Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T19:28:34.577Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Toward A Critique of the Role of Theology in English Ecclesiastical and Canon Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 July 2008

Norman Doe
Norman Doe
Affiliation:
Cardiff Law School
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. As you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Other
Information
Ecclesiastical Law Journal , Volume 2 , Issue 11 , July 1992 , pp. 328 - 346
Copyright
Copyright © Ecclesiastical Law Society 1992

References

1. The Constitution and Rules of the Ecclesiastical Law Society, 1, 2, (1988) 1 Ecc. L.J. (3) 41.

2. See, for example, Coningsby, T., ‘An honourable estate – a personal view of the Report of the Working Party of the General Synod’, (1988) 1 Ecc. L.J. (3) 10Google Scholar; Bursell, R. D. H., ‘What is the place of custom in English canon law?, (1989) 1 Ecc. L.J. (4) 12Google Scholar; McClean, D., ‘Women priests – the legal background’, (1989) 1 Ecc. L.J. (5) 15Google Scholar; Harte, J. D. C., ‘The religious dimension of the Education Reform Act 1988’, (1989) 1 Ecc. L.J. (5) 32Google Scholar; Pearce, C. C. A., ‘The roles of the Vicar-General and Surrogate in the granting of marriage licences’, (1990) 2 Ecc. L. J. 28Google Scholar; Sparkes, P., ‘Exclusive burial rights’, (1991) 2 Ecc. L.J. 133.Google Scholar

3. See Kemp, E., ‘The spirit of the canon law and its application in England’, (1987) 1 Ecc. L. J. (1) 5Google Scholar; Kemp, E., ‘Legal implications of Lambeth’, (1989) 1 Ecc. L. J. (5) 15Google Scholar; Baker, J. H., ‘The English law of sanctuary’, (1990) 2 Ecc. L.J. 8Google Scholar; Bursell, R. D. H., ‘The seal of the confessional’, (1990) 2 Ecc. L.J. 84.Google Scholar

4. Edwards, Q., ‘The canon law of the Church of England: implications for unity’, (1988) 1 Ecc. L. J. (3) 18Google Scholar; Hill, C., ‘Rome, Canterbury and the law’, (1991) 2 Ecc. L. J. 164.Google Scholar

5. See, for instance, McClean, D., ‘State finance for European Churches’, (1990) 2 Ecc. L. J. 116Google Scholar; T. G. Watkin, ‘Vestiges of establishment; the ecclesiastical and canon law of the Church in Wales’, Ibid.,, 110; Hemmerick, W. J., ‘The ordination of women; Canada’, (1991) 2 Ecc. L. J. 177.Google Scholar

6. Routledge, R. G., ‘Blasphemy: the Report of the Archbishop of Canterbury's Working Party on Offences Against Religion and Public Worship’, (1989) 1 Ecc. L. J. (4) 27Google Scholar; Leigh, I., ‘Regulating religious broadcasting’, (1990) 2 Ecc. L. J. 287.Google Scholar

7. Harte, J. D. C., ‘Doctrine, conservation and aesthetic judgments in the Court of Ecclesiastical Causes Reserved’, (1987) 1 Ecc. L. J. (2) 22Google Scholar; T. Coningsby, op cit., 10–12; Brentford, Viscount, ‘In favour of keeping Sunday “special”’, (1990) 2 Ecc. L. J. 14Google Scholar; J. M. Hull, ‘Religious education and Christian values in the 1988 Education Reform Act’, Ibid.,, 69.

8. Helmholz, R. H., Roman Canon Law in Reformation England (Cambridge, 1990) especially Chapters 4 and 5CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ullmann, W., Law and Politics in the Middle Ages (London, 1975) 119–189Google Scholar; see also Kuttner, S., ‘Some considerations on the role of secular law and institutions in the history of canon law’, in Kuttner, S., Studies in the History of Medieval Canon Law (Variourum, Aldershot, 1990) Chapter 6.Google Scholar

9. Ombres, R., ‘Faith, doctrine and Roman Catholic canon law’, (1989) 1 Ecc. L. J. (4) 33.Google Scholar

10. Coriden, J. A., ‘Rules for interpreters’, in Hite, J. and Ward, D. J. (eds.), Readings, Cases, Materials in Canon Law (Liturgical Press), (Collegeville, 1990) 145 at 158–159.Google Scholar

11. See, for example, MacCormick, N., Legal Reasoning and Legal Theory (Oxford, 1978)Google Scholar; Raz, J., Practical Reasons and Norms (London, 1975) 35–48Google Scholar, and The Authority of Law (Oxford, 1979) 30–33.Google Scholar For similar trends in American jurisprudence, see for instance, Wasserstrom, R. A., The Judicial Decision (Stanford, 1961)Google Scholar and Cardozo, B. N., The Nature of the Judicial Process (Yale, 1977). See, for the use of extra-legal ideas in specific areas of substantive English law,Google ScholarTwining, W. (ed.), Legal Theory and Common Law (Oxford, 1986).Google Scholar

