The relation of religious law to theology is basic to any faith community. In this article, chiefly in terms of Roman Catholicism, but it is hoped of wider application especially within Christianity, the relation of canon law to theology is examined through papal allocutions to the judges and other members of the Church court known as the Roman Rota. There are significant British links to the Rota before and after the Reformation. The 2009 allocution by Benedict XVI is the focus for considering the theological and normative authority of such allocutions. Pius XII has been one of the few canonists to become Pope in modern times, and the co-ordinated set of allocutions from 1945 to 1949 given by him to the Rota is therefore taken as the focus for reflecting on the nature and functions of canon law today. This involves the consideration of both theology and law, including secular law. The ecclesiological character of canon law will emerge as central.

The ecumenical movement seeks to achieve Christian unity through greater visible communion between the separated (or divided) institutional Churches of Christianity worldwide. The practice of ecumenism and ecumenical theology have developed principally at the doctrinal and theological levels. The juridical instruments of Churches have not thus far played a central role in ecumenical discourse – they are occasionally seen as the ‘missing link’ in ecumenism. This article examines for the first time, in a wide comparative compass, the treatment of ecumenism in the juridical instruments of separated Christian traditions and their institutional Churches worldwide. It proposes that these instruments should have a more prominent place in ecumenical practice and theology in so far as they tell us much about the scope of both the commitment of Churches to and their participation in the ecumenical enterprise. Juridical instruments define what ecclesial communion is possible and what is not, either enabling or restricting the development of greater visible communion between separated Churches in the quest for Christian unity. As such, this ‘juridical ecumenism’ offers both a theoretical and a practical framework for the global transformation of ecumenism to complement but not replace the current dominance of the doctrinal and theological focus in contemporary ecumenical method and practice.

This article considers some of the controversies that have troubled the Anglican Communion during the past 25 years, and some of the approaches that the Churches and central Instruments of the Communion have used to maintain communion in the face of threatened division. In particular, it looks in detail at the terms of the proposed Anglican Covenant, its provenance and its legal significance. It points out the usefulness of the Covenant as a mechanism for resolving disputes between the Churches of the Communion, but questions the assumption that its adoption as, in effect, a contract between the Churches would of itself turn the Communion into a ‘two-tier’ body, or change in a fundamental way the nature of the relationships between the Churches. Finally, it notes that communion between the Churches of the Anglican Communion, with or without the Covenant, consists (as it always has done) in a wide range of relationships at very many different levels, far beyond the central structures of the Communion as they have developed during the last 150 years.

The European Court of Human Rights has stated that Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights in its religious dimension is not only one of the most vital elements that go to make up the identity of believers and their conception of life but also a precious asset for atheists, agnostics, sceptics and the unconcerned. In the past 20 years, the Court has been called upon to address the scope and content of the Article in a variety of key cases, involving matters as diverse as proselytism, the grant and refusal of registration of religious bodies, the refusal of authorisations for places of worship and prohibitions on the wearing of religious dress or symbols in public places. The Court's case law has not been without its critics, some complaining that the Court has interpreted Article 9 too narrowly and has given too little weight to the freedom to manifest one's religion in teaching, practice and observance. Others, in contrast, have criticised what they see as the excessive weight given to religion when in conflict with other ECHR rights, notably that of freedom of expression. Still others have charged the Court with failing to interpret Article 9 in such a way as to realise its full potential by not engaging with what is meant by the word ‘religion’. This article considers some of these criticisms, and the need for the Court to strike a balance between the effective protection of individual rights and the need to respect very different constitutional traditions among the Contracting States.1

The recent judgment in Re Holy Trinity Horwich in Manchester Consistory Court raises some interesting questions about the interpretation of mission in the application of the Bishopsgate questions. Thanks to the tests posed by the Bishopsgate questions, arising from the cases of Re St Helen Bishopsgate and Re St Luke the Evangelist Maidstone, the law governing faculty applications requires that the status quo be preserved in cases of church buildings with ‘special architectural and historical interest’ unless outweighed by the ‘necessity’ of ‘the pastoral well-being of the parish or some other compelling reason’.

The spat at the 2011 Conservative Party conference between the Home Secretary and the Lord Chancellor showed how contentious human rights legislation remains. Although Theresa May portrayed the claimant as having won the Article 8 right to remain in Britain because of his relationship with his cat, the judge had simply accepted the cat as one piece of evidence that the claimant had a genuine family life with his partner. The Home Secretary's principal point was that the right to respect for private and family life under section 8.1 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) should be read in conjunction with section 8.2, which adds that such rights should not be overridden except where it is

As predicted, the Charities Act 2011, which consolidates the Recreational Charities Act 1958, the Charities Act 1993 and many of the provisions of the Charities Act 2006, received Royal Assent on 14 December and came into force on 14 March 2012, three months after its enactment.