¹ For their comments on this paper. I am very grateful to my colleagues at the Centre for Law and Religion. Law School. Cardiff University. Wales. UK, namely Chancellor Mark Hill, Mr. Anthony Jeremy. Revd. Gregory Cameron. Mr. Javier Garcia Oliva, Ms. Joanna Nicholson, and Mr. David Lambert as well as to many others including Revd Dr Robert Ombres OP and Professors David Ford and Dan Hardy.Google Scholar

² Much of the legal evidence employed in this study is derived from Doe, N.. Canon Law in the Anglican Communion (Oxford, 1998): this book does not. however, address many of the specific questions raised by this paper. Needless to say, some of the legal provisions discussed in the book, based on a study carried out in 1996 and 1997, may now be out of date.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³ Uniquely in the Anglican Communion, in England, the canon law of the Church of England is treated as part of the law of the land, by virtue of the established position of the church: see Hill, M.. Ecclesiastical Law (2nd edn. Oxford. 2001) ch. 1: for other Anglican churches,Google Scholar see Doe, N.. Canon Law in the Anglican Communion (Oxford, 1998) ch. 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴ National, regional or provincial churches each have their own national law. regional law or provincial law. These laws are usually located in three distinct sources: a constitution, a code of canons, and a miscellany of other regulatory instruments (such as regulations, rules, decrees, or acts). In addition, Many churches have diocesan law, similarly in the form of a constitution and a code of canons. These are all specific bodies of law, and canon law signifies (narrowly) a church's code of canons: the constitution contains constitutional law, the code of canons contains canon law, and so on.Google Scholar

⁵ Eg the Church of the Province of Southern Africa has a constitution, a code of canons, and collections of other instruments (such as acts of the provincial synod). but the Scottish Episcopal Church has only a code of canons (containing the church's constitution) which are supplemented by resolutions of its synod.Google Scholar

⁶ For canon law as the whole body of formal law applicable to a church. see eg Briden, T. and Hanson, B. (eds). Moore's Introduction to English Canon Law (3rd edn., London. 1992) ch.1.Google Scholar

⁷ In other words, canon law. in the narrow sense, may not be recognised in the experience of some churches as a regulatory authority or instrument – regulation operates in another guise.Google Scholar

⁸ Canon law in this wide sense might also include the Anglican common law and the canonical tradition: see below. Part II.B.Google Scholar

⁹ See eg Papua New Guinea. Diocese of Port Moresby, canon 10(3): ‘Bishop's Guidelines’.Google Scholar

¹⁰ These by definition do not bind but are commonly treated as if they bind: see eg Doe, N., The Legal Framework of the Church of England (Oxford, 1996) 17ff;CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Doe, N., ‘Ecclesiastical quasi-legislation’, in Doe, N., Hill, M. and Ombres, R. (eds). English Canon Law (Cardiff. 1998) 93.Google Scholar

¹¹ Tradition, doctrine and church teaching are distinguished from canon law, though they function as sources of canon law, and are used as such in the legislative process: see below Part I.Google Scholar

¹² It would be instructive to determine which canon laws, for Anglicans, are representations of divine law.Google Scholar

¹³ In Roman Catholic canon law, particular provisions in the Code of Canon Law (1983) are not uncommonly presented explicitly as being based on divine law, and, eg, civil law applies to the church unless contrary to divine law (canon 22); customary law in conflict with divine law is void (canon 24).Google Scholar

¹⁴ For the juristic role of the Word of God, see Doe, N., The Legal Framework of the Church of England (Oxford, 1996) ch. 2; Thirty-Nine Articles, Art. 20: ‘it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing which is contrary to God's Word written’.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁵ However, in Australia, the appellate tribunal may declare legislation of General Synod to be void if inconsistent with the Fundamental Declarations of the church (Const. V.29): this arrangement is rare. In the experiences of some Anglican churches, it might be that Holy Scripture and tradition are used directly as binding normative sources in decision-making. For other Anglicans, these are sources of canon law: they are not juridically binding for particular cases until incorporated in formal church law; see also, Hill, M., ‘Gospel and Order’. 4 Ecc LJ (1996) 659.Google Scholar

