Tag Archives: Women Bishops

Church of England Will Have Women As Bishops

Posted on by
15

From The Telegraph
By John Bingham, Religious Affairs Editor

In a meeting behind closed doors in York, the Church’s House of Bishops gave its approval to legislation to admit women to the episcopacy and rejected a series of attempts to significantly water down the powers of future female bishops.

But they also agreed a key protection for conservative evangelicals and Anglo Catholics who object to women bishops on theological grounds.

In theory the vote clears the way for the church’s General Synod to have a final vote on the issue in July.

But there were signs it has plunged the Church into further uncertainty amid fears that the compromise failed to satisfy either side in the debate.

It remained unclear last night whether the compromise would be enough to see off the prospect of a large-scale exodus of traditionalists to the Roman Catholic Church or a new breakaway Anglican group.

Equally campaigners for women bishops privately voiced disappointment at the compromise. They fear attempts to make women “second class bishops”

Parishes and dioceses have already signalled strong support for ordaining women as bishops.

But a significant minority of traditionalists cannot accept the authority of a women bishop on theological grounds.

Complicated arrangements have been drawn up to allow to request to opt out and answer to a specially chosen male bishop instead.

The House of Bishops agreed last night that the alternative bishop’s authority would be “delegated” from the woman rather than independent from her and that this arrangement would have legal force.

But they also agreed that traditionalist parishes would have more say in who the alternative bishop would be – potentially undermining the powers of the woman bishop.

In statement the House said: “The legislation now addresses the fact that for some parishes a male bishop or male priest is necessary but not sufficient.

“The House rejected more far- reaching amendments that would have changed the legal basis on which bishops would exercise authority when ministering to parishes unable to receive the ministry of female bishops.”

* * *

A look into the Church of England's future…

womenbishops Church of England Will Have Women As Bishops

* * *

Be sure to follow our Moderator at Eccentric Bliss, his personal blog!

Ordinary Time?

Posted on by
30

Monday of the fifth week of Ordinary Time (memorial of St Paul Miki and his companions, Martyrs), that is to say February 6th 2012, is the fiftieth 60th anniversary of the death of King George VI. It is therefore also the 50th 60th anniversary of the Queen's Accession. But because February is a pretty grim month, the celebrations will be held over until the summer. Making February that much more grim this year is the Westminster Session of the General Synod of the Church of England, also scheduled to begin on Monday 6th. This promises to be four days of anything but Ordinary Time.

synod Ordinary Time?

A draft Agenda has now been published on the official C of E website. For anyone who cares for the Church of England, and especially for its Anglo-Catholic rump, it would make a good calendar for four days of prayer. The first day (or rather half-day, beginning after lunch) is as usual just official business to be got out of the way, though perhaps the Loyal Address will be more worthwhile than usual, bearing in mind the date. Perhaps prayer will be said for the repose of the soul of His Late Majesty.

The real matter of the Synod starts on Tuesday 7th. From 2.30pm there is to be a presentation of the Draft Code of Practice regarding Women to the Episcopate, with questions following. That exercise in squaring the circle, making it clear that women who are ordained as bishops really are bishops with all the authority of their office –  yet somehow allowing those who do not accept them as bishops to continue to live as though they did not exist — promises to be a fascinating time of prestidigitation. It will be an exceptionally worrying time for our brothers and sisters who want to be able still to say with integrity that "the Church of England is part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church".

The next day looks like being especially lively. On Tuesday there will have been just two and a half hours for the subject but on Wednesday there will be a much longer time for debate: Except for the few minutes of a report on Standing Orders and a brief time for evening prayer the Synod will debate Women in the Episcopate from 2.30pm until 7pm. During this they will consider a diocesan motion from Manchester and another, much less friendly to Anglo-Catholics, from Southwark.

On Thursday morning, once further additional eucharistic prayers have been considered, 'Women in the Episcopate' will reach its final drafting stage before becoming law. That is unless in some way (perhaps by a failure to obtain a two-thirds majority in each House) the whole thing is put off for another five years.

