¹ IICSA, The Anglican Church Investigation Report, Safeguarding in the Church of England and the Church in Wales (2020): anglican-church-investigation-report-6-october-2020%20(1).pdf (accessed 28 January 2025).

² A Jay CBE, The Future of Church Safeguarding (2024): https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2024-06/the-future-of-church-safeguarding.pdf (accessed 28 January 2025); F Scolding KC and B Fullbrook, Independent Review into Soul Survivor (2024): https://static1.squarespace.com/static/547c7dfde4b028a1612a4736/t/67640bf60e696221e51d308d/1734609912112/Soul+Survivor+Review+-+Updated+Final+Report+181224+PDF.pdf (accessed 28 January 2025); K Makin, Independent Learning Lessons Review John Smyth QC (2024): churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2024-11/independent-learning-lessons-review-john-smyth- qc-november-2024.pdf (accessed 28 January 2025).

³ IICSA, The Roman Catholic Church Investigation Report, November 2020: https://www.iicsa.org.uk/reports-recommendations/publications/investigation/roman-catholic-church.html (accessed 28 January 2025).

⁴ IICSA, Child Protection in Religious Settings Report, September 2021: child-protection-religious-organisations-settings-investigation-report-september-2021-.pdf (accessed 28 January 2025).

⁵ S Coleman, New Course in Canon Law at St Stephen’s House, St Stephen’s House News 2024/2025.

⁶ For an early appraisal of the Clergy Discipline Measure 2003, see C Smith, ‘Turbulent Priests: How does the Church of England Discipline its Errant Clergy?’ in R Sandberg, Religion and Legal Pluralism (AHRC/ESRC Religion and Society Series, 2015), 37–52. For more recent criticism, see S Horsman, Emerging Findings from Independent Academic Research, commissioned by Sheldon and conducted by Aston University in collaboration with Sheldon (July 2020).

⁷ Final Report of Working Party reviewing the Clergy Discipline Measure 2003 (Ecclesiastical Law Society, February 2021), which can be accessed here: https://ecclawsoc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Final-Report-of-Working-Party-Reviewing-the-Clergy-Discipline-Measure-2003-1.pdf.

⁸ Approved at General Synod, February 2025, awaiting consideration by the Ecclesiastical Committee of Parliament.

⁹ IICSA, Section A2, 3–4; Section E, 44–52.

¹⁰ H Ohme, Greek Canon Law to 691/2 in W Hartmann and K Pennington (eds), The History of Byzantine and Eastern Canon Law to 1500 (Washington DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2012), 24–114.

¹¹ See the Annexe to this article for a complete list of the Canons grouped according to the Ohme scheme in the translation in N P Tanner (ed), Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils (London, 1990), II.

¹² Confusingly, the word is the same as that used to denote a church law.

¹³ H Chadwick, The Early Church (London, 1990), 49–52.

¹⁴ A Weckwerth, ‘The Twenty Canons of the Council of Nicaea’ in Y R Kim (ed), The Cambridge Companion to the Council of Nicaea (Cambridge, 2021), 158–76, 160.

¹⁵ A W Haddan and W Stubbs, Councils and Ecclesiastical Documents relating to Great Britain and Ireland (Oxford, 1869), 7–8, nn a and b, concluded on the then conflicting evidence, that: ‘It is possible … that British bishops were at the Council, but there is no evidence sufficient either to prove or to negative their presence there’; they noted that Athanasius in 363 AD specifically included Britain in his assessment of the churches of the West mostly holding to the Nicene faith. Modern scholarship, however, seems to scotch the hope: see D M Gwynne, ‘Reconstructing the Council of Nicaea’ in Kim (ed) (note 14), 90–96.

¹⁶ Canon 2 of the Trullanum first listed and authorised the canons of the Apostles, the Synods and the Fathers, including those of Nicaea. See Ohme, ‘History of Byzantine and Eastern Canon Law to 1500’ in Hartmann and Pennington (eds) (note 10), 25.

¹⁷ In particular, Ancyra (314 AD).

¹⁸ See Weckwerth (note 14), 173.

¹⁹ Novatianists: see Weckwerth (note 14), 169–72.

²⁰ Paulinists.

²¹ C Stephens, Canon Law and Episcopal Authority (Oxford, 2015), 4–5.

