* * *

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.

* * *

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

* * *

It seems we are seeing what may be the beginnings of differing responses taking shape among the C of E's traditionalists as the dust begins to settle from General Synod.

The Catholic Group in Synod, headed by the Master-General of the Society of the Holy Cross, has issued this statement:

The Catholic Group in General Synod is encouraged by the remarks of the Archbishop of Canterbury that there is still ‘unfinished business’ and that ‘the Church is only part of the way through the process’ of determining the way forward for women bishops legislation.

The Group was, however, disappointed that there was a lack of support for financial hardship where clergy feel by conscience that they need to resign from the Church of England. The onus now is on the Church of England to provide for its clergy to remain within the Church for which we have always fought as loyal Anglicans.

We remain committed to both the process and our Church, and would wish to play a major part in helping the Church in its ongoing journey in a spirit of unity that is Christ’s way.

Bishop Edwin Barnes, retired flying bishop, offers his thoughts on this statement at Ancient Richborough (and here on The Anglo-Catholic).

Meanwhile, The Catholic Herald has this to say about the meeting of traditionalist clergy with the Roman Catholic Bishop of Nottingham that took place during Synod to discuss the Ordinariate:

On July 5, Bishop Malcolm McMahon of Nottingham met about 70 Anglican clerics at Holy Cross priory in Leicester to discuss the possibility of an English Ordinariate.

He told the Sunday programme that he discussed “the details of the Apostolic Constitution and the complementary norms which were published last November”.

He said he was answering Pope Benedict XVI’s request to the English bishops “to offer warmth and a welcome and to facilitate their questions and their general direction, their impulse, if you like, to come into the Catholic Church”.

He said the main concerns at the meeting were “practical … about property, wages and how they would live and so on. What came through more than anything was their genuine desire to do what God has called them to do”.

(HT to Fr. Gollop at Let Nothing You Dismay)

On a more personal level, Fr. T. E. Jones, SSC, of St. Peter's London Docks, one of the most famous churches in the Anglo-Catholic world, has announced he is ending his blog with these words:

I have decided to end the Peterite Blog. It has run for just under four years, some 198,000 of you have visited (over 600 yesterday), which is a goodish score for what never purported to be other than a parish diary online. I can see little future for a blog of this sort and thus it is a kindness to you all to end it.

The Archbishop of Canterbury has made some cryptic comments on the end process being undecided, faint hope I think, he must know, as do I, that the new anti-elitist elite in the Church of England intend that there will be no place for traditionalists to grow and flourish, even those with sympathy and understanding for our position in the Synodically controlled Episcopate have short remaining shelf life and after them…? Thus only a twilight half-life as the best possible option. Not good enough.

My own future, about which I am calm and resolute, will not be lived out online.

It seems a good day to remember the closing of Newman's "The Parting of Friends":

And, O my brethren, O kind and affectionate hearts, O loving friends, should you know any one whose lot it has been, by writing or by word of mouth, in some degree to help you thus to act; if he has ever told you what you knew about yourselves, or what you did not know; has read to you your wants or feelings, and comforted you by the very reading; has made you feel that there was a higher life than this daily one, and a brighter world than that you see; or encouraged you, or sobered you, or opened a way to the inquiring, or soothed the perplexed; if what he has said or done has ever made you take interest in him, and feel well inclined towards him; remember such a one in time to come, though you hear him not, and pray for him, that in all things he may know God's will, and at all times he may be ready to fulfil it.

So it is brave, if also foolhardy, of today's Catholic Group in Synod to continue trying to participate.  In particular it was unwise of them to continue taking part in the debate once it was clear that only a Code of Practice will be available for anyone staying in the C of E after women are consecrated.  We have said "A Code of Practice Will Not Do."  We have explained why this is so.  We have too much evidence already of 'codes of practice' being ignored; and even the 'code' has not yet been formulated, let alone agreed to.  A pig in a poke is a safer bet than a code of practice with no legal backing.

The Group has my sympathy.  For all that, the "statement" they have issued is so feeble, and so clearly evidence that they think we are in "business as usual," that I feel I must respond to it.

The Catholic Group in General Synod is encouraged by the remarks of the Archbishop of Canterbury that there is still ‘unfinished business’ and that ‘the Church is only part of the way through the process’ of determining the way forward for women bishops legislation.

Well of course we are all always encouraged by remarks of the Archbishop of Canterbury.  Encouraging remarks is what he is so good at.  But he made plenty of remarks during the recent Synod, and they were all ignored.  There will not be any change in the "way forward for women bishops' legislation."  That way is already determined.  The liberals have not given an inch, and they are not going to.

