homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Ship's Locker   » Limbo   » Dead Horses: Women Bishops - what now? (Page 4)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  9  10  11 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Dead Horses: Women Bishops - what now?
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984

 - Posted      Profile for Doublethink.   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Why not ? I mean most people have very little contact with their bishop. So with alternative eucharistic provision, what is the problem ?

--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell

Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ButchCassidy:
Disestablishment is preferable to state intervention.

Indeed. Much as i support the right of gay people to marry, I do not support the right of the state to tell the Church what to do with her sacraments.

And i want disestablishment anyway.

--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152

 - Posted      Profile for Garasu   Email Garasu   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Isn't the Third Province solution a new church by any other name?

Which may be the best for which you can hope, but why not just say so?

--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.

Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012  |  IP: Logged
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984

 - Posted      Profile for Doublethink.   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'd definitely be pro-disestablishment.

--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell

Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Callan
Shipmate
# 525

 - Posted      Profile for Callan     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It was estimated that 900 Parishes (out of 13,000) would take the ministrations of Men-Only Bishops under the dispensation on offer. If the decision is left to the punters rather than just Father I suspect it would shave a couple of hundred off the numbers. So say 700 Parishes out of 13,000 or 5.4%

Can we not live with that?

--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984

 - Posted      Profile for Doublethink.   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
*DT wonders if her font is back-ground coloured by accident ...*

[ 22. November 2012, 19:13: Message edited by: Doublethink ]

--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell

Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Vulpior

Foxier than Thou
# 12744

 - Posted      Profile for Vulpior   Author's homepage   Email Vulpior   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
If the Anglo-Catholics want special provision then they need to abandon their unholy alliance with the ConEvos, negotiate with the majority, and find a way for the legislation to pass in the current quinquennium. The ConEvos are implacably opposed to women as bishops and will continue to vote against whatever may be offered.

If the A-Cs wait until the next round of elections, they will be caught in the crossfire as the supporters of women as bishops go into the 2014/2015 election cycle with all guns blazing in the direction of the ConEvos. The new legislation will offer no concessions to "traditionalists" of any hue.

Most supporters of women as bishops will not countenance any "stronger" provision, so the A-Cs have to realise that the legislation that just failed was the best they could possibly hope for.

--------------------
I've started blogging. I don't promise you'll find anything to interest you at uncleconrad

Posts: 946 | From: Mount Fairy, NSW | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984

 - Posted      Profile for Doublethink.   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
*DT wonders if her font is back-ground coloured by accident ...*



--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell

Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152

 - Posted      Profile for Garasu   Email Garasu   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:


Probably Doublethink... Not sure the passive aggression is working. Which post did you want discussed?

--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.

Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012  |  IP: Logged
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984

 - Posted      Profile for Doublethink.   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
This.

As in, Justinian's refutation of the idea that the promise was made seems quite convincing.

And secondly, what are the issues with the suggested provision in that post as a proof of concept ?

--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell

Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
balaam

Making an ass of myself
# 4543

 - Posted      Profile for balaam   Author's homepage   Email balaam   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
*DT wonders if her font is back-ground coloured by accident ...*


I saw it.

Disestablishment may be good for the church (a moot point) but not for the country. A group of people who are part of the government process and outside the party political system looking at the morality of proposed legislation can only be good for the country. The Lord Bishops would need to be replaced by something if the church is to be disestablished.

I'm antidisestablishment.

--------------------
Last ever sig ...

blog

Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152

 - Posted      Profile for Garasu   Email Garasu   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
Disestablishment may be good for the church (a moot point) but not for the country. A group of people who are part of the government process and outside the party political system looking at the morality of proposed legislation can only be good for the country. The Lord Bishops would need to be replaced by something if the church is to be disestablished.

Don't see it.

I can't see anything but benefit for the church (unless the "church" has already been defined as "civil religion").

We already have cross-bencher Lords so what is lost by getting rid of a bunch of people who don't represent any broadly accepted morality?

--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.

Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012  |  IP: Logged
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152

 - Posted      Profile for Garasu   Email Garasu   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
This.

