The Auckland Star: WITH WHICH ARE INCORPORATED The Evening News, Morning News and The Echo. THURSDAY, OCTOBER 20, 1904. THE SYNOD AND THE CHAPTER

Auckland Star, Volume XXXV, Issue 251, 20 October 1904, Page 4

The Auckland Star: WITH WHICH ARE INCORPORATED The Evening News, Morning News and The Echo.

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 20, 1904. THE SYNOD AND THE CHAPTER

For the cause that laclts assistance For the wrong that needs resistance, For the future in the distance, And tlit good that tec can do.

Few subjects that have ever come before the Auckland Diocesan Synod have roused keener or more general interest than the question as to the Order of the Good Shepherd raised yesterday by Mr Speight. Our readers will find a full report of the proceedings elsewhere in this issue, and we must he content to refer rather summarily to the chief points in a debate that was followed with eager attention by the audience, and'will doubtless be a fruitful source of controversy in this city for a considerable time to come. -Mr Speight's original resolution was a protest against the establishment in this diocese of any religious order requiring as conditions of membership vows of celibacy, surrender of income, or implicit obedience. The reason for this protest was the reorganisation by the Cathedral Chapter of a church mission as an '"order" in which members are required to take these tows. It is generally known that in 1899 a society was established here under a constitution drawn up by the Cathedral Chapter with the title of the Mission of the Good Shepherd. The objects of this mission, as stated in its constitution, were mission work, rescue work, -visiting of public institutions, and aid to the parish clergy. In August last year the Cathedral Chapter reorganised the mission, and duly reported to the Synod that it had approved of the. new constitution under the title of the Order of the Good Shepherd. The Synod was not asked to discuss details of the new constitution, nor was there any intimation given that its character was entirely different from that of the original mission. It seems, however, that the Order of the Good Shepherd bears no sort of resemblance to the society established in 1899. That society was formed for charitable and philanthropic.work on the lines we have indicated above. The purpose of the new Order, as set forth in its constitution, is '-the cultivation and deepening of the devotional life amongst women associated together" under the control of the Bishop. Women wishing to* eutcr this sisterhood must surrender their income to the Order during membership, j or arrange for its disposition otherwise in accordance with the directions of the Chapter; they must vow to remain unmarried while in tho Order; they, must vow to obey the Bishop as head of trie Order "in all things lawful and honest"; and they must hold themselves bound by these vows until the Bishop shall "dispense" them from their declaration. It is only necessary to compare' the statements we have given of the objects of the original mission and the new Order to see that there is a. wide difference between tho purposes of the two societies. "Mr Speightfs object in moving his resolution was, therefore, to protest against the usurpation of the Synod's powers involved in the establishment of tho new Order by the Chapter without consulting the Synod as to its constitution; and to protest further against the eharacer of the new Order as inconsistent with the principles and traditions of Anglicanism.

On both these points we are entirely, in accord with Mr Speight; and we are glad to take this 'opportunity of congratulating him on the temper and touc of his speech to tho Syn-vl. No attempt was made to introduce personal feeling or to attribute unworthy motives; and Mr Speight succeeded admirably in his difficult task of combining bold criticism with the respect due to the authority of the Chapter and the Bishop. On the purely formal side, Mr Speight's case is undoubtedly strong. It is not necessary to assitma that the Chapter deliberately avoided any reference to the constitution of the new Order in its report to the Synod; and Mr Speight disclaimed any intention of suggesting such a charge. But there was certainly a distinct "economy of frankness" in the attitude of the Chapter 'toward the Synod on this question. Apart from this, however, Mr Speight is obviously right in his contention that it was never contemplated that the Cathedral Chapter should establish such an Order in this diocese without instruction, from the Synod. To do so, it seems to us, was a distinct encroachment by the Chapter on tha powers of the Synod, and this infringement of the Synod's rights is aggravated by the highly controversial nature of the change that the Chapter took upon itself to make.

