Two notable religion journalists in the UK have put up columns on SSWSH in the last 24 Hours and our own Fr. Ed Tomlinson has offered his own thoughts at his blog.
Damian Thompson, of The Telegraph's of Holy Smoke says with his typical subtlety and sensitivity,
Second, Anglo-Catholics are of course entitled to fight to preserve their sacramental order as Anglicans rather than as Roman Catholics. They are the heirs of Pusey and Keble. But the notion that the Church of England will grant them “a place … where they can minister with integrity” without compromising that sacramental order is fantasy. How many more times does the Synod have to tell them that they won’t be allowed to reject the authority of women bishops and priests before the message sinks in?
Riazat Butt of The Guardian's Divine Dispatches says,
These bishops are endorsing, nay spearheading, the charge against a code of practice that will be drafted later this year by the House of Bishops. Conflict of interest much? As Swissh itself says: "The unveiling of the Mission Society of St Wilfrid and St Hilda reflects a determination not to accept a code of practice as currently suggested by the General Synod but to work for and create a more realistic approach that allows the integrity of those who cannot accept this innovation to be preserved, to flourish and grow within the Church of England. This development represents a constructive initiative on the part of those who cannot accept the innovations proposed in legislation and who are hurt and frustrated by the General Synod's inability to provide for their theological position."
A society would have the support of two constituencies – the Anglo-Catholics and the conservative evangelicals – but they would need to move quickly to set this up. This feverish activity takes place against diocesan synods discussing the draft legislation, General Synod elections and the annual gatherings of Forward in Faith and Reform taking place in the next few weeks. It is worth remembering that attempts to introduce provisions for opponents have failed on several occasions. Moves by, say, the House of Bishops, to remedy this would need to be approved by the General Synod. Unless the complexion of the synod changes drastically, it would be hostile to attempts to undo in a backroom committee what was openly decided in the synod debating chamber.
Meanwhile, our own Fr. Ed Tomlinson at The St. Barnabas' Blog offers some constructive suggestions:
I have to admit that news of an in-house society model both angered and dismayed me. In many ways it still does. From my vantage point it is an exercise doomed to eventual failure and does not move anyone further forward now that a Catholic future no longer exists within the Church of England. Be that as it may I am not in a parish where the Ordinariate could prove impossible and I need to understand that not everybody shares my enthusiasm for being a trailblazer within a prophetic movement.
There will be those who do not yet see the ultimate consequences of Synod’s thinking and who cannot yet see what possibility and life exist within the Ordinariate offer. Such people still need to pick over the bones of synod’s betrayal before realising that the feast is now over. The society might well support them in this time of coming to terms with a desolate future. Pray then that it is erected as a temporary shelter and not a long term structure.
Others will be close to retirement and battle weary. Who can blame them if they decide to simply remain where they are and pull up the drawbridge for the final few years? I only hope that if this option is chosen they will help parishioners explore the Ordinariate offer fully and consider life when the retirement finally comes. Perhaps those of us entering the Ordinariate could work closely with such groups?
Related posts: