|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Dead Horses: Women Bishops - what now?
|
Yerevan
Shipmate
# 10383
|
Posted
Meanwhile David Cameron has told the C of E to "get with the programme". You can always trust Call-Me-Dave to come up with the most thoroughly vacuous contribution to any debate.
Posts: 3758 | From: In the middle | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Has anyone else noticed the irony of CallmeDave ticking off someone else for being sexist? Isn't he the one who doesn't think the government needs to bother with all that tedious checking of their policies to make sure they comply with anti-discrimination legislation? And most of his Cabinet is male.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Should parliament intervene on this issue Anglo-Catholicism in the UK is dead.
You can say that again. Two words: Assize Sermon.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Should parliament intervene on this issue Anglo-Catholicism in the UK is dead.
You can say that again. Two words: Assize Sermon.
I think it would mean the C of E is dead as a representation of authentic Christianity.
Has anyone remarked on the irony of the MP who is making the fuss, being a member of the male-only Freemasons and the male-only Garrick club? (Actually I think somebody has, if not on this thread.)
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Qoheleth.
Semi-Sagacious One
# 9265
|
Posted
"What now?" for us started with a bunch of white roses for our vicar, who is a GS member and happens to be female.
And then we have this.
I have this vision of purple posters popping up outside loads of parish churches, church halls etc across the land within a week, thanks to the power of the Internet. That's 16,000 free advertising pitches for a "not in my name" statement. I'm no political strategist, but it might just seize the feeling of the moment?
--------------------
The Benedictine Community at Alton Abbey offers a friendly, personal service for the exclusive supply of Rosa Mystica incense.
Posts: 2532 | From: the radiator of life | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
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......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.
Well researched!
I am actually reconsidering my position in this because of a link (in Hell, by Spawn) to a booklet that outlines the promises and what has happened since then.
This booklet puts a larger context round the stuff I read in Forward in Faith literature - I am beginning to think that many FiFers are perpetuating a false view of history - much like anglo-catholicism as a whole, I have come to think.
Alarm bells started to ring foe me some years back when Abndrew Burnham started talking of a 'see' of Ebbsfleet and I heard intercessions for 'Andrew our bishop' that completely ignored Mike, our diocesan.
--------------------
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
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
Doublethink, your idea is not incredibly dissimilar to the Society of St Wilfrid and St Hilda.
Thurible
And would you think it sufficient ? Though note,I am suggesting that parishes would still interact with a non-trad incumbent and bishop.
--------------------
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
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I think it would mean the C of E is dead as a representation of authentic Christianity.
If Establishement and Erastianism could kill that, then they killed them in the 16th century. If not the 13th.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
Maybe. The Holy Spirit can't be snuffed out by Act of Parliament.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I am actually reconsidering my position in this because of a link (in Hell, by Spawn) to a booklet that outlines the promises and what has happened since then.
This booklet puts a larger context round the stuff I read in Forward in Faith literature - I am beginning to think that many FiFers are perpetuating a false view of history - much like anglo-catholicism as a whole, I have come to think.
Alarm bells started to ring foe me some years back when Abndrew Burnham started talking of a 'see' of Ebbsfleet and I heard intercessions for 'Andrew our bishop' that completely ignored Mike, our diocesan.
Amusingly enough the link later posted by Spawn was the first substantive thing I found when I tried to work out what promises had actually been offered - and it was only after checking all the available documents referenced in that (in particular Andrew Burnham in the Catholic Herald saying that he intentionally set up a See with no legal authority to do so) that I really came in guns blazing. My own blog has a narrative account written for atheists* and people who know almost nothing about the CofE of what I've reconstructed of what really happened.
* And yes, some of the atheists I know are incredibly ignorant about anything religious and are using the recent vote to show how sexist all religion is.
--------------------
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
|
|
Yerevan
Shipmate
# 10383
|
Posted
quote:
Has anyone else noticed the irony of CallmeDave ticking off someone else for being sexist? Isn't he the one who doesn't think the government needs to bother with all that tedious checking of their policies to make sure they comply with anti-discrimination legislation? And most of his Cabinet is male.
