|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Can the CofE dig itself out of its hole over the OoW?
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
On one side we have those who argue passionately that of course we should treat women with equality, and any resistance to it is wrong.
On the other we have those, who for various reasons object.
And sitting in the middle of the battlefield is the promise made at the time of the vote for the ordination of women as priests that there would be a continuing place of honour for the opponents within the CofE. Period. No conditions. No time limit.
I think it is blindingly obvious in retrospect - such is the joy of 20/20 hindsight - that no such promise should have been made. Some way to enable this promise to be scrapped should have been provided. Because the problem was that the vote passed ON THAT BASIS. And so an implicit contract was made between the institution of the CofE and the opponents of women's ordination that they would not be forced out.
But now they need to be forced out if the consecration of women is to be meaningful. The opponents rightly IMHO argue that they have a promise that they don't have to serve in the presbyterate of a person whose orders they don't recognise. Therefore if they are a priest in the diocese of Barchester and the new diocesan bishop is a woman, what are they supposed to do? Logically they have an absolute right to object to her enthronement...
Of course this is only an issue for a small minority. But it goes to the heart of whether we can ever take a bishop's word seriously when he makes a promise, or whether we should treat their promises as worthwhile as those of (secular) politicians - not to be taken too seriously.
So - what's the way out? I really don't have a clue. All I'm certain of is that we are faced with a mess. Of course the people who were foolish enough to make these promises have long since left the scene - always a good option. Of course I'm well aware of the parliamentary doctrine that no parliament can bind a subsequent one, but even there in practice governments do stick to agreements made with third parties even if they disapprove (that's why the UK will briefly have a second, completely useless, aircraft carrier - we couldn't renege on the deal with the shipyards). And as far as I can see the suggestion: 'You should have realised you were being taken for a ride' is an invitation for noone ever to trust a bishop again. Which may be wise, but probably isn't helpful...
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Perhaps a right to ask for a transfer to a different diocese ?
But the church will need to stop ordaining people with these views.
--------------------
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
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
It's very simple; they follow what the Canadian bishops did in 1982. Renounce their promises and cease to ordain those who do not accept OWP. In the CoE, of course, they will have to have the relevant measure approved by Parliament. And it would raise some question over the worth of the bishops' commitments over the course of time.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
Our open Dead Horse thread might interest you.
L.
Can't see a reference to this issue on the last page of the thread.
The issue is, I believe, a precise one with far wider implications than just the core issue of OoW; actually it's the same issue as the LibDems have hit over student fees - when is a promise not a promise? If the answer is 'When it's said by a CofE bishop', then we have a problem. The very fact that the question 'How do you tell when a politician is lying' usually generates the answer 'When you see his lips moving' - proves that it is a problem endemic in our wider society, and if church leaders can't model doing better, what hope is there for the rest of us? You see, I'm just a naive idiot believing that people can sometimes be trusted ![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
--------------------
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
|
|
pjkirk
Shipmate
# 10997
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
You see, I'm just a naive idiot believing that people can sometimes be trusted
There, there....
The first step is to admit you have a problem.
--------------------
Dear God, I would like to file a bug report -- Randall Munroe (http://xkcd.com/258/)
Posts: 1177 | From: Swinging on a hammock, chatting with Bokonon | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
I think the issue rests quite heavily on whether the promise was made in terms of - you who are here now and believe this, we will look after you and ensure your needs are met. In which case the right to transfer to a different diocese would probably cover the issue. Or whether this was a promise to keep this strain of theology going in the church ad infinitum. Does anybody know what was actually agreed ?
--------------------
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
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
It seems very odd to me that people who seek to exclude half the population are seeking allowances.
I honestly don't understand this position.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
It seems very odd to me that people who seek to exclude half the population are seeking allowances.
I honestly don't understand this position.
This isn't the issue - the issue is that specific undertakings were made in a desperate attempt, which proved successful, to get the legislation through on that occasion. You appear to be saying that promises made when it is necessary can be trumped by ideology when they prove inconvenient. Such is the logic of moral expediency, and outside the context of a hostage negotiation - and even there it's iffy - I would argue that it's the road to total distrust.
