THINKING ANGLICANS

Affirming Catholicism responds to Manchester report

Affirming Catholicism has published A Response to The Report of the Women Bishops Legislative Drafting Group (The Manchester Report).

The copy of this on their website is here.

The full text of this response is also reproduced here.

25
Leave a Reply

avatar
25 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
15 Comment authors
christopher+Göran Koch-SwahneDavid MallochNeilJCF Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
David Malloch
Guest
David Malloch

So, provision should be made for opponents in the form of a single clause measure with a code of practice? Exactly who are the opponents for whom this provision is intended? A few sexists who say “not in my back yard”? Certainly not the vast majority who opose the consecration of Women to the episcopate for sincerely held theological reasons and who are simply staying loyal to the universal practice of 2 millenia! What on earth is the point of offering this kind of provision?? Either a single clause and “get the bastards out” OR real structural provision which actually… Read more »

r
Guest
r

This is an excellent report, which asks vital questions of how a third province or special diocese could remain in communion with the rest of the Church. It sees the apartheid solution for what it is, schism by stealth.

Göran Koch-Swahne
Guest

“… for sincerely held theological reasons…”

What are those? I haven’t seen any. Just ingrained misogyny (at worst) and a certain traditionalism.

“… and who are simply staying loyal to the universal practice of 2 Millennia!”

How is it even possible to “stay l o y a l” to a mere accident of Time?

“What on earth is the point of offering this kind of provision?? Either a single clause and “get the bastards out…”

To make you think?

“… OR real structural provision which actually meets the needs of opponents.”

What “needs”? A no go zone?

poppy tupper
Guest
poppy tupper

David Malloch. As you ask, I’d favour the ‘get the bastards out’ option.

Mark Wharton
Guest
Mark Wharton

David Malloch: I could not agree more: to offer traditionalists a solution that you no they cannot accept is neither fair nor charitable. If the Church offers any provision it needs to be acceptable to those it will effect. The choice is simple; either we give traditionalists a structural solution that they can live or they will leave. The church has said from day one that we are all faithful Anglicans, it is time to prove that true and give us a solution that is acceptable, fair and generous. A structural solution is the only thing that will allow us… Read more »

David Malloch
Guest
David Malloch

Many thanks to Goran for his response. So, this proposal is on the basis that opponents are ingrained misogynists! Synod will have to decide on that one, but it is not in keeping with the Lambeth statement embraced by the General Synod that they are equally loyal and faithful members of the church, it does not square with Synod’s persistent pledge of equal treatment and it rejects +Rowan’s statement that opposition is for us a matter of obedience. You ask how it is possible to stay loyal to a mere accident of time; that question would make sense if today… Read more »

Fr Mark
Guest
Fr Mark

David M: Yes, we have been a misogynistic institution for most of the last 2000 years. That’s true, isn’t it? Read some of the Fathers or Scholastic theologians on women if you doubt this.

Göran Koch-Swahne
Guest

David Malloch wrote: ”So, this proposal is on the basis that opponents are ingrained misogynists!”

Sorry, but I am not the General Synod of the Church of England. I live in Sweden and I only wanted to know if there are any “sincerely held theological reasons”, for I personally haven’t seen any, only ingrained misogyny (at worst) and a certain traditionalism and I don’t think that is enough or OK – and, if so, what they look like, if at all.

Sorry to have upset you (and Mark Wharton).

rr
Guest
rr

Provision has to be for ALL. The unresolvable conundrum is how to make provision in the same institution for those who want to live in communion with each other (and the practice of Fif etc, for reasons held dearly by its members, is to live alongside but not in communion with the bulk of the anglican church in England)and those whose principles and actions mean that they are daily rejecting ordained women in their essence. Because, whatever the words, ordained women are being rejected daily, and treated institutionally as though they don’t actually exist and are not a part of… Read more »

Mark Wharton
Guest
Mark Wharton

I find myself wondering why a code of practice (whether national or local ) is so threatening.

It is so threatening because I cannot see its guidelines being adhered to. If we cannot guarantee that the guidelines will be adhered to then the code is useless. The Bishops struggle to stick to the legally binding arrangements within the Act of Synod, never mind an optional code that has no legally binding structures.

Ann
Guest

Dave Walker of Cartoon Church has his cartoon here.
http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/blog_post.asp?id=56873

JCF
Guest
JCF

“How can we make acceptable provision for those for whom institutionalised separation is the only option when this, by its very existence intitutionalizes the degradation of the calling of ordained women, and dismisses the experience of congregations and individuals across the country who have found faith and spiritual sustenance through the ministry of women.” Thank you, rr: well said. ***** “we give traditionalists a structural solution that they can live [with] or they will leave” The “structural solution that they can live [with]” is THEIR OWN CHURCH. How can One Church give *some* of their members their OWN Church—without it… Read more »

badman
Guest
badman

I suspect that attitudes to a “church within a church” are hardening as a result of the so called Anglican realignment activities which have spread from the US to the UK via such as the ill-fated Covenant for the Church of England and the GAFCON extremism of such as the Bishops of Lewes and Rochester.

