Reflections of a Canonist on the Singapore Consecrations of the Anglican Communion – Part II – The Consecrations 

by Kenneth E. North

 Archbishop Louis Falk of the Traditional Anglican Church, in an earlier post, suggested that those commenting on the validity/regularity of the consecrations of Bishop Murphy and Bishop Rodgers seek to focus those comments through some commonly defined terms and standards. I agree that such would be helpful. In Part I of my attempt to address Archbishop Falk’s comment, I focused on what I believe is the real issue – the state of The Episcopal Church in the broader arena of the battle of Christendom. This second part deals with the canonical details of those consecrations. I address those details by a series of questions I think all engaged in the debate, or otherwise observing it, should use to measure the various comments concerning those consecrations.

1. Is the commentary merely academic or historical speculation?

 By way of example, I personally think the 1985 Chicago Bears were the best Super Bowl team in history, far surpassing the 2000 St. Louis Rams. This point may be debated forever without resolution for those two teams will never play each other.

 I do not know whether the 1549 or 1662 Books of Common Prayer as administered in England, or the 1928 Book of Common Prayer as administered in the United States, would permit the Consecrations. Quite frankly, it is irrelevant. The Consecrations did not attempt to conform with those books.

 So to Canon 6 of Chalcedon, the exposition of which by Archbishop Falk I agree.  It may be of historical interest, but it certainly does not control the validity of the Consecrations.

 I do not fault my brethren who engage in historical speculation; or those who wonder what the result would have been if the Consecrations had taken place in England in the sixteenth or seventeenth centuries, or in the United States in the nineteenth century. I have not knowingly participated in such discussions, for I personally find them irrelevant to the current state of Anglican Communion affairs.

             2. What canon law is being applied?

As a citizen of the United States of America, I am not required to follow the laws of England, or Singapore, or Rwanda. Nor am I required to follow the doctrine and discipline of the Eastern Orthodox churches because I am not a member of that Christian tradition.

 When you read a comment that the Consecrations are invalid or irregular, ask the question – according to the canon law of which church?

Bishop Smalley of Kansas reportedly said: “While this consecration is “valid” in the ecclesiology of the Anglican Communion, which requires that at least three bishops participate in the laying-on-of-hands, it is “irregular” in that these priests were not selected by either the Episcopal Church or any of its dioceses.“

Bishop Smalley agrees that the Consecrations are valid, but then comments that, according to the canon law of The Episcopal Church, they are irregular. SO WHAT? Neither Bishop Murphy nor Bishop Rodgers assert that either or both are bishops OF The Episcopal Church. This argument falls in the same category as historical or academic speculation.

As will be developed later, The Episcopal Church canon law is irrelevant – it simply does not apply. The canon law of Singapore and Rwanda apply, respectively. The canon law of the Anglican Communion does not apply because there is no such canon law.

            3. What is meant by “validity?” Is the debate concerning substance?

 When I speak of the “validity” of the Consecrations, I refer to apostolic succession in the sacramental sense.  Put another way,  I view “validity’ as addressing the substance of the consecrations. Are these men in fact bishops in direct succession from the Apostles?

Even with regard to these Consecrations, there appears to be agreement that Bishop Murphy and Bishop Rodgers were validly consecrated, i.e., the substance of the Consecrations was in conformity with sacramental theology. Those several bishops who laid hands on Bishop Rodgers and Bishop Murphy were themselves validly consecrated, and no sacramental infirmities exist.

Bishop Smalley of Kansas, quoted above, agrees that the Consecrations are valid. The Chancellor of the Archbishop of Canterbury, in public remarks at the Duquesne Law School Canon Law Conference on February 4, referred to the Consecrations as valid. I see no rationale basis for contesting the validity of the Consecrations.

          4. What is meant by “irregular?” Is the debate concerning form or procedure?

 It is conceded that in the context of the Consecrations, “irregular” is like the humble but healthful onion, it has many layers. It also requires clarity as to the earlier points. At its core, it is a procedural matter.

 When I speak of “irregular,” I focus on the procedure regarding the valid Consecrations of Bishop Rodgers and Bishop Murphy. In so doing, one must look to the constitution and canons of the Anglican Communion Province for Singapore, and the Anglican Communion Province for Rwanda, respectively. More specifically, were the formalities required by those provinces followed?

