A bill to revise, amend and replace Chapter VIII of the Church of Ireland Constitution has been debated on the floor of the General Synod.

In 2003 the Courts and Tribunals Committee was set up by the then Archbishop of Armagh, the Right Revd Dr Robin Eames, to review the structures and procedures relating to the ecclesiastical courts and tribunals of the Church of Ireland.

Consisting of both Archbishops, the Bishop of Cork, ecclesiastical experts, judges and lawyers, the Committee brought a draft bill to the Standing Committee of the General Synod in November 2007 and the Standing Committee later approved the Bill for submission to the General Synod.

The Bill seeks to replace Chapter VIII of the Constitution with a new Chapter VIII that will comply with the legislation of both jurisdictions in Ireland and the requirements of European human rights legislation.

Proposing the Bill, the Revd Adrian Wilkinson (Cork) explained that “Ireland has changed a lot in 25 years, let alone 125 years” and went on to outline the limitations of operating a system drawn up in the nineteenth century in the twenty-first century.

“Should this House pass this Bill, from January 2009 there will be a clear, accountable and effective procedure in place for disciplinary proceedings involving clergy or bishops” he said.

Addressing the principle of the Bill, the Revd Canon Dr Michael Kennedy (Armagh) expressed his concern over “the law of unintended consequences.”

Questioning whether the existence of a complaints committee and a complaints administrator might serve as a “complainant’s charter”, Canon Kennedy said “I am left wondering what the ultimate affect of this piece of legislation will be.”

The Revd Maria Jansson (Ferns) praised the clarity of the Bill and commended the drafters for so fairly balancing the interests of discipline and pastoral care. However, she went on to say that the Bill lacked a sense of vision of what best practice in ministry consists of.

“There is no standard of good practice of what ministry in the Church of Ireland is about. Vision of ministry has to be set out in a code of ministry […] I don’t know upon what this Bill rests and therefore I cannot vote for it” she said.

Seconding the Bill, Lady Sheil (Down) argued that the Bill does not provide for a purely adversarial resolution.

“This Bill provides for pastoral resolution. This procedure was not clearly outlined in the previous version of Chapter VIII” she said.

Lady Sheil welcomed the code of good practice advocated by Revd Jansson, but suggested that a section dealing with judicial process is not a suitable place for such a code. Rather, Lady Sheil encouraged General Synod to consider such a code for insertion in the Church’s canons or as a new section in the Church’s Constitution.

The Ven. Philip Patterson (Down), tabling an amendment to remove section 39 of the Bill- a section that provides for the House of Bishops to settle on matters of doctrine for the purpose of an individual disciplinary case, argued that as the Church’s doctrine is based on written documents, it is for lawyers, not bishops, to determine what they say.

Responding to this point, the Hon. Mrs Justice Catherine McGuinnness (Dublin) argued that “even in a court of law you look for the opinion of a person with knowledge and authority in an area.”

“I do think Article 39 is an essential part of the Bill” she said.

The Revd Canon Dr Jonathon Barry (Down) argued that “it is not the Bishops who decide on an issue of Doctrine, it is the General Synod […] This section of the Bill is potentially disastrous.”

The Archbishop of Dublin, the Most Revd Dr John Neill, argued that allowing the House of Bishops to define a position is not a limiting process, and pointed to the recent deliberation of the House upon the issue of homosexuality where a statement outlining four separate positions was produced.

“It is a matter of offering a position to a group of people with experience with the issues and with the role of guarding the faith” he said.

The amendment was put to a vote and was rejected.