As in, Justinian's refutation of the idea that the promise was made seems quite convincing.

And secondly, what are the issues with the suggested provision in that post as a proof of concept ?

Ah! Sorry... Got a bit distracted by all the quote bolding...

Basic problem for me is establishment. Looking at it from outside, I don't really care about the internal governance of an apostate sect. I am bothered by that sect being granted an automatic block of votes in the legislature...

Not sure how the Third Province would play into that. As I said earlier (I think (I'm getting confused by the various threads)), I can't see how it's different from setting up a separate church. At which point I guess the question becomes which unrepresentative body should continue to be present in the legislature...

--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.

Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012  |  IP: Logged
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984

 - Posted      Profile for Doublethink.   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Yeah, I do think establishment is a bit of a relic. If we are going to have religious lords, then we ought to really have some figure from each religious group representing the faith group with more than x% on the census, an atheist moral philosopher and a humanist really.

In the post I linked, I was referring to an explanation of whether the promise was ever made. And a proposal I didn't think was a third province ?

--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell

Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152

 - Posted      Profile for Garasu   Email Garasu   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
a proposal I didn't think was a third province ?

More of a quasi-monastic order?

--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.

Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012  |  IP: Logged
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984

 - Posted      Profile for Doublethink.   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Not sure it would have to be monastic. But lifestyle would be similar to being a traveling rep. With a regular round of churches/cathederals visited. In some ways a bit like a missionary in a remote area I suppose.

--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell

Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Yerevan
Shipmate
# 10383

 - Posted      Profile for Yerevan   Email Yerevan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Interesting quote from Tory backbencher Eleanor Laing:

quote:
When the decision-making body of the established church deliberately sets itself against the general principles of the society which it represents then its position as the established church must be called into question.
For me this pretty much sums up why established churches are a terrible idea from a Christian point of view. The church 'represents' God, not society. OOW is a good idea because it is (IMO) what God wants. As a Christian I don't personally give a flying fuck what 'society' wants.

[ 22. November 2012, 20:21: Message edited by: Yerevan ]

Posts: 3758 | From: In the middle | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984

 - Posted      Profile for Doublethink.   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It would take only eleven priests to visit at least once a month. So if you funded, perhaps, 40 (suitably biblical number). You might manage fortnightly cathederal services, and additional special occasions (ordinations, parish church confirmations and extra visits).

900 divided by 40 is about 22. So say each priest has a 'caseload' of 3 cathederals and 22 parishes - they do a cathederal service 3 weeks out of 4. With the fourth Sunday for themselves for their own sanity. And in addition hold a service in each parish once a month on a day other than Sunday. In effect acting more like a chaplain.

The non-oow laity then use their parish non-traditional priest as a deacon, in terms of pastoral support and general parish function.

--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell

Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Curiosity killed ...

Ship's Mug
# 11770

 - Posted      Profile for Curiosity killed ...   Email Curiosity killed ...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Eleanor Laing is not the most observant of MPs, to my knowledge.

--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat

Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357

 - Posted      Profile for Justinian   Email Justinian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Others like thurible have also made links to the promises.

OK. In the absence of you being willing to say why you think any promises were ever made, I searched the Ship of Fools forum with the following string " site:forum.ship-of-fools.com ship of fools thurible women bishops promises". And followed every link on the front page, and searched every thread for the word promise and every single post by Thurible on the linked page.

You know the nearest thing to an actual citation of promises I found? A post by you three years ago on procedural issues.

I believe that despite your literal years of repitition of the claim there were no such promises. I believe that they are all a consequence of wishful thinking by Forward in Faith if not willful distortion, and are all on about the level of Ender's Shadow's supposed promises (which Doublethink has helpfully copied over).

And why do I believe that?

I could cite the words of Former Archbishop Carey "To make such an extension, however, would in effect be to legislate for the continued geographical separation of the Church of England into areas where women priests may operate and areas where they may not." But that's really a sidenote.

