Excommunication
Sir: Sidney Vines ('Excommunication in Sussex', 8 December) has done a service to us by exposing the ambivalent statements of the Bishop of Chichester; these have caused immense distress to the victims of unexplained and totally unjustified excom- munication. Major Vines is also right to express concern about the wider implica- tions, especially the apathy of Church leaders to these extraordinary events. None of them seem to think that the unwarranted withholding of the Sacrament — a monstrous mis-use of clerical office is serious enough to warrant a public repudiation and rebuke. Even the Vicar of Eynesbury was publicly rebuked by the Bishop of Ely when the Bishop was de- scribed in the parish magazine as 'an unmitigated drip' — an offence involving rather less moral turpitude than the spir- itual persecution of two blameless souls. With the honourable exception of Father Peter, Suffragan Bishop of Lewes, the Church hierarchy have offered no comfort to Miss Hervey, though some have ex- pressed concern for what they call 'the trouble in the parish'! The Bishop of Chichester has forbidden his clergy to comment and he himself refuses to answer questions or even to receive a deputation.
Major Vines points out that the Bishop of Chichester has never dealt with the moral justification — only the legal. The really surprising thing is that the Bishop, a reputed expert on Canon Law, has got even this wrong! In his Decision (February 1983) he tried to justify the Rector under an out-dated Prayer Book Rubric, and when this was exposed as incorrect he attempted, in his Further Statement of May 1984, to account for the bans under the 'grave scandal' proviso of Canon B16. The two circumstances which must occur before a priest can, on his own, withhold Communion are as follows:
(1) a 'grave and open sin without repent- ance' and (2) a 'grave and immediate scandal to the congregation'.
I should have thought neither of these applied, even remotely, in this case.
How can the Bishop of Chichester con- tinue to speak with any moral authority when he has so lamentably and irrespons- ibly attempted to condone a serious Church offence, to the detriment of two of his faithful flock? He should investigate more thoroughly and establish and proc- laim the truth.
J. W. Howard
Appletree Cottage, Staplecross, Robe rtsbridge , Sussex
Previous page