12. Moore, E. G. and Briden, T., Moore's Introduction to English Canon Law (2nd ed., London, 1985) 1.Google Scholar

13. J. D. C. Harte, op cit., at 25. See footnotes 35–44 below.

14. Report of the Archbishops' Commission on the Canon Law of the Church of England (SPCK, London, 1947) see generally 3–5.Google Scholar

15. For the incorporation of divine law into the definitions of canon law by Roman Catholic canonists, see, for example, May, G., ‘Ecclesiastical law’, in Rahner, K. (ed.), Encyclopedia of Theology (London, 1981) 395.Google Scholar For ideas about the juridical nature of scripture, see for instance, Minear, P. S., Commands of Christ (Edinburgh, 1972) 12–15Google Scholar, and Knox, J., The Ethic of Jesus in the Teaching of the Church (London, 1961) 48–51, 97–99.Google Scholar See also, Steinmuller, W., ‘Divine law and its dynamism in Protestant theology of law’, (1969) 8 Concilium (5) 13.Google Scholar

16. Moore, op cit,. 9.

17. Urresti, T. J., ‘Canon law and theology: two different sciences’, (1967) 8 Concilium (3) 10.Google Scholar See also his ‘The theologian in interface with canonical reality’, (1982) 19 Journal of Ecumenical Studies (2) 146.Google Scholar

18. Corecco, E., ‘Ecclesiological bases of the Code’, (1986) 185 Concilium 3.Google Scholar

19. For the Apostolic Constitution see Coriden, J. A., Green, T. J. and Heintschel, D. E., The Code of Canon law: A Text and Commentary (Paulist Press, New York, 1985) xxiv at xxv.Google Scholar

20. R. Ombres, op cit., 33.

21. See, for example, Whaling, F., ‘The development of the word “theology”’, (1981) 34 Scottish Journal of Theology 289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar See also Avis, P., The Methods of Modern Theology (London, 1986).Google Scholar See generally, Sykes, S. W., ‘Theology’, Richardson, A. and Bowden, J. (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology (SCM Press, London, 1983) 566.Google Scholar

22. For Barth, see Barth, K., Church Dogmatics: The Doctrine of the Word of God, Translated by Bromiley, G. W. (2nd ed., T. & T. Clark, London, 1975) Vol. 1, 2.Google Scholar For description of Barth's theology, see for instance, Hartwell, H, The Theology of Karl Barth (London, 1964)Google Scholar and Bromiley, G. W., An Introduction to the Theology of Karl Barth (Edinburgh, 1979).Google ScholarRahner, K., Theological Investigations, Translated by Bourke, D. (London, 1965–1984) Vols X, 41f.Google Scholar, XII, 3–5, 9f., 11–15, 23, XVII, 23f., 67f. and XX, 135f. The problem of determining the legitimacy of a theological doctrine, the problem of what gives doctrine authority, is a large one; for the different views, from the subjective analyse of theologians such as Schleiermacher and Ritschl, to the more objective approach of theologian like Barth and Brunner (all resting on a particular understanding of revelation), see Heron, A. I. C., A Century of Protestant Theology (London, 1980)Google Scholar and Avis, P., The Methods of Modern Theolog (London, 1986).Google Scholar

23. Moore, op cit., 9.

24. Gerosa, L., ‘Penal law and ecclesial reality: the applicability of the penal sanctions laid down in the new Code’, (1986) 185 Concilium 54 at 56.Google Scholar

25. Moore, op cit., 9.

26. See Coriden, J. A., An Introduction to Canon Law (Geoffrey Chapman, London, 1991) 104.Google Scholar See the Code, Canons 750, 752–754.

27. Believing in the Church: The Corporate Nature of Faith, A Report by the Doctrine Commission of the Church of England (SPCK, London, 1981).Google Scholar For other discussions of the difficulties of constructing an Anglican theology, including the 1922 Doctrine Commission's view, see Evans, G. R. and Wright, J. R. (eds.), The Anglican Tradition: A Handbook of Sources (SPCK, London, 1991) 345, 401Google Scholar: the difficulty arises in the world-wide Anglican Communion, in part, of course, from the lack of an central body, such as the Lambeth Conference, possessing authority to issue official and binding theological statements: Ibid.,, 383, 389–390, 401.