Moral absolutism? Indeed. But the alternative 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
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
... The issue is, I believe, a precise one with far wider implications than just the core issue of OoW; actually it's the same issue as the LibDems have hit over student fees - when is a promise not a promise? If the answer is 'When it's said by a CofE bishop', then we have a problem. The very fact that the question 'How do you tell when a politician is lying' usually generates the answer 'When you see his lips moving' - proves that it is a problem endemic in our wider society, and if church leaders can't model doing better, what hope is there for the rest of us? You see, I'm just a naive idiot believing that people can sometimes be trusted
My general policy in the CofE is to love my brothers and sisters in Christ; to obey my bishop in all things right and lawful; and to wear a knife-proof pad between my shoulder-blades.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
Surely the result is that each objector is left to decide for himself what, in all conscience, to do. Rather than have only one option which all follow. Already, some have gone to Rome, others have actually changed their minds on the issue, while others have sought to move to a more male orientated Diocese. I guess there are other options, too - why should it be necessary to find a way which suits everyone?
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Think˛:
But the church will need to stop ordaining people with these views.
That is in itself a betrayal of the CofE's commitment, which was (IIRC) to treat those opposed to OOW as just as much loyal Anglicans as those who support it. Saying that a person's (ostensibly acceptable) views render them ineligible to fulfil a vocation to ministry does not honour that commitment. Also, it seems bizarre that the church should on the one hand declare that it will ordain women (where there is on any view a theological argument to be had to justify what is certainly an innovation) but on the other hand say that it will not ordain people whose only impediment is that they agree with what is still the majority Christian position (for which there is no thelogical argument whatever).
And it's not just about priests. There are plenty of lay people who are sceptical about women's orders, and the church has a pastoral responsibility to them. Specifically, we ought to provide them with access to sacraments, the validity of which they need have no scruples about. That means having priests and bishops who will at the very least commit themselves to minister as if the anti-OOW position were correct.
I'm pro-OOW myself, but that's not the issue here. The issue is that promises ought to be kept.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
sanityman
Shipmate
# 11598
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
I think it is blindingly obvious in retrospect - such is the joy of 20/20 hindsight - that no such promise should have been made.
This.
But, lacking a time machine, ceasing to ordain seems like the only option, coupled with a provision for oversight for those who can't accept it (call me ill-informed, but I thought we had such an arrangement in the flying bishops?). In the long run you can't keep two incompatible brands of ecclesial polity running.
ES is right - the whole thing smacks of the worst bits of secular politics or business, where the only important thing is getting your way and what you say is just a means to that end. Ultimately, what was at best an attempt to mitigate the pain will end up causing more pain further down the road.
A good question though, and far from hypothetical: is there a better way of dealing with a potentially church-splitting issue such as this? Ultimately, is it more important for one side to decisively "win" so that the church (or whatever remains of it) can move forward?What should the pro/anti OoW people and the CofE management have done differently? Being more honest and losing the vote wouldn't have made the issue go away by any means...
- Chris.
--------------------
Prophesy to the wind, to the wind only for only the wind will listen - TS Eliot
Posts: 1453 | From: London, UK | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
Yes - they should have been more clear and honest at the start, and they should now apologise for that. I agree.
But, as CK said, those who find themselves unhappy now need to decide how big an issue it actually is for them and act accordingly.
Maybe substituting 'black' for 'woman' in their thinking and writing would help them to see that just as exculding black people would be racist, excluding women would be sexist.
Imagine refusing woman doctors the right to practise?
There's a great children's book called 'Bill's New Frock' in which Bill wakes up one morning and he's a girl. The differences in the way he's treated astound him.
I wish, for all anti OWW people, a few days in Bill's frock.