I'm deeply cynical about the Government's response to this. It wasn't terribly long ago that the bishops contributed to an embarassing government defeat in the Lords. I'm sure the Tories are thoroughly enjoying seeing the C of E get taken down a peg.
Posts: 3758 | From: In the middle | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chapelhead
I am
# 21
|
Posted
A query:-
Criticism of the arrangements put in place in 1993 is often met with, "Well, we had to put those complicating systems in place, otherwise the legislation would never have got passed".
But surely General Synod had already determined in 1992, by 2/3 majorities in all three Houses, that ordination of women should be possible, and had done so without any caveats about PEVs or alternative oversight? What is the basis for saying that the legislation could not have been passed without these arrangements?
--------------------
At times like this I find myself thinking, what would the Amish do?
Posts: 9123 | From: Near where I was before. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
A query:-
Criticism of the arrangements put in place in 1993 is often met with, "Well, we had to put those complicating systems in place, otherwise the legislation would never have got passed".
But surely General Synod had already determined in 1992, by 2/3 majorities in all three Houses, that ordination of women should be possible, and had done so without any caveats about PEVs or alternative oversight? What is the basis for saying that the legislation could not have been passed without these arrangements?
Because certain groups were only willing to vote for the 1992 legislation on the basis of the explicit assurances given that the time. The 2/3 majority only existed on that basis. Therefore the promises made were the only basis on which the legislation progressed.
--------------------
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
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
What promises? Ender's Shadow came up with a couple of suggestions on the hell thread - and I showed all of them he's come up with so far to be wishful thinking.
No - I questioned your interpretation of the Lambeth resolution on the matter, which to my mind clearly indicates that individuals are the intended audience. If Lambeth rules that opponents are 'loyal Anglicans', then it is a legitimate position for English Anglicans to hold. If the church is failing to provide pastoral care to loyal Anglicans, then something has gone very wrong somewhere.
--------------------
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
|
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
I have to say I'm confused by this focusing on the fact that Bishop Andrew talked of not having the legal authority to set up councils and all the rest. A couple of sentences before, he does talk about how it was done in consultation with the ABC.
There was no template and he was trying to bring a sense of unity and purpose to a disparate group of people for whom he had been asked to provide extended episcopal care.
As for the idea that he wrong to call it a See, for goodness' sake! That's what a bishop's charge is. I can't find the one for Bishop Andrew but here is his successor's. I suppose he could've gone round referring to the "Suffragan See of Ebbsfleet" but it's a bit of a mouthful.
Thurible
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Qoheleth.
Semi-Sagacious One
# 9265
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
My own blog has a narrative account written for atheists* and people who know almost nothing about the CofE of what I've reconstructed of what really happened.
Justin - this is good and really helpful for our atheist family and friends. I wonder if you could bring us another blog showing how the PEV Party and the Headship Party cuddled up in order to win the day. Maybe once the voting lists are published?
--------------------
The Benedictine Community at Alton Abbey offers a friendly, personal service for the exclusive supply of Rosa Mystica incense.
Posts: 2532 | From: the radiator of life | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Qoheleth.
Semi-Sagacious One
# 9265
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
quote:
Originally posted by Qoheleth.:
Maybe once the voting lists are published?
Do we know when this might be?
Typically within a week or so.
--------------------
The Benedictine Community at Alton Abbey offers a friendly, personal service for the exclusive supply of Rosa Mystica incense.
Posts: 2532 | From: the radiator of life | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Qoheleth.:
I wonder if you could bring us another blog showing how the PEV Party and the Headship Party cuddled up in order to win the day. Maybe once the voting lists are published?
Don't forget the Pro Party members who rebelled against the party whip to stand up for the minority.
Thurible
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
The leotards, as I think of them.
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
I have to say I'm confused by this focusing on the fact that Bishop Andrew talked of not having the legal authority to set up councils and all the rest. A couple of sentences before, he does talk about how it was done in consultation with the ABC.
