BANNING A CURATE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVIII, Issue 20929, 20 July 1931, Page 6

BANNING A CURATE.

ACTION OF DR. BABNEgS-v PRIMATE OVERRULES BISHOP, "A FIT AND PROPER PERSON"j [FROM OUR OWN CORRESPONDENT. 1 ' LONDON, June The Archbishop of Canterbury has over*

ruled the Bishop of Birmingham, >C rt , Barnes. In November, 1929, the patrons of St. Aidan's Church, Small Heath Birmingham, one of whom is the Bishop of Truro, Dr. Frere, presented the Rev, George Doyle Simmonds, assistant curat® of St. Mary's, Tyne Dock, County Dur. ham, to the perpetual curacy of St< Aidan's. • s

Dr.- Barnes refused to admit Mr. Sim. monds unless be gave an undertaking noli to havei Benediction or other Anglo. Catholic services, not authorised by Prayer Book. The trustees took the mat. ter to the Chancery Court, and last-April when Mr. Justice Bennett ordered Dr. Barnes to institute Mr. Simmonds tha bishop reiterated his intention of going to prison rather than yield in spiritual matters to the authority of a secular court. The question was left in abeyance for some time, but on February 10 Mr., Justice Maugham, in the Chancery DivU sion, directed a writ to be issued to Dr. Lang„ to admit and licence " a fit and proper person to the benefice."

Archbishop Lang, in a letter to Dr, Barnes, explains that having examined Mr. Simmonds, he is satisfied " as to his spiritual learning and- soundness in the faith as it. i 3 held in the Church of England .... and, in particular, that

as regards the Holy Communion", he does not hold and will not teach the peopfe that any adoration ' ought to be one unto the sacramental Bread and Wine,' or ' unto any corporal presence of Christ's natural Flesh and Blood.' " Statement by Mr. Simmonds. Mr. Simmonds, said Dr. Lang, had informed! him that at St. Aidan's there hay been and was nQ continuous reservation of the sacrament, " and, consequently, no services have been or are held in connect tion with the reserved sacrament." •

The Archbishop states that Mr. Simmonds will still be subject to the bishop's veto, and to the suits promoted in the Spiritual Courts for any ceremonies or practices alleged to be illegal. The letter concludes: " You will, I am ture, believe me when Isay that it is very distressing and, indeed,, painful, - to me to be thug obliged to intervene in the administration of your diocese. But I must not allow personal feelings to affect what seems to me to be my duty." In reply, the bishop submits that " tha existing situation is unparalleled and that Your Grace is, in fact, making a precedent." Quoting a statement in the Archbishop's letter, the bishop adds: " I would inquire why it is ' manifestly unjust' to ask a man presented to a church where grave irregularities take place, contrary to the law of the land and the bishop's expressed directions, whether he Avili causa such grave irregularities to cease." .Litigation " a ( Scandal."

Referring to the Archbishop's remindcu. that Mr. Simmonds is still subject to the bishop's veto or action in the'- Church Courts for illegal ceremonies, Dr. Barnes says:—" This suggestion of further litigation troubles me greatly. The recent litigation has been a scandal ... As Your Grace knows, I personally will not try to restrain ecclesiastical disorder bj; process of law." ,H Dr. Barnes recalls the rejection by Parliament of the Revised Prayer Book—and the doctrine of reservation—and con< 'eludes: —"The St. Aidan's Patronage trustees have in effect claimed to decide that reservation shall be continued at St.. Aidan's Church, contrary to the will ol! Parliament. I must with respect point out that unless by a more complete examination Your Grace assures yourself that Mr. Simmonds will not adopt reservation at St. Aidan's, your present action will make it possible for the decision of Parliament to be overruled in any instance where the bishop is not willing to bring a legal action against a clergyman whom Your Grace may admit."