For the new Order of the Good Shepherd is based upon a constitution that certainly appeals to the average lay mind as distinctly non-Anglican. A community of celibate women "surrendering their incomes to the Order, vowing absolute obedience to their spiritual head, and able to withdraw from the Order only when he chooses to release them from their vows-—how does su«h an organisation differ from the monastic orders which, with their "threefold vow" of poverty, celibacy, and obedience have always been recognised as the most distinctive feature, of Roman Catholicism? On the nature of such vows it would of course be possible, to write a very lengthy dissertation. But it may be sufficient to"remind'our readers that it was chiefly the existence and the activity of the orders based upon these principles that rendered the Reformation inevitable, and that the struggle against their infiuehce was the foundation of Protestantism. Our own convictions ..are wholly in agreement with Mr Speight's; that celibacy is opposed to natural law, that the existence of an order of "women Withou* husbands vowed to celibacy and ruled by male.priests themselves vowed tv celibacy" ia not only opposed to, Anglican principles, but ia certain to. produce great moral and spiritual evils, and that the establishment of such authority in

religious and material affairs as is claimed for the head of "this Order is fraught with grave, peril,- not ,oniy to the English Church, but to the whole community. But whether the members of the Synod agree with these views or hot, it is hardly possible to deny thai:, as Mr Speight claims, the institution ot such an Order is a reversion toward the practices and 'doctrines which the martyr-founders of, . the Reformed Church died to overthrow; and no doubt this was the aspect of the question that chiefly influenced the Synod last night in. adopting Mr Speight's amended resolution requesting . the Chapter to "reconsider the terms of the constitution'"' of the obnoxious Order. But while we.heartily approve of the Synod's decision we cannot refrain from expressing our astonishment at the arguments used . by. some of those who took part .in the discussion. Canon MacJlurray tried to deieni the constitution of the Order by pointing out that persons who left the Order might marry and regain control of their property. But the speaker, and others on the same side, appea: to ignore altogether the important fact that members of the Order avo bound by their declaration of obedience until such time as the Bishop V-iall release them from it. In the face of this explicit statement in the "declaration," bow can Mr Upton or Canon Mac-Murray, or Bishop Neligan contend that any member can leave the Order whenever stu: pleases V If the vow of obedleiu-e moans anything, it means that the Head of the Order could command its members to remain in it as long as he pleased. What security has the Church that such absolute authority would never be abused ? Is it inconceivable that at some future time this irresponsible power over the lives and fortunes of the members of the Order might be used in ways that those who now approve of the Order wounl condemn ? The defence of the clause dealing with the property of members is, of course, open to the same answer. The vow of obedience and the provision for "other arrangements" for the disposition of tho income of members would leave their worldly goods absolutely at the mercy of the Order, which, as the constitution shows, they may not leave without the Bishop's consent. We cannot understand how any member of the Synod could under such circumstances desire to evade the full and free discussion of such a subject; yet we find Archdeacon Willis deprecating auy debate of the question, and IMr Upton endeavouring to waive it aside as a triviality not worthy the attention of the Synod. By the w&3', Mr Upton's defence of the Order as a stimulus to "silly women" to engage in Church work is, to our thinking, unpardonably offensive, but. it is no less illogical. Are we to understand that Mr Upton prefers to see the organisation of his' Church directed by the whims and fancies of "silly women?" As a counterblast to Mr Upton we invite tne attention of our readers iaoro particularly to Canon Beatty's defenc :e of the discussion, and his appeal to his hearers to preserve the identity "of the full Scriptural Protestant evangelical faith."

It remains to refer briefly to the reply made by Bishop Neligan to Mr. Speight's protest. With every desire to give the Bishop credit for the best of motives we cannot sympathise with the position he has taken up. We have looked hi vain for the ''inflammatory language" which the Bishop attributed to the speakers on the other side; and we-dissent entirely from, his opinion that harm will be done to the. Church or the cause of the Church by this discussion. But even if harm should ensue, let it be attributed to those who made Mr. Speight's action necessary. The Cathedral Chapter, by usurping the functions of the Synod, and by organising a religious order without its authority .on lines that many of its members have refused to recognise as Anglican or Protestant, compelled those who cling to the high traditions of their faith to make this protest; aud the harm, if harm there be, has not been dona by those who have boldly insisted that the well-defined constitution of their church must be respected. But we are inclined to take a more optimistic view of the situation than Bishop Neligan, and we have no doubt that the deliberations of Synod and Chapter will ultimately evolve a constitution for the new Order to which all true churchmen can cheerfully and conscientiously subscribe.