQ?

On Monday, Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth, Lab) received an answer to her question to the Minister for the Cabinet Office asking “what assessment the Government has made of the potential merits of reviewing the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829 in relation to the provisions around the appointment of bishops within the Church of England”. Presumably she was thinking especially of section 18 (No Roman Catholic to advise the Crown in the appointment to offices in the established church.).

This was the response from the Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office, Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen):

“The Government introduced legislation on 13 February to remove the legal barrier to Roman Catholics holding the office of Lord High Commissioner to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. This short and narrowly-focused Bill facilitates the upcoming appointment of the first Roman Catholic Lord High Commissioner for the next General Assembly in May.”

Which is perfectly true so far as it goes: but it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with a question about “the appointment of bishops within the Church of England”. No wonder commentators bemoan the rise in religious illiteracy.

Decision on section 9 CDM application

On 3 February 2025,  Rt Hon Sir Stephen Males, who was appointed as President of Tribunals in January, issued his Decision on the publication of a section 9 application in relation to the former Bishop of Liverpool. The Deputy President had refused to extend the time limit in relation to the complainant’s application for permission to make a complaint of misconduct [2]. In addition, the Designated Officer referred to the President an oral request received from the Secretary General of the Archbishops’ Council that the Deputy President’s decision refusing permission should be provided to the trustees and to the senior staff of the Archbishops’ Council [4]. However, without the permission of the parties, he was not prepared to authorize disclosure of the Deputy President’s decision nor make the Deputy President’s decision public [8,9].

On Thinking Anglicans, David Lamming has commented on the implications of this decision in relation to the desirability of greater transparency in the decision-making process under the Clergy Discipline Measure and, prospectively, the Clergy Conduct Measure. Under the Clergy Conduct Measure as approved by the February General Synod, a complaint of serious misconduct may be made at any time, regardless of when the conduct alleged in the complaint occurred: Clause 19(1). However, a complaint that constitutes a grievance or misconduct that is not serious misconduct must be brought within 12 months of the last occurrence of the conduct, ending with the date on which the complaint is made.

Forthcoming adjournment debate

Luke Myer (Lab, Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland), a member of the Ecclesiastical Committee, has secured a Commons adjournment debate on Safeguarding in the Church of England on 3 March.

Quick links

• Neil Foster, Law and Religion Australia: “Hate speech” and religious freedom- recent developments in Australia.
• James Murray, Lexology: Managing Manifestations: protected beliefs in the workplace and the Court of Appeal judgment in Higgs v Farmor’s School: another note on what is likely to be the most scrutinised religion and belief judgment of 2025 – until it’s appealed.