(I know some women are anti OWW - I suppoae some were anti votes for women too ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) )
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
I think part of the issue is that the CofE is still a reformed church and as such doesn't have concepts of church polity that are set in stone because of the nature of how diocesan synods and general synod works. When people are ordained in the church they are aware of how the system works. Similarly those who are members of the church also know how it works. There is an element of democracy about it and the voice of the people must be listened to as it might be a movement of the Holy Spirit. On the other hand it may leave some people out in the cold, which is sad, but nobody went into it blind either.
Personally I think the CofE made a mistake in passing the initial stage. It would have been better to have delayed it and let people mull it over, discuss it, pray about it, rather than producing the mess that exists today.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
seasick
...over the edge
# 48
|
Posted
It seems to me that there is a broader problem of how doctrine is discerned/decided in the CofE. For example, for Catholics they look to Rome and the Magisterium sets out the teaching of the church. Methodists look to the Conference: I can disagree all I like with something the Conference says but at the end of the day I have to acknowledge that that is the Methodist position on the subject. If it's to the extent that I could no longer in good conscience be Methodist then I would have to consider my position as a minister (and indeed as a member). It seems to me that the Church of England wants to have it both ways with the General Synod: it will decide on issues for Anglicans in England, but if you don't like that, never mind.
--------------------
We believe there is, and always was, in every Christian Church, ... an outward priesthood, ordained by Jesus Christ, and an outward sacrifice offered therein. - John Wesley
Posts: 5769 | From: A world of my own | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Yes - they should have been more clear and honest at the start, and they should now apologise for that. I agree.
Why assume that the promise of inclusion wasn't both clear and honest? It seemed pretty clear at the time that we were committing to continued inclusion of both view-points. I see no evidence that anyone said that dishonestly.
Since it's a promise which was relied on, and that it would not be immoral to keep, it should be kept. Simple as.
quote:
Maybe substituting 'black' for 'woman' in their thinking and writing would help them to see that just as exculding black people would be racist, excluding women would be sexist.
So having said, in effect, "We promise to treat you with respect, and not just as awkward bigots", the Church should now say "Off you fuck - we aren't keeping that promise because you're just a bunch of awkward bigots"?
Isn't that plainly disgraceful behaviour - whatever you think of OOW?
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
I'm not sure it is a hole. The majority - probably the vast majority - of the CofE can live with ordained women (& not just for the reasons that ES suggested but that's the Dead Horse). Most of them are trying very hard to behave decently to those who do not accept the ordination of women.
I don't regret that at all. Synod actually tried to be more accepting and more generous to the opponents of the majority view than similar bodies in many other Protestant denominations were.
Now we're getting a head-to-head clash between two apparently irreconcilable groups. On the one hand that minority of a minority who are so opposed to ordained women that they find having anything to do with them at all taints the validity of an ordained man's sacraments. Some of them are going to go to Rome. Some of them will overcome their scruples and persuade themselves to stay. But, to be crudely honest, those scruples are their problem, not the majority's. And I strongly suspect that there will be some ongoing separate provision in practice.
On the other hand another minority, I've no idea how big, that does think women should be ordained for, basically, ethical reasons; and wants the opponents, who they see as immoral and oppressive, to either give in or go. A couple of years ago it looked as if they might get their way, now it doesn't seem so clear. And as far as I know the equivalent party did get their way in nearly every other large Protestant group.
But no, I don't think this is a hole for the CofE in general. Most of us accept the ordination of women. Most of us don't want to expel anybody. If either of those two minorities can't live with that its not our fault. Even if the usual voices will be whinging about the Archbishop of Canterbury in the papers.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
Chewing away at this, I think there are only two morally right options:
1) Following a public apology for having to withdraw the promise, the priests (including all accepted for ordination) with this view are offered a guarantee of salary and housing equivalent to that which they have at the moment for life. They would be asked nicely to seek other employment to enable the church not to have to cough up, but no pressure. Where this gets stickier still is in terms of capital projects financed by giving from within that constituency; logically the subscribers should be repaid on demand.
2) The establishment of a parallel Anglican province in England with a wholly separate episcopate, in as full communion with Canterbury as the similar opposed provinces of Anglican communion achieve at present.
