Today’s piece comes from “The Pilot”, January 1970. John Dodd was Vicar of Gouray Church in the late 1970s. There is an irony in this article. In 1977, he needed somewhere to live, and the Reverend Terry Hampton pointed out that there were a number of empty vicarages, any one of which would be suitable. The Dean of Jersey, the Reverend Tom Goss, said that there were plans afoot for those houses, although he declined to give further details: the propensity to dissemble by a Dean of Jersey is nothing new!
On February 15, 2005, the General Synod of the Church of England decided to abolish the system of parson's freehold, gradually replacing it with a system entitled common tenure, which would apply to all clerics equally, removing the present distinction between those with freehold and those without. Under common tenure, the present proposal is that parsonages would pass to the diocese.
Furthermore, such clergy would undergo assessment procedures to ensure that they are performing their function adequately, and parishioners would have further rights to those enjoyed under the Clergy Discipline Measure to complain about their parish priests. If found unsatisfactory, it would be possible to remove such priests with greater ease. However, priests will be entitled to some modest compensation for loss of office, and gain the right of appeal to secular employment tribunals.
The Ecclesiastical Offices (Terms of Service) Measure 2009 (No. 1), giving effect to these changes, is now in force in the UK. But in Jersey....
As common tenure does not affect the Channel Islands, the original Ecclesiastical Offices (Age Limit) Measure 1975 stands as the point of reference, as adopted in each deanery. Deans and incumbents in the deaneries of Guernsey and Jersey have to retire on reaching the age of 70 years.
Their appointments may be extended for up to two years , and the relevant island dean should be copied into any correspondence. It is not possible to appoint anyone over the age of seventy as an incumbent.
It is also possible to appoint clergy over the age of seventy as priest in charge and as assistant curate and for them to hold the Bishop’s Licence at the Bishop’s pleasure
The Parson's Freehold
by John D. Dodd
The title to this article is peculiar to our Anglican Church
and although often quoted is not always
understood. When an Anglican priest is inducted and instituted into a parish as
its Vicar or Rector, he is free to hold that office continually for as long as
he wishes – for life, if he so desires. Except for some crime, immoral
behaviour, non-performance of duties or complete physical breakdown, he cannot
be removed from his post against his will. It is his living and only he can
decide when he wishes to resign from it.
The clergy, of course are not unique in this respect; other
professional men and women such as lawyers, doctors and teachers enjoy a similar
position. From time to time however, the parson's security of tenure is
questioned and recently in some quarters the opinion has been expressed that
this system is open to abuse and should be modified. Cases of unsuitable
parsons staying too long in their parishes have been quoted - examples cited of
“square pegs in round holes" where a move on the part of the clergyman
would improve the situation for all concerned. There is a feeling that this
system should be modified in some way or another.
What are the alternatives? Our Roman Catholic and Free
Church brethren have quite different methods of appointment. The Bishop has supreme
in the Roman Catholic Church in the appointment of the parochial or secular clergy.
It is he who decides where priests shall be stationed, when they shall be
transferred and it is incumbent on the part of the priest to obey his bishop.
Inherent in this system is the practice of celibacy - a priest who has no
family ties can he moved about without much domestic upheaval.
On the face of it this would seem to be a most efficient
system; and on the Mission Field it is adopted by many branches of the
Christian Church. There is much to be said for missionaries to be celibate for a short time, at any rate and so be
available to be sent anywhere there is an emergency.
But in the Anglican Church we have for centuries believed in
a married parochial clergy; and to disrupt family life by continual and
frequent removals is not a good thing. Moreover, to many the system snacks for
dictatorship. Whilst every care is to elect as Bishops, men of understanding, sympathy
and integrity, yet they are only human, liable. as we all are to prejudice,
preference, complexes and and other failings: and to concentrate such power
into the hands of one man seems to be a dangerous thing. It could lay the
clergy open to victimisation from above.
Our Free Church brethren have gone to the other extreme, for
in their church it is the congregations who select their minister and who dismiss
him. In the Methodist Church, the largest of the Free Churches, ministers are appointed
to a group of churches called a Circuit and in that circuit have pastoral care of
one or more churches. The legal authority of the Circuit is the Quarterly
Meeting. Each minister is invited annually, and at each March Quarterly
Meeting, ministers are invited for the following year. After three years
ministers can only remain if they obtain 75%, majority of the votes, and after
a seventh can only stay with a special permission from the Methodist
Conference.
At first sight this may seem a completely democratic
procedure. But, to many, it has grave defects. For one thing many of those voting,
in the meeting have only it very superficial knowledge of' tile ministers
concerned: they may have only seen and heard them on the few occasions they
have visited their particular church. Yet they decide whether or not they shall
stay in the Circuit - this is rather like the parishioners of St. Ouen voting
for the Constable of Grouville.
Moreover by what yardstick do you judge a priest's
efficiency in his work? By law an Anglican rector or vicar must perform certain
duties preaching, once per Sunday, celebrating Holy Communion on certain days.
baptizing children from his parish, and so on. I have never met an Anglican
priest who only performed the bare legal requirements and I hope my readers never
have. But what are the other duties of the clergy? Define them in one view,
and. ipso facto, you charge others with neglect. One man sees his duty to visit
house by house through his parish as his daily duty, even if it takes him five
years to do so. Another sees this as a waste of time and concentrates on
attending all local organisations, starting clubs, fellowships, etc.
But an outsider very often only judges from the outside. No
parson seeks the limelight but inevitably, some by their work will make headlines
and catch the vote to the detriment of others.
Insecurity of tenure can also vitiate a parson's plans for
the future. He may feel with his leaders that certain steps should be taken for
the wellbeing of the church - steps that will take some time to complete. But
if he should he moved the following year what then? His successor may have
entirely different ideas. The temptation of laissez-faire is often
irresistable.
But the strongest argument in favour of the Parson's
Freehold is his duty to speak out fearlessly for what he believes, to follow
the dictates of his conscience and to denounce evil wherever and whenever he
sees it, without fear or favour. This is a prophetic task which sometimes
involves rebuking and even disciplining some of his own people. An awful
dilemma can present itself here; he can keep silent because he believes that by
God's help he can serve his church and people by staying with them. Or he can follow
his conscience and speak out knowing full well that he may be moved the
following year. No man ought to be faced with this, if it can be avoided; it
leaves him a prey to victimisation from below.
In the united Church of the future, each branch of the
Christian Church will bring its own contribution: each branch will have to give
up some of its own special practices and sink some of the differences in order
to obtain unity. There must be some measure of' "give and take". But
many feel that the Parson's Freehold is something we Anglicans can give to the
Universal Church. No system is perfect, but with safeguards already provided
for, this system seems the least open to abuse and the most conducive to spiritual
wellbeing. This conviction is strengthened by the expressed wish of many of our
Roman Catholic and Free Church brethren that this system was incorporated into
their branch of Christendom.
No comments:
Post a Comment