Friday, 9 June 2006

Coekin document overflow

It’s hard to keep up with the flow of material: here is another tranche of documents from the CO-MISSION initiative:

The letter by Richard Coekin’s lawyers to the Archbishop’s lawyers concerning the Archbishop’s decision PDF file

The ‘Skeleton Arguments’ presented at the Appeal on behalf of:
Rev Coekin [sic] PDF file
and on behalf of The Bishop of Southwark PDF file.

A legal note of advice concerning the accuracy of the press statements by the Archbishop and the Bishop of Southwark PDF file

Having read all these documents, I can only conclude that Mr Coekin and his lawyers have no intention of accepting the archbishop’s determination. I do hope I am wrong.

Posted by Simon Sarmiento on Friday, 9 June 2006 at 6:46pm BST | TrackBack
You can make a Permalink to this if you like
Categorised as: Church of England
Comments

Richard Coekin's lawyers reject the archbishop’s press statement but I see no reason to fear that they will not accept the determination.

I myself agree entirely with Andrew Goddard's assessment of the situation, maybe excepting that I would not have chosen "barely restrained delight" to characterise Richard Coekin's response.

So this case may well be a set back for Reform but it doesn't seem very troublesome for Coekin himself. He now has two more episcopally ordained clergy among his staff and even given the growth of the plants, it will be some time before they need more clergy - hopefully by then relationships are no longer impaired.

Co-Mission is an inter-denominational project. So there probably won't be many in the congregations who will be bothered about the fact that these are CESA clergy rather than CofE clergy. Richard Coekin claims, I believe, that Co-Mission has never established an Anglican plant in a parish in which the parish church was opposed to such a plant. So to be told that he musn't do that, shouldn't feel like much of a restriction.

Posted by: Thomas Renz on Saturday, 10 June 2006 at 12:07pm BST

Why do I hear no repentance from Tom Butler?

The report of the Bishop of Winchester found:

"...that the procedure leading up to [the Bishop of Southwark's] decision ... was seriously flawed."

"summary revocation was a disproportionate outcome in the circumstances of the case"

"The failure to afford the Appellant the opportunity of an oral hearing amounted to procedural unfairness. Had the parties met face-to-face many of the misconceptions about episcopal authority, the status of the ordination and the Appellant’s involvement in it would have been capable of resolution."

"His decision letter did not, however, do justice to the complexity of the issues before him. It contained no reasoned rejection of the Appellant’s arguments, neither did it record the Respondent’s findings of fact or law."

Bishop Butler has been found to have acted in an unfair and disproportionate way. Where is the repentance?

Posted by: Andy on Thursday, 6 July 2006 at 9:37am BST
Post a comment









Remember personal info?

Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select 'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical, advertising, or other purposes.