1 would be seriously expensive, but hopefully not horrendously so. 2 is deeply controversial, but in the real world, where a new denomination is born every 5 seconds (or so it seems), is probably the best solution really.
--------------------
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
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
I'm pro-OOW myself, but that's not the issue here. The issue is that promises ought to be kept.
Me too.
‘…there are no time limits…in the [1993 Priests: Ordination of Women Measure]…and we see that the safeguards will be there and in perpetuity or for as long as they are required.’ [Professor McClean answering questions before the Ecclesiastical Committee of Parliament, 1993]
‘…those who dissent from, as well as those who assent to the ordination of women to the priesthood and episcopate are both loyal Anglicans.’ [Resolution III.2 of the Lambeth Conference 1998; re-affirmed by the General Synod, 10th July 2006]
Bonds of Peace, the supporting document to the Act, says this: Those who for a variety of reasons cannot conscientiously accept that women may be ordained priests will continue to hold a legitimate and recognised position within the Church of England. There should be no marginalisation of anyone on the basis of their attitude towards the ordination of women to the priesthood. Nor should those who cannot accept the ordination of women seek to marginalise themselves by withdrawing from the life and government of the Church except in those matters where conscientious convictions are directly at stake.
--------------------
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
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
The promise should be kept. A parallel province is the only way to keep the promise to those opposing the ordination of women and to women seeking ordination. General Synod should have realized that at the time. Pragmatism is usually lost in debates around the Dead Horse issues.
--------------------
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
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
On one side we have those who argue passionately that of course we should treat women with equality, and any resistance to it is wrong.
On the other we have those, who for various reasons object.
And sitting in the middle of the battlefield is the promise made at the time of the vote for the ordination of women as priests that there would be a continuing place of honour for the opponents within the CofE. Period. No conditions. No time limit.
Also sitting in the middle of the battlefield are the women who waited until the Church - apparently - said 'yes, we do think God is calling you and does want to use your priestly ministry within the CofE' and who using the correct channels of authority and validation entered into ordained ministry.
And yet while taking this step, still having
to also live with the 'but your ministry is only provisional' argument from certain of their colleagues.
I'm afraid the 'yes/and' nature of the original provision certainly was destined to make things very messy.
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
It's a Shylock-and-the-pound-of-flesh dilemma. Synod promised, IIRC, not just that special treatment should be afforded to those opposed to OoW, but that there were two integrities who should be equally respected.
The problem is when respecting one integrity by allowing them to opt out of their [female] bishop's jurisdiction, is doing violence to the other integrity by treating the [female] bishop as second-class, or rather as no bishop at all.
I suspect that a significant proportion of the OoW 'integrity' – particularly the laity – will not worry overmuch about the gender of their diocesan bishop, provided that they are guaranteed a male priest, and a male bishop is available for their confirmations etc.
All of us have to accept various compromises to stay part of the Church of England. We have been in less-than-full communion with each other since the first women were ordained. The logic of a 'no-compromise' position is to cross the Tiber, which is made easier now. I wouldn't want to see the back of anybody, but to stay, implies willingness to compromise.
Did the anti-OoW integrity seriously expect, twenty years ago, that the Church would admit it had made a mistake, and revert to a male-only ministry? Of course not.
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
sanityman
Shipmate
# 11598
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Did the anti-OoW integrity seriously expect, twenty years ago, that the Church would admit it had made a mistake, and revert to a male-only ministry? Of course not.
Likewise, were they to have won the vote, did they think that the proponents of OoW would quietly go back into the woodwork? This sort of issue will keep coming back until it's been decisively addressed, and (though it pains me to say it) those who really can't abide by the decision have left. Unfortunately, the odds were stacked against the opponents, as a vote for no change would always be seen a one for no change yet; a vote for change quickly becomes essentially irrevocable, as Angloid said.
- Chris.
