Sunday, 11 July 2010

WATCH comments on yesterday's vote

WATCH (Women and the Church) Press Release Sunday 11th July 7.30pm

Vote on Archbishops’ Amendment is Standard Practice.

WATCH is disappointed that some opponents of women bishops are seeking to discredit the standard practices of General Synod after the vote on the Archbishops’ amendment yesterday. The procedure of votes being taken “by houses” is standard practice for many issues. It must be requested from the floor and supported by 25 members of synod. Once this decision is taken, the votes of each House of Synod (Bishops, Clergy and Lay) are added separately. A majority is required in all three houses for the motion to be carried. This ensures that all three groups are prepared to support a proposal and the Church can move forward together.

Ironically the same procedure was used in 1978 when Synod first fully considered ordaining women as deacons, priests and bishops. Although it obtained a majority overall, the motion failed to achieve a majority in the House of Clergy and therefore fell.

“It is important that we all continue to honour the processes of Synod and move forward in the light of the decisions they have made,” said the Revd Rachel Weir, Chair of WATCH. “ We hope and trust that the graciousness and attentive listening that characterised Saturday’s debate continues on Monday when Synod completes its consideration of the draft legislation.

Supporting the draft legislation represents a significant compromise for WATCH and others who support women’s ordained ministry: a compromise made in a spirit of generosity to make space for those opposed.”

WATCH looks forward to these proposals going forward to the wider church for further consultation.

Posted by Simon Sarmiento on Sunday, 11 July 2010 at 8:44pm BST | TrackBack
You can make a Permalink to this if you like
Categorised as: Church of England | General Synod
Comments

Well, this is sort of correct. The call for a vote by houses is the procedure commonly used when a group wants to sink a motion. It greatly reduces the chance of something passing.

Posted by: David Malloch on Sunday, 11 July 2010 at 9:02pm BST

David Malloch

Presumably that was what the House of Clergy wanted back in 1978.

I note, however, that prior to the ABs amendment, Amendment 513a, put by the Revd Rod Thomas (Exeter) also went to a vote by houses, as set out by TA. The overall figures were about 2 to 1 in all 3 houses, much the same as the figures for the preceding vote on 512a put by Canon Simon Killwick.

Posted by: chenier1 on Sunday, 11 July 2010 at 10:10pm BST
Post a comment









Remember personal info?

Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select 'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical, advertising, or other purposes.