¹⁶ See eg Urresti, T., ‘Canon law and Theology: two different sciences’. 8(3) Concilium (1967) 10.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Briden, T. and Hanson, B. (eds). Moore's Introduction to English Canon Law (1992) 1.Google Scholar

¹⁸ See Doe, N.. ‘Towards a Critique of the Role of Theology in English Ecclesiastical and Canon Law’, 2 Ecc LJ (1990–1992) 328.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Ombres, R.. ‘Ecclesiology, Ecumenism and Canon Law’, in Doe, N., Hill, M. and Ombres, R. (eds), English Canon Law (Cardiff, 1998) 48.Google Scholar

²⁰ ACC—1979. 6: Ontario: Guidelines for Provincial Constitutions: a constitution ‘should allow on the one hand for the operation of the Holy Spirit in continuous growth, development and adjustment to changing ecclesiastical and social environments, while on the other hand providing a basis of stability from which to make appropriate alterations from time to time’.Google Scholar

²¹ Law provides and empowers institutions for governance: it enables episcopal leadership and empowers the laity to participate in church government; it distributes functions and responsibilities among clergy and laity; it confers rights of access to the ministrations of the church; it secures the stewardship of property.Google Scholar

²² See The Canon Law of the Church of England, Report of Archbishops Commission (London, 1947) 4.Google Scholar

²³ Canon law provides good order to enable the church to fulfil its mission: see Doe, N.. The Legal Framework of the Church of England (Oxford, 1996) 43f;CrossRefGoogle Scholar also canon law assists the church to meet the demands of civil law applicable to it.

²⁴ For canon law and communion, as reciprocity among the faithful within a church, see Lejeune, M., ‘Demythologising Canon Law’, 21 Studia Canonica (1987) 5.Google Scholar

²⁵ LC 1930. Res. 49: the Communion is ‘a fellowship within the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, of those duly constituted dioceses, provinces or regional Churches in communion with the See of Canterbury’; there are also of course obvious historical links between churches.Google Scholar

²⁶ LC 1998. Res. III.8; see also LC 1998. Res. III.1Google Scholar

²⁷ There may be moral duties to comply with these instruments, at this level, but no legal duties: the question of moral sanctions is separate.Google Scholar

²⁸ LC 1998. Res. II.6: this ‘reaffirms the primary authority of the Scriptures’. See also the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral.Google Scholar

²⁹ This aspect of the moral order is summed up in statements of the Lambeth Conference: churches are bound together ‘not by a central legislative and executive authority, but by a mutual loyalty sustained through the common counsel of the bishops in conference’ (LC 1930, Res. 48.49): of the institutional authorities, the ACC alone has a legal structure (a constitution) with defined functions.Google Scholar

³⁰ ‘Since the Anglican Communion does not have a central body with canonical authority, the list [of Anglican churches] is authorised by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Anglican Primates’ (Handbook. 1994. p. 19).Google Scholar

³¹ Virginia Report, ch. 4.Google Scholar

³² LC 1930. Res. 48.49.Google Scholar

³³ LC 1930. Res. 49.Google Scholar

³⁴ LC 1998. Res. III.2. At the global level, the principle is obviously perceived as having a theological dimension, but its status at this level, as issuing from the moral authority of the Lambeth Conference, is moral, not legal. At the local ecclesial level, when expressed in the law of a particular church, the principle has a legal status within that church, where it also functions as a political fact (see below).Google Scholar

³⁵ LC Report 1988. p. 298: ‘in the Communion as a whole, the instruments of Communion or the organs of consultation provide appropriate checks and balances for each other… [we] seem to have a view of dispersed authority which relates not only to the sources of authority but also to its exercise’.Google Scholar

³⁶ LC 1978. Recommendation 1. This is one of the ‘principles of church order’.Google Scholar

