Introduction
‘Let all things be done decently and in order’ says St Paul (I Corinthians 14:40). This is one of the key Biblical passages that lays out the principle that the Church requires order to facilitate, ‘its public life and to regulate its own affairs for the common good’, and to thus ‘assist a church in its mission and witness to Jesus Christ’.Footnote 1 The canons of the Church thus exist to articulate that ordering to ‘uphold the integrity of the faith, sacraments and mission, to provide good order, to support communion among the faithful, to put into action Christian values and to prevent and resolve conflict’.Footnote 2 This ordering that St Paul commands is reflective of God’s establishment of creation, in which in Genesis we are told God created order out of chaos.
Yet in the Fall, humanity disobeys God’s will, and in the same way today, the law of the Church may be violated. The system of clerical discipline is fundamental to ensuring the enforcement of the canons of the Church and ensuring that those who are ordered for the good of the Church, and given authority and responsibilities towards the faithful and others, exercise those responsibilities faithfully and in accordance with God’s will for his Church.
Church discipline more broadly represents a mechanism by which our ecclesiology is maintained and the good order God desires for his Church is restored, that the purposes of the Church may be fulfilled. A good system of discipline is therefore essential to the life of the Church. Given that most privileges and obligations established in law are conferred on the clergy, rather than the laity,Footnote 3 it is also fundamental both theologically and practically that a robust system of clergy discipline be at the forefront of these restorative mechanisms.
Theologically speaking, when the canons are disobeyed, it is not some minor administrative dispute over things indifferent: the Church is the Body of Christ, and as our canons express our ecclesiology, they are therefore expressing things about God himself, and are based on God’s self-revelation in Scripture. To some degree, all canons must be viewed in some way not as mere administrative instruments for good order, but rather as divine instruments of revelation and law coming from God himself. The very nature of synodical processes for amending the canons expresses this viewpoint, both in terms of emphasis on time for discernment in the national church where canons may only be amended after successful votes at two synods which are held three years apart, as well as, especially in the case of Diocesan Synods, the roles of bishops as guardians of the faithFootnote 4 who are required to approve all proposals presented by Synod, as an exercise of that role.
Disrespect of the canons, whether through their violation or a failure to enforce them or remedy violations, is disrespect of Christ himself. This could be illustrated in the following scenario. If a priest uses his position of authority to bully or sexually abuse an employee or parishioner of the parish, their offence is against the person being abused, but also against God, both directly through sin against his image and likeness, but also sin against his Church. It would likewise be more sinful to fail to remedy the situation, a violation of God’s justice, and a hindrance to the mission of the Church. The Church cannot proclaim the goodness of God to a world in need of healing while simultaneously failing to take action against clergy who abuse the faithful. The failure to discipline becomes a hindrance to the mission and witness of Christ.
While this is an obvious and simple example, a more complex real-world example occurred recently in the Anglican Church of Canada. In this case, the problem was not over a failure to enforce lawful discipline, but over whether or not lawful discipline was indeed an adequate remedy to the various offences involved. An episcopal election for a Bishop Co-Adjutor was scheduled for May of 2025 for the Diocese of Montreal. In the run-up to the election, it became internationally reported that members of the nominations committee had resigned in protest and numerous members of the electoral synod had similarly written a statement expressing their concern over the election. The concern was over the refusal to allow the committee to disqualify candidates from being nominated on the basis of safeguarding and disciplinary concerns.Footnote 5 While it does not seem that irregularities occurred in the electoral process, the concerns raised highlighted questions about the application of discipline in the Diocese of Montreal and whether or not they were sufficient to give the faithful in that diocese confidence in their next bishop. Similarly, instances of mishandling of complaints have led to calls for review of the disciplinary system as a whole by individuals and groups such as ACCtoo, which was formed in response to concerns over mishandling of clergy sexual abuse.Footnote 6 The consequences of discipline, and potential failures in systems of discipline, are therefore both significant and timely to the Anglican Church of Canada, and the calls for change highlight the need for an examination of the legal state of the system of clerical discipline in Canada.
