Day 6 Trial of ANiC Parishes v Diocese of New Westminster

June 2, 2009

Bishop Michael Ingham continued his direct evidence in the morning with the assistance of his counsel, George Macintosh, QC.

Approaching 2002 diocesan synod, he said “I thought I needed to take some leadership… I wanted to consult with clergy I knew to be disaffected. I put forward a number of proposals to them. I wanted to gain their reaction and seek their input.” The proposals dated May 23 contained provision for both the Episcopal Visitor and a Conscience Clause. “I was aware that my relationship as chief pastor would be affected… I wanted to assure them they would not be compelled and so proposed a conscience clause.” He said there would be no discrimination on their views and that it was “not to become a litmus test for people as to whether they would or would not receive jobs”. However, “there were members of that gathering that wanted a bishop with jurisdiction”, saying that would contravene the ancient tradition, historic episcopate and the canons of the church. “I was hoping for a compromise…” In his view, they were seeking an arrangement that “would have the effect of balkanizing the diocese”.

Although he received a Legal Opinion just before the Synod saying a diocesan bishop did not have jurisdiction to authorize same-sex blessings, he “said to them this was a little late” and he relied on the Legal & Canonical Report and the General Synod Task Force Report on jurisdiction in determining he had jurisdiction to proceed with same-sex blessings. “I shared it with Chancellor Cadman and neither of us found it persuasive enough.” the rest