³⁷ LC 1897, Res. 24; LC 1968. Res. 63.Google Scholar

³⁸ LC 1878, Rec. 1.Google Scholar

³⁹ LC 1930, Res. 47.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ LC 1998, Res. III.3.Google Scholar

⁴¹ LC 1998, Res. III.22.Google Scholar

⁴² The problem areas include: the blessing of same sex partnerships; ordination and homosexuality; coordinate episcopal jurisdiction; the extra-territorial exercise of episcopal jurisdiction: lay eucharistic presidency: the recognition of ministry; female bishops and priests: and perhaps polygamy.Google Scholar

⁴³ For analysis of the role of culture at the Lambeth Conference 1998. see Gibson, P., Discerning the Word (Toronto, 2000).Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Inter-church conflict may be caused in part by the very existence of these two orders. See also Thomas, P.H.E., ‘Some Principles of Anglican Authority: an Investigation of Constitutional Documents in the Anglican Communion’, in Four Documents on Authority in the Anglican Communion, from the Anglican Primates' Meeting. Washington, DC. 1981. 18:Google Scholar ‘The relationship between the local and the universal church is one of the enduring problems of ecclesiology’.

⁴⁵ More precisely, the exercise of autonomy means the exercise of powers by ecclesiastical authorities, legislative, executive and sometimes judicial.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ The proposals contained in Gomez, D.W. and Sinclair, M.W. (eds). To Mend the Net: Anglican Faith and Order for Renewed Mission (Carrollton, Texas, 2001). it would seem, suggest the reverse, the translation of the juridical order into the moral order.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ For fundamental Anglican canon law, see below.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ It might be that the approach of the secular State (and its law) to practising homosexuality may also condition ecclesiastical approaches of the particular church in that State.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Stanton (Bishop of Dallas) v Righter (1996): see also ECUSA, Cans. III.4.1: ‘N o one shall be denied access to the selection process for ordination… because of…sexual orientation’.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Presumably, listing practising homosexuality in canon law as a bar to ordination would prevent bishops from ordaining practising homosexuals. In some churches the law expressly provides that divorce is an impediment to ordination, but the law also provides a system of dispensation from this general rule: see eg England, canon C 4. paras 3. 3A.Google Scholar

⁵¹ In turn, the very silence of the laws on this subject may itself be a contribution to conflict.Google Scholar

⁵² It may, however, be a canonical conflict in the widest sense of the term ‘canon law’: see above.Google Scholar

⁵³ LC 1998. Res. 1.10: ‘This Conference… (e) cannot advise…ordaining those involved in same gender unions’.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ See eg West Indies, canon 8: episcopal declaration: I‘will respect and maintain the spiritual rights and privileges of all Churches in the Anglican Communion’. See also ECUSA. Const. VI. 1: ‘The House of Bishops may establish a Mission in any area not included within the boundaries of any Diocese of this Church or of any Church in communion with this Church, and elect or appoint a Bishop therefor’.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ See eg Rwanda. Const. Arts. 35, 36: the constitution provides only for the election and consecration of diocesan bishops, the election conforming to the diocesan constitution.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ See eg West Indies, canon 9.2.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ The Anglican experience might be closer to that of autocephalous Orthodox churches, regulated by their individual canonical systems: see Erikson, J. H.. The Challenge of Our Past: Studies in Orthodox Canon Law and Church History (New York, 1991) 91.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ The closest parallel may be that of the Commonwealth.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ See eg Starke, J. G., An Introduction to International Law (9th edn.) (London, 1984). However, states are sovereign, churches are not.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ I am very grateful to the Revd Gregory Cameron for suggesting the terms ‘centripetal’ and ‘centrifugal’ as tools to classify these laws.Google Scholar