²² J H Erickson, The Challenge of our Past, Studies in Orthodox Canon Law and Church History (St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, NY, 1991), 17.

²³ Matt 5: 23–4; 18, 15–20; 1 Cor 6: 1–8.

²⁴ P Vallière, Conciliarism, A History of Decision-Making in the Church (Oxford, 2012), 76.

²⁵ 527–565 AD.

²⁶ P Sarris, Justinian, Priest, Emperor, Saint (London, 2023), 283.

²⁷ C Gallagher SJ, Church Law and Church Order in Rome and Byzantium, A Comparative Study (Farnham, 2002), 185.

²⁸ R Williams, ‘Saving our Order’: Becket and the Law (2021) 23 Ecc LJ 127–139, 128.

²⁹ Along with the Second and Third Ecumenical Councils but not the Council of Chalcedon or any subsequent Councils.

³⁰ The Book of Canons, Pedalion, The Rudder by Nicodemus and Agapius. This compilation and commentary was made in the 18th century and translated into English in the early part of the 20th century. Canons are presented by Council and date of issuance, rather than by subject. Respect for this work was so great that nothing was omitted in the 20th century translation, even though some canons contradicted others.

³¹ N Afanasiev, The Canons of the Church: Changeable or Unchangeable? (1967) 11 St Vladimir’s Seminary Quarterly 61–62; J Meyendorff, Contemporary Problems of Orthodox Canon Law, Living Tradition (St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, NY, 1978), 99–114; L J Patsavos, ‘Ecclesiastical Reform: At What Cost?’ (1995) 40 The Greek Orthodox Theological Review, nos 1–2.

³² B Archondonis, A Common Code for the Orthodox Churches, (Kanon 1 [Vienna], 1973), 45–53.

³³ V Mihai, Orthodox Canon Law Reference Book (Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2014), Preface xi.

³⁴ Meyendorff (note 31), 104.

³⁵ Mihai (note 33), 8, n 12.

³⁶ Lumen Gentium, 25. Translation in Tanner (note 11) II, 869. Emphasis added.

³⁷ Code of Canon Law 1983, Title VI, Art 3, Canon 1041§5.

³⁸ N Doe (ed) Church Laws and Ecumenism, A new Path for Christian Unity (London, 2021), 28.

³⁹ Canon 1017.

⁴⁰ Canon 1025§3.

⁴¹ Canons 1031, 378§1.

⁴² Canons 1041, 1042.

⁴³ Code of Canon Law 1983, Canons 273, 274.

⁴⁴ In the Latin Church, Catholic clerics are obliged ‘to observe perfect and perpetual continence … and are therefore bound to celibacy’: Canon 277§1.

⁴⁵ Canon 277§2.

⁴⁶ Canon 283§1.

⁴⁷ Canons 285, 6.

⁴⁸ For example Canon 357 ascribes every cleric to a unit of jurisdiction within the territorial boundaries of the relevant patriarch. Canons 359–366 govern transference to another eparchy. Canon 374 requires clergy to ‘excel in the virtue of chastity’, whether single or married. Canons 385 and 386 deal with the use of temporal goods, restrictions on civil employment and the requirement for consent if leaving the eparchy.

⁴⁹ G Dunn, ‘Catholic Reception of the Canons of Nicaea’, in Kim (ed) (note 14), 347–367, 366.

⁵⁰ Principle 49.

⁵¹ Emphasis added.

⁵² Kemp v Wickes (1809) 3 Phil 264, 276.

⁵³ The Submission of the Clergy Act 1533 provided for the making of canons by the convocations, subject to royal assent, a royal commission to review Roman canon law, with pre-1533 canon laws to continue in force in the meantime: see generally N Doe, ‘Pre-Reformation Canon Law in Post-Reformation English Ecclesiastical Law’ (2022) Ecc LJ 273–296, and note 56 below.

⁵⁴ In, respectively, the Southern and Northern Province.

⁵⁵ Canons of the Church of England. Up to date online edition: https://www.churchofengland.org/about/governance/legal-resources/canons-church-england/canons-website-edition (accessed 3 April 2025). The Table of Promulgation states: ‘The present Code was promulged by the Convocations of Canterbury and York in 1964 and 1969 replacing the whole of the Code of 1603 with the exception of the proviso to Canon 113. Amendments and Revocations of the Code made by the General Synod since 1969 are as follows …’.