This Comment will examine the state of clerical discipline in the Anglican Church of Canada in reference to the essential aspects that make up clerical discipline. To do so, the essential components of clerical discipline will be articulated, and then each element will be considered in light of the current state of clerical discipline in Canada. The system will be evaluated in light of where failures may be occurring, and potential remedies may be proposed with reference to other systems of discipline.
The state of ecclesiastical law in the Anglican Church of Canada is also complex, with a national constitution and canons passed by the General Synod, four ecclesiastical provinces with their own provincial synods, and 30 dioceses with their own diocesan synods as well as constitution and canons. The Anglican Church of Canada in its current form was established through a union of several ecclesiastical provinces and extra provincial dioceses which met together in the late 1880s, culminating in 1893 with the formation of the General Synod. Key to the decisions taken in this era were the preservation of the authority of the Ecclesiastical Provinces and yet a desire for uniformity that would allow this new united church to be ‘one in doctrine, one in truth, and one in charity’.Footnote 7 In this establishment, modelled on Canadian federalism, the Declaration of Principles laid out a division of powers on ecclesiastical discipline. The General Synod has the authority to define offences and ‘principles and general procedures to be observed in disciplinary proceedings in The Anglican Church of Canada’, as well as all procedures related to the Supreme Court of Appeal of the Anglican Church of Canada, but the constitution and procedures of diocesan and provincial courts of appeal were left to the diocesan and provincial synods.Footnote 8 The scope of this paper will be limited to considering the systems of the dioceses of Toronto and New Westminster as illustrative examples of the wider canonical state of the Anglican Church of Canada.
Essentials of clerical discipline
In order to establish the essential elements of clerical discipline, we must find the principles that establish the system of discipline itself. As previously noted, it is God’s divine law that orders the Church, and so it is in Holy Scripture that basic principles of God’s justice should be sought in order to establish the basic principles, and thus essential elements, of a system of clergy discipline. Matthew 18 famously sets up a system for resolving disputes between Christians; however, this passage articulates a particular procedural resolution of disputes, and is not in and of itself wholly the revelation of God’s ordering for discipline. Yet in that passage we already see Biblical principles of discipline, namely it ‘affirms God’s love for all those who are lost and who he wills to return’.Footnote 9 In this sense, it is a reminder that clergy discipline is not simply procedures for asserting authority to maintain order in the Church, but fundamentally a part of God’s will for repentance, reconciliation, and restoration. The Roman Catholic Church reminds the faithful through its 1983 Code of Canon Law that the foundation of canon law is the salvation of souls.Footnote 10 In the Church of England’s proposed Clergy Conduct Measure, the first section lays out the purpose of Clerical Discipline: ‘to maintain the collective good standing of clergy and to hold to account those clergy who fall below the standards required of them’.Footnote 11 In the Statement of Principles of Christian Law,Footnote 12 it suggests that the most basic common understanding of the purposes of ecclesiastical discipline is ‘to glorify God, to protect the integrity and mission of the church, to safeguard the vulnerable from harm, and to promote the spiritual benefit of its members’.Footnote 13 This demonstrates a broad ecumenical basis of understanding of the purpose of clerical discipline, and conversely the universality of the challenges which the law of church discipline must address. From these purposes and principles, the following three essential elements are derived, and will be described further: clarity, consistency, and confidentiality. On the basis of these three essential elements, the state of clerical discipline in the Anglican Church of Canada can be evaluated by considering how these elements function, or do not as the case may be.
Clarity
The first essential element of a system of clerical discipline is that of clarity over the laws. This does not simply refer to clarity over what constitutes an offence, but also clarity in procedures. Matthew 18 lays out a clear procedure for resolving disputes among believers, and Scripture as a whole lays out the law of God which is to be followed. As a similar principle, clergy should have clear knowledge of what their obligations and privileges are under the law, what the extent of their privileges are, and therefore what would constitute abuse, and what the expectations are with respect to their duties in order to establish what might constitute neglect.Footnote 14 How could a question of neglect of office or abuse of privilege be adjudicated apart from such clarity?
