|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Dead Horses: Relative nastiness of CofE pressure groups
|
Tommy1
Shipmate
# 17916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
The problem with declaring it a dog's breakfast is that I'm almost certain that the purpose of holding both positions as valid was for discernment. Now, I don't know about you - but I consider twenty years a pretty fair time to have a period of discernment. The Anglican Communion has been in dialogue (as called for in Bonds of Peace) for the past 20 years.
Is this the liberal definition of 'dialogue' i.e. we keep talking until you accept the liberal position then we immediately stop the talking?
Posts: 256 | Registered: Dec 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tommy1
Shipmate
# 17916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
We all need a certain amount of prejudice to get through our lives. We cannot evaluate each and every situation in full possession of the facts. Some prejudice is relatively minor some isn't, some is reasonably well founded, others not at all.
I think you're confusing prejudice with inductive reasoning.
Posts: 256 | Registered: Dec 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tommy1
Shipmate
# 17916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
The position in which you find yourself was the inevitable result of the Church of England's move on this matter. I am not sure that, if blame is to be assigned, you should blame those on the other side for their position (how they might express their position is another issue). Simply, they stood for no change (for a variety of motives, some of which are nobler than others) and the CoE said Fine.
I can see the sense of much of this, but I think there's an implication a) that people aren't culpable for their position which I don't accept
The word 'culpable' suggests that the anti-ordination of women position is an illegitimate one, which ( as betjemaniac and Augustine the Aluet have pointed out) is exactly what the Church of England said was not the case.
Posts: 256 | Registered: Dec 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
I sort of see that, but I think the point is that the CofE has epxlicitly said, at both Synod and Episcopal level, that either opinion is fine. Which does lead to problems, but I'm not sure that moral high ground per se really comes into it.
The CofE has said in almost as many words "we believe women can be ordained priest and are going to ordain women as priests BUT/AND it's fine to be in the CofE and believe that women can't be priests and that ontologically they're not even if we have ordained them and we will help you to do that."
It's a dog's breakfast obviously, but it's where we are.
The problem with declaring it a dog's breakfast is that I'm almost certain that the purpose of holding both positions as valid was for discernment. Now, I don't know about you - but I consider twenty years a pretty fair time to have a period of discernment. The Anglican Communion has been in dialogue (as called for in Bonds of Peace) for the past 20 years.
The problem here is that despite the claims of those opposing female bishops, taking time for discernment doesn't mean that the period of discernment shall never come to a close. It means that people have time to see what will happen and update their views. The process has, as was promised in the synod, been as open as possible. In the early 1990s people genuinely did not know what would happen.
But some people misconstrued "We haven't done this before so we're having a period of discernment and seeing whether it works, waiting until there is more evidence in" to mean "The period of discernment is never going to end under any circumstance until the last person who objects is six feet underground". Overwhelmingly, despite the slate packing tactics to oppose it that made the CofE look like an even more ridiculous organisation than usual, the consensus of the Church of England at all levels is in favour of female priests. And for those opposed to the ordination of women to misconstrue (as Forward in Faith does even in passages they quote) a time of discernment and a process that is being entered as statements that the status quo should never change (meaning discernment would never happen and the process would never end) is to simply misrepresent what the actual doccuments say.
The time of discernment in which all sides were accepted was offered - and given. For 20 years. The bargain was upheld, despite the attempts of some to claim otherwise. The process mentioned in Bonds of Peace was a process which could have gone either way. It has gone one way - and was never promised as a permanent affair. And the disagreement was fine while the process was going on because no one knew where it would lead. The process is almost over.
Justinian's persuasive argument has one flaw: the resolutions did not not say that. If there had been a 20-year clause, then there would be no question. There was no expiration date, and the measure did provide for alternative oversight structures, and unless I really misread the Act of Synod none of these provisions was for a a fixed term. This allows opponents legitimacy when they complain.
There is a extra-canonical option for the bishops to make a unilateral declaration ending the period of discernment, as they did in Canada, but I think that they would find such a decision challenged by canonists in England.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
In the same way Roman Catholic clergy won't address me as Father and are scrupulous about talking about my ministry and not my priesthood. They manage to do all this without being particularly offensive about it.
Which is fine. How would you feel if your fellow CofE clergy denied your priesthood?
Much the same way as I would feel about those C of E clergy who would claim I am apostate. If I gave a stuff about their opinion about the subject I should be absolutely devastated.
--------------------
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
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Justinian's persuasive argument has one flaw: the resolutions did not not say that. If there had been a 20-year clause, then there would be no question. There was no expiration date, and the measure did provide for alternative oversight structures, and unless I really misread the Act of Synod none of these provisions was for a a fixed term. This allows opponents legitimacy when they complain.
There is a extra-canonical option for the bishops to make a unilateral declaration ending the period of discernment, as they did in Canada, but I think that they would find such a decision challenged by canonists in England.
The resolutions said what I said they did. They simply didn't say what you just claimed I said they did.
The resolutions were inherently temporary, using language like discernment (a temporary process; if discernment of a path takes forever you haven't discerned anything) and a process. They didn't say "You have twenty years to get your affairs in order" because that wasn't what the process was. What they said was "We are setting out on a journey in this direction. We don't know where it will lead. If it turns out to be an utter disaster we are going to leave ourselves with a way back (the reversibility that FiF were trumpeting in the link I gave) and if it turns out to be a success we shall land on that shore. The journey is a process and although many of us suspect where the final destination shall be, others disagree. And we land when we land."
So claims that the twenty years wasn't made explicit are irrelevant. Such a journey is measured in distance, not time. The measures did provide for alternative oversight - it was not known for certain whether there was a port at the far end. So there had to be a way back. But right now the ship has been stuck in the far port for more than a year while some people are trying to tear up the charter and drill a hole in the bottom rather than have it unload the cargo.
The huge problem here is that if the complaint being raised by FiF, Anglican Mainstream, and co was simply "We haven't reached a point of discernment yet - we need more time" that would be entirely within the spirit of the original decision (even if highly questionable). But it isn't. Forward in Faith is attempting to deny both letter and spirit of the process and claiming that a temporary measure for a certain process while discernment was being reached was intended to be permanent. As such they are not only on the wrong side but such arguments are starkly, factually founded on falsehoods whether knowing or unknowing.
And the period of discernment is ended when the Synod decides where to proceed next. This isn't a unilateral decision of the bishops; it's one agreed by bishops, priests, and laity alike and was only blocked last time thanks to slate-packing.
[ 12. December 2013, 20:31: Message edited by: Justinian ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
Perhaps Justinian and I are talking of slightly different things. Perhaps he is describing a constitutional process of making a decision, while I am looking at the particular tools. Given the "doctrine" of two integrities, and the Act of Synod's wording, opponents have arguable cover (as do other points of view, an aspect of how these documents are designed). The painstaking efforts made by proponents of change for provisions which they hoped would satisfy opponents suggests that the plausibility of their objections (prejudices) are being taken seriously. FiF's incoherence as they try to defend their turf is another discussion.
The reason why there is an effort to rescind the Act of Synod is because it is open-ended and permits a potentially perpetual process-- and this is why the absence of an end date is relevant. In Canada, the bishops were unilateral (partly because they felt they could get away with it) but in the CoE there is a firmer and more formal canonical structure.
(As a many-years-ago former political staffer, I assure you that another's slate-packing is my facilitating a spontaneous affirmation of the people's will).
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tommy1
Shipmate
# 17916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
In the same way Roman Catholic clergy won't address me as Father and are scrupulous about talking about my ministry and not my priesthood. They manage to do all this without being particularly offensive about it.
Which is fine. How would you feel if your fellow CofE clergy denied your priesthood?
Much the same way as I would feel about those C of E clergy who would claim I am apostate. If I gave a stuff about their opinion about the subject I should be absolutely devastated.
I'm new to this forum so I have to ask. Why do you get called an apostate?
Posts: 256 | Registered: Dec 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tommy1
Shipmate
# 17916
|
Posted
Justinian
So 'Process of discernment' has the same kind of liberal definition as 'dialogue' and 'conversation' i.e. "we'll talk and 'respect our differences' until we can get a vote to go our way and then the conversation stops"
Posts: 256 | Registered: Dec 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Perhaps Justinian and I are talking of slightly different things. Perhaps he is describing a constitutional process of making a decision, while I am looking at the particular tools. Given the "doctrine" of two integrities, and the Act of Synod's wording, opponents have arguable cover (as do other points of view, an aspect of how these documents are designed). The painstaking efforts made by proponents of change for provisions which they hoped would satisfy opponents suggests that the plausibility of their objections (prejudices) are being taken seriously. FiF's incoherence as they try to defend their turf is another discussion.
The reason why there is an effort to rescind the Act of Synod is because it is open-ended and permits a potentially perpetual process-- and this is why the absence of an end date is relevant. In Canada, the bishops were unilateral (partly because they felt they could get away with it) but in the CoE there is a firmer and more formal canonical structure.
(As a many-years-ago former political staffer, I assure you that another's slate-packing is my facilitating a spontaneous affirmation of the people's will).
Just to be clear you're going to have to reference the part of the Act of Synod - and reference it from the source. For almost ten years the See of Ebbsfleet was hosting a false version of the Act of Synod on their website - passing off a proposal that wasn't passed as the act itself. The differences were few but significant. (They certainly had the false act up last November - but have taken it down since).
--------------------
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
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
Justinian
So 'Process of discernment' has the same kind of liberal definition as 'dialogue' and 'conversation' i.e. "we'll talk and 'respect our differences' until we can get a vote to go our way and then the conversation stops"
Nope. Process of discernment means "We'll see what happens. We think things will go our way - but if they don't we can head off in another direction." Dialogue means "We'll both talk and both listen. Not that either of us are going to like the second part of that."