⁵⁶ Halsbury’s Laws of England, vol 34 (5th edn, 2025) [11]. Much of the content of the Canons is derived from or replicated in modern Church of England legislation.

⁵⁷ But not disciplinary tribunal chairs. Canons G2, G3: https://www.churchofengland.org/about/leadership-and-governance/legal-resources/canons-church-england/section-g#b121.

⁵⁸ Article XX1: ‘General Councils may not be gathered together without the commandment and will of Princes. And when they be gathered together (forasmuch as they be an assembly of men, whereof all be not governed with the Spirit and Word of God), they may err, and sometimes have erred, even in things pertaining unto God. Wherefore things ordained by them as necessary to salvation have neither strength nor authority, unless it may be declared that they be taken out of holy Scripture’.

⁵⁹ E Bicknell, A Theological Introduction to the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England, 3rd edn (London, 1955), 270, n 1, citing passages from the Reformatio Ecclesiasticarum according ‘great reverence and subscription’ to the Councils of Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus and Chalcedon.

⁶⁰ Principles 31–39.

⁶¹ Canons C1–4, 6, 7, 8, 14, 17 and 18.

⁶² The Rubric to the Ordinal in the Book of Common Prayer provides: ‘If any great crime or impediment be objected, the Bishop shall surcease from ordering that person, until such time as the party accused shall be found clear of that crime’. 28 Hen VIII c 21 Ecclesiastical Licences Act 1533/4, s 3 grants to the Archbishop of Canterbury, his commissary or deputy, power to grant dispensations previously granted by the See of Rome. The diocesan bishop may dispense under Canon C4 para 1, but only in respect of other crimes. Applications are made via the Faculty Office of the Archbishop of Canterbury; the Master of Faculties (a senior ecclesiastical judge) and a bishop make a report to the Archbishop. For a few years after the Reformation, dispensations were still required for physical and moral incapacities: see D Chambers, Faculty Office Registers 1534–49 (Oxford, 1966), xlii–xlviii. A ‘capacity’ was also required for religious dispossessed in Henry’s dissolutions to be released from vows and, in the case of a man, the capacity might enable the holder to hold a benefice for which a secular priest was eligible.

⁶³ Canon C1 (1)– (4).

⁶⁴ See House of Bishops Policy on granting Permission to Officiate, approved by the House of Bishops Delegation Committee, July 2018: chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2018-07/house-of-bishops-policy-on-pto-july-2018.pdf (accessed 10 April 2025). Canon B43 deals with invitations to clergy from other denominations.

⁶⁵ Although confirmed at earlier synods: see Tanner (note 11), 13, nn 2 and 3.

⁶⁶ Guidelines for the Professional Conduct of the Clergy [10.7]: https://www.churchofengland.org/resources/clergy-resources/guidelines-professional-conduct-clergy (accessed 22 April 2025). For a recent discussion of the principles and decisions, see the decisions of the Bishop’s Disciplinary Tribunal in the Diocese of Peterborough in Re Ardwinckle (2025): https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2025-05/determination-the-revd-jonathan-aldwinckle-23-april-2025.pdf (accessed 29 September 2025).

⁶⁷ The obligation to maintain the register was introduced in response to the 2017 Gibb Report by The Church of England (Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure 2020 and the National Ministry Register (Clergy) Regulations 2020.

⁶⁸ Archondonis, 51, XII(5).

⁶⁹ A Kaptijn, ‘The Law of the Eastern Catholic Churches’ in N Doe (ed), Church Laws and Ecumenism: A New Path to Christian Unity (London, 2022), 47–48, although she points out in n 5 that this hypothesis is not uncontroversial.

⁷⁰ N Doe, Christian Law, Contemporary Principles (Cambridge, 2013), cited by J Witte Jr, Foreword to N Doe (ed), Church Laws and Ecumenism (London, 2021), viii.

⁷¹ See A McGrath and R Ombres, ‘Roman Catholic Canon Law’ in N Doe (ed), Church Laws and Ecumenism (n 70), 41, n 18.

⁷² The Principles of Canon Law Common to the Churches of the Anglican Communion: see N Doe and M Hill, Principles of Christian Law (2017) 19 Ecc LJ 138–155 and Doe, Church Laws and Ecumenism (note 70).

