…in any case in which you take the view that you are required by local law to disobey me, or defy my requests, you may not elect to follow the local law rather than fulfil your duty of obedience to me.
Whatever the local law may seek to impose on you, you may not agree to follow it where my lawful requirements require you to do otherwise.
Read it all the latest in this bizarre saga.
Bizarre?
Without knowing exactly what the Dean supposedly did, I still can not see why the Bishop’s letter is bizarre. When, at ordination, the candidate makes certain promises to the Bishop, he is making them unreservedly. Certainly, if he feels that the Bishop is out of line, legally, canonically, or morally, he may choose to challenge the Bishop’s directives. In this case, however, his position depends upon the Bishop’s appointment.
I see nothing bizarre about any supervisor removing an employee from a position in which the employee chooses not to follow the supervisor’s mandate. The provisions for legal, medical, and financial aid are generous, so, it would seem that this is nothing more than what is often called “suspension with pay” when similar questions arise over school teachers, police officers, etc. and the way in which they perform their duties.
Fascinating. As far as I understand it the Laws of the Bailiwick of Jersey are made by HM the Queen in her right as Duke of Normandy on the advice of the States of Jersey.
[blockquote]Canon C 13 – Of the Oath of Allegiance
1. Every person whose election to any archbishopric or bishopric is to be confirmed, or who is to be consecrated or translated to any suffragan bishopric, or to be ordained priest or deacon, or to be instituted, installed, licensed or admitted to any office in the Church of England or otherwise serve in any place, shall first, in the presence of the archbishop or bishop by whom his election to such archbishopric or bishopric is to be confirmed, or in whose province such suffragan bishopric is situate, or by whom he is to be ordained, instituted, installed, licensed or admitted, or of the commissary of such archbishop or bishop, take the Oath of Allegiance in the form following:
I, A B, do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors, according to law: So help me God.[/blockquote]
Have the Church of England lawyers really advised the Bishop of Winchester to commit sedition and perhaps treason against Her Majesty in her territories? And what of the oaths and duties the lawyers have undertaken?
Didn’t Thomas a Becket try something similar?
Queen’s Counsel also take the Oath of Allegiance on appointment.
Mind you, Tim Dakin wouldn’t be the first bishop of Winchester to end up in the Tower of London for breaking his oath to the monarch and the law.
and perhaps his lawyer has some questions to answer from the Bar Council.
[blockquote] “Without knowing exactly what the Dean supposedly did, I still can not see why the Bishop’s letter is bizarre. When, at ordination, the candidate makes certain promises …” [/blockquote]
I suggest looking more carefully at the promises that the candidate makes. Last time I looked, English clergy vowed to obey their bishop inter alia in all things “lawful”
Hence why it was correct to describe the bishop’s letter as “bizarre”. When he writes: “you may not elect to follow the local law rather than follow your oath of obedience to me”, the good bishop gives the impression that he doesn’t know what the oath of obedience actually contains.
Apart from that issue, if I was rendering legal advice to the bishop I would be very wary of him making any suggestion that one of his subordinates break the law in order to obey him. That could lead to issues of a different kind for the bishop.