Authored by a senior partner at Fasken Martineau, the report says that the motion is “an attempt to change the constitutional structure [of the church] by increasing the authority of the dioceses over an issue which relates to marriage, doctrine and liturgy”.

The report calls into question the validity of the controversial motion, which “affirms” that individual dioceses have the power to create marriage-like blessing ceremonies for same-sex couples.

“It is clear that it is not correct to say that ‘any diocesan synod’ has the ‘authority and jurisdiction’ to authorize the blessing of same sex unions,” the report says.

The report adds that General Synod has the ability to decide the question on its own, as it did when it decided not to create a similar marriage-like blessing ceremony for non-married heterosexual couples in 2001.

Anglican Essentials, Canada’s largest orthodox Anglican group, says the report should be considered in the upcoming debate, but they would rather see a discussion centre around the spiritual and doctrinal, not legal, issues.

The worldwide Anglican Communion has been in turmoil since June 2002, when the governing body of the Vancouver-based Diocese of New Westminster voted by a 62-per-cent majority to become the first in the world to develop a blessing ceremony for same-sex unions. In August 2003, the U.S. branch of the church narrowly approved the ordination of an openly gay man as Bishop. Both decisions repudiated a 1998 resolution of all 700 bishops in the communion, who voted by a nine-to-one majority against same-sex blessing or ordinations of non-celibate homosexuals.

In October 2003, the world’s 38 Anglican national leaders said the decision in New Westminster was contributing to a “tear the fabric of our communion at its deepest level”.

The Canadian and U.S. churches jointly represent about 4 percent of the worldwide communion.

END

The full report can be downloaded at http://www.forsuchatime.ca/downloads.html

Contact: Chris Hawley, (604) 729-7557
media@anglicanessentials.org
For more information, browse to http://www.forsuchatime.ca/media.html

Summary of the report:

This memorandum will consider whether the two motions to be considered by General Synod in relation to same-sex blessings are within the authority of General Synod.

Summary

Our principal concern is with that part of Motion A in which General Synod is asked to resolve that it:

“Affirm the authority and jurisdiction of any diocesan synod, with the concurrence of its bishop, to authorize the blessing of committed same sex unions”.

There are five grounds on which this can be said to be inconsistent with the canons and constitutions of the Anglican Church of Canada:

1. It is inconsistent with the division of authority over services and ceremonies to affirm that jurisdiction lies at the diocesan level. The authority for general books of services lies with General Synod and the national House of Bishops. Authority with respect to additional services and ceremonies is a matter for the ecclesiastical provinces, not the dioceses. General Synod cannot “affirm” something which is inconsistent with the constitutions and canons.

2. It is clear that no diocesan synod has the “authority and jurisdiction” to authorize the blessing of same sex unions. While we have not reviewed the constitutions and canons of all dioceses, those we have seen do not confer any jurisdiction or authority whatsoever on diocesan synods with respect to the authorization of new services. To take the Diocese of New Westminster as an example, the debate has been whether the Bishop has the authority to authorize such services. Even if the diocesan bishops have such jurisdiction (which we do not believe to be the case), the only role for a diocesan synod is one of advice and recommendation, not one of authority and jurisdiction.

3. Matters of doctrine are within the jurisdiction of the national church, specifically General Synod, not the diocesan synods or bishops. The theological question as to whether the issue of same sex blessings is a matter of doctrine is beyond the scope of this memorandum. However, we note that there is an internal contradiction in Motion A in that it recognizes the doctrinal concerns but nonetheless purports to affirm diocesan jurisdiction with respect to same sex blessings. Further, we think the obligation on the Anglican Church of Canada, under its own constitution, to maintain communion with the Anglican Church throughout the world carries with it an obligation to respect the treatment of this issue by the Lambeth Conference and the Primates.

4. The motion is inconsistent with the jurisdiction of General Synod over marriage and specifically with the Marriage Canon and the marriage service. The last General Synod considered that it was within its jurisdiction to deal with the issue of whether the Church should make provision for the blessing of the committed unions of opposite sex unmarried couples. If General Synod has jurisdiction with respect to blessings for opposite sex unions, then it equally has jurisdiction with respect to same sex unions.

5. Looking at it more broadly, the motion is in effect an attempt to change the constitutional structure of the church by increasing the authority of the dioceses over an issue which relates to marriage, doctrine and liturgy and decreasing the authority of the national church. Such a change should only be made through the proper process for constitutional amendment. A motion in the proposed form is an inappropriate and unauthorized method for a transfer of jurisdiction.

END