Home

Church of Ireland Home

Day 2

Inter Diocesan Conversations Between Tuam and Limerick Receive Synod’s Support

On going conversations between the United Dioceses of Tuam, Killala and Achonry and the United Dioceses of Limerick and Killaloe have been outlined at General Synod in Limerick this morning (Friday May 5).

In response to the Commission on Episcopal Ministry and Structure’s Motion passed at last year’s General Synod a joint working group was set up and has met on several occasions. The group is looking at three areas of cooperation – joint events, finance and structures.

In the area of structures the group has considered five options as ways forward for the dioceses. These are: (a) no change; (b) remain as two separate dioceses but with the Bishop of Tuam, Killala and Achonry also serving as an incumbent; (c) amalgamation of the two dioceses under a Diocesan Bishop with the help of a Suffragan Bishop who would serve as an incumbent in Tuam, Killala and Achonry; (d) amalgamation of the two dioceses under one Bishop and transferring parts of either dioceses to a neighbouring diocese; (e) amalgamation of the two dioceses under one Bishop.

The working group has indicated a clear consensus in favour of either Option C or B.

The motion before General Synod this afternoon called on members to encourage the dioceses to continue their talks and bring proposals to next year’s Synod. It also proposed that synod would be prepared to consider Option B or Option C.

Proposing the motion, the Bishop of Tuam, said the conversations had been very encouraging. They had learnt about what they had in common and the benefits of collaboration.

“In part ii [of Motion 8] we are looking for your guidance on one possible solution to the ‘Tuam issue’ that has exercised the mind of the Church for some time now and came to a head during the last episcopal vacancy. The small numbers in Tuam, in my view, raise not one but three issues. First, for the wider Church which is largely responsible for funding a separate diocese and the structures required; secondly for the diocese itself which, with limited personnel, demands multi–tasking and extensive distances to travel; and thirdly, for the Bishop, who though privileged to know his flock in a very personal way, can feel frustrated by the limitations the small numbers impose,” Bishop Patrick Rooke said.

He stated that Option B had proved popular but it only addressed the role of the Bishop and would represent small savings to the wider Church. It also did not formalise a link with Limerick which, he suggested, may soon be in “similar numerical difficulties”. Option C scored highest among the diocesan representatives but Bishop Rooke acknowledged that there was opposition to Suffragan Bishops in the Church of Ireland.

Seconding the motion, the Bishop of Limerick said that both dioceses were open to change but that they did not believe that effective ministry could continue in the vast area of the West and South West of Ireland without an episcopal presence in both existing dioceses.

Discussing the virtues of Options B and C, Bishop Kenneth Kearon said that C had greater flexibility and was more open to evolution and change. “The question behind this motion before you is simple – if we come back next year to Synod with a proposal for a part–time suffragan Bishop, will Synod accept that?  If we come back next year with a proposal for a part–time diocesan Bishop will you support that?,” he asked.

Both Bishops said that they were seeking the opinion of General Synod on Options B and C but said that the minds of their respective dioceses would not be known until discussions had taken place at their diocesan synods.

Speaking to the motion the Archbishop of Dublin said that members of synod should consider very seriously the concept of a suffragan bishop amongst diocesan bishops. The Church of Ireland has set this idea aside previously and the Archbishop said that was not to say that we should not be open to new ideas but if bishops are to work together as a body we should consider seriously the effect a suffragan bishop would have on this. A more fruitful option to retain and develop the episcopal and dynamic presence in the total geographical area could be explored.

Canon Nigel Sherwood (Dublin & Glendalough) said the area of boundaries didn’t sit well and wondered about getting overly upset about boundaries. Priests should be priests and should do the work of priests on the ground spreading the gospel, he said. He said he thought that when we think about priests and clergy and bishops doing this work, leave them where they are but they need help from the RCB.

Dr Michael Webb (Dublin & Glendalough) said the work being done by Tuam and Limerick was encouraging and said he felt we should do things courageously. “We should say to these dioceses to go for it and come back to us next year with what you want to do,” he said.

Archdeacon Alan Synott (Tuam) said we have to be brave enough to try things. “We could be stuck in this waiting pattern if we keep being cautious,” he said. The question of equivalence must be considered but it is similar to non stipendiary ministers, it is incumbent on everyone to make it work, he said.  

Archdeacon Ricky Rountree (Glendalough) said there was room to look at suffragan bishops which he had seen working well in Western Australia. He said the key was to be clear what their role was and their ownership of their ministry. He said good episcopal oversight was needed while trying to relieve the top heavy load of administration. He said Option C was a way of obtaining episcopal oversight while relieving the administrative load.

Jock Saunders (Killaloe) is a member of the interdiocesan working group and said there were a lot of similarities between the two dioceses. He said change was absolutely necessary in the long view. Both dioceses were financially sustainable now but in the long term this might not be the case, he said, which meant it would be increasingly difficult for clergy and laity to contribute to central church. He said more radical changes to the way dioceses work needed to be considered. He said the difficulty in merging the dioceses as one was one of geography. The travel times would be inefficient and unrealistic and both ends of the dioceses would be disenfranchised. He suggested that the only way a merged Diocese of the West could work is if administration and decision was devolved to smaller units – clusters of four to six parishes.

Archdeacon Simon Lumby (Ardfert) outlined the huge distances involved in travelling in the dioceses. He asked synod to give the dioceses the scope to be adventurous and let them decide how it’s going to work.

The Revd Patrick Burke (Cashel, Ferns and Ossory) expressed concern about suffragan bishops. He also expressed concerns with the impact Option C would have on identity. He suggested Option B would be more favourable.

Julian Ellison (Tuam) said synod’s patience had been indulged and now a progressive solution was needed. He argued for Option B and consider the option of suffragan bishops to develop over a period time before moving to Option C.

The Revd Bill Atkins (Armagh) said that synod ought to support what is considered best locally. It is important that both dioceses continue to have the same representation but synod should leave it to them to support the practicalities.

Canon John Clarke (Meath & Kildare) asked if it was possible to flesh out the costings of the options.

Dean Maria Jannson (Waterford) supported Option C and said that a bishop as team leader in an area with a strong sense of place and a clear boundary as to his or her remit, something exciting could develop. He said these developments could lead the way for the rest of the Church of Ireland.

Karl Kilroy (Tuam) said that in the future a lot of other dioceses could face the same problems as Tuam.

Brenda Shiel (Down) said she was not happy with the idea of a straw poll. She said a most interesting proposal had been forthcoming from Tuam and Limerick and the dioceses should be encouraged to consider what will work for them.

The Revd Stephen Farrell (Dublin) said the idea of a suffragan bishop represented a change to our understanding of the Church and the episcopate for the entire Church of Ireland. He urged synod to think about the function of that particular episcopate – what would they do? Would parishes ask if the suffragan bishop turned up in a parish would the question be ‘why isn’t the bishop here?’, he asked.

Peter White (Killaloe) said he felt a strong sense of history here and reminded people of the first debate about the ordination of women. He said that the then Archbishop of Dublin warned of the practical issues if women were ordained. He said the Holy Spirit would find solutions suggested synod should leave the gate open to see where the Holy Spirit leads. He said that the presence of a bishop at a function was important and a suffragan bishop was needed.

Three straw polls were carried out among members of synod to help the dioceses in their work.

– Support for Option B

– Support for Option C

– Those who would prefer Option B and those who would prefer Option C.

In the straw poll the indication was that synod members would prefer Option C.

The motion was carried by Synod.

Our use of cookies

Some cookies are necessary for us to manage how our website behaves while other optional, or non-necessary, cookies help us to analyse website usage. You can Accept All or Reject All optional cookies or control individual cookie types below.

You can read more in our Cookie Notice

Functional

These cookies enable core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility. You may disable these by changing your browser settings, but this may affect how the website functions.

Analytics cookies

Analytical cookies help us to improve our website by collecting and reporting information on its usage.