⁶¹ ECUSA. Const. Preamble.Google Scholar

⁶² New Zealand, canons G.XIII.6.Google Scholar

⁶³ Canada. Declaration of Principles. Solemn Declaration, 1.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Ireland. Const. Preamble and Declaration. Ill: ‘and with all other Christian Churches agreeing in the principles of this Declaration’.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Venezuela. Const. Art. 1: ‘The Anglican Church in Venezuela is an ecclesiastical jurisdiction which forms an indissoluble part of the Anglican Communion’.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Scottish Episcopal Church, canon 15: ‘The Scottish Episcopal Church recognises as in full communion with itself the Churches of the Anglican Communion’. For the list, see the Schedule to the canon.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Definition of the Communion is usually left to catechetical documents: see eg New Zealand, Prayer Book 1989, 936.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Chile, canon A7.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ See eg South East Asia, Const. Preamble.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ See eg South East Asia, Declarations, 6; Central Africa, Fundamental Declarations, VI.Google Scholar

⁷¹ Korea. Fundamental Declaration of Faith and Rites: ‘We believe that for the unity of Christ's Church we must enter into co-operation with all churches on the basis of our faith and practice as a member Church of the Anglican Communion’.Google Scholar

⁷² For entrenchment, see eg Australia, Const. XI.66.Google Scholar

⁷³ Central Africa. Fundamental Declarations. VIII. and canon 33.1–2.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ Southern Cone. Const. Art. 6.4.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ Southern Africa. Const. Art. VI.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ Eg for incorporation of LC 1948, Res, 37. on duties of church membership, see England. Act of Convocation. 1953–1954. 173.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ West Indies, Cans. 8.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ Rwanda, Const. Art. 9.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ ECUSA, canons 1.15.1,7.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ Southern Africa, canon 4(1).Google Scholar

⁸¹ Central Africa, canon 3: the archbishop must act in conjunction with two other bishops of the Anglican Communion nominated by the college.Google Scholar

⁸² See eg Central Africa, canon 3.5.Google Scholar

⁸³ See eg England, the Overseas and Other Clergy (Ministry and Ordination) Measure 1967; recognition is in the keeping of the archbishops. See also canon C 8.Google Scholar

⁸⁴ West Indies, canon 8. This incorporates LC 1897, Res. 9.Google Scholar

⁸⁵ Sudan, Const. Art. 2: among the Metropolitans: South East Asia, Const. Fundamental Declarations. 2: among the Primates.Google Scholar

⁸⁶ Portugal (Lusitanian Catholic Apostolic and Evangelical Church). Const. Preamble. 7.Google Scholar

⁸⁷ See Doe, N., Canon Law in the Anglican Conumunion (Oxford, 1998) ch. 7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁸⁸ Melanesia, Const. Art. 1. A: ‘The Church of this Province has no right to alter or depart from these standards, but has the right to make alterations in its forms of worship and discipline, so long as these are agreeable to Holy Scripture and other standards of faith as the Anglican Communion has received them’.Google Scholar

⁸⁹ Rwanda, Const. Art. 6.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ See eg West Indies, Declaration of Fundamental Principles, (d)–(e): ‘We disclaim for ourselves the right of altering any … of the standards of Faith and Doctrine’.Google Scholar

⁹¹ See Doe, N., Canon Law in the Anglican Communion (Oxford, 1998) 204–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar See also Fox, J. (ed). Render Unto Caesar: Church Property in Roman Catholic and Anglican Canon Law (Rome, 2000).Google Scholar

⁹² Central Africa, Const. Art. V: the archbishop is to act with two other bishops (one nominated by the bishop making the submission and the other by the Episcopal Synod): these must ‘determine the matter in accordance with the formularies and doctrinal teaching of the Church of England, and their decision shall be final’.Google Scholar

⁹³ Uganda, Const. Art. II; Indian Ocean, Const. Art. 7(iii).Google Scholar

⁹⁴ South East Asia, Const. Fundamental Declarations, 4, 5, 6: also, ‘whilst the Province is a fully autonomous part of the Anglican Communion, it shall nevertheless give due weight to the teaching and traditions of the Communion in the deliberations and decisions of its own ecclesiastical tribunals’.Google Scholar