There was no template and he was trying to bring a sense of unity and purpose to a disparate group of people for whom he had been asked to provide extended episcopal care.
As for the idea that he wrong to call it a See, for goodness' sake! That's what a bishop's charge is. I can't find the one for Bishop Andrew but here is his successor's. I suppose he could've gone round referring to the "Suffragan See of Ebbsfleet" but it's a bit of a mouthful.
Thurible
OK - but should intercessors call him (well, Jonathan now, for a short time) 'our bishop' and not mention the diocesan?
[ 24. November 2012, 15:55: Message edited by: leo ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
I've known all of these to be used in Ebbsfleet parishes:
John and Jonathan our bishops
Jonathan our bishop and John our diocesan
John our diocesan and Jonathan our episcopal visitor
John our bishop and Jonathan his assistant
Jonathan our bishop
In the intercessions, I think both should be mentioned but I think only one is appropriate during the Canon (if one mentions the bishop) - and that would be the one whose presbyterium the priest is a full member of.
Thurible
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chapelhead
I am
# 21
|
Posted
Getting back to the 'What now?' question, how does the following seems a statement of the possibilities:-
In this synod
Further discussion produces a workable agreement and the 'big six' find a way for the subject to be re-introduced in this 5-year synod. This is unlikely because
- There are rules to prevent something coming back to the same synod, so some sort of finessing of the rules would be needed just to enable this
- There has been a awful lot of talking, and a bit more talking is unlikely to make substantial progress
- Any further concessions to those opposed to female bishops may antagonise the 'pro' camp, who could vote it down
- Having defeated the motion, the 'anti' camp might prefer to see this off the synod agenda for the near future
- if the subject comes back and is rejected again, the CofE looks (more) ridiculous
Having said that, desire to settle the matter might just get a decision agreed.
In the next synod
The 'pro' camp gets more organised in ensuring that 'pro' candidates get elected to synod. At this point the 'pro' camp takes a view on whether it has enough support for a 'single clause' measure, a measure on similar terms to the one just rejected, or one with more concessions. One or more of these go to synod, and much nervousness ensues.
or
The 'pro' camp doesn't get more organised in the elections, in which case a measure with greater concessions will probably be the result.
[ 24. November 2012, 16:53: Message edited by: Chapelhead ]
--------------------
At times like this I find myself thinking, what would the Amish do?
Posts: 9123 | From: Near where I was before. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
One of the things that might push this to the next election period of General Synod is that members of the House of Laity don't come up for election until 2015. No substantial changes in that body until those elections, not without a lot of broken eggs.
[ 24. November 2012, 17:20: Message edited by: Curiosity killed ... ]
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
In the intercessions, I think both should be mentioned but I think only one is appropriate during the Canon (if one mentions the bishop) - and that would be the one whose presbyterium the priest is a full member of.
Thurible
If you are praying for a bishop in the canon, you are using the Roman rite - which opens another can of worms.
--------------------
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
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
I have to say I'm confused by this focusing on the fact that Bishop Andrew talked of not having the legal authority to set up councils and all the rest. A couple of sentences before, he does talk about how it was done in consultation with the ABC.
There was no template and he was trying to bring a sense of unity and purpose to a disparate group of people for whom he had been asked to provide extended episcopal care.
As for the idea that he wrong to call it a See, for goodness' sake! That's what a bishop's charge is. I can't find the one for Bishop Andrew but here is his successor's. I suppose he could've gone round referring to the "Suffragan See of Ebbsfleet" but it's a bit of a mouthful.
Thurible
The point is that Ebbsfleet was never meant to be a diocese. The full title of a flying bishop is Provincial Episcopal Visitor - and they were intended to visitors no matter what they were, providing supplementary pastoral care.
FiF chose to go almost out to schism, turning the PEVs into something they were never intended to do. That some of the "See of Ebbsfleet" are praying for "Jonathan our bishop" shows exactly how far out of the intent the PEVs have been taken.
That there is one single priest in the presbyterium of the bishops of Ebbsfleet, Richborough, or Beverly is demonstrable proof that FiF and the anti-women faction is not paying even vague attention to what was promised at the time, or to the episcopal structure of the Church of England.