 In that the Primates for those Provinces officiated, one might well assume that each followed his own requirements. To the extent that I have access to the constitutions and canons of those Provinces, I have located nothing which prohibits Consecrations of the nature performed in Singapore.

 When making or considering comment as to “regularity,” be sure that you are clear under what constitution and canons you assert a procedural failing. Bishop Smalley commented that the Consecrations were “irregular” as to The Episcopal Church. Other brethren have commented as to “irregularity” according to some historical norms no longer in force, and certainly not applicable in Singapore or Rwanda in 2000. Such academic or historical speculation may be of interest to some. It is not my intent to so engage myself. As a consumer of comments on the Consecrations, you should inquire as to “irregular under what constitution and canons?”

 As for me, I disagree with those who too quickly concede that the Consecrations are “irregular.”  My research – meager though it may be – has demonstrated no procedural failing in the Consecrations. And, even if there were a procedural failing, the validity of the Consecrations cannot sincerely be doubted. John Rodgers and Charles Murphy ARE bishops of the Anglican Communion in direct line of succession from the Apostles of Christ Jesus.

             5. Is the assignment of Bishop Murphy and Bishop Rodgers “Irregular?”.

 Here we finally have the core of our onion; the issue which most seek to comment on, but which is incorrectly intertwined with the validity and regularity of the Consecrations. If  Bishop Murphy and Bishop Rodgers transferred their orders to Rwanda and Singapore, were consecrated bishops in those provinces, and served as bishops in Singapore and Rwanda, few would little note nor long remember their Consecrations.

 But it is the sending of each, by two separate Provinces of the Anglican Communion, to serve as missionary bishops in the United States of America which is irregular. I wholeheartedly agree  that this assignment of two bishops from constituent members of the Anglican Communion to provide episcopal oversight in the Province of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America is unusual, or  “irregular” within the Anglican Communion. However, this is quite different from saying that the Consecrations are themselves “irregular.”

 The sending is a matter that may only be resolved Province to Province, or at the Primates meeting in Portugal. Neither Bishop Murphy nor Bishop Rodgers may, unilaterally, disregard directions received from their respective Primates. Only the Provinces may recall these missionary bishops.

 When considering comments concerning “regularity,” determine if the true issue is the Consecrations or the sending.

       6. What about The Episcopal Church canons? Can the bishops be disciplined?

Those who conclude that Bishop Rodgers and Bishop Murphy are subject to Episcopal Church discipline or diocesan bishop oversight are simply incorect.

When considering comments on the point of Episcopal Church oversight or discipline, look to whether they are supported by reference to specific canon or constitutional article.

Bishop Rodgers and Bishop Murphy first transferred from The Episcopal Church to their respective new Anglican Communion Provinces. This is a common process which, flowing to The Episcopal Church, is covered specifically under Article VIII and Canon III.12. The Provinces of Rwanda and Singapore have similar provisions. From the Episcopal Church, each received Letters Dimissory from their respective diocesan bishops. Canon III.16.

 When each was accepted by their respective new Provinces, they ceased to be members of The Episcopal Church. They became ordained clergy – priests – in the Provinces of Rwanda and Singapore, respectively.  Each is now a bishop from a different constituent member of the Anglican Communion. Neither is a member of the clergy of The Episcopal Church.

 So what about discipline? Title IV of the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church is entitled Ecclesiastical Discipline. Canon IV.1.1 provides: “A Bishop, Priest, or Deacon OF THIS CHURCH shall be liable to Presentment and  Trial for the following offenses. [emphasis added]” Neither Bishop Murphy nor Bishop Rodgers are of The Episcopal Church.

 Only Canon IV.7.3 addresses references of claimed canonical offenses by foreign clergy from constituent members of the Anglican Communion. However, this canon does not apply to bishops; it is limited to priests and deacons.

 Of course, as a matter of comity, and to avoid difficulty for Episcopal Church clergy and congregations, either bishop may seek permission from the responsible Episcopal diocesan bishop to officiate at an Episcopal church as provided by Canon III.19.

 The Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church may ask the Primates of the sending Provinces to recall Bishop Rodgers and Bishop Murphy. Those Primates may agree or disagree to any such request. The Archbishop of Canterbury is one Primate among equals at the Primates meeting. He cannot order their recall, nor can be declare their Consecrations invalid or procedurally irregular.

 PAX