⁹⁵ Southern Africa, canon 41 (Of Appeals).Google Scholar

⁹⁶ Central Africa, Const. Art. 5.Google Scholar

⁹⁷ South East Asia, Fundamental Declarations, 4: the Provincial Synod may consult in cases concerning ‘adherence to…the principles of worship’ the Archbishop of Canterbury or the Primates of the Anglican Communion.Google Scholar

⁹⁸ Uganda. Const. Art. 3(i).Google Scholar

⁹⁹ This is as a result of eg LC 1978, Res. 12; LC 1988, Res. 18.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ Paradoxically, when all neutral provisions are accumulated, the collective effect is an abundance of shared principles which, in turn, indicate the common fundamental Anglican canon law: see below.Google Scholar

¹⁰¹ See Doe, N., Canon Law in the Anglican Communion (Oxford, 1998) ch. 11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁰² Ecumenism is, of course, sometimes treated by resolutions of the Lambeth Conference:Google Scholar see ibid., 355.

¹⁰³ South India. Const. II.2.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁴ Jerusalem and the Middle East, Const. Art. 5.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁵ South Africa, Resolution of Permanent Force of the Provincial Synod. 1 (1975).Google Scholar

¹⁰⁶ Korea. Fundamental Declaration of Faith and Rites.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁷ England, canon A 8.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁸ Portugal, canon X.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁹ Doe, N.. Canon Law in the Anglican Communion (Oxford, 1998) 356f. Provisions for constitutional union and, increasingly, for Local Ecumenical Projects are features of Anglican laws.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹¹⁰ Doe, 360f.Google Scholar

¹¹¹ And, of course, the agreement will bind the non-Anglican church when incorporated in its regulatory system. Incidentally, the system is similar to that in the secular sphere of inter-State treaties being incorporated in the municipal law of states which are party to those treaties: see above.Google Scholar

¹¹² For implementation of the Porvoo Declaration, for example, see Wales, Canon 28–9–95. It would seem that a concordat of communion between an Anglican church and a non-Anglican church would not also effect communion between that non-Anglican church and other Anglican churches unless and until incorporated in their canonical systems.Google Scholar

¹¹³ The canon in Wales establishing communion between the Church in Wales and, among others, the Spanish Reformed Episcopal Church (a member of the Anglican Communion) is rare: canon 29–9–1966. Also covenants exist between ECUSA and, eg, the Anglican church in Mexico and the Philippines (with regard to mission and resources).Google Scholar

¹¹⁴ The robust way in which autonomy is expressed in the canon law of a particular church, and the exercise of that autonomy, generate the possibility of separation of that church from both the moral order of the Anglican Communion and from other Anglican churches.Google Scholar

¹¹⁵ That is, as national, regional, provincial or extra-provincial churches.Google Scholar

¹¹⁶ Melanesia, Const. Art. 2.Google Scholar

¹¹⁷ North India, Const. I. IV.4: ‘The Church of North India shall be an autonomous Church and free from any control, legal or otherwise, of any Church or Society external to itself’.Google Scholar

¹¹⁸ For example, deposition of a priest in one Anglican church does not, as a matter of law, bind in another Anglican church: see eg England, the Clerical Disabilities Act 1870.Google Scholar

¹¹⁹ Korea, Const. Preface: ‘in a spirit of self-reliance, self-support and self-sustainment, the Anglican Church of Korea becomes independent and promulgates this new Constitution and Canons’.Google Scholar

¹²⁰ Sometimes the concepts of autonomy and belonging to the global communion are juxtaposed: typically, ‘the Province is a fully autonomous part of the Anglican Communion’: South East Asia, Const. Fundamental Declarations, 5.Google Scholar

¹²¹ It is in line, of course, with understandings of the Lambeth Conference about the very nature of Anglican churches: see above.Google Scholar

¹²² England. Priests (Ordination of Women) Measure 1993, s 1(2): ‘Nothing in this Measure shall make it lawful for a woman to be consecrated to the office of bishop’; Ireland. Const. IX.22.Google Scholar

