January 2005 Court says class action on schools may proceedPrimate’s Fund approves new standards for reserve fund investments
LATEST ISSUE | ARCHIVES | SUBSCRIPTION CHANGES | CONTACT US
November 21, 2008
Home > January 2005 FONT SIZE: A A A A
Spotlight
what is RSS?

Classified Ads

Employment
Bed & Breakfasts
Conferences
Anniversaries


About these ads
Some marriage commissions remain
Solange De Santis
staff writer
Jan 1, 2005

In the months since General Synod in June gave dioceses the right to retain or abolish their matrimonial commissions, just over one-third have eliminated them and about two-thirds have retained them, with some under review.

The commission, which usually consists of the bishop and one or two other appointees of the bishop, rules on whether a divorced person whose former partner is still living may remarry. The commissions were established by the General Synod of 1962, which approved Canon XXI, called the marriage canon (or church law).

Prior to Canon XXI, Anglican priests could not officiate at any wedding involving a divorced person whose former partner was still living. The Anglican church has relaxed its attitude toward divorce in the intervening decades and the general feeling now is that the suitability of a couple for marriage is a matter best left to the discretion of the parish priest, with room for consultation with the diocesan bishop.

Anglican Journal surveyed the bishops – representing all 30 dioceses – attending the fall meeting of the house of bishops in Saskatoon last November.

Those whose dioceses had discontinued the commissions commented that the process was often a rubber stamp, that it was impersonal and antiquated. Several bishops whose dioceses retained the commissions said the decision was "for now," but that their value was under review. Several dioceses were strongly in favour of keeping the commissions, saying that clergy had requested their retention and that they were useful for both the couple and the minister.

Question: Has the diocese abolished/retained the matrimonial commission and why?

Algoma

retained but will be reviewed at May 2005 synod

Arctic

retained – helpful for marriage partners and clergy

Athabasca

retained – clergy need the pastoral buffer of the commission

Brandon

suspended – fewer applications in recent years

British Columbia

abolished – clergy decide, may consult with bishop

Caledonia

abolished by ecclesiastical province

Calgary

mostly abolished, but may be used in difficult situations

Central Interior

retained but not often used, will likely be abolished

Central Nfld.

retained – commission works with clergy, is useful pastorally

Eastern Nfld./Lab.

retained – helps clergy and provides marriage preparation

Edmonton

retained at clergy request

Fredericton

retained – seen as valuable pastoral tool

Huron

abolished – rector makes the decision

Keewatin

abolished – applications are made directly to the bishop now

Kootenay

abolished – diocese led the move for change to the marriage canon

Montreal

retained but under review

Moosonee

retained, but will be reviewed at diocesan synod in July 2005

New Westminster

abolished – rector makes the decision

Niagara

abolished – have not used it for years

Nova Scotia/P.E.I.

retained only for difficult cases

Ontario

abolished – clergy have been issued guidelines

Ottawa

retained for difficult cases; clergy may decide

Qu'Appelle

abolished – synod had requested it 10 years ago

Quebec

retained on an on-call basis for clergy who want to use it

Rupert's Land

retained for now, but being reviewed

Saskatchewan

retained at request of clergy and synod

Saskatoon

retained, but support lukewarm among clergy and diocesan council

Toronto

abolished, clergy given guidelines and may consult with bishop

Western Nfld.

abolished, clergy may consult bishop or chancellor

Yukon

abolished by province, diocese to establish its own



About these ads



Anglican Journal does not endorse and is not responsible for the content of external sites. External links will open in a new window

Copyright 1998- 2008 | Latest Issue | Archives | Contact Us | Search | Privacy Policy | Writers' guidelines