--------------------
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
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
This was the text I was using. While I am not a lawyer, a good chunk of my life was spent in construing and interpreting legislation, and I've helped out on drafting two acts of parliament and my hands can be seen on a dozen or so motions and resolutions of the local diocesan synod. Such are my faint qualifications in canonical matters.
I've had yet another (perhaps the fifth) read-through and I'm not certain that I would change anything which I've written so far.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
There is still a version available on the CofE site - here (rtf)
There are a few clauses that seem to have been ignored by certain of the PEVs:
quote:
(3) The General Synod regards it as desirable that –
- all concerned should endeavour to ensure that –
- discernment in the wider Church of the rightness or otherwise of the Church of England’s decision to ordain women to the priesthood should be as open a process as possible;
- the highest possible degree of communion should be maintained within each diocese; and
- the integrity of differing beliefs and positions concerning the ordination of women to the priesthood should be mutually recognised and respected;
And nowhere within that document does it say that PEVs should ordain as many priests who are not prepared to ensure that:
quote:
(ii) the highest possible degree of communion should be maintained within each diocese;
It seems that certain PEVs who took it upon themselves to empire build a church within a church were acting outside this measure and adding to the continuing problems within the CofE. That certainly doesn't seem to be taking part in an "as open a process as possible".
This current rearguard action by Anglican Mainstream is coming from a group that only formed following GAFCON, which happened in 2008, 15 years after that Act of Synod and a long way into the discernment process.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
I'm very glad that here in Wales we did things differently. AIUI our Provincial Assistant Bishop was technically an Assistant Bishop in each of the dioceses (rather than being parachuted in by the Province over the diocesans' heads) and we just had the one: when he retired, he wasn't replaced because his role had been a transitional one. Is everybody happy about this? No, not everybody. Has the sky fallen in? No. Looking back, I think that it might have been better for England to have waited until the legislation could have been got through without this perpetual alternative provision, which can't be sustained.
[ 13. December 2013, 07:29: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tommy1
Shipmate
# 17916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
This current rearguard action by Anglican Mainstream is coming from a group that only formed following GAFCON, which happened in 2008, 15 years after that Act of Synod and a long way into the discernment process.
I thought the opposition was led by FiF and the Church Society. Both are older than 2008 (the Church Society much older)
Posts: 256 | Registered: Dec 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
I think you're confusing prejudice with inductive reasoning.
And where do you draw the line between those two? I think its an irregular verb.
I employ inductive reasoning.
You make unwarranted assumptions.
He is prejudiced.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
Justinian
So 'Process of discernment' has the same kind of liberal definition as 'dialogue' and 'conversation' i.e. "we'll talk and 'respect our differences' until we can get a vote to go our way and then the conversation stops"
Just like the conservative definition of "compromise" is "set up a church within a church where we can have everything our own way".
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
This current rearguard action by Anglican Mainstream is coming from a group that only formed following GAFCON, which happened in 2008, 15 years after that Act of Synod and a long way into the discernment process.
I thought the opposition was led by FiF and the Church Society. Both are older than 2008 (the Church Society much older)
Tommy1 - I've highlighted the words you seemed to have missed in the answer you quoted - current rearguard action. By that I hoped you would understand I meant this recent movement that has only become active in recent years, not the earlier protests by FiF, which discussions created the PEVs in the first place.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
bad man
Apprentice
# 17449
|
Posted
Andrea Minchiello Williams, CEO of Christian Concern, has been in Jamaica, campaigning to keep all gay sex acts punishable as criminal offences.
She is a member of General Synod.
Details of her speech at Bartholemew's Notes on Religion
Posts: 49 | From: Diocese of Guildford | Registered: Nov 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by bad man:
Andrea Minchiello Williams, CEO of Christian Concern, has been in Jamaica, campaigning to keep all gay sex acts punishable as criminal offences.
She is a member of General Synod.
Details of her speech at Bartholemew's Notes on Religion
If that report is accurate, it is incredible, as she links homosexuality with paedophilia, and says that Jamaica should keep gay sex as a criminal act. Good grief, who are these people? What stone do they live under?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
Given that people get killed in Jamaica for being openly gay, I think that's despicable.
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by bad man:
Andrea Minchiello Williams, CEO of Christian Concern, has been in Jamaica, campaigning to keep all gay sex acts punishable as criminal offences.
She is a member of General Synod.
Details of her speech at Bartholemew's Notes on Religion
Good grief, the list of names involved with "Christian Concern" is like a summary of every right wing homophobic nutjob in British public life. Add in Brian Souter and they'd have the full set.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
I wrote them an email pointing out that she doesn't represent the C of E, whose bishops have spoken out against homophobic bullying and calls for recriminalisation in the House of Lord. I quoted her bishop's condemnation of her speech etc.
No reply yet and don't expect one - but it made me feel better for writing it.
Arguably, the more these people rant, the more ordinary people react against their views and more progress is made - even in the churches.
--------------------
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
|
|
Printer-friendly view