28. For this idea, and the view of canon law as servant, see Apostolic Constitution, op cit., xxv–xxvi: Pope John Paul II explained that the purpose of the ‘juridical formulae’ in the Code is to ‘serve the whole Church’. For an Anglican perspective, see Box, H., The Principles of Canon Law (Oxford, 1949) 9.Google Scholar

29. See the Archbishops' Commission Report 1947, 3–5.Google Scholar For the Roman view, see the Apostolic Constitution, op cit., xxv: of the Code, the pope said, ‘its purpose is rather to create such an order in the ecclesial society that, while assigning the primacy to love, grace and charisms, it at the same time renders their organic development easier in the life of both the ecclesial society and the dividual persons who belong to it’.

30. For some observations of T. Green, see Coriden, , Green, and Heintschel, , Commentary, 893f.Google Scholar

31. Coriden, J. A., An Introduction to Canon Law, 7f,Google Scholar; Taylor, J., ‘Canon law in the age of the Fathers’Google Scholar, in Hite, and Ward, , Canon Law, 43.Google Scholar

32. See, for example, Winninger, P., ‘A pastoral canon law’, (1969) 8 Concilium (5) 28Google Scholar; see also Doe, N., ‘A facilitative canon law: the problem of sanctions and forgiveness’, in Doe, N. (ed.), Essays in Canon Law: A Study of the Law of the Church in Wales (University of Wales Press, Cardiff, 1992) 69.Google Scholar

33. For the idea in Roman Catholic law, see Provost, J. H., ‘Protecting and promoting the rights of Christians: some implications for Church structures’, (1986) 46 The Jurist (1) 289Google Scholar, and other articles in this issue.

34. For Dr. Robert Runcie's use of ideas of forgiveness, see the minutes of the debate in Synod for Wednesday, 8 November 1989, 1064 at 1066: compare the view of Mr Oswald Clark, Ibid.,, 1069–1070. For baptismal policy and theological considerations, see Reardon, M., Christian Initiation–A Policy for the Church of England (Church House Publishing, 1991) 19–31.Google Scholar The paper was discussed by Synod 13 July 1991.

35. An Honourable Estate: The Doctrine of Marriage according to English Law (Church House Publishing, 1988).Google Scholar For observations on this see Coningsby, T., ‘An honourable estate: a personal view of the Report by the Working Party of General Synod’, (1988) 1 Ecc. L. J. (3) 10.Google Scholar

36. For a brief account, see Bullimore, J. and Hanson, B. J. T., ‘Synod news – November 1988,’ 1 Ecc. L. J. (4) 2.Google Scholar

37. An Honourable Estate, 6, 7.Google Scholar

38. [1987]3W.L.R. 717.

39. [1987] 2 All E.R. 578 at 597–598; St. Michael and All Angels, Great Torrington [1985] 1 All E.R. 993.Google Scholar

40. For a discussion see Moore, op cit., 148, and J. D. C. Harte, op cit.

41. Bland v Archdeacon of Cheltenham [1972] 1 All E.R. 1012Google Scholar: the Deputy Dean of the Arches Court, Sir Cecil Havers, considered that ‘The act of refusal to baptise a child is not a doctrinal offence as such … It is concerned with pastoral work and activity’: Ibid.,, at 1017.

42. Bishop of Oxford v Henly [1907] P. 88Google Scholar; Capel St. Mary, Suffolk (Rector and Churchwardens) v Packard [1927] P. 289Google Scholar, [1928] P. 69; Re Lapford (Devon) Parish Church [1955] P. 205Google Scholar at 210. For a short discussion see Newsom, G. H., Faculty Jurisdiction of the Church of England (London, 1988) 130f.Google Scholar

43. [1958] 3 All E.R. 441 at 446–447; see also Chancellor Moore's appeal to the doctrine in Re St. Peter and St. Paul, Leckhampton [1967] 3 All E.R. 1057 at 1060.Google Scholar

44. Re St. Mary, Tyne Dock [1954] 2 All E.R. 339.Google Scholar

45. The position in Roman Catholic canon law, and the possibility of appeal to factors outside the Code, is summed up in Canon 19: ‘Unless it is a penal matter, if an express prescription of universal or par ticular law or a custom is lacking in some particular matter, the case is to be decided in light of laws passed in similar circumstances, the general principles of law observed with canonical equity, the jurisprudence and praxis of the Roman Curia, and the common and constant opinion of learned persons’. For ideas about the relaxation of rules in Roman canon law, see Koury, J. J., ‘Hard and soft canons continued: canonical institutes for legal flexibility and accommodation’, (1991) 25 Studia Canonica 335.Google Scholar

46. For a general review of Sohm's position, see Dulles, A. V., Models of the Church (Dublin, 1976).Google Scholar

47. Harnack, A., The Constitution and Law of the Church in the First Two Centuries, Translated by Pogson, F. L. (London, 1910).Google Scholar

48. Ridderbos, H., Paul: An Outline of His Theology (SPCK, London, 1977) 438–439.Google Scholar

49. Lewis, A. T., ‘The case for constitutional renewal in the Church in Wales’, in Doe, N. (ed.), Essays in Canon Law, 175 at 187.Google Scholar