It's difficult to stand on promises when (1) those promises were deliberately intended to be time limited and this is made very clear by what was said and (2) you yourselves have broken faith quite spectacularly with the settlement.
--------------------
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
|
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
If you are praying for a bishop in the canon, you are using the Roman rite - which opens another can of worms.
Probably but not necessarily: there's the one that has square brackets and suggests prayers for the Church with an ellipse (Prayer G in CW?)
Thurible
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
One of the things that might push this to the next election period of General Synod is that members of the House of Laity don't come up for election until 2015. No substantial changes in that body until those elections, not without a lot of broken eggs.
To argue the contrary position......
If the plan is that nothing of significance is likely to happen until 2015 at the earliest (and realistically, it would mean no prospect of a new measure being passed until 2016/17), I cannot see MPs settling for this. They were quite clear that they expect action sooner rather than later.
Secondly, the longer this drags on, the more demoralised will be the vast majority of people who want women bishops. Stories already abound of women priests who are seriously considering whether to resign. Can the C of E really manage to cope when so many of its priests (let alone its lay members) are feeling so alienated and demoralised?
Thirdly, the longer this drags on, the more the C of E will lose credibility amongst the nation as a whole. If it waits until 2016 to correct this, it will probably find that it will never regain the trust of people and may also find that a good proportion of its own members have slipped away in disgust.
In short, I really don't think that waiting until a new Synod is elected is a viable option. I mean - it is not as if a new Synod is going to guarantee that a new measure will be passed. So the message that will come out would be "we'll wait until a new Synod is elected and then MAYBE we will be able to do something about this." That is not the message that people want to hear. And if that IS the message, you can be sure that the press will slaughter the C of E in a way that makes this week seem like a teddy bears' picnic. It is one thing to get something like this "wrong". It is quite another thing to appear slow and reluctant to do anything about it.
My money is on some sort of "fix", which I think will have to include parliament. No doubt there will be howls of anguish from FiF and Reform, but my guess is that they will find themselves pushed to the outside. What the fix will be I am not sure - although my guess is that it will be simple and direct. As the former Bishop of Chelmsford, John Gladwin, has already suggested, what happens now is going to lead to LESS provisions for the minority rather than MORE. Why? Because that's the only way that it will be possible to sell it to an angry parliament.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
One of the things that might push this to the next election period of General Synod is that members of the House of Laity don't come up for election until 2015. No substantial changes in that body until those elections, not without a lot of broken eggs.
Given how the current Synod have previously voted, one could perhaps think about the idea that the Archbishops' Amendment could return and, this time, the five members of the House of Clergy whose votes defeated it could support it so as to get the legislation through Synod, ensuring that we have women bishops within the CofE.
Thurible
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
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
Provinces provide episcopal ministry. Hence it is talking about provinces. And saying that you shouldn't withdraw bishops from people because of opposition. QED.
quote:
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.
Make no mistake. The escape clause was offered to try to keep you guys on side because the Church of England is like that. And you threw it back in the faces of the civilised members of the C of E. Offering it was a compromise to try to get it through a slate-packed house and allow you guys to save face. But your answer was to simply spit in the faces of those offering you a huge compromise solution. I would be incredibly surprised if it was offered again.
quote:
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.
Please. I believe that if this drags on to the next Synod, the progressive faction of the church is going to organise to more than match the way the reactionaries did this time. The House of Laity will be outright radical. Almost 40% of active clergy are female and most of them are very pissed off - the House of Priests will be a flattening against anyone who raises any opposition at all. For the House of Bishops to oppose that combined weight and to again vote against female bishops would be like turkeys voting for Christmas. If this happens at the next synod, the conservatives will get precisely no concessions.
quote:
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.
Ah, the cry of the persecuted hegmon. "Let's be clear who the biggest victims are - those no longer allowed to persecute others". Rather than the women who were brought in as clergy in the full expectation that their vocations would be respected as equal.