It is sad to be bringing all this to your attention just as everyone is so excited at the establishment of the American Ordinariate. For us in England, though, it is of great importance. One way or another, it will affect how the Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham develops over the next few years. Either it will speed its growth (as I pray it will) or it will provide yet one more line in the sand for the survivors of the Anglo-Catholic Movement to hide behind. They will be waiting once more as many of us have done in the past for something to turn up. So, friends, pray for the Synod, and especially for those who are trying to retain in the C of E a few shreds of its catholic past.

* * *

Be sure to follow our Moderator at Eccentric Bliss, his personal blog!

Anglican Orders and Anglicanorum Coetibus

Posted on by
27

Fr. Hunwicke of Liturgical Notes fame has a new piece up titled "Apostolicae curae today" that will be of interest to our readers.  He says, in part,

If our Holy Father really does now continue to expect Ordinariate Anglicans to subscribe heart and soul to the complete applicability in current circumstances of the findings of Apostolicae curae, that Anglican Orders are completely null and utterly void, he has devised a most extraordinarily bizarre and counter-indicative way of manifesting this expectation. Come off it. Anglicanorum coetibus constitutes a deliberate and considered refusal to rub our noses in Apostolicae curae. If such an attitude is good enough for the most learned Sovereign Pontiff since Benedict XIV, why isn't it good enough for some Roman Catholics?

Do read the whole thing and do not miss the very interesting and forceful argument he makes based on giving the use of pontificals to former bishops.

In a somewhat contrasting post, Fr. Tomlinson also has a new piece at the S. Barnabas Blog titled "Regarding holy orders," in which he writes,

Before taunting the Roman position in future I would ask people to remember some crucial facts. It was not Rome who broke with the Church of England. Nor was it Rome who created a national church that was self-governing and out of communion with the rest of the world (until the rise of the Empire allowed it to plant its offshoots). Nor did Rome adopt the Catholic three fold order and yet sit light to it, allowing a ridiculous breadth of opinion in which some reserve the sacrament whilst others pour consecrated elements down the sink. Nor was it Rome who decided that a synod allowed them to change the universal teaching regarding orders without the consent of anybody else! You cannot have your cake (acting autonomously) and eat it (wanting universal recognition)…

These are two very different approaches to the question and both make for good reading.

On a related note, the Church of England  has issued a press release announcing the membership of the working group to draft the code of practice for women in the episcopate.  The members are:

The Right Revd Nigel Stock, Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich (Chair)

The Right Revd Dr Christopher Cocksworth, Bishop of Coventry

The Right Revd Dr Martin Warner, Bishop of Whitby

Dame Averil Cameron, retired Warden of Keble College, Oxford and former chair of Cathedral Fabrics Commission

The Venerable Christine Hardman, Archdeacon of Lewisham and Greenwich

The Reverend Angus MacLeay, Vicar of St Nicholas Sevenoaks

The Venerable Jane Sinclair, Archdeacon of Stow and Lindsey

Mrs Caroline Spencer, Chair Canterbury Diocese House of Laity

* * *

Be sure to follow our Moderator at Eccentric Bliss, his personal blog!

SSWSH …. shhh!

Posted on by
9

Perhaps the saddest sight at the so-called "Sacred Synod" was seeing the Master General of SSC commending something which in his heart he knows is doomed.  Many have tried to point out how the "Society Model" of which he spoke is bound to fail.  Fr Hunwicke has recently dealt with the entire matter very succinctly, with his customary polished scalpel.   But none of the proponents of the "Society Model" was prepared to give the history of previous attempts at a similar solution.

It was left to WATCH (the group which I tend to think of as 'Women Against the Church') to remind us.  Here is what they said:

The “Society model” (which this proposal seems to embody), was discussed in depth by the Revision Committee when it looked at how best to provide for those who would not accept women as bishops. It was rejected because, ‘Crucially the majority of us came to believe that there was some risk of creating a society that was an even weightier body than a Diocese. This was because some of the representations made to us seemed to envisage that jurisdiction would in some way be conferred on the society itself and through it to its bishops… we therefore voted by 11 votes to 7 that we did not wish the draft Measure to be amended to give effect to a society model.’