50. See Matthews, K., ‘The development of procedures for the resolution of conflict in the early Church’, (1984) 18 Studia Canonica 15–54.Google Scholar

51. For the difficulties in identifying when an act is an administrative act, and the principle of hierarchical recourse, see Moodie, M. R., ‘The administrator and the law: authority and its exercise in the Code’, in Hite, and Ward, (eds.), Canon Law, 444Google Scholar, and Coriden, J. A., Introduction to Canon Law, 185.Google Scholar

52. Coriden, , Green, and Heintschel, , Commentary, 35, 36, 1029, 1030.Google Scholar

53. Newsom, G. H., Faculty Jurisdiction, 52f.Google Scholar Hearings are required by law, for example, in connection with the demolition of a church (Faculty Jurisdiction Measure 1964, s. 2) and in some cases of treasure sales (Faculty Jurisdiction Measure 1967, s.6 (7)): see Newsom, op cit., 53, n.2.

54. Hanson, B. J. T., ‘Recent legislative developments’, (1992) 2 Ecc. L. J. 315.Google Scholar

55. Matthews, R. (ed.), Informal Justice (London, 1988) 150–153Google Scholar; see also Folberg, J. and Taylor, A., Mediation: A Comprehensive Guide to Resolving Conflicts Without Litigation (San Francisco, 1984).Google Scholar

56. Halsbury, , Laws of England, Vol. 14, Ecclesiastical Law (4th ed., London, 1975) para. 1271.Google Scholar Except where the doctrine is recognised by legislation, the judicial statements of it are mainly obiter.

57. For justification and role of precedent in civil law, see for example, Twining, W. and Miers, D., How to Do Things with Rules (2nd ed., London, 1982) 165–188, 218–291Google Scholar and Cross, R., Precedent in English Law (3rd ed., Oxford, 1977).Google Scholar These ideas tie up with Roman canonical ideas that canon law ‘is to afford stability to the society … to provide good order, reliable procedures, and predictable outcomes’: Coriden, J. A., Introduction to Canon Law, 6.Google Scholar

58. Grosvenor Chapel, South Audley Street (1913) 29 T.L.R. 286Google Scholar (per Chancellor Kempe).

59. per Ch. Moore, in Adey [1958] 3 All E.R. 441 at 445.Google Scholar See also per Ch. Moore, in Re Rector and Churchwardens of St. Nicholas, Plumstead [1961] 1 All E.R. 298.Google Scholar

60. Newsom, G. H., Faculty Jurisdiction, 7Google Scholar; Halsbury, , Ecclesiastical Law, para. 1278.Google Scholar For Roman canon law, see the Code, Canon 1419.

61. See Evans, G. R. and Wright, J. R., The Anglican Tradition, 91, 306, 328f., 341, 382, 383.Google Scholar

62. Walker, D. (ed.), A History of the Church in Wales (Penarth, 1976, re-issued, 1990).Google ScholarWatkin, T. G., ‘Disestablishment, self-determination and the constitutional development of the Church in Wales’, in Doe, N. (ed.), Essays in Canon Law, 25 at 26.Google Scholar

63. For the idea that punishment and forgiveness are incompatible, see (1986) 184 Concilium ix, and C.m Duquoc, ‘The forgiveness of God’, Ibid.,, 35; Lehmann, P., ‘Forgiveness’Google Scholar, in Macquarrie, J. and Childress, J., A New Dictionary of Christian Ethics (SCM Press, London, 1986) 233.Google Scholar

64. For Roman justifications for sanctions, see Huizing, P., ‘Crime and punishment in the Church’, (1967) 8 Concilium (3) 57Google Scholar, and Coriden, , Green, and Heintschel, , Commentary, 893f.Google Scholar; for Anglican ideas, see the Archbishops' Commission Report, 4.

65. Murphy, J. G. and Hampton, J., Forgiveness and Mercy (Cambridge, 1988).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

66. For a discussion of this problem, see N. Doe, ‘A facilitative canon law’, op cit.

67. Moore, op cit., 2–3.

68. Report, 3.

69. Peter, C. J., ‘Dimensions of Ius Divinum in Roman Catholic theology’, (1973) 34 Theological Studies 227CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Harakas, S. S., ‘The natural law tradition of the Eastern Orthodox Church’, (1963–1964) 9 Creek Orthodox Theological Review (2) 215.Google Scholar

70. For the inability of the civil judges to question parliamentary legislation on moral grounds, see Doe, N., ‘The problem of abhorrent law and the judicial idea of legislative supremacy’, (1988) 10 Liver pool Law Review (2) 113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

71. See minutes of the debate in Synod on Tuesday, 5 July 1988, and the opinion of Professor David McClean, 514 and 515; compare the remarks of the Bishop of Winchester at 522, 523.