I believe that such supposed promises are incompatable with the spirit of the 1992 motion. As the former archbishop was very explicit in saying there will be no further bishops under clause 2 - i.e. no further bishops who do not recognise women as priests. That isn't a resolution of a promise in perpetuity. That's a resolution to give people time to get their shit in order. Any promise was, by this provision, inherently temporary and could not have been otherwise - bishops who oppose the ordination of women die of old age and under the provision could never be replaced. Any promise that can have been made was therefore either (a) temporary or (b) in direct contravention of the general synod.

Now I don't believe that any promises were made that would directly oppose the synod so any interpretation of any such promises must indicate that they were temporary.

And there have been twenty years of these temporary measures. The promises have not been broken. They have been fulfilled. A temporary promise held to for twenty years while Forward in Faith and the flying bishops were busy violating the spirit of the provision they were allowed.

One side broke faith. It wasn't those in favour of the ordination of women.

And you may have been banging the drum about these promises, leo. But you're going to have to work hard to show that any promises intended to be permanent ever existed when they are against the spirit and letter of the General Synod and against the express words of the Archbishop of Canterbury at the time.

--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.

Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.

Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338

 - Posted      Profile for L'organist   Author's homepage   Email L'organist   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Posted by Gildas Private Members Bills don't generally become law and 10 Minute Rule Bills and Early Day Motions never do.
True, BUT, there are many precedents for a government using a Private Member's Bill to test the waters and, if they can see that a measure they have been unsure about can command the respect of the House then they will either adopt the bill themselves or they will, through help from the drafting clerks and by being flexible over timetabling of business, give the bill easy passage through the House. Obviously this takes a little time because there is the necessity to clear it through the Lords as well, but if that can be done then a Private Member's Bill can go from first reading to being ready for Royal Assent in a day.

Tony Baldry is not joking and neither is Frank Field. And there are plenty of members on both sides of the house who would be delighted to nod through a Member's Bill which would, as they see it, "clip the CofE's wings".

The nay-sayers may well find themselves reaping a bitter harvest ... MANY in parliament are not inclined to cut the CofE any, ANY, slack.

--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet

Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012  |  IP: Logged
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Can a mere colonial ask who is the sainted (and soon to be martyred) man acceptable as Bishop to both the FinF and con-evo groups?

Perhaps the diocese should be called Ultima Thule and Canary Isles to demonstrate the wide distance covered: Ultima Thule to denote the coldness of Geneva, the Canary Isles the fervour of the FinF group; all adrift on the seas of anti-OoW.

On a more serious note, who would pay for the costs of such an establishment? Bishops are not cheap by any stretch of the imagination.

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
Chesterbelloc

Tremendous trifler
# 3128

 - Posted      Profile for Chesterbelloc   Email Chesterbelloc   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I must say, I'm disturbed by how few people commenting here seem in the least concerned by the politicians flexing their muscles at the Church of England over this matter. Massive political pressure on the Church to conform to current social expectations - and no-one's worried?

If they can do it over this issue they certainly will over gay marriage and then over whatever the next social dogma-de-jour is - and I don't think one has to be against either women bishops or gay marriage to feel a rational unease about that.

If I were Rowan Willaims or his successor, I'd be saying to the politicians, "Whoa, we want to sort this out - but back off because we won't be bullied over it."

Seriously, people - don't you think you should at least open one eye and sniff in the general direction of the cafetière?

--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."

Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It bothers me considerably, thought possibly for slightly different reasons. When a Tory government is talking about dragging the Church out of the 19th century then you've got serious problems.

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130

 - Posted      Profile for South Coast Kevin   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
I must say, I'm disturbed by how few people commenting here seem in the least concerned by the politicians flexing their muscles at the Church of England over this matter. Massive political pressure on the Church to conform to current social expectations - and no-one's worried?

Disestablishment, it's the way forward. If the C of E became just another faith group then all they'd have to do is follow the law like any other organisation (religious or otherwise). There'd be no question of politicians flexing their muscles in the C of E's general direction...

--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.

Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804

 - Posted      Profile for Olaf     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Disestablishment isn't going to stop women from being made bishops, although it might delay it slightly. The writing has been on the wall for two decades now, as the decision was essentially made in the ordination of women to the diaconate and priesthood. If it doesn't happen now, it will in decades when another generation who has grown up around a gender-inclusive priesthood makes the decisions.
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130

 - Posted      Profile for South Coast Kevin   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Sorry, I wasn't clear - I'm very much in favour of women being able to become bishops (if one has bishops at all, that is). I was just responding to Chesterbelloc with the suggestion that disestablishing the Church of England might reduce the pressure put on it by politicians.

Of course, if it were disestablished I imagine it would be harder to justify the exemption from equalities legislation that the C of E seems to have at the moment...

--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.

Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
Oscar the Grouch

Adopted Cascadian
# 1916

 - Posted      Profile for Oscar the Grouch     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
I must say, I'm disturbed by how few people commenting here seem in the least concerned by the politicians flexing their muscles at the Church of England over this matter. Massive political pressure on the Church to conform to current social expectations - and no-one's worried?

Honestly? I would be worried if Parliament DIDN'T start to get involved. No church (established or not) should expect to practice injustice with impunity.

The recent track record of Parliament makes it clear that MPs DON'T want to get involved in the C of E's internal politicking. So the fact that they now have should indicate just how serious the problem is.

If the C of E cannot or will not sort out a basic problem of justice, then I hope that MPs will step up and make the C of E start acting sensibly.

It will come to something when the C of E needs MPs to tell it what justice should look like.

--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu

Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235

 - Posted      Profile for Trisagion   Email Trisagion   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Of course, if it were disestablished I imagine it would be harder to justify the exemption from equalities legislation that the C of E seems to have at the moment...

It would enjoy the same exemption as every other religious body, indeed, in the light of the article 9 rights we all enjoy, it would be difficult to see how any other position could be countenanced.

--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse

Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
The Great Gumby

Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989

 - Posted      Profile for The Great Gumby   Author's homepage   Email The Great Gumby   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
I must say, I'm disturbed by how few people commenting here seem in the least concerned by the politicians flexing their muscles at the Church of England over this matter. Massive political pressure on the Church to conform to current social expectations - and no-one's worried?

Disestablishment, it's the way forward. If the C of E became just another faith group then all they'd have to do is follow the law like any other organisation (religious or otherwise). There'd be no question of politicians flexing their muscles in the C of E's general direction...
Exactly. If the church can't be slapped down for this sort of thing (and Tony Baldry explicitly advised against parliament interfering in the church, as opposed to telling them what they think), the last good reason for having an established church disappears. Disestablish, and the church can be as bigoted and backward as any other.

--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman

A letter to my son about death

Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Chesterbelloc

Tremendous trifler
# 3128

 - Posted      Profile for Chesterbelloc   Email Chesterbelloc   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
If the C of E cannot or will not sort out a basic problem of justice, then I hope that MPs will step up and make the C of E start acting sensibly.

It will come to something when the C of E needs MPs to tell it what justice should look like.

A basic problem of justice? And who gets to decide whether women bishops is this? Parliament, in your book? Gay marriage in church, and lay presidency too? If not, why not?

As it is, the Church of England seems as a whole to accept the justice issue over women bishops, and has indicated that it will sort it out asap. But that hasn't stopped the PM and various ministers and other parliamentarians making threateneing grumblings.

--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."

Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272

 - Posted      Profile for Ender's Shadow   Email Ender's Shadow   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm beginning to lose the will to live over this debate, which I suppose is to be expected; the bulldozer usually wins eventually. Funny how the proponents of the 'powerlessness of God' get all excited about how Parliament will come in and sort out the mess. However, I'm wandering.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
The Lambeth Conference of Bishops,1998
Resolution III.2 of the Lambeth Conference 1998 called upon the “Provinces of the Communion to affirm 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 and to make such provision, including appropriate Episcopal ministry, as will enable them to live in the highest possible degree of communion, recognizing that there is and should be no compulsion on any bishop in matters concerning ordination and licensing.”

