Trastornos de aprendizaje y memo-

The Anglican Church is the second most populous denomination in Australia, with ~3.7 million affiliates (ABS, 2007). The structure of the Anglican Church is similar to that of the Catholic Church. The primary holders of institutional power are the bishops, each of whom governs a diocese. Dioceses are divided into parishes, which are groupings of individual churches. The term ‘congregation’ is used variously to refer to a particular organisation within the church, for example a Religious Order, but also to a group who attend a particular church. “Archbishops are diocesan bishops with additional responsibilities as their particular diocese provides leadership for the province, or group of dioceses within a particular state of Australia. They are otherwise known as the Metropolitan” (Blombery, 2004) and are usually based in a capital city. Archbishops sometimes have ‘auxiliary’ bishops to aid them or to work in specific fields such as the defence forces.

There is not an Anglican equivalent to the cardinal of the Catholic tradition. However, unlike the Catholic Church of Australia, which is governed by the Australian Catholic Bishops Council, the Anglican Church has a single national leader termed the ‘Primate’ who presides over the National Synod. As of 2006, the Anglican Primate was Phillip Aspinall, Archbishop of Brisbane. Due to recent changes in procedures and to ongoing debate113 about the proper role of the Primate, this appointment now has a relatively short fixed term of office – a situation very similar to the role of the national President of the UCA.

In strict administrative terms, the Primate is largely a ceremonial position, yet increasingly the position involves being the national spokesman for the Church, particularly in terms of dealing with media interest and tensions within the international Anglican Communion. The General Synod has been asked to consider making the position of Primate a full-time role, potentially based in Canberra, rather than the current situation where the Primate is also required to continue serving as the head of his (arch)diocese. The Primate does not have authority over his fellow bishops, at least not in the context of ecological policy – a field that remains outside the scope of current Church law.

The Anglican Church, originating from the Protestant Reformation, operates in a somewhat more democratic manner than does the Catholic Church, though it is by no means as

113

See for e.g. http://www.anglican.org.au/docs/B3A7ivAppPrimacy.pdf which described the modern role of the Primate and various attempts to modify that role – most of which appear to have failed, largely due to diocesan and regional rivalries and an inherent conservatism in the Church.

democratic as the Uniting Church and is still a hierarchical theocracy. Some environmentalist Anglican voices indicated to me that they see this as a significant factor in the relative ecological policy stance and actions of these denominations. I suggest that the greater autonomy of bishops within Anglicanism is a barrier to ecological reforms at the national level and to the presentation of a consistent public position.

The autonomy of bishops is such that each has virtually independent control over ecological policy and praxis matters. Because of this autonomy, one could expect to see considerable variation between the dioceses’ ecological statements and actions, as these would largely depend on the orientation of each bishop and on other regional and local change agents within the Church.

7.3.2.1 Environment Working Group

As of March 2007, the Anglican Church uses an Environment Working Group as its national ecological policy body. I discuss the origins and functions of the Group in Chapter 9. Whilst CEA’s staff and budget are small, the national Anglican Environment Working Group has neither staff nor a substantive budget. Such a situation is even worse than the norm described by Millikan, 1981, p104: “The church departments which deal with these (justice) matters are typically understaffed, overworked and constrained by financial difficulties.” Despite its self-nominated agenda being relatively broad, the Working Group has been effectively restricted to providing very limited policy advice to the Church and it has no ability to implement policy outside its own very limited operations.

The Working Group fits the standard bureaucratic mould of the small and marginalised, under-resourced ‘subcommittee’ of interested individuals that allows the Church-proper to claim that it is doing something whilst simultaneously doing little or nothing at the national level. Nonetheless, the Working Group was responsible for the production of the only national Anglican ecological policy document and for getting the General Assembly to call on the Federal Government to sign the Kyoto Protocol. I discuss these achievements in Chapter 9.

7.3.2.2 Diocesan Environment Commissions

Environment Commissions or similarly named bodies are sometimes, though rarely present at the diocesan level. These bodies only have authority at that level and only exercise that authority with the approval of the resident (arch)bishop. There is not a formal standard for their structure, functions or terms of reference, though most are a variation on the model pioneered in the Diocese of Canberra & Goulburn. Environment Commissions also exist in the archdioceses of Adelaide and Melbourne, and the dioceses of Newcastle and Grafton. The Commissions generally formulate policy and provide advice to their bishop, other diocesan bodies, parishes,

and potentially to the national Environment Working Group, though there is no formal connection between diocesan bodies and the Working Group.

Because they are closer to the level at which most operational policy is implemented, Diocesan Environment Commissions can have a direct role in driving praxis at the diocese and parish level, as long as they have the support of their bishop. For example, a Commission can recommend and gain support for a policy that requires all buildings and renovations in the diocese to meet particular standards for energy and water use efficiency. A Commission can also make a policy recommending that all electricity purchased by the diocese be ‘green power’. However, in contrast to new buildings and renovations which are largely funded by and require the formal consent of a diocesan authority, the purchasing of electricity within each parish is the responsibility of each parish council, and as a result, it appears that they cannot be required to buy ‘green power’, they can only be encouraged to do so.

The situation is different in parts of the diocesan organisation controlled by diocesan bodies, for example aged care facilities. In such circumstances, the diocesan authorities can decide on issues such as energy management. Such complex structures are based on what is ultimately a Catholic Church principle of subsidiarity: namely, that authority should be vested at the lowest level of the structure that it sensibly can be114. Thus, parish councils control the local churches and related structures, but the diocese controls facilities that operate beyond the parish scale, such as aged care facilities. Subsidiarity poses a serious constraint to the ability of Diocesan Environment Commissions to convert their policies into diocese-wide praxis.

The structure of the Anglican Church is such that a diocesan Environment Commission can, with the support of its bishop, formulate and implement a wide range of substantive ecological policies that may have no formal connection with other ecological policies and praxis within the national Church. This means that where there is a progressive Commission and bishop, policy and praxis can be far ahead of and can even lead national developments. Indeed, as is revealed in Chapter 9, it was the work of one or two of the first Diocesan Environment Commissions that pushed the General Synod of the Anglican Church to form its Environment Working Group.

With very little ecological policy-making at the national level, and with the administrative implications of the Anglican Church’s structure, it is not surprising that most ecological policy- making and praxis is seen at the diocesan level. However, as is discussed in the chapter dealing with Anglican policy and praxis, both such activities are very patchy in their occurrence at the

114

Subsidiarity and its implications for the Churches’ implementation of ecological policy is discussed further in section 11.1.4.

national scale. This is to be expected given the extent of theological diversity and even conflict within the Anglican Church of Australia, which is increasingly dominated by the conservative, Evangelical, growing, and large Archdiocese of Sydney115. Virtually all other parts of the Anglican tradition in Australia are in steep decline and face problems with an ageing membership and clergy, deficits of clergy, closures and amalgamations of churches and parishes, and financial difficulties, especially at the parish level (see for example, Bouma, 2006).