As for your self-deluding clergy, let me point back to the fact that no new bishops thinking as they did would be appointed. If that's not a signal that the CofE is going to go to all bishops accepting female priests - because no new ones who don't can be created, I don't know what is. So your clergy need to literally have ignored the actual 1992 provision while thinking they had a vocation.
quote:
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'...
I'm telling them they have willfully deceived themselves. Passing the buck to the most wilful deceivers is precisely what should happen.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
If that's not a signal that the CofE is going to go to all bishops accepting female priests - because no new ones who don't can be created, I don't know what is. So your clergy need to literally have ignored the actual 1992 provision while thinking they had a vocation.
Que?
I suppose you have specified 1992 but the 1993 Episcopal Ministry Act of Synod (which, of course, came in before any women were admitted to the priesthood) was quite clear that:
quote:
There will be no discrimination against candidates either for ordination or for appointment to senior office in the Church of England on the grounds of their views about the ordination of women to the priesthood.
In what way does that exclude the possibility of those who cannot accept the ordination of women becoming bishops?
Thurible
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
If you are praying for a bishop in the canon, you are using the Roman rite - which opens another can of worms.
Probably but not necessarily: there's the one that has square brackets and suggests prayers for the Church with an ellipse (Prayer G in CW?)
Thurible
That's a cheeky one I hadn't noticed before.
Greetings for Christ (not parliament) the King.
--------------------
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
|
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
And with your holy ghost.
Thurible
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
If that's not a signal that the CofE is going to go to all bishops accepting female priests - because no new ones who don't can be created, I don't know what is. So your clergy need to literally have ignored the actual 1992 provision while thinking they had a vocation.
Que?
I suppose you have specified 1992 but the 1993 Episcopal Ministry Act of Synod (which, of course, came in before any women were admitted to the priesthood) was quite clear that:
quote:
There will be no discrimination against candidates either for ordination or for appointment to senior office in the Church of England on the grounds of their views about the ordination of women to the priesthood.
In what way does that exclude the possibility of those who cannot accept the ordination of women becoming bishops?
Thurible
OK. Ebbsfleet are being deceptive there. And you can see how they are being deceptive quite obviously; the act in question is one that was proposed rather than one passed.
You can find the actual measure passed on the CofE website.
Notably the Ordinations and Appointments part of the Act of Synod actually reads:
quote:
Except as provided by the Measure and this Act no person or body shall discriminate against candidates either for ordination or for appointment to senior office in the Church of England on the grounds of their view or positions about the ordination of women to the priesthood.
A very different matter as I think you will agree.
And then let's look at the relevant difference between the draft act Forward In Faith have and the one that was actually passed.
Now we're going to go to the measure.
quote:
the Measure” means the Priests (Ordination of Women) Measure 1993;
And we want section two - the part about bishops.
quote:
(1)A bishop of a diocese in office at the relevant date may make any one or more of the following declarations—
(a)that a woman is not to be ordained within the diocese to the office of priest; or
(b)that a woman is not to be instituted or licensed to the office of incumbent or priest-in-charge of a benefice, or of team vicar for a benefice, within the diocese; or
(c)that a woman is not to be given a licence or permission to officiate as a priest within the diocese.
...
(8)In this section “relevant date” means the date on which the Canon enabling a woman to be ordained to the office of priest is promulged.
Your citation is from a draft of the act that was not adopted and the actual Act of Synod is explicitely different in the passage which you quote.
Now why Ebbsfleet chooses to have a proposed draft of the Act of Synod on their website rather than the actual Act of Synod, but claim it to be the Act of Synod on their website is a subject open to interpretation. However I see no good interpretations of this distortion of the facts.
--------------------
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
|
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
I'm off to Mass presently so can oly post in haste but that was about whether there were to be "no go" dioceses not whether subsequent bishops had to ordain. In Chichester, for example, women were ordained priest by a guest/assistant bishop.
as for the act of Synod, interesting. (And I mean that.)