In terms of procedure, this should mean that there is a clear procedure for complaints and their adjudication which is outlined and available to anyone. A lay person must know how to report suspected clerical abuse: to whom do they make the report, what is required to make a report, and even the fact that they can make a report. While there must be procedures, these procedures can vary significantly even within the Anglican Communion as to whom we report and what will happen afterwards, but when we consider that many of our laity may be unfamiliar with Anglicanism and may have come even from a congregational polity where they would never think to reach out to someone outside of their local church, it becomes an essential matter of discipline and justice that there be clarity on these procedures. Clearly identified persons to whom reports may be made, with clear procedures for what ought to be reported becomes essential therefore for both laity and clergy.
Consistency
The element of consistency relates to the application of the law. It cannot be arbitrarily applied in some cases only and ignored in others. In this sense, it fundamentally imposes a duty on the bishop, as the one to whom obedience is owed and who is charged with administering discipline in their diocese,Footnote 15 to enforce the canons and appropriately follow relevant disciplinary laws. Isaiah 10 gives an example of Biblical judgement against the unjust judge who deprives the people of their rights, for that is what arbitrary enforcement does: deprive the people of their rights. This obligation to a consistent application of discipline lies fundamentally with the bishop who is the ‘guardian of discipline’ in a diocese.Footnote 16 Consistency relates not just to the application of laws, but also the correct procedural application. Are procedures being followed properly and in a timely fashion?Footnote 17 Are penalties being applied which are as established in relation to the offences being committed?Footnote 18 Apart from these elements of fundamental natural justice, God’s divine law and ordering are not being followed and discipline has broken down.
This element relates back to clarity: the clearer the laws regarding discipline are, the easier it will be to implement them consistently and fairly. Even if they are written clearly and promulgated, if they are not being enforced consistently there can be no clarity on what the law in fact is and thus what the discipline of the Church is. More than that, such inconsistency would fall short of the Biblical principles of discipline, order, and justice that have been expressed through the canons.
Confidentiality
The principle of confidentiality is a broad one that applies both to maintaining confidentiality, when necessary, but also publicising information when it becomes required. Maintaining confidentiality ensures that someone’s name is not unnecessarily tarnished and their ministry harmed. This element is enshrined in Matthew 18’s procedure whereby the dispute between believers is meant to be resolved privately at first if possible. It would seem that if unnecessary publication of disputes occurred it might bring scandal to the Church which would harm its mission. Yet at the same time, even Matthew 18 recognises that discretion is only the first step, and that discipline may require such confidentiality to be dropped for the sake of the community. The example discussed previously of the episcopal election in the Diocese of Montreal highlights an incident in which confidentiality hampered discipline when the confidentiality of the resolution led the bishop to claim there were no disciplinary issues at all, only later to revise her public statements to state that there were no ongoing or unresolved disciplinary matters. Because confidentiality was maintained, it was unclear to which of the candidates for election these concerns attached, and the confidence of the electors was shaken as several expressed that they would prefer not to have to vote for candidates which may or may not pose safeguarding risks to their diocese.
A similar scenario could be observed in a parish where when the average parishioner is not informed of whether or not disciplinary procedures have been undertaken or what the results were, they may simply assume no discipline has been exercised at all. This might undermine confidence in the system or even potentially undermine the ministry of a cleric who had committed an offence but properly resolved the matter through Church discipline even to the point of making some reparations to the aggrieved party. Other possible scenarios can be imagined where it would be necessary to prevent harm to the mission of the Church.Footnote 19 In essence, the issue of confidentiality relates to consistency in clerical discipline, and the need to ensure that not only is discipline consistently enforced but is seen to be consistently enforced. This final point is at its core a matter of fundamental justice, the principles under which the canons operateFootnote 20 as expressed in the courts through the dictum of open courts and that ‘justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done’.Footnote 21
These three principles then come together as essential elements of a system of clerical discipline for the Church in a way that is consistent with the purpose of the law. The law, its obligations and rights, its procedures and policies, must all be clearly articulated. They must be then followed correctly and consistently, to avoid arbitrariness. Finally, while the principle of confidentiality must be observed to begin with, the system of discipline must recognise the need for transparency for the sake of the integrity of the system. These principles become all the more important as safeguarding issues, and past scandals of safeguarding and discipline failure, loom larger in the public consciousness, as does demand for effective systems of discipline to maintain the highest standards of clergy conduct.
