St Luke's Church Eccleshill - Articles from "The Link"

Clergy terms of service

Medieval inequality.

Many years ago, in the days when lords of the manor held their lands under the king by feudalism, there were three sorts of clergy.

There were the bishops, who were almost princes in their own rights, with the power to ordain whoever they wished wherever they chose; and the leisure and wealth to hunt, shoot and fish with the best of the gentry. They held their bishoprics for life, and often a large proportion of them were too ill or senile to reach the outlying parts of their huge dioceses.

There were the rectors and vicars, who as beneficed clergy were freeholders of their churches and houses. Their wealth varied greatly according to the endowments of their parishes: so some were desperately poor, and others quite comfortable. They all had security of tenure for life, and couldn't be got rid of except for "conduct unbecoming to a clerk in holy orders": this meant gross immorality and couldn't usually be proved since there were "ecclesiastical" courts to try them, which would whitewash their misdemeanours. They often held several parishes together, putting curates in the ones far away from where they lived. However, they couldn't retire as they would have neither housing nor income if they did.

And there were the unbeneficed clergy - the curates, paid by their vicars, who might actually be in charge of parishes but who had no rights in law at all, and who could be hired or fired at will. They even had no right of appeal against unfair dismissal. On the whole they were desperate, but lived in hope of preferment to a benefice.

It was an unfair world, and the church reflected the poor employment practices of the time.

Better but not perfect.

Nowadays, of course, things have improved ... . Dioceses are smaller. There are pensions. Retirement at age 70 is compulsory. Incomes have been levelled out with the invention in the 1830's of the Church Commissioners. Clergy can't hold more than one parish except under a formal scheme, and they can't disappear leaving a curate in charge. Curates have proper salaries and housing.

But for all that, the legal framework is still the same. Bishops, rectors, and vicars enjoy "freehold" and can't be sacked, but curates still have no job security. There are no "job descriptions" or contracts of employment for clergy - no detailed statements of terms and conditions of service - but clergy are covered by "canon law" which is mostly quite out-of-date. Ecclesiastical Courts may not be corrupt, but the current clergy trial procedure is so awful that modern dioceses won't use it even in cases of gross immorality. The church has created a lot of short-term contract posts: clergy in team ministries ("team rectors" and "team vicars") and "Priests-in-Charge" (in parishes which the diocese wants to amalgamate) are common nowadays and they have no job security. If clergy think they have been unfairly dismissed they can't go to an employment tribunal to put their case, and there is no "employer" who can be sued.

Brave New Church?

The European Court of Human Rights has asked Britain to mend its ways, and give clergy the rights listed in Section 23 of the Employment Relations Act 1999. So there is a consultation period on proposed new "Clergy Terms of Service". You can take part if you wish: at St Mark's Utley on Thursday 8th July at 7.30pm*. Churchwardens have been individually invited, and others are welcome too.

The basic idea is to put all clergy on a new footing to be called "Common Tenure". It would give clergy the same sort of security as teachers have at the moment:

most posts (except first curacies) would be open-ended and not fixed-term;
clergy would have a right to employment tribunals like everyone else, with dioceses as the bodies they could "sue";
dioceses would have to set "ministerial review" procedures linked to in-service training, to help clergy develop professionally and to be the first stage of a "capability" process;
clergy could be removed from office after a capability procedure if their performance did not improve;
the "capability procedure" would involve personnel experts and not be at the whim of bishops and archdeacons who haven't any background in personnel management, and it would have rights of appeal, panels and so on, built in;
clergy could also be removed on grounds of discipline or redundancy or ill health;
clergy would continue to be "office-holders" governed by law rather than employees governed by a company handbook, but the "canon law" would be rewritten to bring it up to date;
the clergy discipline measure (for removing them for bad behaviour) would be improved so as to make it workable(!).

In one way it sounds like navel-gazing by an inward-looking church. But I must admit I think it's all quite important really. Time the church caught up with the best of employment practice!

John Hartley

* Note - the meeting for clergy is the same afternoon at 2.30pm.