⁷³ Possible examples are state responsibility for the Scandinavian Lutheran churches and the necessity for Parliamentary approval of Church of England legislation pursuant to the Church of England (Assembly Powers) Act 1919.

⁷⁴ N Doe and R Ombres OP in M Hill (ed), Clergy Discipline in Anglican and Roman Catholic Canon Law (Cardiff, 2001), chapter 17, 271–297.

⁷⁵ S Hughes Carew and B Earl OP, ‘Colloquium of Anglican and Roman Catholic Canon Lawyers’ (2023) 25 Ecc LJ 255–259.

⁷⁶ Common Worship: Ordination Service, the Ordination and Consecration of a Bishop: ‘Bishops are called to serve and care for the flock of Christ … As chief pastors, it is their duty to share with their fellow presbyters the oversight of the Church, speaking in the name of God and expounding the gospel of salvation. With the Shepherd’s love, they are to be merciful, but with firmness; to minister discipline, but with compassion …’; cf. Canon C18 para 7: ‘Every bishop shall correct and punish all such as be unquiet, disobedient, or criminous, within his diocese, according to such authority as he has by God’s Word and is committed to him by the laws and ordinances of this realm’.

⁷⁷ Constitution of the Church of Ireland, Chapter 8, Part IV.

⁷⁸ Constitution of the Church in Wales, Chapter IX, Parts III, V.

⁷⁹ Certain very serious matters are reserved to be dealt with by the Holy See: see, for example, Apostolic Constitution, Praedicate Evangelium (2022), arts 72, 76.

⁸⁰ Code of Canon Law 1983, Book VII (Processes). Eastern Code 1990, Title XXVIII (The Procedure for Imposing Penalties).

⁸¹ S Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae 1–11, q 98, art 1 (quoted by M Carragher OP, ‘Ecclesiastical Offences in the Roman Catholic Church’, 46, in Hill (ed) (note 74)).

⁸² J H Erickson, The Challenge of our Past (St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1991), 11–12.

⁸³ Canon 1311§2.

⁸⁴ P Collier, ‘50 Years of Safeguarding – 950 Years of Clergy Discipline: where do we go from here?’ (2022) 24 Ecc LJ 148, at 166–169; see also Annex 2 to the ELS Working Group Report.

⁸⁵ Collier (note 84), 164–166.

⁸⁶ The statutory 2023 Guidance on Penalties issued by the Clergy Discipline Commission quotes the 2015 Guidelines for the Professional Conduct of the Clergy: ‘The reputation of the Church in the community depends to a great extent on the integrity and example of its clergy, who should recognize their role as public representatives of the Church. Their lives should enhance and embody the communication of the gospel’: chrome-xtension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2023-03/penalty-guidance-march-2023.pdf#:∼:text=Conditional%20deferment%20(by%20consent%20only,is%20made%20within%20that%20period (accessed 15 April 2025).

⁸⁷ The Measure returned to General Synod in February 2026, following the finding of the Ecclesiastical Committee of Parliament that it was ‘not expedient’ on one point (openness of hearings before tribunals).

⁸⁸ Clergy Discipline Measure 2003, s 1; cf. canon C18 para 7. A complaint may only be brought by a person with a statutorily prescribed interest: s 15.

⁸⁹ ELS Working Group Report, 66–67.

⁹⁰ Under Authority Revisited (GS 2277, 2022), paras 2.1–2.2. The report can be accessed here: www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2022-06/gs-2277-report-by-the-clergy-conduct-measure-implementation-group_1.pdf (accessed 23 April 2025).

⁹¹ Although time may be extended for good reason: Clergy Conduct Measure 2025, s 21(1)(e)(ii).

⁹² A senior secular lawyer: Clergy Discipline Measure 2003, ss 3 and 4.

⁹³ Clergy Conduct Measure 2025, s 39(5)–(6); cf. Clergy Discipline Measure 2003, s 19(2).

⁹⁴ Votes in favour of the CCM at the February 2025 General Synod were almost unanimous:

For Against Abstentions

Bishops 25 0 0

Clergy 128 0 1

Laity 145 0 2

⁹⁵ As summarised in Under Authority Revisited (note 90), a report to General Synod from the Clergy Conduct Measure Implementation Group, paras 1.10–1.11. See also Collier (note 84), 166–1699.

⁹⁶ Under Authority Revisited (note 90), para 4.5.