In a previous life I spent many years wrestling with the fine print of Church of England documents — particularly those relating to the Ordination of Women.  Mercifully, I no longer have to do this.  However, I have found some of my Catholic brethren mystified at the way the Church of England, through its General Synod, comes to decisions about such matters.  So I have looked at the preparations for next month's debates, in the hope of making things more clear.

The General Synod “faces probably the most significant set of legislative decision it has had to deal with for some twenty years” — not my words, but those of the Archbishops.  In coming to its decisions next month one must conquer a mountain of documents, and one in particular is likely to cause difficulties for many who reckon themselves Catholic Anglicans or Anglo-Catholics.  This document goes under the seemingly innocuous title of GS Misc 1007 — if you find sleep difficult you might like to find it on line at the Church of England’s website.  I am not capable, and do not have the time, to go through all fifty-odd pages of it.  But I will simply note a few of the things it says, in the hope of enlightening my fellow Catholics on the Synod’s task next month — for if nothing else it might help us to pray for our fellow Christians who face such dilemmas.

It begins with a foreword by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York.  Even by its second page it reminds me of problems I faced during my six years as a ‘flying bishop’.  The House of Bishops,1) say their Graces, "will continue not to discriminate in selecting candidates for ordination on the grounds of their convictions regarding the admission of women to Holy Orders".  A similar provision was in place throughout my time in Office — and throughout that time it was persistently flouted.  Will the new generation of bishops behave any more honourably than their predecessors?  Of course, the blame for rejecting certain candidates was often laid at the door of the Director of Ordinands, or of an Archdeacon — but the result was the same.  Many have been turned down for ordination solely because they were doubtful about whether women could be priests.

Then the foreword 2) talks about the provision of "episcopal ministry under diocesan schemes for parishes requesting this provision" — the successors, you might say, to the Flying Bishops (properly called ‘Provincial Episcopal Visitors’ or PEVs.).  "Diocesan bishops will seek to identify those whose ministry will be consistent with the theological convictions… underlying the Letter of Request”.  Such slippery words.  In the old Act of Synod, PEVs were chosen from men who were themselves opposed to the ordination of women.  Now it will be up to the Diocesan to decide whether, in his or her opinion, the Bishop delegated to look after traditionalists fits the bill.  And for much of GS Misc 1007 it appears that being a male bishop is sufficient.  It also appears that such a man might himself have been ordained bishop by a female consecrator or co-consecrator.

Then the archbishops and bishops 3) commit themselves to seeking “to maintain a supply of bishops able to minister on this basis”.  But even the House of Bishops has not agreed how to set about these three tasks it identified (1-3 above), but are “determined to give them the time and attention they need, having listened to the Synod debates”.  My own experience of the House of Bishops was that it constantly had more on its agenda than it could properly deal with — I hope their determination to give time to these matters is not frustrated, but I fear it will be — because for many Bishops the matter is simply unimportant.

It is in trying to balance the authority of a woman diocesan bishop against the needs of those who believe such are not bishops (and that is still stated to be a legitimate and honourable position within the Church of England) that the greatest puzzles arise.  “First, although a diocesan scheme must provide for the delegation of certain aspects of episcopal ministry to a male bishop, such delegation does not restrict or impair the authority of the diocesan bishop in any way: he or she remains entitled to exercise all the functions delegated to the bishop exercising episcopal ministry by delegation, even if he or she chooses not to do so.”  This has numerous problems for the Anglo-Catholic.  Consistently for years now, Forward in Faith has made it quite clear that “A Code of Practice will not do”.  The reasons are, first that if authority is delegated by a woman bishop the person receiving the delegated ministry is de facto accepting the woman bishop’s authority — the very thing he or she cannot in conscience do.  Second, it requires everyone to “Trust the Bishops” — and in the catholic movement in the Church of England this is precisely what they have learned not to do.

It would take superhuman humility on the part of a woman newly consecrated and installed as a diocesan to relinquish any of her authority.  What is quite clear in the proposed measure is that she will have the right to ignore any provisions for delegated ministry, simply by providing reasons which to her are cogent — saying for instance “A scheme was not needed in this diocese” — or “Although there is a delegated bishop, on such and such a Sunday I shall exercise my right to celebrate Holy Communion in this parish”.

That is faced in GS 1007.  Its authors clearly disapprove should a woman bishop do this; but they do not deny her right to ride roughshod over any Code of Practice.  “The expectation of the House is that bishops and others exercising functions within the Church of England will consistently act in accordance with the provisions of the Code.  If in a particular instance and after careful consideration, they do not do so, they will need to be able to point to ‘cogent reasons‘ arising from the particular circumstances concerned.

And what if her reasons do not appear cogent to a parish asking for episcopal care from a male bishop?  Then the lawyers come in: '"The requirement that cogent reasons must be shown for any departure from [a statutory code] sets a high standard that is not easily satisfied".  If a decision-maker cannot satisfy that standard, his or her decision is liable to be set aside by the High Court on an application for judicial review.’

Well we have been there before.  Bishops have ignored the rights of Patrons and have suspended livings without good reason, simply to be able to appoint their own candidates.  Parishes have sought recourse of judicial review, only to be told that the costs, if awarded against them, might run into hundreds of thousands of pounds.  So the parishes have had to retreat.

Anglicans who seek to maintain the practice of Catholic (and Orthodox) Christendom and who refuse to accept that women can or should be ordained have had a difficult time  during the past twenty years.  It will be fascinating, but not a little terrifying, to see how the Church of England makes progress with the practicalities of consecrating women bishops over the next few months.  Things are likely to become far more difficult for traditionalists after the Measure has been completed — probably in the next year or two.  In this week of prayer for Christian Unity, the Church of England, and especially Anglo-Catholics, deserve our understanding and our prayers.