Discipline in the Anglican Church of Canada
The national canons
Canon XVIII of the National Church specifies offences and procedures for canonical discipline of clergy throughout the Church.Footnote 22 Implementation of discipline rests at the diocesan level generally, and at the provincial level in the case of the discipline of bishops. In essence, the diocesan court functions as a court of first instance for all clergy or laity who are subject to discipline, and the provincial court of the metropolitan is a court of first instance for the bishop. Appeals may be made to the provincial court or to the supreme court, but this has never occurred in a matter of clerical discipline.
In respect of procedure, fundamental principles of natural justice are laid out in §14. Proceedings cannot be brought against a bishop, priest of deacon who is not on the register of the diocese where the offence is alleged to have been committed without the consent of the bishop in whose diocese the bishop, priest or deacon is registered (§16). Additional procedures or offences may also be spelled out in diocesan laws, whether canons or diocesan policies under the authority of the bishop to whom clergy have a duty of obedience. To complicate matters, dioceses must consent to the application of any national canons of a coercive nature. In each of the jurisdictions considered in this Comment, however, the appropriate consents have been given under provincial and diocesan canon to follow the national disciplinary canon.
Canon XVIII §1 provides for a saving provision regarding the jurisdiction and authority of diocesan bishops, §§2 and 3 lays out the bishop’s initial disciplinary jurisdiction and right to review by a court, and §7 lays out a list of offences. These offences are generally quite clearly spelled out: contravention of the doctrine, violation of one’s oath of obedience, neglect of duty, or conviction of an indictable offence. In addition, there is the offence of ‘immorality’ (§7(ii)), which could be considered a bit vaguer. When a cleric engages in immorality, they would also be in contravention of their oaths or the doctrine of the church depending upon the act engaged in. The charge of immorality may allow for matters that are otherwise not explicitly covered and would not constitute a neglect of duty.
§4 makes provision for, and definition of, ecclesiastical penalties. The four categories are admonition, suspension, deprivation, and deposition. An admonition may involve simply a formal warning of fault with an instruction to cease further activity – failure to abide by which would constitute a further ecclesiastical offence – while a suspension would be a temporary restriction on ministry; deprivation would be removal from one’s office; and deposition would be to inhibit a cleric’s exercise of ordained ministry. It is notable that §9(b) provides that admonishment may be public or private at the bishop’s discretion, while canon §13 provides that in the case of suspensions, deprivations, and depositions, notices are to be sent to relevant clergy by the court, which includes all the Metropolitans of the Anglican Communion in the case of deposition.
Provincial canons
In terms of provincial canons, Canons 8 and 9 of British Columbia and the YukonFootnote 23 provide for the acceptance of national Canon XVIII and lay out some procedural matters for trials. Canon V of the ecclesiastical province of OntarioFootnote 24 similarly lays out procedures and, despite accepting all national canons in their own Canon VI, reprints the offences listed in the national canons in Canon V §5. The Diocese of New Westminster Canon 18Footnote 25 provides an extensive procedural overview of the diocesan court, and the nominations information for the 2025 diocesan synodFootnote 26 indicates that the Court has actually been constituted and is active, although there is no information publicly available as to whether or not the court has sat recently. The Canons of the Diocese of Toronto make reference to a Bishops’ Court, but there is no evidence that the court has sat since the successful trial of the Reverend Jim Ferry over disobedience in 1992.Footnote 27
Diocesan policies
A more recent addition to the disciplinary system in Canada are specific policies on sexual abuse. While going by different names, each diocese’s policy will specify particular offences and the manner in which alleged offences are to be investigated, adjudicated, and punished. These policies are generally authorised non-synodically by authority of the bishop, whether or not some other procedure was followed prior to authorisation, such as seeking the concurrence of the diocesan council. In the case of the Diocese of New Westminster, these policies specify that complaints are to be made to the archdeacon or other specified persons, must be investigated in a timely fashion, and ultimately will be judged by the bishop. The bishop may enforce various penalties that can range from counselling up to punishments specified under the disciplinary canons, as if the accused had been tried in an ecclesiastical court.Footnote 28 Similarly, in the Diocese of Toronto, the Diocesan Sexual Misconduct Policy lays out an extremely similar policy and procedure, with a specified ‘canon pastor’ appointed by the bishop as the person responsible for receiving complaints, and similar provisions for both investigation and discipline in the event of conviction. The name of the currently appointed canon pastor may be found from the diocesan website by navigating to ‘Resources for Parishes’, and then to the ‘Sexual Misconduct Policy’ page.
The presence of these safeguarding policies, which are published under the authority of the diocesan bishop, suggests a third place for clergy discipline, which is discipline directly from the bishop short of trial by ecclesiastical court. Such discipline would be on the basis of a cleric’s oath of obedience and the authority of the bishop to regulate all matters within their diocese. Such authority would then allow the bishop to admonish a cleric and impose such penalties as may be considered ‘legal and honest’.Footnote 29 The fact that the sexual misconduct policy allows a bishop to impose penalties equivalent to those imposable following conviction in an ecclesiastical court suggests that even in these discretionary applications of discipline, a bishop could be permitted to engage in the same level of punishments as could be imposed upon conviction in court. Should this be the case, it is also notable that there would not be a direct appeal procedure but rather would require the disciplined cleric to pursue a charge against their bishop for violation of their own oaths in the imposition of discipline against the cleric in the provincial court of appeal as the court of first instance against a bishop. Each province lays out the procedures required to initiate such an action against a bishop, and it would require the aggrieved cleric to have significant support from colleagues in order to pursue the appeal.
Taking stock
To summarise, there are generally three areas of clergy discipline: the canons, diocesan policies (generally concerning safeguarding), and more informal and ad hoc forms of discipline applied by the bishop through the inherent authority of their office.
This gives rise to two significant questions. First, given the relatively robust system of courts, why are they not used? Secondly, given the clear system of canonical offences and procedures laid out that would apply to any kind of safeguarding issue in relation to a cleric, why is it that dioceses would choose to make specific safeguarding policies instead?
Historical analysis
A historical survey of the question of discipline in the Anglican Church of Canada may shed some light on why the system of discipline, particularly as it relates to the formal system of ecclesiastical courts and canonical offences, is in its current state. Given the ecclesiastical inheritance from the Church of England, a brief survey of some of the features and challenges of clerical discipline in the 19th century Church of England – its state prior to the development of the independent Anglican Church of Canada with its own canons – seems a reasonable place to start.
