Ship of Fools: Hope for Women Bishops Resolution?

Thread: Hope for Women Bishops Resolution? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=026450

Posted by St. Punk the Pious (# 683) on :

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.)

Posted by Felafool (# 270) on :

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.

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

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.)

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

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?

Posted by St. Punk the Pious (# 683) on :

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?

Posted by Lucia (# 15201) on :

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?

Posted by Felafool (# 270) on :

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

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

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 ]

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

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.

Posted by Felafool (# 270) on :

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.

Posted by St. Punk the Pious (# 683) on :

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.

Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :

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!

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

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.

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

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.

Posted by Custard (# 5402) on :

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.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

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.

Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on :

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.

Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Custard:
the hard-line WitCh folk

A typo? The group is WATCH: Women and the Church.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

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.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

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.

Posted by St. Punk the Pious (# 683) on :

If the Telegraph is to be believed, things are indeed looking good for a resolution on women bishops.

Posted by Hairy Biker (# 12086) on :

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

Posted by St. Punk the Pious (# 683) on :

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.

Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on :

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...

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

Hell might be a good place to discuss that, if it needs to be discussed. It's been a couple days, and here really isn't.

Posted by Hairy Biker (# 12086) on :

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.

Posted by St. Punk the Pious (# 683) on :

Thanks, HB. And I understand first hand that restraint on this issue is not easy.

Posted by S. Bacchus (# 17778) on :

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.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0