--------------------
Prophesy to the wind, to the wind only for only the wind will listen - TS Eliot
Posts: 1453 | From: London, UK | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
The problem is when respecting one integrity by allowing them to opt out of their [female] bishop's jurisdiction, is doing violence to the other integrity by treating the [female] bishop as second-class, or rather as no bishop at all.
I have been always rather puzzled by the second assertion (treating female Bishops as second class) since it seems to smack of a suggestion that female Bishop are naturally going to feel insecure and it feels like an odd form of sexism. By definition some parishes might opt out of a male Bishop's jurisdiction if they ordain women or are consecrated by a woman as they do at the moment under the ABC rules. I have yet to hear of a male Bishop who feels insecure (or feel treated like they are second class) because parishes opt to have alternative Episcopal oversight why female bishops would do so is a mystery to me. I would have assumed a female bishop would be more than capable of dealing with parishes that have alternative oversight.
Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Did the anti-OoW integrity seriously expect, twenty years ago, that the Church would admit it had made a mistake, and revert to a male-only ministry? Of course not.
I expect they thought that eventually the Church would be forced to decide between some sort of Third Province solution and breaking the promise, as there are really no other options long-term once you go for women Bishops.
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
The problem is when respecting one integrity by allowing them to opt out of their [female] bishop's jurisdiction, is doing violence to the other integrity by treating the [female] bishop as second-class, or rather as no bishop at all.
I have been always rather puzzled by the second assertion (treating female Bishops as second class) since it seems to smack of a suggestion that female Bishop are naturally going to feel insecure and it feels like an odd form of sexism. By definition some parishes might opt out of a male Bishop's jurisdiction if they ordain women or are consecrated by a woman as they do at the moment under the ABC rules. I have yet to hear of a male Bishop who feels insecure (or feel treated like they are second class) because parishes opt to have alternative Episcopal oversight why female bishops would do so is a mystery to me. I would have assumed a female bishop would be more than capable of dealing with parishes that have alternative oversight.
Except it's not really a personal matter (a bishop feeling slighted) but a structural one. At present all bishops, whatever their views and/or practice, are part of the 'episcopal college' and mutually accepted. Once women become bishops, those who can't accept it would have to opt out of the episcopal college, which is a nonsense.
--------------------
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
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
And yet while taking this step, still having
to also live with the 'but your ministry is only provisional' argument from certain of their colleagues.
I sympathise but this is a necessary outcome of the two integrities thing. In promising to accept as legitimate the integrity of those who were against, a large section of whom were against on ontological rather than purely ecumenical grounds, the authors and supporters of the Act were declaring this very argument to be a fair one.
And if we're now to go down the suggested route of refusing to ordain people who are against OOW, then we're basically declaring by our actions that the CofE regards anti-OOWism (that really rolls off the tongue) as at the very least, borderline heresy. I'd take provisional ministry over that any day.
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Chewing away at this, I think there are only two morally right options:
1) [give them lots of money to go away]
2) The establishment of a parallel Anglican province in England with a wholly separate episcopate,
Why?
I think we can carry on as we were. Flying bishops and all. Withdraw nothing, renege on nothing, enforce nothing. Keep calm and don't panic. Steady as she goes. Let the opponents of women priests carry on in their own churches with their own male priests, for as long as they want to.
If they really can't stomach having a woman bishop around, even if she has no sacramental function in their churches (because they will still have their own male ones) but just because she exists, then that really is their problem. They will have to deal with it as best they can. But the rest of us need break no promises to them.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
All our (Anglican) ministries are provisional. We are supposed to be ordained as 'priests in the Church of God', but only a small part of the Church of God actually accepts that, or ever has.
That's what I mean by saying accepting compromise is part and parcel of being Anglican. If I wanted assurance that my ministry was without qualification that of a Catholic priest I know where to go.
--------------------
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
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
If I wanted assurance that my ministry was without qualification that of a Catholic priest I know where to go.
As near as I can determine, and I freely admit I know considerably less than everything but I have spent longer than thirty seconds looking at this, your best bet would be to embrace the Plot™.