The Group was, however, disappointed that there was a lack of support for financial hardship where clergy feel by conscience that they need to resign from the Church of England.

Disappointed!  I was scandalised.  There will have to be a fight over this.  The Ecclesiastical Committee of Parliament in 1993 could see that what was then proposed amounted to constructive dismissal, and they insisted that financial provision should be made for those who in conscience had to leave the ministry of the Church of England.  That should be even more necessary now, since many of us were hoodwinked into staying with promises of lasting provision.  If the Ecclesiastical Committee does not come to our rescue (and it should, for priests are being deprived of their Livings, which Parliament recognises as property) then the Law may; and the Law must be proved if necessary with some test cases, backed financially by Anglican Catholics and our Catholic Societies.

The onus now is on the Church of England to provide for its clergy to remain within the Church for which we have always fought as loyal Anglicans.

Dream on my dear friends in the Catholic Group.  No provision is going to be made, except what individual bishops, male or female, might feel they can offer from their goodness of heart.  And what bishops give they can also take away.  We asked for provision for our children and grand-children.  The provision from Synod will not even see us out, let alone future generations.

We remain committed to both the process and our Church, and would wish to play a major part in helping the Church in its ongoing journey in a spirit of unity that is Christ’s way.

But the process is already played out, and our Church is no longer recognisable as the Church of England we have known and loved.  Friends, stop playing games.  The game is over.  The fat lady has sung.  It is too late.

It is now 40 years since the Church of England General Synod came into being. It was an exciting new development, replacing an even more cumbersome system of dual control by Convocations of Clergy and the Church Assembly. The laity at last had a full and effective voice in the government of the Church of England. There were some safeguards in place. Certain matters had to be passed by two thirds' majority and there could be a call for a vote by Houses, even when one was not strictly required. That meant that there needed to be majorities in each of the three Houses, Bishops, Clergy, and Laity.

It was this last safeguard which torpedoed the attempt of the Archbishops of Canterbury and York to introduce an amendment to safeguard the ministry of traditionalist bishops. (As far as the democratic process is concerned, the archbishops are simply two members of the Synod). The amendment was voted down by five votes in the House of Clergy. This followed an earlier vote, where only 34% of the Synod supported new dioceses. Finally the whole draft Measure was approved, the only safeguard for traditionalists being the promise of a Code of Practice. The matter now moves from the General Synod, whose quinquennium has now ended, to the dioceses. It will return from there to the new General Synod. In 18 months' time, November 2012, the hope of supporters of women bishops is that the Measure will be finally passed by the necessary two-thirds majority in each House, the hurdle which the Ordination of Women to the Priesthood Measure cleared on November 1992. Thereafter it must pass muster in Parliament, receive the Royal Assent, and be promulged as a canon. Last time, all of that took another 15 months, which would take us to February 2014, with the first consecrations of women bishops soon thereafter.

Traditionalists have been beaten four-square. When (though, strictly, it is still 'If') the Measure comes into force, there will be no more Resolution A and B, no more 'petitioning parishes'. There will be no more 'flying bishops', no more Beverley, Ebbsfleet, and Richborough. There will be again the assurance of good behaviour: no one will be over-faced by women priests and bishops ministering where they are not wanted. But there will be no guarantees (and, increasingly, no likelihood) that male bishops and priests ministering to us will share those convictions, or derive their orders from an unbroken apostolic succession of bishops in the Catholic line. Avoiding women ministers will become not a conviction about Catholic Order, shared throughout the ages, but a matter of sexual discrimination, abhorrent to all of us. In a very short time, it will have become unacceptable to invoke a sexist Code of Practice.

It is important for us all to understand how momentous all this is and what the implications are for our life together. I was never very hopeful of the Archbishops' amendment, though it was good that it was debated. It would not have brought a clear and certain place for the Catholic understanding of Faith and Order. But it would have allowed a new generation of Provincial Episcopal Visitors — flying bishops — to try to work out, with the Archbishops, some sort of corporate life for our priests, people, and parishes. It is fair to say that both Archbishops wanted that. Moreover 60% of the bishops in Synod (though not two thirds) were prepared, more or less enthusiastically, to support the Archbishops and accept their spiritual lead.

Come the final judgment when, as the Prayer Book says in the Marriage Service, 'the secrets of all hearts shall be disclosed', some will have to account for the broken promises of the early 1990s. Traditionalists were then assured of a permanent and honoured place. Great store was set by the doctrine of reception (whereby no change in Holy Order would finally thought to be 'received' until it was accepted by the ancient churches of East and West). It was on the basis of these promises — both now very hollow — that Provincial Episcopal Visitors were appointed, ordinands and their families exchanged comfortable life styles for theological college, curacies, and what promised to be a lifetime of ministry, and parishes set to work energetically with the task of evangelism and catechesis. However honourably these promises were made, there were liberal pressure groups intent on destroying them. These liberal pressure groups are not full of bad people: the women and men concerned were always exasperated that the Church made such high-sounding, but undeliverable, promises. In their view -the view that has prevailed — we all simply needed to get used to the new 'inclusive' way of doing things. In their view, twenty years is quite long enough for that to have happened. But there have been broken promises indeed and some supporters of the women bishops' project recognise that and seek forgiveness, healing, and reconciliation.

For Ebbsfleet, the critical vote came when nearly two thirds of the General Synod rejected the creation of new dioceses. The only sense we have been able to make of the whole Ebbsfleet project these last sixteen years (of which I have been bishop for nearly ten), is that the See of Ebbsfleet is an 'Apostolic District'. That is, it is an area of the vineyard which seeks to grow into, and become, a 'local Church', a 'diocese'. To that end, we have had our Stational Masses of Initiation, our Ordinations, and our Chrism Masses. We have had our Area Deans and Deaneries, our Council of Priests, our Lay Council, and our Lay Congress. We have also had parish evangelism weekends and research into resources for catechesis and formation. We have had clergy retreats, festivals of faith, and the annual Children and Young People's Eucharistic Festival. Our churches have been as well-attended as most, with, if anything, more than our share of men, children, young families, and other endangered categories of church-goer. Here was a new kind of diocese, not without its problems, but with promising signs. 'In house' there has been very little discussion of 'church issues' and that in itself has made us vulnerable. We have never been attacked by anyone who got to know us and experienced our corporate life. It has always been fear of who we might be, what we might represent, rather than what we actually are.

For now, the prescription is for some serious summer rest and to get some praying and thinking done. I shall be addressing these issues further in the September Pastoral letter, at a Sacred Synod for clergy, and at the Ebbsfleet Lay Conference, but, for now, at least we know where we are. It is time to stop trying to make bricks without straw.

May God bless you as you seek to discern, obey, and trust his will.

* * *

The debate on women in the episcopate has drawn to a close in the General Synod and Forward in Faith has issued a statement cautioning its members to be patient until province gatherings in September and the National Assembly in October, which will put this whole Ordinariate process at the one year mark. Many of us will want things to be wrapped up tomorrow, but I think it's fair to say that won't be happening. Here are my random thoughts:

First, let’s all do our best to remember that events are moving at lightning speed in ecclesiastical terms if not perhaps at T1 Internet speed. An incredible amount has happened since last October and much will likely be crammed into the next few months before those key fall gatherings. Reflect on the crises that drove the first seven councils and you’ll see that things are moving rapidly even if they’re not keeping up with our need for novelty.

Second, we all have a great need for a denouement, but let’s not start setting ourselves up to believe that October will be that event. At most we will probably see those who intend to take advantage of the Apostolic Constitution begin to unveil a plan for orderly withdrawal. The General Synod and Parliament are still 18 months from passing their respective bits of necessary legislation for the consecration of women to the episcopate. There can be no serious talk of compensation for clergy and negotiations over access to parishes until that reality is closer. The Holy Father is patient in this matter so it is not for us to castigate those who may be coming that they are moving too slowly.

Third, FIF and the other catholic bodies in the UK have an obligation to do what can be done for the welfare of those who will be staying on in the C of E. Yes, some Anglo-Papalists will be eating their words and staying put and it is uncharitable in the extreme for us to be serving up a buffet of condiments for them, but the larger group who will stay never had any desire to go. That’s hard for us who have older or newer cases of Roman fever to accept because we have come to love the Roman Catholic Church but, just as we seem to have no problem believing that people can be Russian Orthodox and Presbyterian because they genuinely believe what those bodies teach, we should not impugn the motives or intelligence of those who remain Anglo-Catholics either within the Church of England or the Continuum. This is part of our own separation that we have to go through. A relationship is dissolving and it is easy to feel betrayed and say regrettable things, but we must continue to hope the best for and love those from whom we are separating in the hope that one day we will be reconciled.

Fourth, people need space to grieve. However excited many of us are that we may soon be joined by some old friends, we have to remember that there is real loss and pain—no doubt many of us can remember our own. Give space and time for that process to happen and for psyches to mend.

Fifth, the consecration of women to the episcopate is the proximate cause of this exodus, of whatever size it turns out to be, but, in the months to come, that must become less and less important as positive reasons for making this change come to the fore. The last few days will have revealed to some who leave that there was a fundamental difference in understanding of the nature of doctrine and of the Church within Anglicanism. The articulation of that difference played out over the issues of the ordination and consecration of women, but these differences were not about gender in any final sense. Instead, they were about concepts of doctrinal authority and development. We need to help people see all that is good that they are being offered by being part of the Catholic Church and to dare to believe that now the strife is o’er, at least on what had become all-too-familiar battlefronts. I think that most of us who have become Catholic can tell those who come how amazingly quickly old battles are left behind on this side of the water. There are plenty of problems here as well, but they will mostly be new and different and not have anything to do with merely trying to survive.

Finally, for those of us who are watching from the outside, it is a time to pray for those who are coming and those who are at a loss for what to do. Take a person, take a parish, take a place and pray for it daily.

So this is Newman's prediction come true in our time and on our watch:

"In no other sense surely; the Church of England has been the instrument of Providence in conferring great benefits on me;—had I been born in Dissent, perhaps I should never have been baptized; had I been born an English Presbyterian, perhaps I should never have known our Lord's divinity; had I not come to Oxford, perhaps I never should have heard of the visible Church, or of Tradition, or other Catholic doctrines. And as I have received so much good from the Anglican Establishment itself, can I have the heart or rather the want of charity, considering that it does for so many others, what it has done for me, to wish to see it overthrown? I have no such wish while it is what it is, and while we are so small a body. Not for its own sake, but for the sake of the many congregations to which it ministers, I will do nothing against it. While Catholics are so weak in England, it is doing our work; and, though it does us harm in a measure, at present the balance is in our favour. What our duty would be at another time and in other circumstances, supposing, for instance, the Establishment lost its dogmatic faith, or at least did not preach it, is another matter altogether. In secular history we read of hostile nations having long truces, and renewing them from time to time, and that seems to be the position which the Catholic Church may fairly take up at present in relation to the Anglican Establishment.

Doubtless the National Church has hitherto been a serviceable breakwater against doctrinal errors, more fundamental than its own. How long this will last in the years now before us, it is impossible to say, for the Nation drags down its Church to its own level…"

What I am saying is that now the Church of England is rapidly losing this role as "a serviceable breakwater," the task of orthodox Christian apologetics becomes more urgent, not less, because we are engaged in a battle against heresy which will inevitably follow us wherever our final ecclesial destination may be. The victory of liberalism in the Church of England can only give encouragement to its supporters elsewhere.

Perhaps I'm an incurable romantic, but I don't believe this defeat was inevitable. If over the last fifty or sixty years Anglican Catholics had been better organised, better and more consistently led, and less easily convinced of both our own success and of our opponents' sense of  honour, and all of us less enamoured of the spirit of the age, things could have turned out very differently. What has now happened is in no sense whatsoever a victory and it should not give us cause for any kind of satisfaction, much less rejoicing.

But this is Newman again, once more from the Apologia, summing up what many of us are — with infinite regret – now feeling:

"…and, unwilling as I am to give offence to religious Anglicans, I am bound to confess that I felt a great change in my view of the Church of England. I cannot tell how soon there came on me,—but very soon,—an extreme astonishment that I had ever imagined it to be a portion of the Catholic Church. For the first time, I looked at it from without, and (as I should myself say) saw it as it was. Forthwith I could not get myself to see in it any thing else, than what I had so long fearfully suspected, from as far back as 1836,—a mere national institution."

By rejecting the opportunity for unity that the Amendments they proposed would have achieved, it has made it very difficult for those who in conscience cannot accept the ministry for women priests and bishops.

Unbelievable.  It's just now becoming "very difficult" for Catholics in the Established Church???  Nonetheless, the Catholic Group notes that "General Synod is not over and we would wish to be involved in the ongoing discussions as to a way forward."

Believe me, having been occasionally chided for my disquietude at the spiritual inertia of others, I am well aware that we all must be patient with our brethren as they come to terms with the disintegration of Anglicanism and the Holy Father's gracious offer in the recent Apostolic Constitution, but seriously, oughtn't we expect just a wee bit of intellectual honesty here?  There is no future for the Catholic position in the Church of England — with or without the passage of the Archbishops' amendments. We should be patient with our dilatory brothers and sisters, but we owe it to them to dispel their fanciful delusions.  For the past two decades, the only Catholic position in Established Church has been to hold out (either for a miracle, or) for the Holy See to act.  The Successor of St. Peter has now finally acted — and that beyond our wildest dreams.  There is no choice, no other way forward.

LONDON — The Church of England moved another step closer to an unbridgeable schism between traditionalists and reformers on Saturday when its General Synod, or parliament, rejected a bid by the archbishop of Canterbury to strike a compromise over the ordination of women bishops aimed at preserving the increasingly fragile unity of the worldwide Anglican Communion.

-snip-

The narrow rejection of the archbishop’s compromise proposals at the Synod meeting in the northern English city of York appeared to raise the threat of a new wave of defections by traditionalists among the church’s laity and clergy to the Roman Catholic Church. Pope Benedict XVI had responded to the internal divisions among Anglicans last year by offering special provisions for disaffected Anglicans wishing to convert to Catholicism — a move that has led to resentment among some Anglicans.

An earlier wave of defections followed the Church of England’s decision to accept openly gay priests, and moves by the Episcopal Church in the United States to ordain gay bishops.

That led to the offer of special terms for Anglican converts that was made last October by Benedict, and to the shock that was provoked among leading Anglicans, including the archbishop of Canterbury, who saw it as a blow to their efforts to hold Anglicanism together in the face of its deep divisions.

Resentment over the pope’s move has cast a pall over his state visit to Britain in September, which will be the first papal visit to Britain since Pope John Paul II visited in 1982. The archbishop, who has been a major advocate of reconciliation between Anglicanism and Roman Catholicism, has signaled his disdain for the pope’s move by making statements that have conveyed a mood of indifference toward the papal visit.

The proposed compromise in York was co-sponsored by the second most senior prelate in the Church of England, John Sentamu, the archbishop of York. The two men had staked their authority and prestige on winning support for their proposals, and their failure left the Church of England — and the wider Anglican Communion, with an estimated 80 million followers worldwide — facing a new low in its long battle to avert a breakup that would create two rival Anglican communions, one traditionalist and the other reformist.

The Church of England Synod has at least 10 more hours of debate over the next three days on the terms under which women will be consecrated as bishops — a step that was formally approved two years ago. Women priests have been ordained in the Church of England since 1994 and now represent nearly a third of the church’s working clergy.

Reformers had argued that the latest compromise would reduce women bishops to “second class” status among bishops and would lead to inevitable conflict.

[Were any priests planning to attend this meeting inclined to take notes and submit a report on the proceedings for publication here on The Anglo-Catholic, we would be very appreciative!]

Church of England clergy will tomorrow meet a senior Roman Catholic bishop to discuss conversion on the very day the General Synod attempts to reach a compromise over the ordination of women as bishops, the issue at the heart of their possible defection.

Holy Cross Hall in Leicester provides the first formal encounter between a bishop from the Catholic Church in England and Wales and Anglican clergy who want to join a personal ordinariate – a Vatican initiative that will allow entire communities to cross over to Rome while maintaining elements of their own spiritual heritage. Pope Benedict stunned many last October when he issued a decree opening the gates of Rome to disaffected Anglicans.

The meeting coincides with the Church of England General Synod, which faces the impossible task of balancing the needs of traditionalists, who want protection from female ministry, and supporters of women's ordination, who say there should be little or none.

[...]

Everyone knows there will, eventually, be women bishops. Synod lifted the legal barrier to their consecration in 2008. But the outcome of the debates may not be enough to stave off an exodus of traditionalist clergy as enquiries and interest regarding conversion are well underway. The Leicester meeting will give clergy the opportunity to ask questions. The guest speaker is the bishop of Nottingham, the Right Rev Malcolm McMahon, who is part of a commission to plan the establishment the ordinariate.

One of the organisers, Father Stephen Bould, said: "We understand there is serious interest from a substantial number of clergy. It will be interesting to see how that interest grows after it [the ordinariate] has been set up."

Bould did not see the Synod clarifying the situation for traditionalists. "People will have been making their minds up for quite a long period of time. We are at the end of a very long period of theologising, infighting and politicking."

[...]

Attendance in Leicester will indicate how many clergy are ready to convert. Anglicans in this country and abroad will be watching closely to gauge the level of interest in an untried initiative.

The event has been advertised widely on traditionalist websites and appears on the sites of "flying bishops" – clerics who look after traditionalist parishes.

The whole notion of  'giving jurisdiction by virtue of the Measure' is meaningless unless the scope of that jurisdiction is spelled out — and the devil is in that detail.  For it will be for each bishop, male or female, to interpret the Code of Practice and decide how to implement it.  And who will appoint these PEV substitute bishops?  At present the PEVs are appointed by the Archbishops; there is no guarantee that this will continue.  Parishes will write a letter asking for the pastoral care of such a bishop — but unlike the present situation, they will have no input into the decision of who that bishop might be.  All that is required is that he is male.  At present, any bishop carrying out the pastoral and sacramental role for a parish which has requested it must himself be opposed to women as priests.  That is a theological standpoint.  Whereas to ask for "a male bishop" is simply an expression of misogyny.

So WATCH are right; they do not support the Archbishops' amendments because they cannot.

But Fr Ed Tomlinson is also right when he says "It amounts to smoke and mirror tactics which vest real power in diocesans who are asked to play along with Anglo-Catholics wanting to act as if nothing has changed."  [See his post below.] And it IS playing; playing cat-and-mouse with Anglo-Catholics, making it seem as though they have a bishop with real authority, but then whittling that authority down by allowing him only such functions as the Diocesan Bishop decides, in the light of a Code of Practice.  What is more, those functions are constantly capable of review; and if the Diocesan does not like what the substitute bishop is doing, s/he can change the terms of his permission to function.  S/he will first consult her/his diocesan synod — so that is where the protection of Anglo-Catholics will lie, in advice given by a Diocesan Synod on how its bishop might interpret a Code of Practice — advice the bishop is at liberty to accept or to ignore.

Forward in Faith has always said "A Code of Practice will not do."  It has said this because even the bishops' own Code of Practice has been widely and cynically ignored by many diocesans.  It has also said we want our children and our children's children to be able to grow up in the faith.  The Synod's proposals, even if the Archbishops' amendments were approved (which is highly unlikely), will give no such assurance for a catholic future.

How much better if later this month General Synod proceeds to a one-clause measure, simply saying that women may be consecrated in the Church of England.  I hope such a measure would fail.  I am sure it would not.  That at least would mean that our dear catholic-minded brethren who are ready to sit on the last fence, however ricketty it might be, will be left with a clear choice — which is already the real choice for us all.

Either the Church of England has women bishops, and chooses to be irredeemably protestant, or it refuses to consecrate women as bishops and so retains the possibility of remaining or becoming catholic.  Come on, Synod, how long will you halt between two opinions?

Secondly I am utterly perplexed as to why people even care what this says when the Ordinariate is a more viable, thrilling, hopeful and realistic way forward for those claiming to be Catholic. Why place hope on a synod that has consistently failed you when an offer from Rome guarantees a long term Catholic future? Why stay in an institution that is manifestly becoming more liberal, confused and protestant when you can enter communion with 1.4 billion like-minded people? It is lunacy on a scale I can barely comprehend!!

I am also perplexed that anyone could find anything positive even if hoping on synod! What on earth does it mean to have two bishops who are out of communion with each another claiming to have full jurisdiction over a parish even though only one ever functions within it?? Honestly what sort of garbled ecclesiology is this? Jesus said that we cannot serve two masters and the scheme as it stands is palpable nonsense, begging the question of how two bishops could possibly exist within the same college with equal authority but contradictory views on the faith?

I am further perplexed as to how anyone claiming to be Catholic could ever consider writing to a female diocesan requesting her spiritual oversight as they request a male visitor? It is as sexist as it is ludicrous! Either she is the bishop in which case she should visit herself or else she is not and it is not to her you should be writing! Any letter would compromise integrity by granting her the very authority that you claim she does not have.

Even ignoring all of the above can you really trust a liberal bishop to act fairly in any case? Do not forget that we were assured of fair and equal treatment when women were first ordained. Perhaps it would help you to add up the number of Forward in Faith diocesans and deans before you accept this poisoned chalice! How long will the letters be answered politely? One year, ten years? And then what?

I do not want to drive a wedge between my Anglo-Catholic brothers and sisters who are presently unable to feel excited by the offer of an Ordinariate. I simply want to urge people to reflect prayerfully and not look a gift horse in the mouth. The Catholic experiment is over and the future of the Church of England will either be evangelical or liberal — that much is abundantly clear. (I shall pray for evangelical strength in the future).

Do not forget the old story concerning the drowning man who prayed to God for help. He first dismissed a lifeboat telling the crew that God would save him. He then dismissed the helicopter in similar fashion. Then he drowned. At the pearly gates he quizzed S. Peter asking how God could have let him down so dramatically. S. Peter looked surprised and said, ‘we sent a lifeboat and helicopter and concluded you wanted to die!’

The amendments being offered by the archbishops of Canterbury and York seem to me to be catering to the same kind of phobia, except it’s about bishops instead of food.  The phrase “being in communion with” used to mean something to catholic-minded Anglicans. Do the people who welcome these amendments give any thought to the fact that they’ll still be part of an Anglican Communion which has bishops who are women, bishops who are in “same sex relationships,” or bishops of various combinations we haven’t thought of yet?  Just because someone might be able to avoid dealing with these new-style bishops doesn’t mean they cease to exist.

One of the few things enabling Anglo-catholics to remain in the Anglican Communion has been the thought that “it’ll never happen in my parish.”  Years ago I recognized that as congregationalism, and I knew I couldn’t minister in that kind of situation and still consider myself somehow “catholic.”

I’m very much an outsider to what’s going on with all of this – but I’ve never let a small detail like that stop me from giving my opinion.  I have to say it: I really wish the archbishops would pack up their amendments and tuck them away someplace where they won’t bother anybody.  All they’re doing is prolonging the agony.  It’s obvious that what’s been happening in the Anglican Communion over this past generation or so is apparently what most Anglicans want to have happen.  It won’t be stopped.  In fact, it can’t be stopped – no matter how many creative amendments are proposed.  It’s the inevitable outcome of what was an interesting attempt at having a non-papal form of Catholicism: everything was there, except for the Rock upon which Christ intended it to be built.  It’s like trying to build a cathedral, but completely ignoring the requirements of the structural engineer.  Is it any surprise to see it come tumbling down?  

When people see some disaster coming which is going to destroy their home, what do most of them do?  Grab the family treasures if they can, gather up the things that mean the most to them, and then get someplace where it’s safe.  I think the Latin phrase for that is “Anglicanorum coetibus.”

A Refurbished Fig Leaf to Spare the Bishops' Blushes

Now I have had to deal with diocesan bishops.  Some of them see no problem in letting Flying Bishops operate.  Others have allowed only minimal functions to be undertaken; for instance, not allowing them to ordain candidates within their diocese, even when the candidate has requested it from the start of training.  There has been a Code of Practice agreed by the House of Bishops, and this Code has been undermined and  ignored in far too many instances.  Each diocesan has decided for himself how much of the Code to implement, and how much to ignore.  The Archbishops' proposals make this situation potentially much worse.

What the Amendments spell out quite clearly is that "the jurisdiction of the diocesan bishop, whether male or female, remains intact (the Archbishops' emphasis) and he or she … would be legally entitled to exercise any episcopal  function in any parish of the diocese."   We have all seen the generous Bishops in Wales insisting on celebrating in the most stalwart Forward in Faith parishes.  Until now, the Act of Synod has saved us from that in England.  In the future, there will be no protection, no votes A or B, only a Letter of Request to the Diocesan from the parish.  And what of protection for the laity not in such parishes, or for ordinands, or for those in non-parochial posts?

There would be "a Code of Practice [which] would contain guidelines for effective co-ordination of  episcopal functions so as to avoid  duplication or  conflict in the exercise of ministry."  (Again, the Archbishops' own emphasis.)

In an ideal world where all bishops, male and female, always behaved honourably, that could work.  But we are all sinners, bishops no less than anyone else.  That is why, until now, Forward in Faith has persistently said "A Code of Practice will not do."  And  neither will it, no matter how Synod tries to dress it up.  Nor am I quite sure why Forward in Faith is so hopeful.   There will be bishops who will say, "The Code of Practice was drawn up before I was a Bishop.  I do not agree with it.  Therefore I shall not follow it."  Ridiculous, of course, but that is exactly what has happened with the Act of Synod.

Until now, the Provincial Episcopal Visitors have had some legal status.  They have had the protection of their own Archbishop; ++George Carey was always hugely helpful to me as one of his Provincial Bishops.  That will no longer be the case under the proposals by York and Canterbury.  Everything, in the end, will depend on the diocesan bishop — who "retains the freedom to amend the diocesan scheme from time to time after consultation with the diocesan synod."   So she can listen to what her own Synod says, and then do just what she thinks is right.

I don't want to sound too niggardly.  There are some good things in what the Archbishops have to say, and they are in any case trying to perform an impossible task.  They remind us of the Lambeth '98 declaration, that "those who dissent from as well as those who assent to the ordination of women to the priesthood and episcopate are both loyal Anglicans."  It is good that we are all reminded of this, since some treat us who dissent as anything but loyal, and they want rid of us as soon as possible.

However, we have said throughout that what we need is our own Bishops, with Jurisdiction.  What we are being offered in this amendment sounds like that, but is not.  The Archbishops assert "both the diocesan and the nominated bishop would possess 'ordinary jurisdiction'." Now that is the language of Humpty Dumpty, making words mean just what you want them to mean.  For the Archbishops continue (without emphasis this time): "the diocesan would retain the complete jurisdiction of a diocesan in law, and the nominated bishop would have jurisdiction by virtue of the Measure to the extent provided for in the diocesan scheme."  That, to me, does not sound like 'jurisdiction'.  It sounds rather as though the nominated bishop would be hedged round by whatever scheme individual dioceses come up with, which will only be drawn up "in the  light of the provisions contained in the national statutory Code of Practice drawn up by the House of Bishops and agreed by the General Synod."

"Bearing in mind" is not good enough.  It does not begin to provide the secure future for our children and grandchildren such as we have always asked for.  The nominated bishop's authority, retricted in this way, would also be subject to the whim of a diocesan bishop who, after hearing what her diocesan synod had to say, could alter it just as she chose; saying, of course, that she "had in mind" the provisions of the Code of Practice.

For all its apparent generosity, this is one more attempt to spare the blushes of the Bench of Bishops.  It could even persuade some soft touch of an 'anglo-catholic' to accept consecration as a 'nominated bishop' — and heaven help anyone who does so!  But the Archbishops' proposed amendments will probably fail in the General Synod, for even their modest proposals will incense the women.  Should it succeed, it will provide a tattered cloak of decency for a few nominally catholic Anglicans and prevent them from doing what they know they should do: which is to forget all this synodical dance of death, and find life in the Ordinariate.

Synod leads us in a merry dance: the dance of death.

There will be those who will simply be unable for the present to take advantage of Pope Benedict's offer. Undoubtedly, some will seek to justify their pro tem negative decisions theologically rather than pragmatically; if nothing more, that's fallen human nature, something as "catholics" we should be prepared to be tolerant about and for which of course we have a remedy. Ultimately such decisions are a matter for each (informed) individual conscience and not for us to try to second-guess other peoples' motives in deciding to go or to stay.

But it's important now, and as events gather momentum later this year, to keep all the doors open and not to start slamming them in each other's faces. What we are witnessing now — the birth of the structures which will be set up as a result of Anglicanorum Coetibus — is a movement as much (actually, far more) for the long term future as it is of the present, and no good purpose will be served, least of all the advancement of the Catholic faith and the kingdom of heaven, by seeking to alienate those whose short term decisions will differ from our own. The Anglo-Catholic future, whatever we can or cannot do at the moment, will undoubtedly lie with the future Ordinariates in full communion with the successor of Peter.

We all know that even if the new proposals of the Archbishop of Canterbury and York are passed by the Church of England's General Synod (and that is by no means a foregone conclusion) remaining in what will, finally and definitively, have become another liberal protestant 'denomination' has no honest long term theological future for Anglo-Catholics whatsoever, but for some,  for various reasons — personal, marital, pastoral or whatever — it may well turn out to be the only realistic short term option available.

We are living through a time of great uncertainty and considerable stress and anxiety. Although the future may be bright for many, others feel their world and their whole lives collapsing all around them. The natural reaction to the sky falling in is one of fear and hesitation and an illusory desire to take refuge in the familiar. To change the metaphor, it's natural when the ship has gone down to try to cling to the wreckage rather than strike out into deep water. This natural hesitation — and for many, the Anglican structures, however flawed we all know them to be, have been their home all their lives and the place where they learned the Catholic faith, and to which they are held by many ties of friendship and affection — should evoke in us prayer, constant persuasion and understanding rather than name-calling and condemnation.

Whatever happens and whatever decisions each of us makes, we should try to keep as many doors open as possible in the hope that in time (God's time) others will be encouraged to pass through them.

And wherever we stand for the time being, we should remember that it is the long term which is important.

"Gather up the fragments left over, so that nothing may be lost."