|PIC1|The second plenary meeting of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Panel of Reference has been held at Saint Andrew’s House in London, 9-12 May 2006. The Panel announced that it has decided to renew its procedures, and clarify any misunderstanding there may be of the mandate it had received from the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Easing into its meeting, the Panel first sought to consider the progress made so far. It highlighted the fact that since the Panel’s first meeting ten months ago, it has received three references from Dr Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury.

In the Panel’s first communiqué it stated that speed of response was an important factor, and that it would normally seek to offer responses to the Church of England head within six months of reference. Hence, reviewing progress has been put as a core priority by the Panel.

The Panel’s first reference came from the Diocese of Forth Worth in the Episcopal Church USA (ECUSA). The Diocese does not ordain women to the priesthood, and has appealed to the Archbishop of Canterbury on the grounds that it is in serious theological dispute with the Episcopal Church, which at its 72nd General Convention in 1997 passed canons to make the ordination of women mandatory, explains the Anglican Communion news service.

The Panel discussed its preliminary draft of its report, and hopes that after further consultation with parties, that its recommendations will be published in the near future.

A second reference has been submitted by the Diocese of Connecticut, also part of the ECUSA. The appeal came from six parishes calling out against the oversight of their Bishop.

However, in January 2006, civil proceedings were initiated in relation to the situation. The Panel decided last year, as a matter of principle, that it should not normally consider references where civil cases are proceeding.

|TOP|The Anglican Communion news service commented on the matter: “The Panel is not a court, and its recommendations, which may be published with the consent of the Archbishop of Canterbury, have moral and pastoral force. Civil proceedings should either have come to completion or be stayed if the work of the Panel is to have space in which to operate. On this basis, the Archbishop of Canterbury has withdrawn the reference to the Panel until such time as the matter of the civil cases has been resolved.”

The third reference comes after an appeal by parishes in the Diocese of New Westminster in the Anglican Church of Canada. The appeal is one for alternative Episcopal oversight.

This reference was unable to proceed until March 2006 as the identity of applicants who wished to be named were established. Prior to this step the matter could not proceed.

However, since this was established the Panel has been able to create a preliminary draft of its report.

Representatives of the New Westminster parishes invited the Panel to meet with them during their gathering. The Chair of the Panel, accompanied by the secretaries, met with the representatives to explain the procedures, and indicate that representatives of the Panel would be visiting Vancouver in Canada in the immediate future in order to meet with both parties.

Following the discussions, two additional references were received.

The Panel also used the time together to elect Ms Fung Yi Wong as Deputy Chair of the Panel.

The Panel announced that it had decided to renew its procedures, and clarify any misunderstanding there may be of the mandate it had received from the Archbishop of Canterbury.

|AD|The Panel arose from the request of the Primates at Dromantine, Northern Ireland, in February 2005, for the Archbishop of Canterbury to establish a panel to advise him by supervising the adequacy of arrangements for extended Episcopal ministry in situations where parishes were in serious theological dispute with their dioceses, or dioceses in dispute with their provinces.

In these occurrences, the recommendations of the Panel are intended to assist the situation by offering to the parties an independent assessment of those measures which might move the situation forward.

The recommendations hope to provide sufficient protection to parties who fear oppressive action by ecclesiastical authorities on account of their theological differences.

In addition, the Archbishop of Canterbury has indicated that he would also like the window to remain open to him to ask advice from the Panel on other grave situations of dispute which may arise in the Communion.

The recommendations of the Panel in such cases would be directed towards “reconciliation, and would offer advice to the Archbishop of Canterbury on how his ministry could assist the situation.”

The members of the Panel are:

Chairman
The Most Revd Dr Peter Carnley
former Archbishop of Perth and Primate of the Anglican Church of Australia

Members
His Honour Michael Evans QC
President of the Provincial Court of the Church in Wales
The Revd Dr Joseph Galgalo
Lecturer in Systematic and Contextual Theologies,
St. Paul’s United Theological College, Limuru, Kenya
(not present for this meeting)
Canon Bernard Georges
Chancellor of the Diocese of the Seychelles
The Rt Revd Khotso Makhulu CMG
former Primate of Central Africa
The Revd Canon John Moore
former International Director of the Intercontinental Church Society
Mrs Rubie Nottage
Chancellor of the Province of the West Indies
The Rt Revd Claude Payne
former Bishop of Texas
The Most Revd Dr John Sentamu
Archbishop of York
(not present for this meeting)
The Rt Revd Maurice Sinclair
former Primate of the Southern Cone
Mr Robert Tong
Member, Church Law Commission of the Anglican Church of Australia
The Revd Stephen Trott
Church Commissioner, the Church of England
Ms Fung Yi Wong
Registrar, Hong Kong Sheng Kung Hui

Secretariat
The Revd Canon Gregory K Cameron
Deputy Secretary General, Anglican Communion Office
Dr Brian Hanson
former Legal Adviser to the Archbishops’ Council, Church of England
The Revd Canon John Rees
Legal Adviser, the Anglican Consultative Council