The official position of the Catholics is that Orthodox priests are really priests, just schismatic ones. On the other hand, the nearest I can pin down to an Orthodox position is that Catholic priests require their ordinations activating on reception, which presumably means their priesthood having come about outside the Church proper as they see it was a bit dodgy beforehand.
Protestants generally either accept both Roman Catholic and Orthodox orders as legitimate (sacramental or otherwise) or would say "Huh?" to the concept, but the history with Rome gives the nod to the Orthodox here. For non-Chalcedonians I'm on pure guesswork as opposed to the slightly-informed guesswork I used above, and I guess they'd be more inclined to accept Orthie orders on the basis of close praxis if not belief.
So my conclusion is, if you want the widest acceptance of your orders within those claiming to be part of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, it's a trip to Constantinople.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
I'm sure you're right, Greyface, but a couple of parishes will do me!
--------------------
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
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
And yet while taking this step, still having
to also live with the 'but your ministry is only provisional' argument from certain of their colleagues.
I sympathise but this is a necessary outcome of the two integrities thing. In promising to accept as legitimate the integrity of those who were against, a large section of whom were against on ontological rather than purely ecumenical grounds, the authors and supporters of the Act were declaring this very argument to be a fair one.
And if we're now to go down the suggested route of refusing to ordain people who are against OOW, then we're basically declaring by our actions that the CofE regards anti-OOWism (that really rolls off the tongue) as at the very least, borderline heresy. I'd take provisional ministry over that any day.
I think many women were resigned to accept that so-called provisionality for the very reason you mention. And I think many would continue with it for the same reason. I don't think it particularly bothered me, eg, or most of the female priests I knew.
But it nevertheless did get a little tedious to do the work, be the priest, and still be reminded of how 'provisional' everything they did and who they were was. Whatever I may have thought of a fellow priest's legitimacy of vocation I would never have suggsted to her or him that whatever they did was provisional because at any time they could be declared 'not a priest' any more.
But no sympathy is required it's just part of the messiness of the situation, and as I said many supporters of OOW were resigned at least to live with that mess; unresolved and equally as unsatisfactory as it is/was.
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
All our (Anglican) ministries are provisional. We are supposed to be ordained as 'priests in the Church of God', but only a small part of the Church of God actually accepts that, or ever has.
Well, the provisionality I'm referring to is of one Anglican to another. One particular colleague, I recall, was very definite that my ministry as priest was provisional in that, if and when the CofE decided the experiment of letting the ladies into the club hadn't worked, the women would no longer be priests. Whereas his ministry was under no such provision or threat because it wasn't 'provisionial'. He had the synodical clauses to mind to back up his argument.
But it's quite true that there are plenty of others who would regard neither me nor my male colleague as a 'real' priest anyway. Not that it affects me or my work particularly, I find ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) ! I just feel so privileged to be doing what I'm doing.
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
I'm pro-OOW myself, but that's not the issue here. The issue is that promises ought to be kept.
Me too.
‘…there are no time limits…in the [1993 Priests: Ordination of Women Measure]…and we see that the safeguards will be there and in perpetuity or for as long as they are required.’ [Professor McClean answering questions before the Ecclesiastical Committee of Parliament, 1993]
‘…those who dissent from, as well as those who assent to the ordination of women to the priesthood and episcopate are both loyal Anglicans.’ [Resolution III.2 of the Lambeth Conference 1998; re-affirmed by the General Synod, 10th July 2006]
Bonds of Peace, the supporting document to the Act, says this: Those who for a variety of reasons cannot conscientiously accept that women may be ordained priests will continue to hold a legitimate and recognised position within the Church of England. There should be no marginalisation of anyone on the basis of their attitude towards the ordination of women to the priesthood. Nor should those who cannot accept the ordination of women seek to marginalise themselves by withdrawing from the life and government of the Church except in those matters where conscientious convictions are directly at stake.
This doesn't seem to be a promise to continue to ordain those holding this theological position. But rather not to exclude existing priests who hold this view - or those in the laity who do so.
--------------------
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
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
I have yet to hear of a male Bishop who feels insecure (or feel treated like they are second class) because parishes opt to have alternative Episcopal oversight why female bishops would do so is a mystery to me. I would have assumed a female bishop would be more than capable of dealing with parishes that have alternative oversight.
AFAICT (and I am an outsider to this argument) I think the issue is that alternative episcopal oversight still derives from the authority of the diocesan bishop. This is all right provided that, though you may not like his actions, you still regards him as a valid bishop. If you no longer regard your diocesan as a valid bishop, then the ministry of an alternative bishop, of whom in principle you approve are not acceptable because they derive their authority from no legitimate source. But in any even, this is only part of a package of concern for those who are gainst the OoW
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Chewing away at this, I think there are only two morally right options:
1) [give them lots of money to go away]
2) The establishment of a parallel Anglican province in England with a wholly separate episcopate,
Why?
I think we can carry on as we were. Flying bishops and all.
No we can't. General Synod has already voted to abolish the PEVs and do not intend to revisit it. There is nothing left for the anti-OOW people.
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
marzipan
Shipmate
# 9442
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
AFAICT (and I am an outsider to this argument) I think the issue is that alternative episcopal oversight still derives from the authority of the diocesan bishop. <snip>
As the flying bishops are suffragans , this would seem to be the case. Perhaps a solution would be to make a 'flying diocese'?
I have no idea how complicated that would be, of course. Or how it would work in practice (designating an anti-OoW church as a pro-cathedral?). But it seems like one step below creating another province.
--------------------
formerly cheesymarzipan.
Now containing 50% less cheese
Posts: 917 | From: nowhere in particular | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
No we can't. General Synod has already voted to abolish the PEVs and do not intend to revisit it. There is nothing left for the anti-OOW people.
I think it was a misake to abolish PEV's, it worked and it caused little grief. People going to Rome or going independent will cause grief.
--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp
Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
General Synod has already voted to abolish the PEVs and do not intend to revisit it.
I was saying what I think we should do not what we will do. But, seriously, when will this abolition happen? I think it will be procrastinated over for years.
[ 06. December 2010, 18:59: Message edited by: ken ]
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
quote:
And if we're now to go down the suggested route of refusing to ordain people who are against OOW, then we're basically declaring by our actions that the CofE regards anti-OOWism (that really rolls off the tongue) as at the very least, borderline heresy. I'd take provisional ministry over that any day.
I'm not CoE, so maybe I'm missing something here, but I don't see that. Isn't it a matter of discipline rather than theology? Not because of his theology but because he's saying he can't work under or with certain members of the hierarchy.
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
I think you're fairly close to it. I simply don't see how you can with integrity as a church permit some of those whom you ordain to deny the validity of the orders of others whom you ordain. It's a matter of order more than faith, perhaps.
D'you know, in the 80s I used to think that MoW were tedious and tiresome and mischievous in their tactics. Now I look at some of the anti-OoW lot, i realise just how patient many women were. This 'two integrities' business has emant that the CofE has effectively compromised its support for its women clergy over the past 15 years. About time that support became a bit more whole-hearted, I think.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
Maybe this will be a tangent too far, but why did General Synod abolish PEVs?
[ 06. December 2010, 20:35: Message edited by: Autenrieth Road ]
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
Maybe this will be a tangent too far, but why did General Synod abolish PEVs?
It hasn't yet. But it is likely to when women bishops become a reality. If the diocesan bishop or archbishop can be a woman, then PEVs as currently defined don't 'work'.
But as of 31 December, the southern two of the three are stepping down. The Archbishop of Canterbury has made a temporary arrangement. He could decline to make permanent appointments if he wanted to.
Oh and +Fulham has stepped down as Chairman of FiF.
Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fifi
Shipmate
# 8151
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by FreeJack:
. . . But as of 31 December, the southern two of the three are stepping down. The Archbishop of Canterbury has made a temporary arrangement. He could decline to make permanent appointments if he wanted to.
