Catholic Group in General Synod writes to members

Another letter to General Synod members about the bishops’ amendments to the women bishops legislation is circulating. This time it is from the Chairman of the Catholic Group in General Synod.

Subject: Women Bishop Legislation

Dear fellow member of General Synod,

Some supporters of women bishops are now urging us to send the draft Women Bishops legislation back to the House of Bishops for them to reconsider their amendments; the same people are advising us to vote against the Measure if the House of Bishops do not withdraw their amendments. We need to reflect very carefully what referring the matter back to the Bishops would do to the Church of England.

What the Bishops have done is entirely reasonable in terms of the synodical process. It is consistent with how the majority of the Synod voted in February: the Southwark motion calling for no amendments at all to be made by the House of Bishop was itself amended by Pete Spiers so as to request that no substantial amendments be made.

The Bishops’ amendments are consistent with the original substance of the Measure; that is the clear advice of the Legal Office (reproduced in the annex to GS 1708-1709ZZ); it is also the decision of the majority of the Group of Six (Archbishops, Prolocutors, Chair and Vice-Chair of the House of Laity). Members of Synod would do well to read the Legal Office’s advice very carefully before forming a view on the amendments.

The House of Bishops’ amendments are consistent with their responsibility to try to hold the Church of England together; their amendments are also consistent with their responsibility to find a way forward that stands a reasonable chance of success at Final Approval. Synod’s voting in May showed that unamended, this Measure was doomed to fail at Final Approval.

The present agitation also provides a warning as to what would lie ahead of us were this Measure to be passed, with or without amendment. The formation of the Code of Practice would become a new battleground. Were the House of Bishops to be forced to retreat over their amendments to the Measure, they would be forced to have the contents of the Code of Practice dictated to them. Even after the Code were initially agreed, it would be open to pressure groups to campaign to whittle away its provisions over time.

A recent survey by Christian Research has found that 69% of CofE members surveyed wanted to see women bishops, and 75% wanted to see proper provision made for opponents so that they are not forced out of the Church of England. We have to ask ourselves: how do we achieve legislation that is faithful to the majority of CofE members? Pressurising the House of Bishops into withdrawing their amendments is most clearly the wrong way. Reliance on a Code of Practice is now looking to be an increasingly shaky and temporary foundation for making provision – which is what the Catholic Group in General Synod and others have consistently said.

The Bishops’ amendments are very modest but welcome steps in the right direction for the Catholic Group, though they do not go far enough. We appreciate the good intentions of the House of Bishops, but we are surprised that even the little they have offered, others are now determined to take away.

With prayers and good wishes,
Simon Killwick.
The Revd. Canon Simon Killwick (Manchester 163)
(Chairman of the Catholic Group in General Synod)

21
Leave a Reply

avatar
21 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
15 Comment authors
Father DavidFather Ron SmithPeter OwenrosePam Smith Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Laurence Roberts
Guest
Laurence Roberts

‘it is also the decision of the majority of the Group of Six’

That’s alright then! As along as a majority of The Six said so.

It may be getting near the time when it will be better to stop trying to hold the C of E together ;and see what happens.

Btw Some of my posts seem to be going astray. Any sign of them ?

Mark Bennet
Guest
Mark Bennet

I want to see proper provision for those opposed to the ordination and consecration of women. Proper provision is a code of practice which keeps the church together.

Father David
Guest
Father David

We are a Church founded upon the tripod of Scripture, Tradition and Reason. At long last with this intervention by the Chairman of the Catholic Group in Synod we hear the voice of Reason coming through loud and clear.

Deacon Charlie Perrin
Guest
Deacon Charlie Perrin

I admit that I’m a Yank and this may be none of my business, but both the Romaphiles and the so-called Evangelicals seem to be proposing something akin to this:

Let’s say the American South propsed the following in response to Brown vs. the Board of Education in 1954. “We must continue to have separate facilties (schools, busses, bathrooms, etc) for those who, in conscience, cannot be in close proximity to those who look different.”

What childish crap!

JCF
Guest
JCF

“The House of Bishops’ amendments are consistent with their responsibility to try to hold the Church of England together” Does a responsibility to, um, who is it, oh, GOD count for nothing then? As God has called women to the priesthood of the CofE, so also is GOD calling women to the episcopacy. This is a simple fact. But it’s also the basic Truth. I know there’s always a desire for a graceful compromise, but when it comes down to “cutting the baby in half”, sometimes you just have to say No. No compromise. Either women are FULLY Made in… Read more »

Lapinbizarre/Roger Mortimer
Guest
Lapinbizarre/Roger Mortimer

Pleasantly surprised to see Reason making the cut, David.

Father Ron Smith
Guest

“What the Bishops have done is entirely reasonable in terms of the synodical process. It is consistent with how the majority of the Synod voted in February” – ‘Catholic Group in Synod’ – If ‘what the bishops have done’ were ‘consistent with how the majority of the Synod voted in February’ – then why exactly were it necessary? The subtlety of the Amendment to Clause 5, which makes the ‘Delegation’ of a Woman Bishop a matter of regulation, rather than of choice, is a step too far. And that is precisely why Women may not, in conscience, vote for the… Read more »

Father David
Guest
Father David

Well, Lapin, take one of the three legs away and you are left with an unsteady edifice. I say again that as Bishop Alec Graham stated 20 years ago in contradictng the dubious assertion of the then Bishop of Guildford – Michael Adie – that as far as the innovation is concerned in the light of Scripture and Tradition – the answer is “no” or “Not Proven”. So, it is surely good that the Chairman of the Catholic Group in the General Synod is adding a touch of reason to the discussion.