Ah yes. Distorted Proof Text #1.

This was at the Lambeth Conference in 1998 - a conference that contains all the provinces of the Anglican Communion - of which some but not all ordain female priests and bishops. It was saying that because the CofE and TEC were ordaining female priests, TEC was ordaining female bishops, and I forget who still had a male only priesthood.

This therefore has nothing to d-o with what happens within a province, referring explicitely as it does to the relationship between provinces. Are you a province?

Let's try and interpret the whole motion. Consider the statement: 'to make such provision, including appropriate Episcopal ministry...' Now, as far as I'm aware, Provinces don't need 'Episcopal ministry' to be provided, but people do. Therefore the 'those' must be people, not provinces. QED
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:

Now for the quotemining.

quote:
Specifically Carey promised the House of Lords:
quote:
Our intention is to give continued space within the Church of England to those of differing views on this subject.
Lords debate

And he did give continued space. So far you have had twenty years of space. Twenty years to determine whether the ordaining of female priests was a mistake and twenty years of space.

Further, if you would care to actually read rather than merely quotemine, you'd find that in the very speech you link, George Carey is explicit that at least some of the provisions in place are temporary and time limited rather than intended to last forever.
quote:
It was strongly argued in evidence to the Ecclesiastical Committee that Clause 2 should either be withdrawn or extended to cover future diocesan bishops. Left as it is, the argument went, priests opposed to the legislation would be unlikely to accept senior office in future. To make such an extension, however, would in effect be to legislate for the continued geographical separation of the Church of England into areas where women priests may operate and areas where they may not. The provision restricting Clause 2 to bishops in office when the canon comes into effect was included at the request of the majority of the House of Bishops in order to maintain the unity and collegiality of the episcopate.
That intention has been kept. It has been kept completely and in entirety. It is not carte blanche merely a statement of what the Church of England intends to do at that time - and your own link provides explicit evidence that this was a temporary arrangement. That you claim that something that was, even going by your own sources, intended to only be temporary, was a promise to do something permanent merely says things about either your honesty or your degree of wishful thinking.

The word 'continuing' is, to be fair, ambiguous. The test for what was meant is surely offered by the attitude to opponents of OOW that was shown over the next few years; rather than say 'OK - no opponents are to be ordained so that your group will die off', instead the 'escape clause' for those who weren't able to accept the shift was put in place, but with an explicit statement that you don't need to use this escape clause because your long term future is ensured. And this lack of clarity has persisted in the present proposal; IF it had been presented honestly as a statement 'OK - we done the discernment thing, decided that OoW is now the only acceptable belief for a member of the CofE, and now it's our way or get lost', then that makes for a coherent place. BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT HAS BEEN BEING ARGUED FOR, and if you think that would have got through Synod, your sense of the CofE is very distorted. Let's be clear who the biggest victims in this scenario are: it's the clergy ordained post 1992 who took seriously the belief that the CofE wasn't going to go monochrome on this issue. You're telling them that they've been deceived. It's their lives that are being screwed with. It's an open question as to who is responsible for the deception - but to pass the buck to FiF won't do, because 'the rest of the church has bent over backwards to accommodate the sexists'...

--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.

Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.

Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Curiosity killed ...

Ship's Mug
# 11770

 - Posted      Profile for Curiosity killed ...   Email Curiosity killed ...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Ender's Shadow: Let's be clear who the biggest victims in this scenario are: it's the clergy ordained post 1992 who took seriously the belief that the CofE wasn't going to go monochrome on this issue. You're telling them that they've been deceived. It's their lives that are being screwed with. It's an open question as to who is responsible for the deception - but to pass the buck to FiF won't do, because 'the rest of the church has bent over backwards to accommodate the sexists'...
But they chose to be ordained into a Church that ordains women and sees women as equally valid. It's those who've chosen to be ordained into that church believing either
  1. women priests were an experiment that were going to go away;
  2. the Church could continue to operate a church within a church
that were wilfully deluding themselves

--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat

Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338

 - Posted      Profile for L'organist   Author's homepage   Email L'organist   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
posted by South Coast Kevin Of course, if it were disestablished I imagine it would be harder to justify the exemption from equalities legislation that the C of E seems to have at the moment...
[/QUOTE] posted by Trisagion It would enjoy the same exemption as every other religious body, indeed, in the light of the article 9 rights we all enjoy, it would be difficult to see how any other position could be countenanced. [QUOTE]

This is to ignore that a large section of the current Government - prompted by a clamour from their own grass-roots supporters and others - are seriously questioning the UK's support/adherence to a lot of HR legislation/practice.