(Report of the Revision Committee, page 22 paras 110, 115)

Of course,  they fail  to say that the Revision Committee itself was packed; but so it will be if  these proposals should come back — and General  Synod will inevitably throw them out again.  That will leave the 'Society Modellers' with only one choice: to submit to General Synod and accept women as bishops, or to act illegally.  Since its supporters are all establishment figures, there is little chance of such a necessary rebellion.  At best, the Society of SS Wilfrid and Hilda will do no more that delay the inevitable by a few months.

What WATCH goes on to say is just hilarious.

How sad that the example given by St Hilda in her obedience to a decision concerning the ordering of her church is ignored by those using her name, who are themselves unwilling to accept the decision made by the Revision Committee and endorsed by the General Synod.

WATCH are presuming to ally Hilda with their nefarious politicking — see how they speak, not of  THE Church, but of 'her church'.   They then go on to equate 'her church' with the doings of "the Revision Committee endorsed by General  Synod".  Come off it, WATCH: a tribal gathering of a tiny group of Christians in an offshore island is not and cannot be the Church as Hilda understood it.  What you are speaking of is just your churchlette (or maybe church-lite) defined not as One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic but as "The Revision Committee endorsed by General  Synod".

Chichester al 1024x768 SSWSH .... shhh!

Chichester, Tanner & Houlding

The one person who recognised this at the "Sacred Synod" was Dame Mary Tanner, doyenne of every ecumenical attempt over the past half-century.  She recalled how decisions to ordain women in the C of E or elsewhere in the Anglican Communion were provisional until 'Reception' had happened.  She must, though, be about the only person left who believes that the Church of England or TEC  would ever admit that they might have been wrong in ordaining women to the Priesthood or Episcopate.

Society Model SSWSH .... shhh!

A Footnote: many years ago  there was a great scandal in England: it concerned the leader of a political party and a woman known as a "Society Model".  She was Christine Keeler.  She comes to my mind's eye whenever anyone speaks of Society Models…  perhaps I should go to confession.

* * *

Be sure to follow our Moderator at Eccentric Bliss, his personal blog!

I'll Just Say My Prayers at Home…

Posted on by
22

I've published on tomorrow's Mass sheet at St Mary-the-Virgin, Kenton the letter from 15 CofE bishops to the 1,333 deacons and priests of the CofE who signed the June 2008 'Open Letter' to the Archbishops of Canterbury and York on the implications of passing legislation for women bishops with little or no provision for those who don't accept the ordination of women.

Bishop Edwin Barnes has been quite pointed about that letter and its point, or lack of it. I largely agree with him — 90%ish — in terms of how it does or doesn't move the debate on — but I do see another point to it — the need for mutual respect as we find different ways forward.

The first psalm in today's Office of Readings contains the following lines:

Some wandered in the desert, in the wilderness,
finding no way to a city they could dwell in.
Hungry they were and thirsty;
their soul was fainting within them.

The 15 bishops plea for eirenicism; that we should all respect the different paths that we eventually follow and avoid rancour based in failing to understand why some have become members of an Ordinariate, why some have become Catholics by individual submission, and why some have remained in the CofE.

The group they don't mention — and in fact no-one does, because they are a sign of contradiction to us all — is those who will simply be lost. It certainly happened in 1992/93/94.

Not everyone who felt pushed out of the mainstream of the CofE in the ordination of women as priests of the CofE — the only church they had ever known — came to rejoice in the ministry of the Episcopal Ministry Act of Synod and the 'Flying Bishops'. This is is a tragedy — especially given the quality of that flying ministry.

Some people, clergy included — and this is not idle speculation — were simply lost. Betrayed — as they felt — by the only church they had ever known, they decided to reconcile themselves to the mindset I encounter on a fairly regular basis in the context of funeral ministry: "you don't have to go to church to be a Christian."