Bob
Guest
Bob

“A recent survey by Christian Research has found that 69% of CofE members surveyed wanted to see women bishops, and 75% wanted to see proper provision made for opponents so that they are not forced out of the Church of England.”

I’m not surprised about these percentages…they are truly Anglican (!) – diversity of opinion yet wanting unity. What happens now though….?

David Walker
Guest
David Walker

Simon Killwick helpfully advises us to reflect carefully about what referring the matter back to the House of Bishops would do to the Church of England. What he fails to do however is to offer any similar reflection on what NOT referring it back would do. In over a month since the House met I have not heard a single voice telling me that because of the amendment to Clause 5 they have moved from opposing the Measure to supporting it, or even that they have decided to abstain rather than vote against. By contrast I have heard many who… Read more »

Father David
Guest
Father David

Those who vehemently oppose the two amendments (especially Clause 5:1c) must surely be of the opinion that rather than fine tuning the Measure the addition of these amendments has significantly altered the whole Measure – although, by majority vote, the Group of Six thought otherwise. If the House of Bishops were asked by General Synod to reflect again upon the two amendments which we are told were passed by a large majority – then they could simply reflect and after due prayer and deliberation return the two amendments unaltered to Synod. For surely if the House of Bishops was to… Read more »

David Williams
Guest
David Williams

“I know there’s always a desire for a graceful compromise, but when it comes down to “cutting the baby in half”, sometimes you just have to say No.” Cutting the baby in half sounds more like a disgraceful compromise. Unfortunately one should not expect the wisdom of Solomon to prevail in York – that would be equivalent to the Bishops acknowledging the massive damage currently being incurred to the body of the church and its unity through an unnecessary and unhelpful tampering action. If the measure had been allowed to fail in its original form, that at least could have… Read more »

David Walker
Guest
David Walker

What happens in York will actually have nothing to do with the bishops acknowledging damage done, it will be down to the laity and clergy to either vote for adjournment or to vote down (as they will) the final approval. I imagine that a 2/3 majority of bishops will support final approval in whatever form the Measure comes. Father David is right to remind us that the House of Bishops could simply re-affirm the May amendment. But they/we might find another, and better, way forward, especially if they/we listen to and consult with those who have been so appalled at… Read more »

Davis d'Ambly
Guest
Davis d'Ambly

“”A recent survey by Christian Research has found that 69% of CofE members surveyed wanted to see women bishops, and 75% wanted to see proper provision made for opponents so that they are not forced out of the Church of England.”” Bob Well I do not recall polls being taken in the American Church when the decision was made to go ahead with OOW years ago, but the solution was to have the House of Bishops make a statement to the effect that the opponents still had a valued place in the church (sound familiar?) and by and large bishops… Read more »

Father Ron Smith
Guest

“then they could simply reflect and after due prayer and deliberation return the two amendments unaltered to Synod.” – Father David –

Does this not indicate that the ‘due prayer and deliberation’ would have made absolutely no difference to the intent to present the amendments?

Of what theological value would this have been?

Pam Smith
Guest

Can anyone provide a link to the Christian Research survey? I’ve tried everywhere I can think of and weirdly Google hasn’t turned up anything recent. I’m particularly interested to see if it gave any further information about what the respondents considered “proper provision made for opponents so that they are not forced out of the Church of England” would be. As it stands, ‘proper provision’ could be argued to apply to any proposal that was put forward. And of course any proposed provision could be argued to be forcing those who were unhappy with it out of the Church of… Read more »

rose
Guest
rose

Do we know who will be chairing the synod debate. A motion to send the legislation back to the bishops can only be moved with the consent of the chair. She or he is not obliged to consent.

Peter Owen
Guest

For this particular business the chair has to be one of the two archbishops. It has not yet been announced which one it will be.

Father David
Guest
Father David

So it would seem that it is either the Headmaster or the Deputy Head who has to consent to “fling the matter back at the Bishops like a piece of badly done homework with the instruction to do better next time”? But, hang on, surely the Headmaster and the Deputy Head were in part responsible for doing the “homework” in the first place? This thing just gets more and more confusing with each passing day. No wonder Rowan can’t wait fot the End of Term bell to ring.

Father Ron Smith
Guest

“So it would seem that it is either the Headmaster or the Deputy Head who has to consent to “fling the matter back at the Bishops like a piece of badly done homework with the instruction to do better next time”? – Father David – But, dear Father, was not the ‘erring student’ who produced the Draft Measure known by the name of ‘General Synod’? If so, it might really have been that the ‘amendments’ made by the Head Teacher and his fellow Bishops have turned out to be nothing more than ‘a dog’s breakfast’ – thus necessitating its return… Read more »

Father David
Guest
Father David

I think, dear Father, that what the General Synod may well return to the House of Bishops is not so much the Measure itself but the amendments to the Measure – with the request that the amendments be amended!
Again – as stated in the full page Church Times leading article – “The most that the Synod can reasonably hope for is for a tinkering with the wording to make the amended Measure more generally acceptable.”