	*St Luke's Church, Eccleshill - The Link* magazine** The Link is published monthly at 40p (Senior Citizens 35p), and we deliver free within the parish and post copies (at the reader's expense) to those who request it. Please contact us if you would like a free copy for a trial period. July 2004, Pages 8-9.
Home Page. Index of articles: by subject, by date. In this issue: (July 2004) Galatians, Chorltons, Clergy employment. Question. Other articles on the Church of England.	Clergy terms of service Medieval inequality. Many years ago, in the days when lords of the manor held their lands under the king by feudalism, there were three sorts of clergy. There were the bishops, who were almost princes in their own rights, with the power to ordain whoever they wished wherever they chose; and the leisure and wealth to hunt, shoot and fish with the best of the gentry. They held their bishoprics for life, and often a large proportion of them were too ill or senile to reach the outlying parts of their huge dioceses. There were the rectors and vicars, who as beneficed clergy were freeholders of their churches and houses. Their wealth varied greatly according to the endowments of their parishes: so some were desperately poor, and others quite comfortable. They all had security of tenure for life, and couldn't be got rid of except for "conduct unbecoming to a clerk in holy orders": this meant gross immorality and couldn't usually be proved since there were "ecclesiastical" courts to try them, which would whitewash their misdemeanours. They often held several parishes together, putting curates in the ones far away from where they lived. However, they couldn't retire as they would have neither housing nor income if they did. And there were the unbeneficed clergy - the curates, paid by their vicars, who might actually be in charge of parishes but who had no rights in law at all, and who could be hired or fired at will. They even had no right of appeal against unfair dismissal. On the whole they were desperate, but lived in hope of preferment to a benefice. It was an unfair world, and the church reflected the poor employment practices of the time. Better but not perfect. Nowadays, of course, things have improved ... . Dioceses are smaller. There are pensions. Retirement at age 70 is compulsory. Incomes have been levelled out with the invention in the 1830's of the Church Commissioners. Clergy can't hold more than one parish except under a formal scheme, and they can't disappear leaving a curate in charge. Curates have proper salaries and housing. But for all that, the legal framework is still the same. Bishops, rectors, and vicars enjoy "freehold" and can't be sacked, but curates still have no job security. There are no "job descriptions" or contracts of employment for clergy - no detailed statements of terms and conditions of service - but clergy are covered by "canon law" which is mostly quite out-of-date. Ecclesiastical Courts may not be corrupt, but the current clergy trial procedure is so awful that modern dioceses won't use it even in cases of gross immorality. The church has created a lot of short-term contract posts: clergy in team ministries ("team rectors" and "team vicars") and "Priests-in-Charge" (in parishes which the diocese wants to amalgamate) are common nowadays and they have no job security. If clergy think they have been unfairly dismissed they can't go to an employment tribunal to put their case, and there is no "employer" who can be sued. Brave New Church? The European Court of Human Rights has asked Britain to mend its ways, and give clergy the rights listed in Section 23 of the Employment Relations Act 1999. So there is a consultation period on proposed new "Clergy Terms of Service". You can take part if you wish: at St Mark's Utley on Thursday 8th July at 7.30pm. Churchwardens have been individually invited, and others are welcome too. The basic idea is to put all clergy on a new footing to be called "Common Tenure". It would give clergy the same sort of security as teachers have at the moment: most posts (except first curacies) would be open-ended and not fixed-term; clergy would have a right to employment tribunals like everyone else, with dioceses as the bodies they could "sue"; dioceses would have to set "ministerial review" procedures linked to in-service training, to help clergy develop professionally and to be the first stage of a "capability" process; clergy could be removed from office after a capability procedure if their performance did not improve; the "capability procedure" would involve personnel experts and not be at the whim of bishops and archdeacons who haven't any background in personnel management, and it would have rights of appeal, panels and so on, built in; clergy could also be removed on grounds of discipline or redundancy or ill health; clergy would continue to be "office-holders" governed by law rather than employees governed by a company handbook, but the "canon law" would be rewritten to bring it up to date; the clergy discipline measure (for removing them for bad behaviour) would be improved so as to make it workable(!). In one way it sounds like navel-gazing by an inward-looking church. But I must admit I think it's all quite important really. Time the church caught up with the best of employment practice! John Hartley Note - the meeting for clergy is the same afternoon at 2.30pm.
Top of page.	This web page was last updated on 18th June 2004.