The progressivists pushed ordinary, faithful, run-of-the-mill (all of which probably sound very patronising but aren't intended to) Anglicans out — and traditionalists failed to catch them as they left.

The Lost decided they would spend their Sunday morning tending their roses and playing with their grandchildren — from children who had already moved on from regular churchgoing — and say their prayers at home.

Anglican politics excite bloggers and the media — impaled as they generally are on sex. People outside that sphere are left cold — turned off by ecclesiastical politics.

Then they cried to the Lord in their need
and he rescued them from their distresss
and he led them along the right way,
to reach a city they could dwell in.

How do we — those Anglicans who are convinced that our home is in Rome, 'a city [we can] dwell in' — 'where Peter is, there is the Church, and Salvation' — ensure that we do not forget those who look with confusion on the CofE and the General Synod, but also wonder why their Vicar or Rector keeps going on about 'the Roman Church'?

What do we do to ensure to the greatest extent possible that they don't just end up saying their prayers at home?

* * *

Be sure to follow our Moderator at Eccentric Bliss, his personal blog!

The Bishop of Ebbsfleet's September Pastoral Letter

Posted on by
26

Electing a New General Synod

In my August Pastoral Letter, I said that I should continue to reflect on current issues in the September letter. Normally one looks for a different, and unrelated topic, but these are not normal times. We have seen the dissolution of the 2005–2010 General Synod and with it the dispersion of its ‘Catholic Group in General Synod’, one of the informal groupings in the Synod. New elections will take place shortly and the 2010–2015 General Synod will be inaugurated by the Queen in November. As happens every five years, there will be an inaugural meeting of the new ‘Catholic Group’ and people will be counting up how many are in the Group, bishops, clergy and laity, and what kind of line they will be taking. That much is predictable and the pattern for it long-established. The officers of the ‘Catholic Group’ will already be in place (provided they have managed themselves to be elected to the Synod) and the Chairman will already have a sense of the direction in which he will want to lead the Group.

Until the July 2010 vote, the second catastrophic vote for Anglo-catholics in three years, there was a division of opinion. One section wanted, on principle, to vote down the women bishops’ legislation completely, on the grounds that Catholic Faith and Order does not traditionally admit women to holy orders and the Church of England has no more competence to change the tradition than it has to change the bible, the creeds, or the sacraments. This section still sees its duty to witness to the Catholic Faith, as the Church of England has received it, and not to give up until the ‘final approval’ vote is lost in 2012 (if, indeed, it is lost). The ‘final approval’ vote on women bishops will need a two-thirds majority in each of the three houses of Synod and it is possible, of course, that it will not clear this hurdle in all three houses. (One projection is that it might fail in the house of laity).

The second section of opinion, broadly that of Forward in Faith, was that women bishops are inevitable sooner or later, because of the admission of women to the orders of deacon and priest, and that what is needed is a proper framework, proper provision, for those who maintain the historic and traditional view. The sooner the better. Forward in Faith favoured a free province, but three separate dioceses would amount to that, and that was firmly defeated in July. The archbishops’ amendment also might have permitted some sort of framework to be built on statutory transfer of jurisdiction. That was narrowly lost on a vote of houses. (It is hard to build a Catholic ecclesiology, incidentally, on a system which allows priests and deacons to vote down the attempts of archbishops and bishops in areas of Faith and Order. Are the procedures of General Synod in any sense ‘Catholic’?) What is apparently on offer, intended to meet the needs of this section of opinion, is a ‘code of practice’. Bishops and all who exercise patronage would agree to behave honourably and try to both respect people’s needs and their deeply-held beliefs.