Thurible
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
I'm off to Mass presently so can oly post in haste but that was about whether there were to be "no go" dioceses not whether subsequent bishops had to ordain. In Chichester, for example, women were ordained priest by a guest/assistant bishop.
as for the act of Synod, interesting. (And I mean that.)
Thurible
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Except as provided by the Measure and this Act no person or body shall discriminate against candidates either for ordination or for appointment to senior office in the Church of England on the grounds of their view or positions about the ordination of women to the priesthood.
A very different matter as I think you will agree.
I don't know about Thurible, but I can't see why it's so very different. It means exactly the same thing, except with the usual and staring-you-in-the-face-obvious legal preamble: no one can be discrimintaed against for selection for orders merely because of their opposition to the ordination of women. Where do the provisons of the Act limit or change that prohibition on discrimination?
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Except as provided by the Measure and this Act no person or body shall discriminate against candidates either for ordination or for appointment to senior office in the Church of England on the grounds of their view or positions about the ordination of women to the priesthood.
A very different matter as I think you will agree.
I don't know about Thurible, but I can't see why it's so very different. It means exactly the same thing, except with the usual and staring-you-in-the-face-obvious legal preamble: no one can be discrimintaed against for selection for orders merely because of their opposition to the ordination of women. Where do the provisons of the Act limit or change that prohibition on discrimination?
I'm no expert, but it seems to me that discrimination for the view is not allowed (in the best Anglican tradition), but outward conformity is expected of those who are appointed bishops after the passage of the measure i.e. they cannot refuse to license or ordain women as priests in their diocese. That does, of course, raise the question of whether an ordination can be said to have taken place if the Bishop carrying it out only goes throught the motions and doesn't believes that what he is doing is legitimate. I imagine the number of candidates for the epsicopate willing to conform to these expectations would be small.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chapelhead
I am
# 21
|
Posted
As I have noted elsewhere, I am in favour of having female bishops, but I hope that I am not entirely partisan in this matter, and the way I understand parts of the Measure and Act outlined above is:-
The extract that Justinian quoted, starting, "A bishop of a diocese in office at the relevant date" is stating that no diocesan bishop in place at the time the legislation came into effect would be obliged, against his wishes, to recognise the orders of female priests. It was, in effect, the equivalent for bishops of 'resolutions A, B and C'. These resolutions 'protect' a parish against female priests and this part of the Act 'protects' a bishop against female priests. The bishop is given various forms of 'protection' (not permitting women to be ordained in the diocese, not having female incumbents or not having women licensed, or some combination thereof).
However, the Act is explicit in stating that this applies to diocesan bishops in office at the time the legislation came into force, not to other (e.g., assistant or suffragan bishops or individuals appointed diocesan bishop after the Act came into force).
From this comes the significant difference between the Act as actually passed and the version posted on the Ebbsfleet website. The significance is not whether it says "There shall be no discrimination against" or "no person or body shall discriminate against" - as Triple Tiara points out in the Hell thread also dealing with this subject, that difference is largely immaterial. The significant difference is that the Ebbsfleet version leaves out "Except as provided by the Measure and this Act" when stating that there will be no discimination on the ground of view about the ordination of women. The Act appears to say that such discrimination may occur, in that 'new' diocesan bishops may not make use of the provisions 'protecting' them from female priests (and so must recognise the ordination of women in their diocese).
What I am wondering is how this has worked out in practice. I believe (but may be very wrong) that Eric Kemp, Bishop of Chichester 1974-2001, made full use of these provisions with the result that no female priests practised priestly ministry in that diocese. John Hind, Bishop of Chichester 2001-2012, did not and could not make use of these provisions and so female priests are licensed in the diocese of Chichester (although John Hind did not personally ordain women).
Is my understanding here correct?
A corollary to this is that it would be contrary to the Act for any PEV to try to act as a diocesan, as the Act explicitly does not allow new diocesans to refuse to recognise the ordination of women. This might seem (to a sceptic) why the Ebbsfleet website does not contain this part of the Act.
[ 25. November 2012, 10:57: Message edited by: Chapelhead ]
--------------------
At times like this I find myself thinking, what would the Amish do?
Posts: 9123 | From: Near where I was before. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chapelhead
I am
# 21
|
Posted
Getting back (again) to the question of "What next?".
It is quite possible that similar legislation will come before synod again, and if a 'code of practice' is involved the issue of what the code says will continue to be significant.
Why didn't the bishops produce the code of practice before the last session of synod? At least people would know what they were supposed to be debating and agreeing to.
And why should the code be set for each diocese, rather than a single code for the whole CofE?
--------------------
At times like this I find myself thinking, what would the Amish do?
Posts: 9123 | From: Near where I was before. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
I'm in a slightly unusual position on this. I have a sneaking suspicion God is a lot less bothered about whether women can or should be bishops than we are. I do though suspect he's fed up with the time and energy we've wasted on this.
If you'd asked me about this two years ago, I'd have said, 'B****r the lot of them. We've been yakking about this for 20 years. Bring a single clause measure, and have done with it'. Events have clearly demonstrated that I would have been wrong.
The bishops worked hard to try and keep everybody on speaking terms with each other and last summer came up with a draft resolution. At least the bishops have read the Sermon on the Mount. They've tried to be peacemakers, even if others have widely condemned them for doing so.
The ultras on the pro side (we'll call them for this purpose the Devalerists) said that because it didn't give them everything they wanted, it was an insult to them and they would vote against it.
That version was never put. So we don't know whether the ultras on the anti side (we'll call them the Calendrists) would have accepted that version. Nor do we know whether it would have passed or whether it would have fallen, possibly on the combined votes of the Devalerists and some or all of the Calendrists.
Nor do we know how many of those who threatened to be Devalerists, actually would, when it came to the moment of choice, really have voted the previous resolution down.
The Synod, in a desire to keep the Devalerists on side, instructed the bishops to go away and come up with something that was more likely to pass. The bishops asked someone to assist them, and came up with the scheme that has just fallen, on the votes of the Calendrists alone.
So going back to the original question, what now?:-
I really don't want to see the church I love and am sometimes exasperated by, being bullied by the state. Who is this Eleanor Laing anyway? She appears to be Scottish Conservative who can't find a constituency in her own country where she's likely to get in. That also raises the 1920s arguments again.
I also don't see why we should listen to the opinions of atheists. It's none of my business how the BHA chooses its leaders or conducts its meetings. I wouldn't expect them to regard my views as relevant to how they conduct their affairs. Why should unbelievers think they have any title to comment on how we do things?
Nor do I want to see a future House of Laity chosen to serve the whole church for a five year term selected on a single issue basis.
Other than waiting until there's a different Synod, the only credible option that I can see would be for this group of six to use their authority put the original text from last summer back to the next meeting of Synod, and see what happens. The Devalerists will look really stupid if they vote against it this time, and it will show whether it was capable of winning over enough Calendrists to scrape through.
Bearing in mind the amount of pointless debate there has been already, if it's possible to do this, it would be a good idea if the resolution could just be put, with no debate allowed this time at all.
The other lesson to learn, is never again propose a controversial resolution that's dependent on a Code of Practice that hasn't been written yet. That was silly.
By the way, do any shipmates need/want an explanation of where the names for the factions come from?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Perhaps they don't wish to give the impression that the code of practice will have the force of law - unlike the actual legalisation of female diocesan bishops.
Also possibly thought the fact of female bishops being agreed (if it happened) would make traditionalists adopt a negotiating position they could live with - rather than third province or nothing.
(Crosspost replying to chapel head)
[ 25. November 2012, 16:12: 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
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I really don't want to see the church I love and am sometimes exasperated by, being bullied by the state. Who is this Eleanor Laing anyway? She appears to be Scottish Conservative who can't find a constituency in her own country where she's likely to get in. That also raises the 1920s arguments again.
I also don't see why we should listen to the opinions of atheists. It's none of my business how the BHA chooses its leaders or conducts its meetings. I wouldn't expect them to regard my views as relevant to how they conduct their affairs. Why should unbelievers think they have any title to comment on how we do things?
