Below is the text of a new letter from 15 active bishops of the Church of England addressed to those who signed the Open Letter of 2008 on the issue of women in the episcopate. The text here is reproduced from the blog of Fr. David Elliott of Holy Trinity Reading.
* * *
Dear Brothers and Sisters,
'God forbid that I should sin against the Lord in ceasing to pray for you, but I will tell you the good and proper way.' (1 Samuel 12:23)
These are grave times in the Church of England especially for those of us unable in good conscience to accept that any particular church has the authority to admit women to the episcopate. While we certainly accept the good faith of those who wish to make this change believing it to be God's will, we cannot rejoice with them, not least because of the disastrous cost to Catholic unity.
Our concerns are not only about sacramental assurance though that is of profound importance. If the legislation now proposed passes, it will not provide room for our tradition to grow and flourish. We will be dependent on a Code of Practice yet to be written, and sadly our experience of the last almost twenty years must make us wonder whether even such an inadequate provision will be honoured in the long term.
Neither the Report of the Revision Committee nor the legislation itself shows a proper understanding of our reservations, however carefully these have been presented through the consultation process and in the College and House of bishops. It remains a deep disappointment to us that the Church at large did not engage with the excellent Rochester Report and paid scant attention to the Consecrated Women report sponsored by Forward in Faith.
We must now accept that a majority of the members of the Church of England believe it is right to proceed with the ordination of women as bishops, and that a significant percentage of those in authority will not encourage or embrace with enthusiasm the traditional integrity or vocations within it. Nor is it their intention or desire to create a structure which genuinely allows the possibility of a flourishing mission beyond this generation.
However, the closeness of the vote on the Archbishops' amendment for co ordinate jurisdiction, concerns though there are about its adequacy, suggest at least a measure of disquiet in the majority about proceeding without a provision acceptable to traditionalists. The Catholic group fought valiantly on the floor of synod and we are grateful for that, and while many in the Church and press are speaking as if the legislation is now passed, final synodical approval is still some way off.
Whatever happens in the Synod, there are some Anglo Catholics, including in our own number, who are already looking at, indeed are resolved to join the Ordinariate as the place where they can find a home in which to live and proclaim their Christian faith, in communion with the Holy Father, yet retaining something of the blessings they have known and experienced in the Anglican tradition. Of course the Ordinariate is a new thing, and not all of us are trailblazers or can imagine what it might be like. Some will undoubtedly want to wait and see how that initiative develops before making a decision.
Yet others will make their individual submission and find their future as Roman Catholics.
Were the present proposals not to be substantially amended or defeated, many more of us will need to consider seriously three options.
A number will remain, perhaps even reluctantly because of personal circumstances, family loyalties, even financial necessity, but with a deep sense of unease about the long term future, an unease that is surely well founded. There are faithful Catholic clergy and lay people, though deeply opposed to the likely Synodical decision who cannot currently imagine themselves being anywhere else but within the Church of England. They wonder how they can stay, yet cannot imagine leaving their much loved church and parish. They do not want to be forced out of the Church they love and will persevere where they are, whatever the theological or ecclesiological ambiguities, and seek God's blessing on all they do.
Those who are not actively seeking a home elsewhere must work to defeat the currently proposed legislation. It is essential that traditionalists engage in the debate and discussion in their diocese and are active in the election process for the next quinquennium of the General Synod when the two thirds majority in each House will be required if the legislation is to pass. Whatever our individual futures, and however disheartened we might feel, the Church of England needs strong catholic hearts and voices.
The text quoted at the beginning of this letter was the one used by John Keble in his famous Assize sermon, often regarded as the starting point of the Oxford Movement. It seems remarkably apposite, and gives a clue to an appropriate attitude of heart for this process: prayerful and gracious, but clear.
We are all bishops united in our belief that the Church of England is mistaken in its actions. However, we must be honest and say we are not united as to how we should respond to these developments.
Nevertheless we are clear that each of the possibilities we have outlined has its own integrity and is to be honoured. We are resolved to respect the decisions made by laity, bishops, priests and deacons of our integrity, and call on you to do the same. It would be a sad and destructive thing indeed if we allowed our happiness and wondering to drift into unguarded or uncharitable criticism of those who in good conscience take a different path from our own. We must assume the best motives in one another, and where there are partings let them be with tears and the best wishes of Godspeed.
You will we hope know of the meetings in both provinces to take place in late September when there will be opportunities for discussion and an exchange of views about the future. Be assured of our prayers as you reflect about how best to respond to the challenges which face us, and we ask your prayers for us too as we seek to be faithful to the Lord, and to the Faith once delivered.
Please share the contents of this letter with your people, and indeed with any who might be interested to know of it.