Following the July 2010 vote, this second section of opinion has had to do some fresh thinking. Forward in Faith assemblies have chanted, as ‘the response to the psalm’, ‘A code of practice will not do’. Anglo-catholics are programmed then to reject a code of practice and it is important to understand why. For one thing, codes of practice are advisory and not mandatory. Discretion, discernment, goodwill, and good sense are all necessary for codes of practice to work. Catholic orders and sacraments cannot depend on discretion, discernment, goodwill, and good sense. Indeed a major characteristic of Catholic orders and sacraments is that they exist regardless of any of these things, even if some of these things are necessary for them to be of benefit to the faithful. Whatever it is, the Eucharist, celebrated by someone not in the historic succession, or not using the right elements or words, and not having the right intention, is not a Catholic sacrament. The same is true of Absolution, Confirmation, Ordination, and the Blessing of Oils. The argument here is not about the sex of the celebrant. Anglo-catholics (unlike many in the Church of England) have exactly the same problem with non-conformist ministers and lay presidents as they do with women clergy. What we need, we say, is ‘sacramental certainty’, a matter which the Chairman of the Catholic Group, Canon Simon Killwick, explained lucidly in the Church Times of 30 July 2010. That means that, in sacraments, God is doing something which does not depend on our response, though it invites our response. It happens, as they say, ex opera operato, just because it happens. To think otherwise is not what the Catholic Faith teaches. A code of practice won’t do!

That means that Anglo-catholics who are standing for election for the General Synod, or voting in General Synod elections, are standing, or voting, to defeat the women bishops’ legislation. It is hard to see how, in terms of process, any provision whatsoever could be made now – following the severe set-back in York in July – which allowed women bishops to be consecrated and, at the same time, traditional Anglo-catholics conscientiously to remain in the Church of England. But it ain’t over until it’s over. No-one in November 1992, when the final approval for women priests took place, could have guessed that a few months later the House of Bishops would cobble together the Episcopal Ministry Act of Synod 1993, with its promise of a permanent and honoured place for those who could not accept the development.

Some of you will now be asking why I am picking at the carcase rather than just declaring it dead and moving on to embrace the offer of Pope Benedict XVI to Anglicans in Anglicanorum cœtibus. The Pope’s offer is not a bargain basement sale. It isn’t ‘clearance’ or ‘end of roll’ or ‘while stocks last’. Nor is it a rescue plan for shipwrecked Anglo-catholics. It is a way of pursuing the ecumenical journey to which we have been committed for a very long time and it must be considered in its own right. That I propose to do in a third Pastoral Letter in October, the third in a series of letters. Meanwhile I think we continue to pray, reflect, and rest, and, of course, ponder and reflect during the visit of the Pope to England later in September, what we should now do, each one of us. Most of all, as the Holy Father comes among us as the leader of the Christian family, we pray for the coming of the Kingdom and the triumph of the Gospel over the forces of evil and indifference.

May God bless you as you faithfully serve him and his Church.

+Andrew

* * *

Be sure to follow our Moderator at Eccentric Bliss, his personal blog!

On the One Hand – and on the Other

Posted on by
12

Fifteen of our more catholic-minded bishops in the Church of England have penned a letter to the clergy.  I am not sure quite why they did it.  Apart from encouraging us all to attend regional meetings in the Autumn, and saying we must not be uncharitable, there is not a great deal which I can discern there of leadership.

Perhaps that will come later, when those who have made decisions will declare themselves and call on the rest of us to do the same.  I hope and believe this is so, and reckon the waiting is simply in order to get the visit of the Holy Father behind us.  That's very laudable, for we would not want the media focussing on Anglican turncoats (as they will call us) rather than on the visit of the Pope and what he has to say.

Yet it is frustrating to be told by those who are thought to be our leaders "we must be honest and say we are not united as to how we should respond to these developments."  We all know there are catholic-minded C of E bishops who have those four letters written down their spine, and they will find ways of staying C of E even when an Imam is installed in Canterbury.  We have come across men like them before, who claimed to be catholic, but once they were in high office simply failed to help us.  Such men are not our leaders; they will go on playing games until kingdom come.  We do not want or need their advice.