There have been mutterings for some time that, if the Cof E were disestablished, then it might be best to offend all the discriminatory religions/factions - RC's CofE and Islam - equally.

Tory party is no longer anything at prayer, certainly not CofE so we would do well not to presume on their goodwill.

--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet

Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012  |  IP: Logged
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272

 - Posted      Profile for Ender's Shadow   Email Ender's Shadow   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Point of information: Canon C2
quote:

C 2 Of the consecration of bishops

1. No person shall be consecrated to the office of bishop by fewer than three bishops present together and joining in the act of consecration, of whom one shall be the archbishop of the province or a bishop appointed to act on his behalf.

2. The consecration of a bishop shall take place upon some Sunday or Holy Day, unless the archbishop, for urgent and weighty cause, shall appoint some other day.

3. No person shall be consecrated bishop except he shall be at least thirty years of age.

4. No person shall be refused consecration as bishop on the ground that he was born out of lawful wedlock.

5. Nothing in this Canon shall make it lawful for a woman to be consecrated to the office of bishop.

Canon Law, full text p.80 by reference, though p.98 if you are searching the document itself.

--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.

Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.

Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
ButchCassidy
Shipmate
# 11147

 - Posted      Profile for ButchCassidy   Email ButchCassidy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
TripleTiara, SouthCoastKevin et al,

As I said up-thread, it is important to understand that the CofE does NOT have a specific exemption.

It has exactly the same exemption (in Sch 23 Equality Act) as all other religious organisations who 'practice a religious belief', including the RC church, Muslims etc.

That is why Field etc cannot do as they threaten. Because they would either have to remove the exemption for all religions, which would cause a political storm, or remove it for the CofE alone, which is discriminatory against the CofE and would be challenged in the courts.

Posts: 104 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130

 - Posted      Profile for South Coast Kevin   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Of course, if it were disestablished I imagine it would be harder to justify the exemption from equalities legislation that the C of E seems to have at the moment...

It would enjoy the same exemption as every other religious body, indeed, in the light of the article 9 rights we all enjoy, it would be difficult to see how any other position could be countenanced.
I was thinking in particular of the way in which being a bishop (and indeed a priest) is not classified as employment.* I think it's classic special pleading and brings shame on the Church of England, frankly.

If the C of E were disestablished then this would, in my view, remove any half-sensible reason for treating the C of E differently from any other organisation. But it would also greatly reduce the amount and likelihood of meddling from politicians, I expect.

*Apologies to all concerned if I've got the wrong end of the stick on this...

EDIT - I do agree with the UK's 'genuine occupational requirement' principle in some cases. For example, organisations running women's refuges can usually get approval to only consider women for jobs at the refuges. Likewise with, say, counselling services targeted at specific sections of the population.

But I'm not okay with the genuine occupational requirement rule being used to restrict the people considered for certain roles on the basis of theological reasons. You could easily have a group claim that only black or white or old or young or tall or short people can do a certain job, for reasons dressed up as theological. Or rather, in order not to have this situation, the C of E and other long-standing religious groups get special treatment.

[ 23. November 2012, 10:21: Message edited by: South Coast Kevin ]

--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.

Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
Curiosity killed ...

Ship's Mug
# 11770

 - Posted      Profile for Curiosity killed ...   Email Curiosity killed ...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
@Ender's Shadow, is that addressed to me?

I agree with IngoB and others who say that women bishops were inevitable when women priests had been agreed.

The Law or Canons of the Church of England have been changed many times over the years since 1604 or whenever. It's the requirement to change those Canons that mean the constitutional change votes of two thirds majorities. It will then require the approval of Parliament. But there would be no ways of changing those canons legally if they were meant to be set in stone at around 1600.

--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat

Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272

 - Posted      Profile for Ender's Shadow   Email Ender's Shadow   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
@Ender's Shadow, is that addressed to me?

I agree with IngoB and others who say that women bishops were inevitable when women priests had been agreed.

The Law or Canons of the Church of England have been changed many times over the years since 1604 or whenever. It's the requirement to change those Canons that mean the constitutional change votes of two thirds majorities. It will then require the approval of Parliament. But there would be no ways of changing those canons legally if they were meant to be set in stone at around 1600.

No - somewhere in the depths of one of the threads there was a suggestion that a woman bishop should be consecrated under the existing legislation. I'm pointing out that that would be illegal under the present canon law. Of course Canon law can be changed; that's not my point, sorry for any confusion.

--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.

Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.

Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320

 - Posted      Profile for PaulTH*   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
Honestly? I would be worried if Parliament DIDN'T start to get involved. No church (established or not) should expect to practice injustice with impunity.

This is dangerous! The Catholic and Orthodox Churches, which together make up 60% of the world's Christians, and are international, universal organisations, don't ordain women, and there's no liklihood that they will any time soon. Is the UK parliament going to try and intervene to change this? And try taking on the muslims and see how far you get! But nobody is compelled to belong to any of these organisations. Interference from parliament would be an outrage which I'd be willing to die opposing!

The logic is that the Church of England has ordained women as priests and deacons for 20 years, so they should be bishops is essentially correct, and not even the opponents would disagree with it. They are only concerned with respect for their own integrity on the matter. This doesn't require intervention from parliament, and Archbishop designate Justin should tell them to get their own house in order. The suggestion in yesterdays Times was that getting in a mediator would be a workable idea. Perhaps so! Talk to people and find out what they need, as a bottom line. It might be less than you think, perhaps just a tweaking of the arrangements which are already in place.

Or the C of E could reform its voting system, a current topic in Purgatory. What you seem to be advocating is that the state gets into church business and dicatetes what people must believe. Where does a slippery slope like that end? It's ghastly!

--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul

Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644

 - Posted      Profile for Beeswax Altar   Email Beeswax Altar   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Yerevan:
Interesting quote from Tory backbencher Eleanor Laing:

quote:
When the decision-making body of the established church deliberately sets itself against the general principles of the society which it represents then its position as the established church must be called into question.
For me this pretty much sums up why established churches are a terrible idea from a Christian point of view. The church 'represents' God, not society. OOW is a good idea because it is (IMO) what God wants. As a Christian I don't personally give a flying fuck what 'society' wants.
Exactly

I'll even throw in a [Overused] .

--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan

Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Triple Tiara

Ship's Papabile
# 9556

 - Posted      Profile for Triple Tiara   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ButchCassidy:
TripleTiara, SouthCoastKevin et al,


I presume you mean Trisagion as I have not made any comments here.

--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.

Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206

 - Posted      Profile for Thurible   Email Thurible   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Doublethink, your idea is not incredibly dissimilar to the Society of St Wilfrid and St Hilda.

Thurible

--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."

Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
ButchCassidy
Shipmate
# 11147

 - Posted      Profile for ButchCassidy   Email ButchCassidy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Apologies Fr!

And another [Overused] for Yerevan

Posts: 104 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
american piskie
Shipmate
# 593

 - Posted      Profile for american piskie     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
...there was a suggestion that a woman bishop should be consecrated under the existing legislation. I'm pointing out that that would be illegal under the present canon law. [/QB]

I think those who make the suggestion believe that although not legalised by C2 it would not be illegal. If one believes otherwise it seems to me that one is assenting to the proposition that the C of E can only do what is explicitly prescribed in the Canon Law --- not may do, but can do.

