This book is an academic study which is nonetheless very readable and provides one of the latest additions to the growing contemporary corpus of literature on the study of canon law. The latter is often referred to, not least by Adam himself, as ‘applied ecclesiology’ which gives such studies an important practical context. This book, while academic, makes the subject of ‘legal flexibility’ accessible to practitioners in dioceses, parishes, Diocesan Registries and Diocesan Offices – bishops, archdeacons, clergy, legal Chancellors and Registrars and, within the polity of the Church of England, DAC (Diocesan Advisory Committee for the Care of Churches) Secretaries. It also has a useful place in the academy, not least for those preparing candidates for ordination, where foundations in canon law enable and facilitate many practical aspects in the practice of ministry.
The book, arising from Adam's PhD thesis at Cardiff Law School in the University of Wales, itself a world-class centre for the study of contemporary, comparative canon law, addresses a profoundly important issue for ecclesiastical practitioners. His thesis is that ‘too much flexibility can lead to the law losing respect and becoming toothless, yet a very strict approach can lead to the discovery of hard cases where the strict application of the law produces an unjust result or one which is contrary to the purpose of the law itself’ (p. 1). Adam is also an ecumenist, having been a diocesan ecumenical officer, so the comparative approach engages the reader deeper with the issues as he draws on material from Roman Catholic (dispensation) and Orthodox (economy) ecclesiologies. This comparative approach illuminates the argument throughout the book. Early chapters consider the development of dispensation in Western and Eastern Christendom in a wider context, as a general matter of law, not simply the ecclesiastical law. Later chapters address in more detail the application of legal flexibility in inter-Church relations providing some important reflections for contemporary ecumenical dialogue.
With this background Adam turns to consider in more detail dispensation in the Church of England (ch. 7). While often complained of as a burdensome aspect of ecclesiastical legislation, Adam considers the purpose of a faculty – to legally permit something to happen which is not otherwise permitted. The most obvious example is in the Faculty Jurisdiction Measure which permits the alteration to listed church buildings, a dispensation to further enhance a building in its primary task as a centre of ‘worship and mission’. Other matters, such as the inherited powers of the Archbishop of Canterbury to issue faculties in marriage cases, and bishops providing canonical directions within their jurisdiction as Ordinary, serve to illustrate a greater degree of flexibility in ecclesiastical law than is often perceived to be the case.
The argument is further tested and enriched by historical examples, namely the ritualist controversies of the nineteenth century (ch. 8) and the liturgical reforms of the twentieth century (ch. 9). It can be argued that the outcome from the deliberation of such cases has resulted in the practice of greater flexibility; the law is not changed but the practice, within certain parameters, does change. However, flexibility is not a matter of personal choice, but one where permission is granted as, for example, concerning the introduction of certain ornaments, works of art (like Stations of the Cross) or the facility to enhance pastoral and spiritual care by the reservation of the sacrament and the introduction of an aumbry. These examples, and there are more, including references to case law, serve to illustrate the practical aspects of the argument.
The book concludes with a rigorous consideration of dispensation, economy and legal theory. Within an ordered Church, Adam reminds us who has the ‘authority to dispense’, among them the legislature (Parliament/General Synod), judges and chancellors. While ‘principled refusal’ against ‘unjust law’ is richly attested to in Christian tradition and in some contemporary experiences from the Anglican Communion, no such exception is envisaged in English law – although civil disobedience is not entirely unknown!
Recognizing the primary task of the Church is the mission of God, Adam makes an important contribution. It acknowledges that there is a general obligation to obey the law but that, in order not to hinder the primary purpose of the Church in mission, strict enforcement of the law may lead to unintended consequences. Within the Anglican Communion there is a consensus that laws may be dispensed with in particular cases on the basis of ‘legitimate necessity’ provided lawful authority makes provision for such dispensation (Principle 7.6 in The Principles of Canon Law Common to the Churches of The Anglican Communion [London, 2008]). While Adam makes clear this is not something that is universally sanctioned or practised, he argues the facility is there for ‘the prudent and just management of Church and Society and for the promotion and enabling of the mission of the Church’ (p. 206).
The book is amply referenced with comprehensive tables of cases, Statutes and Measures. There is a substantial bibliography. Given his significant role in the contemporary reform of canon law it was a little surprising to find sparse reference to Archbishop Geoffrey Fisher, except in ecumenical matters. The ‘Fisher Papers’ at Lambeth would have revealed a treasury of reforming zeal in canonical and liturgical provision and the application of the principles of dispensation and flexibility. That said, this book provides insights to a fascinating and important subject.