These are the ones who say "the closeness of the vote on the Archbishops' amendment for co-ordinate jursidiction suggest (sic) at least a measure of disquiet in the majority."  But they also say that even if that amendment had been accepted, there were "concerns about its adequacy."  Concerns!  I'll say there were concerns!  It was a pathetic sop, which no one with any integrity could have swallowed.  It gave no jurisdiction to any bishop appointed to care for us, and no certainty about what sort of bishop that might be — male, yes — but nothing at all about what he believed, or whether or not he himself participated in women's 'ordination'.  What is more, he would  be wished on us by a women 'bishop'. We said, and many of these fifteen bishops agreed, that "A Code of Practice will not do." … and now they seem to be saying, "Well, maybe we will have to put up with that, and it will all be alright in the end."

So the Bishops turn to consider those who will stay "perhaps even reluctantly because of family circumstances."  These are those who "cannot currently imagine themselves being anywhere else but within the Church of England."  Surely it is for our bishops to say to such people, "Well, you'd better start imagining."  There will BE no Church of England, or rather none that can feasibly call itself part of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, after women are consecrated as Bishops.  The shell may remain, appearances will be kept up here and there, but it will all be a sham.  A Church, a real Church, served by priests who were once called without any irony "stupor mundi" — that will have gone.

"Those who are not actively seeking a home elsewhere must work to defeat the currently proposed legislation."  Oh dear, what can we say to such dreamers?  The legislation is all but through.  Any amendment accepted now will be no more than applying a fresh coat of paint to Titanic's deckchairs — even less worthwhile than rearranging them, and a great deal more trouble.  Those bishops among the signatories who think there is any hope of defeating the legislation are not capable of leading anyone anywhere.  Sorry, it is just too late.  And it is cruel to encourage people to stand for Synod knowing that their role will be to be abused, ignored, and mocked.

We are told that even such people 'not seeking a home elsewhere' must be respected.  "Each of the possibilities we have outlined has its own integrity and is to be honoured."  I do not think it is a kindness to encourage people to live like Mr Micawber, hoping against hope that something will turn up.  It will not, and it is no kindness to pretend otherwise.

Why was there this special meeting of bishops who disagreed with one another, called in order to put out a statement?  We have enough of that from the official C of E.  What we want is leadership; and I pray we may get it, for like the Holy Father I am too old to be patient.

[The above piece is also published on my Ancient Richborough website.]

* * *

Be sure to follow our Moderator at Eccentric Bliss, his personal blog!

A Letter from 15 Catholic-Minded Bishops of the CoE

Posted on by
5

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.

Continue reading →

* * *

Be sure to follow our Moderator at Eccentric Bliss, his personal blog!

Bishop of Fulham's Statement on General Synod

Posted on by
Reply

The Bishop of Fulham and the Chairman of Forward in Faith, John Broadhurst, has released the following statement in the aftermath of the General Synod.

* * *

Like you, I was very disappointed at the outcome of last weekend’s debate at General Synod in York and appalled at the intransigence of some feminist clergy and their supporters.  What kind of a church is it that is willing to ignore the leadership of its Archbishops and to renege on a solemn promise given to Parliament about an honoured and permanent place for us?

We now face a most serious situation, made all the worse by the refusal of the Synod to pass the Archbishops’ amendment. Resolutions A & B – which provide the basis in law on which the ordination of women can be opposed – are to be removed.  This means that any opposition which might be tolerated will be based on the recognition of supposed prejudice rather than the respect of theological principle.  Further, the abolition of the PEVs is proposed, which will leave our constituency in an intolerable position.  All we would be allowed under the draft Measure as it now stands is access to a male bishop, whose own beliefs need not coincide with ours.  That is sexism writ large.

Despite the dreadful result in York, we owe a debt of gratitude to the Catholic Group in General Synod, along with all those who supported them in the debate.  In the coming weeks, a new Synod is to be elected and it is vital we all do all we can to ensure the return of as many orthodox candidates as possible, in order that a Catholic presence on the Synod can be there to continue to represent the interests of Catholic Anglicans throughout this divisive and unnecessary process.

That these are very difficult times for all of us goes without saying;  we need, above all, to take time to pray, to consult together and to support one another, as we try to discern our respective ways forward – not just in faith, but also of course in hope and in love.

Every blessing,

+John Fulham

* * *

Be sure to follow our Moderator at Eccentric Bliss, his personal blog!