Information Evaluation
Lately, the Anglican Church of Canada has been wrestling with a collection of scandals associated to clergy misconduct.
In 2021, figuring out details about survivors who had meant to come back ahead confidentially was shared with the establishments the place the alleged abuse occurred by a distinguished ACC chief, prompting the formation of the survivors’ group ACCtoo. In 2022, the Most Rev. Mark MacDonald, the ACC’s first Nationwide Indigenous Archbishop, resigned following allegations of sexual misconduct. Earlier this yr, an episcopal election within the Diocese of Montreal (the place I’m licensed to serve) was overshadowed by considerations about misconduct allegations involving a number of members of the episcopal slate.
Within the final months, yet one more disaster associated to clergy misconduct has gripped the Diocese of Western Newfoundland. In January 2025, the bishop of the diocese, the Rt. Rev. John Organ, eliminated the cathedral dean, the Very Rev. Catherine Quick, from her place. In response, members of the congregation held public protests and Quick filed a grievance underneath the Protected Church Constitution of the ecclesiastical province to which the diocese belongs, the Province of Canada.
The metropolitan of the province, the Most Rev. David Edwards, commissioned an investigation. He then issued a willpower during which he discovered the dean’s complaints to be largely justified and known as on the bishop to take motion to rectify issues. Bishop Organ, nonetheless, has refused to adjust to the archbishop’s suggestions, alleging an unfair and canonically inappropriate investigation and complaining that the problems with the dean that led to her removing within the first place have been ignored.
In a current interview, the newly elected primate of the Anglican Church of Canada, the Most Rev. Shane Parker, has stated that the formal church course of has “run its course” and that he has no jurisdiction over the matter, though he’s providing private pastoral help to the events concerned.
So what occurred right here, and what can we be taught from it?
The Anglican Church of Canada has two completely different, partially overlapping techniques for coping with clergy misconduct just like the alleged misconduct dedicated by Bishop Organ. The primary is using disciplinary canons.
The canons for church self-discipline within the Anglican Church of Canada are just like these which the Episcopal Church had previous to its 1994 Title IV reform: they typically find authority for investigating and deciding on the validity of accusations and imposing penalties within the diocesan bishop, use procedures and lists of offenses that don’t mirror how the up to date church thinks about abuse, and have a very excessive bar for bringing accusations in opposition to bishops.
On this case, to carry a proper cost underneath the disciplinary canon in opposition to the bishop, the dean would have wanted to make use of the coverage set out in Canon 5 of the ecclesiastical Province of Canada. To even start the formal canonical course of, an allegation of offense would have to be filed by both three bishops of the province or three monks and three lay delegates of the diocesan synod – a particularly excessive bar! It’s maybe small shock that the dean didn’t select this route.
One doable response to the challenges of a canonical disciplinary system like that of the Anglican Church of Canada – whose very excessive bar for prosecuting bishops is just one instance – can be to reform the canons. This was the trail taken within the Episcopal Church from 1994 on, however not within the Anglican Church of Canada.
As a substitute, particular person dioceses and provinces have adopted numerous supplemental insurance policies for coping with misconduct outdoors of using the disciplinary canon whereas leaving the outdated disciplinary canons in place. It’s underneath this second system of supplementary insurance policies that the dean sought redress for what she argued was unjust remedy by her bishop.
The primary place to search for dealing with misconduct underneath this second system is the diocesan misconduct coverage of a given diocese. However the dean couldn’t have filed a grievance underneath the diocesan misconduct coverage in Western Newfoundland in opposition to her bishop. This isn’t as a result of the diocesan misconduct coverage requires allegations in opposition to bishops be dealt with on the provincial stage. Fairly, it’s as a result of the diocese merely doesn’t have a useful or strong misconduct coverage in any respect. As Archbishop Edwards put it in his ruling on the dean’s grievance, the diocese’s protected church constitution “consists of worthy generalizations and considerate discussions however is poor on the nuts and bolts of investigation. It can’t be utilized virtually with out some future amending.”
And so, when the archbishop acquired the grievance, he selected to adjudicate it underneath the provincial misconduct coverage. However there was additionally an issue right here. A physique appointed by the provincial council known as the provincial misconduct committee is meant to research allegations. Sadly, as Edwards famous in his willpower, there simply was no provincial misconduct committee. It didn’t exist.
Thus, the archbishop selected to delegate the investigation to a person (the provincial misconduct complaints officer); the archbishop made his determinations on the premise of this particular person’s investigatory report. Whereas Edwards clearly felt that the severity of the scenario meant that an investigation couldn’t wait till the committee was appointed, his authority to deviate from the coverage is just not clear to me. What’s past controversy is that, whereas the province had a extra fleshed-out misconduct coverage than the diocese, it was nonetheless unable to truly use it as written.
Finally, on the premise of this investigation, the archbishop determined that three of the dean’s 4 complaints in opposition to the bishop had been substantiated and (in his phrases) “decided that the next actions needs to be taken:” the dean needs to be restored to her place and the bishop ought to apologize and spend the remainder of his episcopate on sabbatical.
Nonetheless, Bishop Organ has chosen to disregard what he calls the archbishop’s “suggestions” on the grounds that they might put the diocese in danger. He argued that the provincial misconduct coverage was not used accurately – certainly, the archbishop admitted in his willpower that the coverage was not used as written – and has known as for a brand new investigation.
In gentle of Organ’s refusal, the archbishop appears to have felt unable or unwilling to implement his determinations. It’s unclear to me whether or not Edwards would agree with Organ’s characterization of them as “suggestions.” If he had been to aim to implement them, he wouldn’t be with out choices. The misconduct coverage offers for the opportunity of suspension with or with out phrases when allegations are decided to be correct, and it appears doable that the Organ’s refusal might be grounds for an allegation underneath the provincial disciplinary canon as effectively.
However in response to the brand new primate, the matter appears to be largely closed. Neither an try to implement the determinations nor the brand new investigation that Organ requested appear more likely to happen. Apparently, Quick will stay faraway from her place regardless of her vindication by the provincial investigation, and Organ’s considerations in regards to the investigatory course of won’t be formally addressed.
What ought to we take away from this case? What we see right here is the consequence of each an ill-designed disciplinary system and over-taxed establishments. It’s a drawback that the Canadian church has a set of sophisticated, tough to make use of, overlapping strategies for coping with clergy misconduct. It’s deeply unlucky that complainants have to decide on between a really tough canonical process and apparently largely toothless non-canonical misconduct insurance policies when addressing misconduct – neither of that are straightforward to navigate!
This drawback is made much more eager due to the growing lack of capability in overstrained, shrinking establishments. As we’ve seen, neither the diocese nor the province had useful procedures for coping with misconduct. I don’t anticipate that Diocese of Western Newfoundland’s lack of an precise misconduct coverage or the Province of Canada’s failure to arrange its provincial misconduct committee had been in any manner malicious. However these types of issues occur when shrinking ecclesial capability meets a proliferation of complicated insurance policies and procedures.
Canadian Anglicans desperately want a system for dealing with clergy misconduct that’s uniform, easy to make use of, truly adopted as written, and has the capability to implement its suggestions. Each victims and people accused of misconduct deserve such a system. However with out important reform, I anticipate that we’ll proceed to see instances like that of Western Newfoundland.
It’s my hope and prayer that our leaders use their ethical and canonical authority to make that reform occur. It’s a matter of important significance, each to forestall human beings for whom Christ died from being harmed or pushed away from the religion by those that are purported to shepherd them and to keep away from additional damaging our witness in a land the place folks desperately want to listen to the excellent news of Jesus Christ.
The Rev. Benjamin Crosby is a Visitor Author. He’s a PhD pupil in ecclesiastical historical past on the McGill College Faculty of Spiritual Research.