I think it is interesting that the canon does not say that a woman cannot be a bishop, nor that a bishop cannot be or become a woman. What would happen if HM were to nominate a woman to the See of say Exeter who had been consecrated in some other jurisdiction? At what stage would the nomination/election/confirmation/taking possession fail? And what would happen if the Bishop of Barsetshire were to change gender?

Posts: 356 | From: Oxford, England, UK | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
The Great Gumby

Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989

 - Posted      Profile for The Great Gumby   Author's homepage   Email The Great Gumby   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
Honestly? I would be worried if Parliament DIDN'T start to get involved. No church (established or not) should expect to practice injustice with impunity.

This is dangerous! The Catholic and Orthodox Churches, which together make up 60% of the world's Christians, and are international, universal organisations, don't ordain women, and there's no liklihood that they will any time soon. Is the UK parliament going to try and intervene to change this? And try taking on the muslims and see how far you get! But nobody is compelled to belong to any of these organisations. Interference from parliament would be an outrage which I'd be willing to die opposing!
Get over yourself. This is an issue because the CofE is the established church. As such, it's the state's business by definition. If the church feels that the power that comes with establishment isn't worth a small amount of encouragement to play nicely, it's very welcome to become disestablished, a move I would very much welcome. If the church chooses to keep its privileged position, I find myself unable to summon up even homeopathic levels of sympathy.

--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman

A letter to my son about death

Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Yerevan:
Interesting quote from Tory backbencher Eleanor Laing:

quote:
When the decision-making body of the established church deliberately sets itself against the general principles of the society which it represents then its position as the established church must be called into question.
For me this pretty much sums up why established churches are a terrible idea from a Christian point of view. The church 'represents' God, not society. OOW is a good idea because it is (IMO) what God wants. As a Christian I don't personally give a flying fuck what 'society' wants.
I do. I do because when society has come further in declaring the equality of the sexes than the church, and defending the church means defending institutionalised sexism to society, then something's extremely wrong.

We should be leading society in issue like these, not being dragged along kicking and screaming by them.

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235

 - Posted      Profile for Trisagion   Email Trisagion   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ButchCassidy:
TripleTiara, SouthCoastKevin et al,

As I said up-thread, it is important to understand that the CofE does NOT have a specific exemption.

It has exactly the same exemption (in Sch 23 Equality Act) as all other religious organisations who 'practice a religious belief', including the RC church, Muslims etc.

That is why Field etc cannot do as they threaten. Because they would either have to remove the exemption for all religions, which would cause a political storm, or remove it for the CofE alone, which is discriminatory against the CofE and would be challenged in the courts.

As FrTT said, it was me not he, and what I said was what you've just posted.

--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse

Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644

 - Posted      Profile for Beeswax Altar   Email Beeswax Altar   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The Church of England should either disestablish or change it's religion from Christianity to the Cult of the Supreme Being. Again, it has nothing to do with female bishops and everything to do with parliament telling the Church of England what to do based on the wishes of society. Should parliament intervene on this issue Anglo-Catholicism in the UK is dead. Affirming Catholics would need either to consider crossing the Tiber, find some other way of distancing themselves from the Church of England (make some arrangement with the Old Catholic Church), or stop calling themselves Anglo-Catholic. I say this as somebody affiliated with Affirming Catholicism.

--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan

Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Oscar the Grouch

Adopted Cascadian
# 1916

 - Posted      Profile for Oscar the Grouch     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Yerevan:
Interesting quote from Tory backbencher Eleanor Laing:

quote:
When the decision-making body of the established church deliberately sets itself against the general principles of the society which it represents then its position as the established church must be called into question.
For me this pretty much sums up why established churches are a terrible idea from a Christian point of view. The church 'represents' God, not society. OOW is a good idea because it is (IMO) what God wants. As a Christian I don't personally give a flying fuck what 'society' wants.
I do. I do because when society has come further in declaring the equality of the sexes than the church, and defending the church means defending institutionalised sexism to society, then something's extremely wrong.

We should be leading society in issue like these, not being dragged along kicking and screaming by them.

Couldn't have put it better myself.

[Overused]

--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu

Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  9  10  11 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools