|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Hope for Women Bishops Resolution?
|
St. Punk the Pious
Biblical™ Punk
# 683
|
Posted
Yesterday, Forward in Faith issued a hopeful statement about progress in discussions about women bishops.
I had not been hopeful heretofore. But if FinF is hopeful, I guess am I, too.
So is there indeed good reason for hope for an amicable resolution to this matter? Or was Bishop Jonathan just being diplomatic?
(And please confine discussion to non-dead horse matter - no arguments for and against women bishops please.
And, hosts, I looked and saw no other thread on this development. If I'm wrong, feel free to close and/or redirect.)
--------------------
The Society of St. Pius *
Wannabe Anglican, Reader
My reely gud book.
Posts: 4161 | From: Choral Evensong | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Felafool
Shipmate
# 270
|
Posted
From FiF website article:
women in the episcopate
quote:
As a matter of conscience, those who, with Forward in Faith, are opposed on theological grounds to ordaining women to the episcopate will not be able to vote at the final approval stage in favour of legislation whose purpose is to permit this. What attitude is taken to the possibility of principled abstention will depend on whether the proposals survive intact. Any weakening of the proposals would require them to be opposed vigorously.
So....as I read it, the FiFers have agreed and negotiated the new proposal, and indeed are to be applauded for their participation in moving forward. However, having done this, they say they will not vote, and talk of 'principled abstension' ??? WTF?
Either they approve of the proposals they were party to in negotiation, or they don't. Why can't they back what they collabortively proposed?
(Not to mention the threat of vigourous opposition if their proposals aren't met.)
OK, let's admit that whatever view one takes on the matter of women in the episcopate, the way forward without schism is for all parties to agree and actively support a compromise.
--------------------
I don't care if the glass is half full or half empty - I ordered a cheeseburger.
Posts: 265 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
There are 3 groups who voted againt the last set of proposals:- Conservative traditionalists
- Conservative Evangelicals
- Those who voted against their own beliefs as they saw the protection of others was inadequate
FIF are unlikely to persuade anyone from group B to change their view, and as Group B is larger than group A it is unlikely to be enough. Whether they can persuade anyone in group C to change their mind remains to be seen.
I am, of course, referring to the house of clergy. I expect the proposals to go through the other two houses as before.
It is a good step in the direction of consecrating women as bishops in the CofE though.
(See how I avoided stating my position, so no to step on Equus Extinctus.)
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Felafool:
So....as I read it, the FiFers have agreed and negotiated the new proposal, and indeed are to be applauded for their participation in moving forward. However, having done this, they say they will not vote, and talk of 'principled abstension' ???
They have four points of progress, but still have three "Matters to be addressed." Why do you expect more than an abstention?
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
St. Punk the Pious
Biblical™ Punk
# 683
|
Posted
In Synod, does an abstention have the same effect as a "No" vote?
Even if it does, I doubt FinF principled abstentions would be enough to kill the legislation as long as Christina Rees and allies are ok with it.
Anyone hear how that, er, group feels about current discussions?
--------------------
The Society of St. Pius *
Wannabe Anglican, Reader
My reely gud book.
Posts: 4161 | From: Choral Evensong | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lucia
Looking for light
# 15201
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
I am, of course, referring to the house of clergy. I expect the proposals to go through the other two houses as before.
I thought it was the House of Laity that didn't have a big enough majority to pass the legislation last time?
Posts: 1075 | From: Nigh golden stone and spires | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Felafool
Shipmate
# 270
|
Posted
Balaam wrote:
quote:
I am, of course, referring to the house of clergy. I expect the proposals to go through the other two houses as before.
Surely it was actually the House of Laity who failed to give the necessary support?
synod vote
--------------------
I don't care if the glass is half full or half empty - I ordered a cheeseburger.
Posts: 265 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
so many crossposts...
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
I am, of course, referring to the house of clergy. I expect the proposals to go through the other two houses as before.
I thought it was voted down (or more accurately not voted for in sufficient numbers) by the House of Laity last time?
[ 12. November 2013, 13:56: Message edited by: Marvin the Martian ]
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
In Synod, does an abstention have the same effect as a "No" vote?
If a resolution requires 2/3 of the entire House to agree in order to be passed, then yes it has the same effect. If the resolution only requires 2/3 of those who voted to agree, then it doesn't.
I don't know which of those is the case.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Felafool
Shipmate
# 270
|
Posted
Balaam wrote quote:
They have four points of progress, but still have three "Matters to be addressed." Why do you expect more than an abstention?
My reading of it is that the matters to be addressed are being addressed. But the inference (to me) is that even if these are addressed to the satisfaction of FiF, they still take the view that they will not support the proposals. Or perhaps I'm mis-reading.
--------------------
I don't care if the glass is half full or half empty - I ordered a cheeseburger.
Posts: 265 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
St. Punk the Pious
Biblical™ Punk
# 683
|
Posted
I suspect that, if the need arises, enough FinF people could vote for a reasonable final resolution to put it over. They could make accompanying statements of explanation that would please all but the hardest of hardliners.
