Deposition from Holy Orders, more commonly known as “defrocking” or “unfrocking”[1],[2], is the ecclesiastical penalty for depriving a cleric of their office and the right to exercise the functions of their orders. In addition to its application to disciplinary procedures initiated by the church, it also provides clergy with a means of avoiding future legislative involvement when they formally leave the church[3].

The associated legislation differs between Anglican Churches within the United Kingdom; recent examples within the Church in Wales included the deposition from Holy Orders of a Bishop and his expulsion from the office of Cleric in the Church. Whilst the penalty of deposition has been unavailable in England since the introduction of the Clergy Discipline Measure 2003, (CDM), it is set to return on the enactment of the Clergy Conduct Measure.

Briden[4] emphasizes that “the deposition from Holy Orders (or unfrocking) operates as a ban on the performance of clerical functions. It does not operate to remove the indelible character which theologically ordination and consecration are taken to bestow”. This is encapsulated in Canon C1 §2 which has remained unchanged: this reflects the position in the Roman Catholic Church [5].

“Defrocking” in the Church of England

The Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure 1963  (“the 1963 Measure”) resulted from the Archbishops’ Commission on the Ecclesiastical Courts which reported in 1954; it was introduced “… to reform and reconstruct the system of ecclesiastical courts of the Church of England, to replace with new provisions the existing enactments relating to ecclesiastical discipline, to abolish certain obsolete jurisdictions and fees, and for purposes connected therewith”. The EJM codified the existing disparate legislation on discipline under one Measure. Section 50 of the Measure expressly preserved the power of deposition from Holy Orders following ecclesiastical judicial proceedings in relation to doctrine, ritual or ceremonial, or conduct unbecoming a clerk in Holy Orders.

The Report “Under Authority” (1996) examined the system of clergy discipline in the Church of England and made recommendations for its reform. It states that since the 1963 Measure came into force, no disciplinary cases had been brought before the Court of Ecclesiastical Causes Reserved, and only a few disciplinary cases reached the stage of a trial before the consistory court[6]. The report identified weaknesses in the system, including inflexibility, slow procedures, and high costs, and recommended reforms to create a fairer and more effective disciplinary framework.

These recommendations led to the Clergy Discipline Measure 2003 (CDM), which received Royal Assent in July 2003 and came fully into force on 1 January 2006 [7]. The new Measure did not include the penalty of deposition from Holy Orders on the grounds that it was designed to be more administrative and less punitive; however, the absence of a mechanism to remove clergy from Holy Orders entirely became increasingly untenable in the context of safeguarding failures. The CDM did not repeal section 50 of the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure 1963: apart from textual amendments and the repeal of S54 (Disobedience to censure) of the 1963 Measure, Part IV, Censures, no other changes were made. The “Part IV provisions” of the 1963 Measure were retained “as there were clergy deposed under the Measure for whom further deposition remained a possibility for second or subsequent offences involving doctrine, ritual or ceremonial” [8] .

In 2021, the Clergy Conduct Measure Implementation Group (“the Group”) was formed with the specific task of formulating legislative proposals for the creation of a new Clergy Conduct Measure, (Under Authority Revisited, GS 2277). The first major step in the reform of the Clergy Discipline Measure 2003 was the Church’s involvement in the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA). The 2003 Measure had also been criticised for being overly legalistic, slow, and burdensome for both complainants and clergy. Originally designed to address serious misconduct, Synod heard that it had become a catch-all process for all complaints, often leading to undue stress and reputational damage for clergy facing minor grievances.

In February 2025, General Synod approved the final drafting of the Clergy Conduct Measure which introduced a tiered approach to complaints, ensuring that different levels of concern were handled proportionately. For cases of serious misconduct it reintroduced the penalty of deposition from Holy Orders. The new Measure restored the ability for a bishop to depose a priest or deacon from Holy Orders following a finding of serious misconduct that does not involve doctrine, ritual, or ceremony.

Following the Ecclesiastical Committee (Joint Committee) meeting on 21 October 2025 to discuss the proposed Clergy Conduct Measure, the Committee, in accordance with s3(4) Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, communicated its report on the Clergy Conduct Measure in draft to the Legislative Committee.