He could, but he has already said that he won't. The statement issued by Lambeth Palace on 8 November included the sentence: 'The Archbishop will now set in train the process for filling the vacant sees.'
Posts: 591 | From: Here | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ondergard
Shipmate
# 9324
|
Posted
Far be it for me to intrude on private grief, as the saying goes, but as far as I understand it, the C of E has not reneged on its promise to hold the two integrities together, has it?
AIUTS, provision is made for the Backwards In Bigotry people to continue to submit to a male Bishop of their ecclesiology, and that has not been rescinded. The C of E has voted to accept the possibility of consecrating female bishops, but have not as a consequence withdrawn their alternative provision, nor denied ordination or preferment or stipend to priests who do not accept such consecrations as valid.
That those priests decide in consequence that they cannot continue in the C of E, purely on the grounds of the existence of female bishops, even though they themselves need have nothing to do with such episcopacy, then that is surely their own decision, not the decision of the C of E, and nor is it a broken promise. The C of E promised to make provision for the BIB lot, and still does. That the BIB lot refuse such succour because it objects to a different (though related) decision of the the Church, and one, furthermore, about which no additional promises were made, then it is entirely in the control of the BIB lot to decided whether to stay or go.
I am not a member or minister in the Church of England, by the way. I'm a Methodist.
Posts: 276 | From: Essex | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
aumbry
Shipmate
# 436
|
Posted
I have a cunning plan. Instead of saying that women can or cannot be bishops why not put a ban on creating any new bishops, male or female, for say the next 5 years? The Church of England is a failing organisation top heavy with useless managers and needs to face the fact that it cannot continue with the present set up.
The Bishops of Neasden, Clegthorpe and Steeple Bumpstead would be first on my list for deepiscopalising.
Posts: 3869 | From: Quedlinburg | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cheesymarzipan:
As the flying bishops are suffragans , this would seem to be the case. Perhaps a solution would be to make a 'flying diocese'? ...But it seems like one step below creating another province.
Which is what FiF want - a third province. It's the only solution.
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ondergard:
Far be it for me to intrude on private grief, as the saying goes, but as far as I understand it, the C of E has not reneged on its promise to hold the two integrities together, has it?
Not yet but it plans to as part of the introduction of female Bishops.
--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp
Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Yes - they should have been more clear and honest at the start, and they should now apologise for that. I agree.
They couldn't have been. Without the Episcopal Act of Synod which created the flying bishops, parliament would never have passed the legislation, at the time, necessary to ordain women. Now that things have changed, they don't need to keep or renew those promises. This is where the lack of integrity lies.
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Even if the usual voices will be whinging about the Archbishop of Canterbury in the papers .
I don't think the Archbishop of Canterbury deserves any critcism here. He recognises, as in his speech at the February Synod, that those who object to the OoW often do so out of deeply held theological and ecclsiological beliefs, and that it has nothing to do with misogynism, equality or rights. He has recognised that the only feasible solution would be a structural arrangement, which the Synod has refused to countenance. He and ++ York put forward a proposal in July which was narrowly defeated, in which there could have been a possible way forward. He's done his best and its a pity he doesn't have more authority on these matters.
quote:
Originally posted by Enders Shadow:
2) The establishment of a parallel Anglican province in England with a wholly separate episcopate, in as full communion with Canterbury as the similar opposed provinces of Anglican communion achieve at present.
This is precisely what Forward in Faith proposed and costed out in their 2003 book "Consecrated Womwn?" It seemed at the time quite a sensible move, but the Third Province got no support in the wider church. It was argued, in my opinion correctly, that only two possible outcomes had any integrity, that above, or the passing of a single clause measure which effectively says, "This is what the Church of England does (ie ordains women bishops), if you can't live with it, leave." Sadly, it has chosen the latter, in breach of its promises.
The Ordinariate will take up those who feel strongly enough about it it leave. The Society of St Wilfred and St Hilda, whose role is yet to be defined, may fight for those opponents of OoW who wish to stay in the C of E. But unless something changes, I can't see how SSWSH will achieve anything which FiF couldn't.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