Live and let live is very Anglican. Separation is not. Forward in Faith is asking for a totally separate province. The Church of England is very unlikely to give them that.

Simon Sarmiento
Guest

the legally binding arrangements within the Act of Synod

Well there’s a contradiction in terms if I ever saw one. An Act of Synod is, by definition, not legally binding, surely?

David Malloch
Guest
David Malloch

Badman writes: “Forward in Faith is asking for a totally separate province. The Church of England is very unlikely to give them that.” I’m not sure this is quite correct. Forward in Faith is a membership organisation (2nd in size only to the mothers’ union) in the C of E. Its members oppose the ordination of women for theological reasons, which they fully understand others don’t share. There is a sense of realism that for those with different theoligical perpectives there is no difficulty with the issue of Women’s ordination and, indeed, for many it is an issue of justice.… Read more »

kieran crichton
Guest
kieran crichton

“attitudes to a “church within a church” are hardening as a result of the so called Anglican realignment activities which have spread from the US to the UK” Too true. And what is saddening is that ‘alternative structures’ already exist in the form of Resolution A, B and C parishes under the pastoral eye of extra-diocesan bishops. This is all profoundly un-catholic, which is a bit odd given the stated theological tone of the clergy and parishes that seem to be caught up in these futureless structures. Faced with the prospect of a bishop-who-is-a-woman, if these little ghettos are not… Read more »

Göran Koch-Swahne
Guest

i suppose I shall have to look elsewhere “… for sincerely held theological reasons “… If be.

Martin Reynolds
Guest
Martin Reynolds

I smiled reading Keiron’s comment on the new Roman vogue for the “liturgical style” of Forward in Faith types. Some of my best friends left for Rome when we ordained women and happily remain close. I remember their wailing over the minimalist liturgy they would have to embrace and it was no surprise when one of them was appointed to oversee the Latin/pre Vatican 2 liturgies in the diocese – he is back in heaven! But it is these lads who are the most bemused by the “double think” that has happened since, but there you are, if the truth… Read more »

David Malloch
Guest
David Malloch

Martin asks: “If such a scheme has been overwhelmingly lauded and apparently universally accepted, then I wonder why those who are not in favour of women’s ordination should expect more than is on offer to parishes and individuals in the Dallas Plan.” Please remember that what we are asking for gives more to both sides than is presently the case. By creating a separate, non-geographical, jurisdiction for opponents, the present situation of existing diocese having bishops who do not ordain women would cease. So, an english equivalent of the Dallas Plan would not be needed – women would be able… Read more »

Martin Reynolds
Guest
Martin Reynolds

I am delighted David believes the FiF proposals are generous to all, this would be a great achievement, and a significant change in attitude too. Words are hardly able to express the shock and deep sadness I felt when I listened to the speeches of past FiF conferences available on their website, one from a priest I have known and respected for 40+ years – there was not an iota of generosity in what he and his fellows had to say. So, I think I will remain persuaded by the Panel of Reference when they say that the Dallas Plan… Read more »

JCF
Guest
JCF

“The move to consecrate women as bishops means that the present provisions will not work . . . The suggestion of a province, in no way ideal, is an attempt to secure provision in such a way as women are then able to fully exercise their ministry throughout the rest of the CofE”

And when a woman is appointed ABC, then what, David?

You’re just delaying inevitable. Either GET OVER your *squeamishness*, that God is calling to the priesthood those w/ girl-parts (entirely consistent w/ Scripture, Tradition and Reason, BTW)…

…or avail yourself of the door. Vaya con Dios.

Neil
Guest
Neil

Many urge that people trust the Church to be ‘fair’ in the future to those who hold women cannot be priests or bishops. A single clause measure might stand a better chance when backed up with evidence of appointments to the episcopate in the past ten years of bishops who cannot accept women’s priethood or episcopacy.

David Malloch
Guest
David Malloch

I gather the English Bishops have been meeting this week to consider the report of the legislative drafting group. Anyone heard of the outcome of the meeting?

Göran Koch-Swahne
Guest

Who owns the problem?

christopher+
Guest
christopher+

If special jurisdictions were put in place for Anglicans who oppose the ordination of women, and Anglicans who oppose the presence – the very existence – of gay people, and Anglicans who insist that only the 1662 BCP is authentically Anglican – if all these special places were set up, would they be able to remain in full communion with each other and with the rest of the Anglican Communion? One has to wonder.