On 8 October 2025, the Church of England published a report of the meeting of the House of Bishops at the Odney Club, Cookham, 6-8 October 2025. The minutes of this meeting are now available and include the following item on the Court of Ecclesiastical Causes Reserved[1].
14 COURT OF ECCLESIASTICAL CAUSES RESERVED: CONSTITUTING A PANEL OF EMINENT THEOLOGIANS AND LITURGIOLOGISTS
HB(25)46
14.1 Introducing the paper, CASEY STRINE[2] explained that it was important to ensure that processes were established and resourced ahead of any litigation. Research had not identified a time when the panel had existed, but it seemed wise to establish one. The suggested process for constituting such a panel was to ask the Chairs of the Liturgical and Faith and Order Commissions, together with the Prolocutors of the Northern and Southern Provinces, supported by staff to produce a recommended panel to bring back to the House for decision. The aim was to produce a panel of around ten members so that three to five could be asked to work on any individual case. The panel would act as advisors to the five judges appointed by the crown and the three bishops appointed by the Crown on the advice of the Archbishops.
14.2 In discussion the following points were raised:
14.2.1 The importance of geographical representation;
14.2.2 That it would not be easy to find people – they were not remunerated and would be asked to give substantial time to the work, and they should not be politically motivated but expert;
14.2.3 That there may be a case for using retired bishops to perform some of the role;
14.3 The House AGREED the proposals in the paper, namely:
14.3.1 To establish a working group to identify names for inclusion on the panel comprising the chairs of the Faith and Order Commission and the Liturgical Commission, and the Prolocutors of the Lower Houses of the Convocations of Canterbury and York;
14.3.2 To refer those names to the Convocations in February 2026 so that the Upper Houses are asked to agree the names and the Lower Houses to agree the decisions of the Upper Houses.
Notes
[1] The court created by the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure 1963, with both original and appellate jurisdiction covering the provinces of Canterbury and York.
[2] The Revd Dr Casey Strine is Secretary for Theology and Theological Adviser to the House of Bishops.
I would be willing to be considered, as a liturgist (former member of various Liturgical Commission committees), northerner and retired priest with time available…. Is it worth me offering myself?
I note from para 2.1 of the Minutes that “The House AGREED by majority to meet as a Committee of the Whole House under Standing Order 14.” – in other words, to meet in private, with no members of the public present. Not only is this decision counter to the greater transparency acknowledged as necessary to restore trust in both the House of Bishops and the C of E generally, but the failure to state the majority and to name those bishops supporting and opposing the motion to meet in private is regrettable.
On 6 October 2025 (the first day of the House’s 3-day meeting) the following letter from me was published in The Times:
“Your leading article (“Lambeth Walk”, Oct 4) refers to Dame Sarah Mullally’s promise to increase transparency as the new Archbishop of Canterbury. Certainly, greater transparency will be a precondition for restoring trust in the hierarchy, especially in the House of Bishops. A good start would be for the new archbishop to take the lead in ending the bishops’ practice, at the start of every meeting, of voting (with only one recent exception) to invoke standing order 14, excluding the public from their deliberations. At the last meeting for which minutes are publicly available, in May this year, only two bishops — who were not named — voted against the motion. It would be good, too, if the minutes recorded how each bishop voted on each matter. At General Synod (of which the House of Bishops is part) there is a public record of how each member has voted in a counted vote.”
The minutes of the July meeting [HB(25)M4], approved in October, also record at para 2.1: “The CHAIR [the Bishop of Dover] moved that the House meet as a Committee of the Whole House under Standing Order 14. The House AGREED by majority to meet as a Committee of the Whole House under Standing Order 14.”
So, again, there were those opposed to meeting in private, but we don’t know their names, or even how many.
However, the October meeting minutes [HB(25)M5] do record this at para 15.3 on page 38:
“The ARCHBISHOP OF YORK, as Chair of the House of Bishops Standing Committee reminded the House of the report on transparency, including the decision to publish agendas and minutes and therefore, when the opportunity arose, to remove standing order 14.”
The bishops could ‘remove’ SO 14 at any one of their formal meetings as a House, but since they consistently vote to invoke the SO, it seems that a majority continue to be against real transparency. Perhaps one of those who voted against would break cover and reveal both the majority and those of his/her colleagues who also opposed the motion. It would be interesting, too, to know if my letter in The Times was referred to at the meeting before the vote was taken on 6 October.
I am astonished by the suggestion that the Court of Ecclesiastical Causes Reserved has never been constituted. What about St Stephen Walbrook (Henry Moore altar) and St Michael & All Angels Great Torrington (Icon)? My recollection is that both of these cases were heard in the Court of Ecclesiastical Causes Reserved. Certainly I can recall the panel being appointed, probably in the early 1980s when I worked in the Diocesan Registry at Oxford.
Mary, I think you have misread the minutes. You are correct in stating that the Court of Ecclesiastical Causes Reserved was constituted in the 1980s to hear the cases of St Michael and All Angels, Great Torrington [1985] Fam 81; [1985] 2 WLR 857 (about the introduction into the church of an icon of the Blessed Virgin Mary, a candlestand, and a Roman lectionary – a case that the court said did not involve matters of doctrine, ritual or ceremonial and “might conveniently have been heard by the Arches Court of Canterbury”) and St Stephen’s Walbrook [1987] Fam 146; [1987] 3 WLR 726 (the Henry Moore stone Holy Table case), but the House of Bishops minutes do not suggest otherwise. The concern is to appoint “a panel of eminent theologians and liturgiologists” to advise the panels of judges and bishops, a panel from whom would advise the court if and when it was required to sit. It may be that Casey Strine had in mind the desirability of such a panel being established to be able to advise the court if, in future, an issue arose in a particular case regarding the Church’s doctrine of marriage.
Thanks David. That is the conclusion I came to initially before I accessed the judgment Re St Stephen Walbrook and the references at [16] and [17] to calling two Judges’ Witnesses “with qualifications in paintings and art history”, who may, or may not, have been members of the advisory group. dp
Thank you for your Comment, Mary. Your recollection is consistent with the requirements of the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure 1963
45 Conduct of trial under Part VI.
[…]
(2) For the purposes of this section it shall be the duty of the Upper Houses of the Convocations of Canterbury and York jointly to draw up, with the approval of the Lower Houses of those Convocations, and from time to time to revise, with the like approval, a panel of persons each of whom shall be an eminent theologian or an eminent liturgiologist, and the Court of Ecclesiastical Causes Reserved shall, when trying a person sit with not less than three nor more than five advisers selected by the Dean of the Arches and Auditor from amongst the members of the panel.
The judgment in Re St Stephen Walbrook at [16] and [17] refers to calling two Judges’ Witnesses “with qualifications in paintings and art history”. There is no reference to an Advisory Panel, but these two witnesses appear to satisfy the requirements of the legislation in this respect.
DavidP