When the first General Synod of the Anglican Church of Canada assembled to bring together the various dioceses and provinces in the newly formed Dominion of Canada, it professed a desire to preserve unity with the Church of England through the maintenance of its faith and order, locally adapted.Footnote 30 In the debates leading up to the establishment of General Synod, it became clear in the discussions that while a novel system like that of the Episcopal Church, which had abolished ecclesiastical provinces in favour of the centralised General Convention and Diocesan Conventions, had been considered it was ultimately rejected.Footnote 31 Something nearer to the Church of England was to be desired, yet changes were needed because the British North America Act 1867 had not established the Church of England in Canada due to the need for a religious settlement for Roman Catholics and their significant economic and political clout in the Canadian Parliament. In order to assuage concerns over the preservation of historic rights in the ecclesiastical provinces following the creation of a General Synod for the whole church, a proposal was made to look at the procedures of the Church in Australia. Ultimately the power of General Synod would be broad in its legislative scope, but there would be limitations on ‘coercive legislation’,Footnote 32 which ultimately would provide for a relatively weak General Synod relative to the provinces and dioceses. While General Synod would ultimately have responsibility for making uniform definitions of clerical discipline, it would only have the authority to convene a final court of appeal, and thus the administration of discipline would be relegated to the uninfringed traditional rights enjoyed by the provinces and dioceses, and their bishops. The implication of this decision is that, while there was a uniform definition of canonical offences with respect to discipline of clergy, the desire to maintain uniform application of discipline throughout the united church while still allowing individual dioceses to determine how discipline would be administered within their dioceses would make it extremely difficult for there to be developments on clerical discipline over time.
Looking to the state of discipline in the Church of England in the latter half of the 19th century, it becomes clearer perhaps why the courts in the Anglican Church of Canada today have fallen into such disuse. Throughout the 18th century, the courts in the Church of England were essentially only used against the clergy in terms of matters of conduct, essentially the Canadian equivalent of the offence of immorality, along with a variety of non-judicial attempts at discipline by the various bishops.Footnote 33 Attempts were made to revitalise the courts system, culminating in the Church Discipline Act 1840, which sought to remedy some of the challenges with prosecuting clerical offences in the courts.Footnote 34 During the latter half of the 19th century, leading up to the early 1890s, numerous doctrinal disputes arose that took over the public mind as it related to clerical discipline. One of the challenges is that, under the Church Discipline Act 1840, the doctrinal and ceremonial disputes that arose were treated as no different than a cleric who was drunk or adulterous. Religious controversies and moral failures were held utterly equivalent.Footnote 35 While these challenges in the English system were remedied, those changes occurred after much of the work of preparation for the unification of the Canadian church had been made in the late 1880s and very early 1890s. Once the system was established, as discussed above, the system was difficult to change.
Canadian bishops inherited a system of weak courts, a reluctance to use them, and an example of bishops using creative admonishments and other informal disciplinary techniques to compel clergy to submit properly rather than using a formal court system which made no formal distinction between a cleric who was drunk in public versus a cleric who committed murder. In addition, the decision to found the General Synod as a relatively weak legislative body without the ability to coerce the provinces or dioceses with its legislation made it difficult to amend the system of discipline as it was initially established, and privileged the power and authority of bishops within the church more broadly, but especially in relation to the discipline of clergy.
This explains, to some extent, why the formal ecclesiastical courts remain in a state of disuse, while more creative and informal structures of discipline have been introduced, alongside formal policies on safeguarding. This has been driven (in large part) by public concern over the topic and the need for the church to be seen to do something about it, while lacking the ability to easily tackle it from a canonical perspective.
Evaluation
Having sketched out the general framework for formal and informal methods of clerical discipline in the Anglican Church of Canada, and their practical disuse, and explored some historical possibilities for why the system has developed as it has, it is now possible to evaluate these systems in the context of the three essential elements of discipline previously identified: clarity, consistency, and confidentiality.
Clarity
The element of clarity is not universal to discipline within the Anglican Church of Canada. Because there are interactions between multiple different potential systems of discipline, it is not always clear what procedure should be followed when a cleric has potentially committed an offence. Should a matter be raised informally with a bishop? Should any matter of a sexual nature be handled first through the sexual harassment policy? It would seem logical that such informal systems would be a natural place to begin unless the severity of the alleged offence is grave, but this brings with it issues as well. By their very nature of being informal, there can be no procedural clarity about using them. In dioceses with diocesan courts and clear procedures, it is clear what must be done to bring a case before the court. Similarly, there can be procedural clarity of what a cleric must do when they observe sexual harassment in the diocese. Using an informal approach might well place a reporting cleric in the position of being disciplined for not following formal policies.
