ANGLICAN BISHOPRICS

Evening Star, Issue 22464, 8 October 1936, Page 2

ANGLICAN BISHOPRICS

ELECTIONS TO THE SEES PRESENT METHOD HAPHAZARD RECOMMENDATIONS BY DUNEDIN SYNOD Opposition to the proposals of General Synod to take away from diocesan synods the right to elect bishops to vacant sees was expressed by the Anglican Synod of the Diocese of Dunedin last night. The present system was described as haphazard and very difficult, and, so that advice on the names submitted for election could be provided, the Synod suggested that an advisory board consisting ot no fewer than three bishops of the Province of New Zealand should attend to electing Synod. On behalf of the commission set up last year by the Synod, the Rev. W. A. Curzon-Siggers moved the following recommendations: —• “ That the Diocesan Synod is opposed to the proposed amendment to clause 23 of the constitution, as it takes away the Synod’s right to nominate a bishop.” “That Synod is not in agreement with the terms of the proposed amendment to Title A, Canon 1., in its present form, though it would welcome some provision for advice to the electing Synod with regard to the names submitted to it. This advice could bo given by a Procedure Committee elected bv the Diocesan Synod or by an external Provincial Committee appointed by the Bench of Bishops, or by both such committees.”

In General Synod in 1934, said Mr Curzon-Siggers, it appeared to have been thought wise that some new method should be devised whereby the method of election of bishops might be put on a better footing than had been the case in the past, owing to tho difficulties that arose with a large body of electors in the Synod and the difficulty of obtaining information about suitable persons and so forth. The proposed amendment to the Canon was considered to bo so important that it was referred to each Diocesan Synod for consideration before it was brought up for finality at the next General Synod in 1937. Tho Dunedin Synod Commission had held three meetings. Summarising the proposal, ho said the Canon proposed to set up a committee of the Diocesan Synod and a provincial committee to select a bishop in future, and submit the name or names selected to the bishops for final choice.

The provisions were briefly as follow :

An electoral college will ho appointed by each Diocesan Synod every year. It will consist of six to 10 clergy and an equal number of laity (numbers to bo fixed hy tho Synod). Failing election by the Synod tho Standing Committee will elect. Voting is to be by orders. The Synod is also to elect a supplementary body of three clergy and three laity to act in rotation in place of any of the original body unable to act The college will elect its own chairman. The quorum will be twothirds of each order. Assent of majority of each order present at the meeting is necessary to business. A provincial advisory council will he appointed by General Synod at each three-yearly meeting. It consists of archishop (ex officio, chairman), two other diocesan bishops, two priests of the province, two communicant laymen of the province. Supplementary councillors of equal number are to be elected, to take the place of any unable to act. No member of the diocese where the election is to ho can act. Tho quorum will he five, including at least two bishops and one each of the other orders.

The council will meet in the city of the appropriate college. The diocesan college will select one to three names in order of preference. They must bo proposed by one of the cleray and seconded by one of the laity. V oting will he by orders. The college will meet the council and give it the names and any information it desires. The council confers with the college, and then meets privately. Power is given to confer further together and get further information and ask for reconsideration of names. The council will then approve the selection or order of preference, or recommend alterations, or refuse any name. The college can select fresh names, or proceed with the nomination of those refused. If the council cannot agree, the college can proceed with the nomination of those selected, but any fresh names must be submitted to the council. If the college cannot finally decide on names the vicargeneral of commissary is informed, and ho summons the Diocesan Synod to give fresh instructions to the college, which shall then act with the council as before.

If instructed by the Synod the college can .delegate its power of choice either absolutely or as it. thinks fit to any persons. Delegation and names of those appointed to choose are to bo submitted to the council, and they have the same powers over the choice as over nominations. If the delegates are approved they can select without further reference to the council. As soon as selection of names for bishop is completed the vicar-general or commissary notifies the name or names to the primate or senior bishop, and ho informs all the diocesan bishops then in New Zealand. These, by a majority, shall confirm or refuse the nominations. The primate shall then notify the persons selected in order of preference until the offer is accepted. If there is no acceptance by the bishops or nominees, the diocesan college and council proceed do novo. When an offer is accepted the nominee's assent to the constitution is obtained and sent to all iho bishops. All proceedings -are to bo confidential, and only the name of the accepted is to be made known. Diocesan Synods can, until canon 23 Is duly amended, adopt this procedure, but the nomination must then ho sanctioned by General Synod or the diocesan standing committees, in addition to the bishops as above prescribed. “ The whole proposal would have the effect of taking the actual election away from the Diocesan Synods.”' said Mr Curzon-Siggers, who added that the commission’s report was, in effect, a oountcr-nroposa! to that made by General Svnod. The nuostiou was: How far wc T ’e tlmy to object to the present nietlmd. or how far should thev aecont the General Synod's proposal? The amendment to the canon proposed a very complicated and. probably, costly system, while the present system was very haphazard and difficult, and often led to awkward situations in the electing Synod. The recommendations were adopted, after the following . amendment was made in committee to the second one:— “ This advice could bo given by an advisory board consisting of bishops of the province not fewer than three in number who would have advisory but not voting power.”