¹²³ Korea, canon 16; compare Australia. Diocese of Sydney, Preaching and Administration of Holy Communion by Lay Persons and Deacons Ordinance 1999.Google Scholar

¹²⁴ Nigeria, canon XI(e): deposition is ‘permanent inhibition’.Google Scholar

¹²⁵ For reversibility, see eg Wales, canon 19–4–1990, para. 5.Google Scholar

¹²⁶ Compare Scotland, canon 6.1 (duty), and Southern Africa, canon 39 (right).Google Scholar

¹²⁷ Compare Wales, Const. 1.2 and England, Bishop of Exeter v Marshall (1868) LR 3 HL 17.Google Scholar

¹²⁸ See also Part II.B. 1 below.Google Scholar

¹²⁹ Once more, the exact relationship between such provisions is often difficult to ascertain. Such apparent dissonances between canonical systems beg the question: when do canonical differences become conflicts of laws? Such provisions are in conflict in the abstract. Real conflict occurs between two inconsistent provisions at the point of application to a particular case. When the opposing rules are in different autonomous systems, there is no real conflict. Conflict arises when they are applied outside their respective systems to a common problem, for example when they are applied in the single system of the moral order of global communion. However, rules are equally valid when they enter the moral order (as they are valid juridically within their respective systems), but their validity may be questioned under the moral order when tested against the Anglican instruments of faith.Google Scholar

¹³⁰ Setien, J., ‘Tension in the Church’, 8(5) Concilium (1969) 35.Google Scholar

¹³¹ See Doe, N., Canon Law in the Anglican Communion (Oxford, 1998) ch. 1. Potential disagreement over executive initiatives is often achieved by rules about consultation. But laws of churches do not make express provision for consideration of objections from other Anglican churches to legislative or executive initiatives within them.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹³² They range from the exercise of systems of administrative hierarchical recourse (when it is sometimes claimed that canonical discretions are misused), to visitatorial powers, to quasi-judicial appeal systems, and, as a last resort, to full judicial determination in tribunals and courts: Doe, ch. 3.Google Scholar

¹³³ In England and Wales, provision exists for alternative episcopal oversight for opponents to women priests; for eg England, see Act of Synod 1994.Google Scholar

¹³⁴ For England, over the legislation concerning the ordination of women as priests, see eg R v Ecclesiastical Committee of Both Houses of Parliament, ex parte The Church Society (1994) 6 Admin LR 670, CA.Google Scholar For other examples, see generally Doe, N., Canon Law in the Anglican Communion (Oxford, 1998) xix–xxv: many of these cases originated in disputes arising from the effects and application of church law.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹³⁵ In short, excessively robust, weak or unclear canon law frustrates and even marginalises those who consider their rights as neither respected nor protected. Discriminatory and inflexible canon law marginalises minorities within churches. Canonical powers may be abused or misused. Canon law institutionalises tensions within churches. But canon law can also be remedial—it can mend divisions by a sensitive distribution and enforcement of rights and duties. Provisions in laws which forbid discrimination (eg on grounds of race) may represent best practice: see eg Tanzania, Const. II.5, or ECUSA. Cans. 1.17.5.Google Scholar

¹³⁶ Thomas, P.H.E., ‘Some Principles of Anglican Authority’ in Four Documents on Authority in the Anglican Communion from the Anglican Primates' Meeting, Washington, DC, 1981, 18.Google ScholarIn an introductory survey of constitutions, the author was ‘impressed by the measure of agreement and the flexibility of faith which they display. It seems to me that a comparative study of this material could reveal a distinct pattern of authority and thereby encourage a clearer understanding of Anglican self-consciousness today’.Google Scholar

¹³⁷ In the common law tradition, of course, classically the unwritten common law is induced from judicial decisions, among other sources.Google Scholar

¹³⁸ The idea is an old one for Anglicans: see eg Helmholz, R., ‘Richard Hooker and the European Ius Commune’, 6 Ecc L J (2001) 4.Google Scholar