Essentially, because the CofE is an established church. To the point that unelected bishops that those same unbelievers had little say in choosing and know next to nothing about, have a say in changing the laws we all live under - including the unbelievers.
You want them to butt out, then you need to choose to disestablish.
--------------------
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
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Essentially, because the CofE is an established church. To the point that unelected bishops that those same unbelievers had little say in choosing and know next to nothing about, have a say in changing the laws we all live under - including the unbelievers.
You want them to butt out, then you need to choose to disestablish.
IF the bishops in the House of Lords operated as a united front and used their votes to actually swing things, then this is a valid argument. Given that in practice their role is, like the rest of the Lords, to give the government a hard time over issues but to surrender gracefully when the government insists, this is merely 'democratic fundamentalism' to give an excuse for atheists to intervene in the church. I believe the House of Lords is the best legislative chamber in the world because it is so idiosyncratic; it works because it is the way it is.
--------------------
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
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Possibly, but if you put your officials in a position where they have power over unbelievers - then you can't reasonably object if those unbelievers express their views on how you choose those officials.
--------------------
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
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Possibly, but if you put your officials in a position where they have power over unbelievers - then you can't reasonably object if those unbelievers express their views on how you choose those officials.
It's vastly messier than that; the history of England sees the calling of parliament in the middle ages, and major leaders of the church - which was an semi-independent institution - were called to it, mainly because they were major landholders. These were bishops were appointed by the Pope and kings alternatively, and abbots. Following the Reformation, the abbots disappear, and the bishops become totally appointed by the king. This, of course, in the context of a congruence of church and state that is totally alien to our experience.
In the 450 years since things have changed substantially, and the role of the state has faded out, particularly in the last 30 years as first the crown appointments commission was created to offer recommendations (before that the PM had total control) and now the commitment of Gordon Brown that the first name will always be passed to the queen. So it is an untidy anachronism that has slipped beyond political control in the past few years. But my feeling is that the church should be independent, and attempts by the state to impose control are inappropriate. Given also that the bishops do play a useful role in the House of Lords, they probably should be left alone, but the temptation to mess is rather strong; perhaps they should be given a non-voting status?
--------------------
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
The Church in Wales, which faced this problem in 2008, of women bihops being defeated by a whisker, has come up with proposals to bring the matter back before its Governing Body. Because the CiW is small and disestablished, it doesn't figure on the radar of Frank Field or Sir Tony Baldry. It escaped threats of being made subject to equality laws.
Instead, it has got on with drawing up a two part legislation, one which provides for women bishops, and the other which provides for those who cannot accept it. The matters are linked, and both must be passed before implementation. If the C of E has any sense, it will look at what the CiW is doing, rather than change its synodical voting rules, just because it got a vote it didn't like, or permitting Erastian interference from the state.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
What I am wondering is how this has worked out in practice. I believe (but may be very wrong) that Eric Kemp, Bishop of Chichester 1974-2001, made full use of these provisions with the result that no female priests practised priestly ministry in that diocese. John Hind, Bishop of Chichester 2001-2012, did not and could not make use of these provisions and so female priests are licensed in the diocese of Chichester (although John Hind did not personally ordain women).
I believe that his successor, who himself will not ordain women, has promised that the next suffragan to be appointed (presumably replacing +Benn) will do so. At least one cheer for this progress in that intractable diocese.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
the history of England sees the calling of parliament in the middle ages, and major leaders of the church - which was an semi-independent institution - were called to it, mainly because they were major landholders. These were bishops were appointed by the Pope and kings alternatively, and abbots. Following the Reformation, the abbots disappear, and the bishops become totally appointed by the king. This, of course, in the context of a congruence of church and state that is totally alien to our experience.
In the 450 years since things have changed substantially,
One of which of course is that the House of Lords - insofar as it is representative at all - represents the whole United Kingdom, but the bishops are exclusively from the C of E (which no longer includes Wales). Even more of an anomaly. The best way to overcome it is simply to exclude the bishops rather than drag in more elected religious leaders (where would they be from and who would choose them?)
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