And, since the House of Laity will be the possible sticking point, most traditionalist laity can so act without major fallout. Or so I would think.
--------------------
The Society of St. Pius *
Wannabe Anglican, Reader
My reely gud book.
Posts: 4161 | From: Choral Evensong | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daisymay
St Elmo's Fire
# 1480
|
Posted
And I asked one woman who was working in a church and was ordained and she said it would be OK for her to be a Bishop, but believed she would not be as she was not young!
--------------------
London
Flickr fotos
Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
It looks as though nobody is going to make the crass mistake they made last time of pushing through the main resolution first and leaving the practical stuff, code of practice etc., to be sorted out later.
I agree with women bishops, but for that reason alone, if I'd been in synod last time, I might have found myself in group C.
There's still the risk that some of those I described in threads last time as the Devalerists on the pro side might vote against it because it doesn't give them absolutely everything they insist they ought to be entitled to have.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
AIUI, (and I may well be wrong), the vote is on those present, rather than those eligible. From what I've seen over at TA, it looks like if the catholic group are happy enough with it, then if they abstain OR vote in favour the ConEVOs don't have enough people to block it.
To be honest, "principled abstention" if this is right looks like being neither here nor there - ie, catholic opponents don't have to break a point of principle and vote for Women Bishops, but at the same time are happy enough with the provisions that they won't block the will of the wider synod. To that extent, principled abstention *is* a step forward, given that it removes the block. It remains to be seen which way the ConEVOs go (although I think this statement means they can make a lot of noise but not really much more), but as a FIF sympathiser, if Bishop Jonathan's happy with it then I'm happy with it - and then maybe we can all get on with wider mission.
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
As I understand it, quite a few of the conservative evangelicals who voted against last time are much happier with this suggestion.
The other big group who voted against last time, and might well do so again is the hard-line WitCh folk who think that any form of concession to those who object to the OoW is wrong.
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
I remember reading that some people who agreed in principle to women bishops voted against last time because they didn't like the way it was being forced through (as they felt) without proper measures being in place. It would only need a few of them to be happy this time round for the balance to change to 'in favour'.
Meanwhile, prayers still appreciated for those most closely wrestling with the issue. This information gives the background leading up to the November synod, with details of what has been happening earlier in the summer.
The steering committee which has been meeting since.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
pete173
Shipmate
# 4622
|
Posted
It's got traction among the traditionalist catholics, who see that this gives them what they want on sacramental assurance and don't much like the ordinariate option. It has less traction among the ultraconservative evangelicals, who are still a bit stuck on jurisdiction and headship. They, unlike the catholics, quite like the bolt hole that GAFCON might give them.
We'll be doing a bit of work at Synod to flush out the major concerns (is the Equality Act going to mess this up? what teeth does the ombudsman have?) - and then I hope a fair wind to Revision Stage in Full Synod.
--------------------
Pete
Posts: 1653 | From: Kilburn, London NW6 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
quote:
Originally posted by Custard:
the hard-line WitCh folk
A typo? The group is WATCH: Women and the Church.
You're more charitable than me: I assumed casual misogyny, but a typo is probably more likely.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
quote:
Originally posted by Custard:
the hard-line WitCh folk
A typo? The group is WATCH: Women and the Church.
You're more charitable than me: I assumed casual misogyny, but a typo is probably more likely.
Yes, I'd like Custard to answer that one too. Was the 'witch' deliberate?
It speaks volumes if it was.
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Hairy Biker
Shipmate
# 12086
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Custard:
As I understand it, quite a few of the conservative evangelicals who voted against last time are much happier with this suggestion.
The other big group who voted against last time, and might well do so again is the hard-line WitCh folk who think that any form of concession to those who object to the OoW is wrong.
Is asking for equality "hard line"? #EqualBishops
--------------------
there [are] four important things in life: religion, love, art and science. At their best, they’re all just tools to help you find a path through the darkness. None of them really work that well, but they help.
Damien Hirst
Posts: 683 | From: This Sceptred Isle | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
iamchristianhearmeroar
Shipmate
# 15483
|
Posted
StPtP, that's fair enough, but I think we're owed a response from Custard who, unless his response contained a typo, has used pretty inflammatory language outside of a more deceased equine or hellish thread...
--------------------
My blog: http://alastairnewman.wordpress.com/
Posts: 642 | From: London, UK | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Hairy Biker
Shipmate
# 12086
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
Hairy Biker, please reread my OP and respect my request to avoid advocacy for (or against) women bishops on this thread. My understanding is that is a Dead Horse topic.
I agree.
I apologise.
--------------------
there [are] four important things in life: religion, love, art and science. At their best, they’re all just tools to help you find a path through the darkness. None of them really work that well, but they help.
Damien Hirst
Posts: 683 | From: This Sceptred Isle | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
S. Bacchus
Shipmate
# 17778
|
Posted
The motion passed. Without commenting on dead horses, I think this is an excellent example of Synodical government working well when people listen to one another. That puts it in really quite spectacular contrast to last year's debacle and descent into pettiness and general histrionics.
--------------------
'It's not that simple. I won't have it to be that simple'.
Posts: 260 | Registered: Jul 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