The Rt Revd John Hind, Bishop of Chichester The Rt Revd Geoffrey Rowell, Bishop of Europe The Rt Revd Nicholas Reade, Bishop of Blackburn The Rt Revd Martyn Jarrett, Bishop of Beverley The Rt Revd John Broadhurst, Bishop of Fulham The Rt Revd Peter Wheatley, Bishop of Edmonton The Rt Revd John Goddard, Bishop of Burnley The Rt Revd Andrew Burnham, Bishop of Ebbsfleet The Rt Revd Keith Newton, Bishop of Richborough The Rt Revd Tony Robinson, Bishop of Pontefract The Rt Revd John Ford, Bishop of Plymouth The Rt Revd Mark Sowerby, Bishop of Horsham The Rt Revd Martin Warner, Bishop of Whitby The Rt Revd Robert Ladds The Rt Revd Lindsay Urwin OGS
NB In the C. of E., a "suffragan" bishop is equivalent to an "auxiliary" bishop in the Catholic Church (in the Latin Rite). For instance, the Anglican title "Bishop of Horsham" is equivalent to a Roman titular bishopric. More confusingly still, a Catholic "suffragan" bishop has a true diocese, and his status of suffragan means simply that he belongs to an ecclesiastical province whose metropolitan is an archbishop, whose suffragan he is in name only, since he has full and immediate jurisdiction in his own diocese. To adduce examples:
1. Catholic: Bp Peter Elliott is an auxiliary bishop in the Archdiocese of Melbourne, and has the titular bishopric of Manaccenser ("Many Censers", as he likes to joke!) – he is a titular and an auxiliary bishop, not a suffragan; whereas Bp Prowse is Bishop of Sale, which is an actual diocese in Victoria, but therefore a suffragan diocese of the metropolitan see of Melbourne – he is a suffragan, but simultaneously a diocesan, and not an auxiliary.
2. C. of E.: John Hind is Bishop of Chichester – he is the diocesan, not a suffragan at all, even though his diocese is within the Province of Canterbury; Mark Sowerby is Bishop of Horsham, which in Catholic terms is a "titular" see only – he acts as an assistant bishop in the Diocese of Chichester, and is styled a suffragan thereof.
Given all this, for the benefit of non-UK readers:
John Hind has been the Bishop of Chichester since 2001; Mark Sowerby, Bishop of Horsham, is one of his suffragans (since 2009); Lindsay Urwin was previous Bishop of Horsham 1993-2009, until his appointment as new Administrator of the Shrine of Our Lady of Walsingham.
Nicholas Reade has been Bishop of Blackburn since 2004; John Goddard, Bishop of Burnley (since 2000), is one of his suffragans.
Martyn Jarrett, Bishop of Beverley since 2000 (previously Bp of Burnley 1994-2000), is the PEV ("flying bishop") for the Province of York, while John Broadhurst, Bishop of Fulham since 1996, is the PEV for the London, Southwark and Rochester.
Andrew Burnham, Bishop of Ebbsfleet since 2000, and Keith Newton, Bishop of Richborough since 2002, are the two PEV's for the whole Province of Canterbury.
The Rt Revd John Ford, Bishop of Plymouth since 2005, is a suffragan of the Diocese of Exeter.
Martin Warner, Bishop of Whitby since 2010, is a suffragan bishop of York, as was Robert Ladds (the previous Bishop of Whitby, 1999-2008).
The Rt Revd Tony Robinson, Bishop of Pontefract since 2002, is suffragan bishop of Wakefield.
The Rt Revd Peter Wheatley, Bishop of Edmonton since 1999, is a suffragan bishop of London.
Geoffrey Rowell is Bishop of (Gibraltar in) Europe since 2001 (previously Bishop of Basingstoke 1994-2001). As a Pope once observed to a previous holder of that title, I believe I reside in your diocese!
Hope this helps; thank God for Wikipedia.
It would appear that, with the exception of Bishop Ladds, retired bishops did not, or were not asked, to sign the document; nor did any of the Evangelical bishops opposed to WO* sign it. There must certainly be a number of retired "Catholic-minded" bishops opposed to WO; offhand, I can think of Edwin Barnes, former PEV of Richborough, John Gaisford, former PEV of Beverley (although by all accounts he is rather strongly opposed to the "Roman option"); Alan Chesters, Bishop of Blackburn 1989-2003; Andrew Graham, Bishop of Newcastle 1981-1997; David Silk, formerly Bishop of Ballarat (Australia); and especially David Hope (Bishop of Wakefield 1985-91; of London 1991-95; Archbishop of York 1995-2005). No doubt there are a number, perhaps a fair number, of retired suffragan bishops opposed to WO.
* The only one of these whom I can call to mind is Wallace Benn, Bishop of Lewes (a suffragan to the Bishop of Chichester) from 1997.
Rumor has it that two English bishops, previously proponents of WO and themselves ordainers of women, have come to "regret" WO, if not to oppose it: Michael Nazir-Ali, Bishop of Rochester from 1994 to 2009, and Michael Langrish, Bishop of Exeter from 1999 onwards.
William,
I can't speak for +Nazir-Ali, but Exeter is my diocese and our bishop +Michael is clear and consistent (for example in addresses at Diocesan Synod) in his support for the ministry of ordained women – whilst also very concerned to ensure an honoured place for those, such as one of his suffragans who signed the letter above, who are opposed.
+Michael appointed a woman priest, Penny Driver, to be Archdeacon of Exeter; she works together with +John Ford on the same staff team. He has also recently appointed women priests to the roles of Diocesan Director of Ordinands and of Diocesan Missioner.
Best wishes,
Stuart
I always believed that Bishop Alan Chesters was opposed to WO. But recently I saw him take communion at a service were the celebrant was a woman. Does this mean he has changed his stance, or was he never opposed to WO?