Furthermore, when dealing with informal disciplinary procedures, it is unclear what the impact would be should the desired result not be obtained. There is a right to appeal in national Canon XVIII §§VI(1)–(4), but this right to appeal only functions in relation to decisions of lower courts. As was outlined above, if someone were to bring a matter to the bishop informally and be dissatisfied with the result, there would not be a clear procedure to follow for how to proceed. It seems quite possible, though, that the only recourse would be for the complainant to take the matter to a judicial charge against their own bishop.
There is no consistency in the clarity of the rules of procedure for diocesan level courts. In some cases, like New Westminster, there is a clear procedure for the court. In Toronto, by contrast, where it simply has a Bishop’s Court which is constituted at need, there are no clearly visible policies or procedures for how one would bring a matter before that court. Provincial appeals courts and the national Supreme Court all have relative procedural clarity, but they are only constituted at need.
The more modern sexual abuse policies tend to have the clearest procedures in terms of laying out a clear route to whom a complaint is made, how the complaint will be investigated, and so on until the matter is resolved. Even then, though, there are ambiguities. The Diocese of New Westminster links its safeguarding policy on its main page, which would require a person to read through a PDF of the entire policy. The Diocese of Toronto, on the other hand, has a more user-friendly and plain English explanation of their policy, but it is not necessarily easy to find. Because the person to whom you complain is a specified person, it would require finding this specific page outlining the policy in order to know to whom to complain. In the Diocese of New Westminster’s case, a clearly linked Diocesan directory lists the various diocesan officers including the Executive Officer to whom complaints are to be made.
Consistency
The principle of consistency is relatively easy to evaluate. The idea of the creation of a national system of clergy discipline through the national disciplinary canon and the court system has been effective in ensuring consistency between dioceses, even if the process for that required reception by each of the dioceses and ecclesiastical provinces. Where inconsistency lies is through the promulgation of diocesan disciplinary policies on safeguarding, and through other informal methods of enforcing discipline, and most importantly through the complete disuse of the formal disciplinary mechanisms of the ecclesiastical courts.
Issues of consistency arise in that much of this comes down to a bishop’s discretion. Within their own diocese, the ordinary may respond inconsistently between pertinently similar offences. More likely, different dioceses will have their bishops handle the same offences in different manners. What may be a matter for a verbal warning in the Diocese of Toronto could be a matter for a formal admonition in the Diocese of New Westminster, for example.
While this area of informal discipline is the most concerning relative to this principle, the fact that procedures vary so significantly on diocesan sexual abuse and harassment policies is also a matter for concern. To the degree that they are followed there will be internal consistency within a diocese, but moving between dioceses can allow for significantly different policies in substantive areas. It is a concern that, given differences of procedure and definitions of offences, the exact same action could lead to significantly different results in different dioceses. The principle of uniformity in discipline of clergy is entirely abrogated by this.
One of the major questions relative to this issue of consistency is the liceity of all of these informal methods of discipline. Canon XVIII §1(b)(iii) limits the authority of a bishop within their diocese relative to ‘the determination of whether the bishop, priest or deacon has committed an ecclesiastical offense established by this Canon’, and punishment (§1(b)(v)). As previously noted, one of the questions on why these informal systems are used is because the offences laid out in the canon would seem to apply to any matter that could conceivably be brought up informally or under a safeguarding policy. If that is the case, this canon seems to suggest that the bishop cannot simply act arbitrarily. However, the practical interpretation of this canon is that it is not exclusive. Instead, bishops routinely make additional procedures, and the only apparent limitation relates to a bishop’s inability to interfere with a court once it has been constituted. Under Canon XVIII §2 the bishop may exercise initial jurisdiction to determine whether or not an offence has been committed, but the procedures for the exercise of that jurisdiction are to be set out by the local synod (§2(c)). The Canons of the Diocese of New Westminster lay out such procedures as found in Canon XVIII §§14 and 15, but they do not seem to leave room for the diocese’s sexual harassment policy, or any other form of informal punishment, simply for the bishop to exercise jurisdiction on determining whether or not a canonical offence has been committed.
