Evidence submitted by Revd Paul John Benfield
A. INTRODUCTION
1. I am the Revd Paul John Benfield of St
Nicholas Vicarage, Fleetwood, Lancashire.
2. I am currently incumbent of the parish
of St Nicholas, Fleetwood in the diocese of Blackburn. I have
served in a parish which was under the patronage of the Lord Chancellor
and have been interviewed by the Lord Chancellor's Ecclesiastical
Secretary with a view to serving in a parish of which the Lord
Chancellor was patron.
B. SERVING IN
A PARISH
OF WHICH
THE LORD
CHANCELLOR WAS
PATRON
1. From 1993 to 1997 I was team vicar in
the Lewes Team Ministry (Lewes All Saints, St Anne, St Michael
and St Thomas) in the diocese of Chichester. This was a three
parish team with two stipendiary clergy (a team rector and a team
vicar). The team vicar was appointed by the bishop and the team
rector jointly and the team rector was appointed by the Lord Chancellor
for three out of four turns and a special patronage board for
the fourth turn.
2. During my time in Lewes the parishes
were visited by the Lord Chancellor's Assistant Ecclesiastical
Secretary. He met the clergy and representatives of the laity
and showed a good knowledge of the parishes. At that time pastoral
reorganisation was being discussed for the whole town of Lewes
and so he was able to hear the concerns about this. He was able
to assure those present that the Lord Chancellor would have to
be consulted about pastoral re-organisation and the sale of a
benefice house and that he was aware of the complex churchmanship
issues in the town. This gave considerable comfort to those present
who, at that time, felt pastoral reorganisation was being pushed
through by an unsympathetic area bishop and archdeacon who were
intent on creating a team for the whole town which most people
considered unworkable.
3. I left Lewes in 1997. Since then the
Lewes Team Ministry has been dissolved and a new benefice of Lewes
St Michael and St Thomas at Cliffe with All Saints has been created.
The Lord Chancellor is patron of this benefice, alternating with
the Society for the Maintenance of the Faith and the Bishop, acting
jointly.
C. BEING CONSIDERED
FOR APPOINTMENT
TO A
LORD CHANCELLOR'S
LIVING
1. My next parish did not work out and it
became apparent to me within 18 months that things would never
improve. However, my area bishop did not support my desire for
me to move and so nothing was going to be forthcoming within that
diocese. Accordingly, I consulted the Clergy Appointments Advisor
and in 1999 was placed on his list of clergy seeking a move. He
automatically sends details of all such clergy to the Ecclesiastical
Secretaries.
2. I was soon contacted by the Assistant
Ecclesiastical Secretary (Mr Nicholas Wheeler) and asked to attend
for an interview in Whitehall. I was impressed by Mr Wheeler's
gentle but searching questions about me and my ministry. It was
quite obvious that he was only interested in finding suitable
priests for the livings for which the Lord Chancellor was responsible
and that he had no axe to grind about churchmanship or other matters.
3. There was no difficulty with me expressing
my opposition to women priests and stating a desire to serve in
a parish which had passed resolutions A & B under the Priests
(Ordination of Women) Measure 1993. At that time it was widely
felt that many bishops were not interested in appointing those
opposed to women priests and so to come to a patron's representative
who was acting fairly and willing to embrace all legitimate views
within the Church of England was refreshing.
4. After discussion it was decided that
I might be suitable for either of two northern livings. After
Mr Wheeler had consulted the Bishop of Whitby arrangements were
made for my wife and I to visit the benefice of Loftus in Cleveland
with Carlin How and Skinningrove. The Lord Chancellor's Department
paid our travel expenses (and would have paid for hotel accommodation
had that been necessary).
5. This benefice turned out not to be suitable
for me, but I felt that the whole process of trying to find a
suitable priest for the parish and a suitable parish for me had
been well conducted by a fair and independent patron, not subject
to diocesan control.
D. CONCLUSIONS
1. The Lord Chancellor's ecclesiastical
patronage is an important part of securing appointments to livings
independent of the control of ever-increasing diocesan centrality.
2. I would want to endorse the comments
by Lord Mackay of Clashfern, Lord Chancellor, in an address to
the Ecclesiastical Law Society on 26 March 1994 (published at
3 Ecc LJ 201). Some people view patronage as an anachronism with
a questionable place in the modern Church. My experience is that
it is a positive role which has its place in the Established Church.
It can act as a check and balance for the benefit of bishops,
clergy and laity alike. Most importantly it provides a means for
movement between dioceses and thus encourages comprehensiveness
in the parish system within the Church of England
3. It should not be forgotten that the role
of the Lord Chancellor as patron is not limited to the appointment
of incumbents. He is also involved with pastoral reorganisation
and the sale of parsonages of livings of which he is patron. As
such he is exercises an element of the Royal Prerogative and he
can use this to bring some extra pressure to bear for the good
of the parish, or the incumbent or to assist the parish (see Lord
Mackay at 3 Ecc LJ at 203).
4. I believe, therefore, that if the Lord
Chancellor's patronage must be transferred it should revert to
the Crown. Since the Ecclesiastical Secretaries already act for
both the Crown and the Lord Chancellor this will cause minimal
administrative changes.
5. To transfer the patronage to the Church
(in whatever form) would remove another of the essential checks
and balances which exist in the Church of England. It would make
it more difficult for independent minded clergy, who may disagree
with their bishop or the current diocesan policy, to move into
new parishes or dioceses. It would also remove a further check
on over zealous bishops and archdeacons in pastoral reorganisation
or selling of parsonages.
6. There may be good reasons why the Lord
Chancellor's legal functions need revising. But to make changes
to the operation of ecclesiastical patronage on the back of those
changes is wholly unjustified. It is another example of the dismantling
of the subtle constitution of England by a government which does
not seem to appreciate how it all works together to protect the
various different interests. To transfer ecclesiastical patronage
to anyone other than the Crown would be a most regrettable act
by the Lord Chancellor which would hardly be consistent with his
ancient role as keeper of the king's conscience.
Rev Paul J Benfield
7 January 2004
| 