¹³⁹ For the difficulties of induction and the formulation of its general principles, see Doe, N.. Canon Law in the Anglican Communion (Oxford, 1998) 374–375. Sometimes there is unanimity, sometimes a majoritarian approach has to be used to induce a principle, sometimes principles are induced from the silence of laws.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁴⁰ Whether a proposition is a common principle may be established by reversing that proposition and asking whether the reversed form is part of Anglican polity; for example, the unacceptability of the proposition that ‘diocesan bishops should NOT be elected’, would suggest that the proposition ‘diocesan bishops should be elected’ is a principle of Anglican common law.Google Scholar

¹⁴¹ Some are clearly fundamental, whilst others relate to the detail of church life.Google Scholar

¹⁴² It is only in the conditions under which law-making power may be exercised, and the composition of legislatures, that diversity is found: see Doe, chs. 1 and 2.Google Scholar

¹⁴³ Bishops, clergy and laity collectively possess the power of governance: compare the Roman Catholic Code of Canon Law (1983) canon 129: only clergy possess the power of governance.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁴ Legislative, executive, quasi-judicial and judicial powers, including episcopal powers, must be exercised in accordance with law; the rule of law is a fundamental of all legal systems, civil and ecclesiastical.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁵ See Doe, ch. 3: this is something shared, of course, with secular legal systems.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁶ Doe. chs. 4, 5 and 6.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁷ Doe, chs. 7 and 8.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁸ Doe, chs. 9 and 10.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁹ Doe, ch. 11: churches are united in that oversight of property belongs to the central church assembly, but that ownership and management at the lower levels of trie church are vested in local ecclesiastical authorities, and that church buildings cannot be used for profane purposes.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁰ It is not a general principle that: episcopal visitation is a duty (in some churches it is. in others it is discretionary); courts have jurisdiction over the laity (in some they do, in others they do not); decisions of church courts are creative of law (in a small minority they are); the rights and duties of the laity must be defined (in a small number of churches they are): the laity must assent to the canonical doctrines.Google Scholar

¹⁵¹ See eg Rodes, R. E., ‘The Canon Law as a Legal System—Function, Obligation and Sanction’. Natural Law Forum (1962) 45.Google Scholar

¹⁵² Roman Catholic Code of Canon Law (1983), canon 19.Google Scholar

¹⁵³ Eastern Catholic Churches (1990), canon 1501.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁴ Southern Africa, canon 50.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁵ England, Submission of the Clergy Act 1534; Wales, Const.IX.36; compare Australia, canon 11 1992,3(1): ‘all canon law of the Churh of England made prior to the Canons of 1603… shall have no operation or effect in a diocese’ however 4: this lists the lists the canons of 1603 which have no effect in a diocese but a right is reserved to a diocese to adopt them.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁶ Roman Catholic Code of Canon Law (1983), canon 1752.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁷ See above.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁸ See eg Roman Catholic Code of Canon Law (1983), canon 223, para 1.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁹ ECUSA, canons 1.17.6; North India, Const. II. V. 6; Roman Catholic Code of Canon Law (1983). canon 19. See generally Coughlin, J. J., ‘Canonical Equity’, 30 Studia Canonica, (1996), 405.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁰ Roman Catholic Code of Canon Law (1983), canon 27.Google Scholar

¹⁶¹ Liber Sextus, 6, and Roman Catholic Code of Canon Law (1983), canon 1095 3.Google Scholar

¹⁶² Roman Catholic Code of Canon Law (1983), canon 16. In most Anglican churches, the formal law does not specify that judicial decisions create law (England is a notable exception).Google Scholar

¹⁶³ See eg Doe, N., ‘The Principles of Canon Law: A Focus of Legal Unity in Anglican-Roman Catholic relations’, 5 Ecc LJ (1999) 221.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁴ For the work of the Colloquium of Anglican and Roman Catholic Canon Lawyers, set up in Rome in 1999, see Hill, M.. ‘Colloquium of Anglican and Roman Catholic Canon Lawyers’. 6 Ecc LJ (2000)61.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁵ If Anglican churches can do this with non-Anglican churches. why cannot Anglican churches enter concordats with all other Anglican churches, and implement them in their own laws?Google Scholar