The possibility that these informal methods of discipline – which lack consistency – push the boundaries of canonical liceity should be of no surprise given their informal uses and ambiguous authority.
Confidentiality
Confidentiality in discipline applies in two directions: (1) confidentiality can serve the interests of justice by protecting the accused (pending the outcome) and the victim; however, (2) justice is often better administered when the nature of the discipline is made public. An example of this is highlighted in the controversy over the episcopal election in the Diocese of Montreal where, even after the matter came partially to light, the report indicates that the matter relating to a complaint raised by the former director of music at the Cathedral was resolved confidentially and the results were not to be discussed.Footnote 36 Yet by identifying the matter as having occurred at the Cathedral, two of the candidates for election were implicated in the possibility of workplace harassment of some type, without any clarification of which of the two candidates it related to, the nature of the complaint, or how the matter was resolved.
In terms of the three systems of clerical discipline, each has different forms of confidentiality. In the case of canonical discipline, Canon XVIII §13(a) requires notification to all clergy of the diocese and all bishops of the Anglican Church of Canada if a cleric is suspended. In the event a cleric is deprived of their office or deposed from ministry, §13(b) requires that the Metropolitans of the entire Anglican Communion must also be notified (in addition to all the clergy of the diocese and all bishops of the Anglican Church of Canada). Notification is not required if the penalty of admonition is imposed (which may, at the discretion of the person delivering the punishment, be imposed in private or public (§9(b)).
By contrast, systems of safeguarding emphasise complete confidentiality in the church disciplinary processes, unless there is cause in the policy for the matter to be referred to civil authorities. Matters are less clear when it comes to informal discipline: by its nature of being informal, there are no rules on how a bishop ought to maintain privacy or publicise the discipline of one of his clergy. This poses concerns in the case of clergy committing public offences which are then privately admonished. It has all the appearance of injustice and lack of discipline entirely. There is a much greater case for confidentiality to be maintained in the investigation and discipline of clergy in cases of abuse; however, the desire to protect the accused and the victim must be balanced against the potential appearance that the church is covering up offences, or again not acting to discipline those who have committed offences. These are serious concerns and the disjointed approach to confidentiality poses a serious threat to the overall system and undermines fundamental principles of justice.
Conclusion and further study
The Anglican Church of Canada has what seems on paper to be a robust, clear, and consistent system of clerical discipline. Appearances, however, can be deceiving. The reality is that the robust system of ecclesiastical courts has not so much fallen into disuse as never having been used from its inception. Instead, the system of discipline largely relies on a bishop’s traditional authority and responsibility to enforce discipline within their diocese. Policies established relating to safeguarding spell out some level of clarity on these matters, but overall, the church’s system of discipline is highly unclear, inconsistent in its application, and lacks safeguards for transparency in key mechanisms of practical discipline leading to a relatively silent system of discipline. More research is needed to explore especially these informal systems of discipline, how they function, and why they are used or needed in opposition to the ecclesiastical courts.
Perhaps, of even greater significance, is the need to explore the liceity of these informal systems of discipline. Especially where they have not been approved by diocesan synod, they seem to contravene multiple provisions of the national disciplinary canon. A bishop may not exercise their authority unlawfully, and yet the dioceses and provinces have all consented to this coercive restriction on their authority in the interests of a comprehensive and unified system of clerical discipline throughout the church. Instead, bishops mete out star chamber justice in private with little or no recourse for those left dissatisfied by the results. The fact that these systems may be illicit is particularly worth further exploration given the emphasis on having clear safeguarding policies in the church.
While further research is needed, serious deficiencies have been identified in the system of discipline as it stands now which must be remedied. Whatever course is chosen by the synods of the dioceses, provinces and national church, it is clear from this survey that change is desperately needed for the Anglican Church of Canada’s system of clergy discipline.