The draft report that the Ecclesiastical Committee was of the opinion that the Clergy Conduct Measure was “not expedient” – Its principal concern being section 31(3) of the Measure which provides:

“(3) The tribunal or court is to sit in private except in a case where: (a) the respondent requests that the sitting be in public, (b) the tribunal or court is satisfied that it is in the interests of justice to sit in public, or (c) the rules provide for the sitting to be in public”.

The Ecclesiastical Committee’s view was “that the Measure should … be amended to make clear that the tribunal or court will ordinarily sit in public, with limited exceptions where it may be appropriate and justified for sittings to be held in private – such as cases relating to children” (paragraph 7 of the draft report).

The Legislative Committee withdrew the Measure from the Ecclesiastical Committee and sought its reintroduction into the Synod with a view to an amendment being made to address the principal concern raised[1].

The Clergy Conduct Measure (CCM) was reintroduced to Synod following feedback from the Parliamentary Ecclesiastical Committee. Synod agreed an amendment, reversing the presumption of private hearings so that tribunals and courts will normally sit in public. Final approval for the Measure was then secured comfortably across all three Houses[9].

[1] An overview of the term “defrocking” is given by Wikipedia. It is not used Anglican Canon Law, and “laicization” is often, but incorrectly, associated Roman Catholic Canon Law. However, “deposition from Holy Orders” does not make for a snappily-titled headline, and within this post the term “Deposition” will be used. 

[2] In his post What’s with all this “defrocking” lingo? Dr Ed Peters comments: “Since the advent of the Johanno-Pauline Code in 1983, the correct phrase to denote the most severe expiatory penalty the Church can impose on a deacon, priest, or bishop is “dismissal from the clerical state” (1983 CIC 1336.1, n. 5). Even the term “laicization”, used for a while after Vatican II to soften the harsh rendering of Latin’s degradatio as “degradation”, is generally avoided today as it seems to imply that the lay state itself is some sort of punishment”. 

[3] Clergy who follow the requirements of the Clerical Disabilities Act 1870 and make a formal deed of relinquishment having resigned any and every preferment held by them – a lengthy process: see Rouch v Hawthorne [2015] Winchester Disciplinary Tribunal, (Decision)(Penalty) and our post Is it an offence to impersonate a cleric? – thoughts on deposition from Holy Orders (6 February 2015) and Safeguarding, the C of E and deposition from orders, (13 July 2015).

[4] Moore’s Introduction to English Canon Law, (4th Edition, Ed. T Briden), Page 177.

[5] Canon C1 §2 (Church of England): “No person who has been admitted to the order of bishop, priest, or deacon can ever be divested of the character of his order, but a minister may either by legal process voluntarily relinquish the exercise of his orders and use himself as a layman, or may by legal and canonical process be deprived of the exercise of his orders or deposed therefrom.” [emphasis added].

Canon C290 (1983 CIC 290): “Once validly received, sacred ordination never becomes invalid. A cleric, nevertheless, loses the clerical state: [1] by a judicial sentence or administrative decree, which declares the invalidity of sacred ordination; [2] by a penalty of dismissal legitimately imposed; [3] by rescript of the Apostolic See which grants it to deacons only for grave causes and to presbyters only for most grave causes.”

[6] Under Authority, Report on Church Discipline, Church House Publishing, 1996. Pages 2 to 4 cover the cases since 1963, viz, The Rev Michael Bland, 1969/70; the Rev Thomas Tyler, 1991/2; and the Very Rev Brandon Jackson, Dean of Lincoln, 1995. Mention is also made of  the case of the Rev Anthony Freeman concerning the termination of his PTO.

See also “Archdeacon of Cheltenham v Bland: A Sledgehammer to crack a nut“,  S Pix, Ecclesiastical Law Journal, 2001, [6] (29), 135-149.

[7] Clergy Discipline Measure 2003 (Appointed Day Instrument 2005) No 6. The time between 2003 and 2006 allowed for: drafting and approving the Clergy Discipline Rules 2005; establishing the Clergy Discipline Commission; setting up diocesan and provincial panels; training bishops, registrars, and tribunal members in the new procedures.

[8] Moore’s Introduction to English Canon Law, (4th Edition, Ed. T Briden), Footnote 45, page 182.

[9] Sections 37 to 49 of the revised Measure relate to Penalties: S41 Deposition from Holy Orders for priests or deacons; and 42 Deposition from Holy Orders for bishops and archbishops.