¹⁶⁶ For example, the incorporation in the laws of all churches of a simple rule that a bishop in one church cannot minister in another churhc without the consent of the appropriate authority of the host church might have prevented the current Singapore-ECUSA problem.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁷ Eg Communion in Mission (2000), issued by a meeting of Anglican and Roman Catholic bishops, highlights differnces concerning ‘the understanding of authority in the church, including the way it is exercised’; the proposal outlined below may be in line with the call, in this joint document, for ’translating the degree of spiritual communion that has been achieved into visible and practical outcomes’.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁸ See The Official Report of the Lambeth Conference 1998Pennsylvania,1999 15.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁹ LC 1998, Res. III. 8; Virginia Report, 5.20.Google Scholar

¹⁷⁰ ACC—1979, 6 Ontario: these Guidelines for Provincial Constitutions suggest that, inter alia, constitutions should include criteria by which a province ‘may be validly accepted or remain part’ of the Anglican Communion, relationships with other provinces of the Communion, and relationships between the province and other churches or communions. The guidelines deal with subjects which should be regulated by a constitution.Google Scholar

¹⁷¹ For example: ‘The Primates wish to affirm the place of Canon Law as one of the many elements of shared life which bind the Churches of the Anglican Communion together, and the importance of the ius commune as a common inheritance which unites the lives of the different Provinces into a corporate discipline. They invite the Provinces of the Anglican Communion to look again at the way in which the Canon Law draws the lives of the different Provinces into a shared experience of Christian discipleship and discipline. They look for a renewal of the Canon Law which will encourage and maintain the mutual respect and fellowship of the Churches of the Anglican Communion, whilst marking the boundaries of an authentically Anglican and yet faithful interpretation of the Gospel”.Google Scholar

¹⁷² Each Primate could commend that the central legislature of the particular church acknowledges the existence of the common law of the Anglican Communion and undertakes to have regard to and respect it. This would be a short-term measure, and could be achieved in churches by the introduction of a single clause in their law to this effect. For example, a typical clause might state: ‘The Constitution and Canon Law of the Anglican Church of X shall be interpreted at all times in the context of the ius commune received in common by the Churches of the Anglican Communion, and any decision made under and concerning the meaning and application of the Constitution and Canon Law shall have due regard to principles embodied in the ius commune’. I am grateful to the Revd Gregory Cameron for these suggestions.Google Scholar

¹⁷³ These might include a study of Anglican, Lutheran, Roman Catholic, Eastern Catholic, and Orthodox models, in which the reconciliation of the demands of particular churches and those of the universal church is a persistent theme.Google Scholar

¹⁷⁴ Such as the treatment of inter-state relations and conflict in public international law, and the structure of international treaties (the UN Declaration of Human Rights, the European Convention on Human Rights, or the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, and the ways in which these are incorporated in the municipal law of States).Google Scholar

¹⁷⁵ The statement would be of the common law of the Anglican Communion (not the whole of it but those elements which deal with inter-Anglican relations); the document (like an ecumenical concordat) would of itself have no direct force within particular churches (coming as it would from an institution with moral authority) unless and until incorporated in their legal systems; its terms would reflect the episcopal, pastoral, eucharistic and ecumenical nature of canon law, as well (perhaps) as the notion of the conscience of a church; the principles would be in the form of general norms and permissible exceptions—in short, a definition of freedom and self-restraint, based on the current principles of Anglican canon law induced from the coincidences shared by existing canonical systems. Part I might deal with a definition of Communion and of membership; Part II with the principles of Anglican polity and inter-church relations; and Part III with the resolution of inter-church conflict.Google Scholar

¹⁷⁶ The Primates would be best placed to stimulate reception and incorporation as they commonly have a jurisdiction of leadership, and the right to initiate new legislation, under the existing laws of their own churches.Google Scholar