Saturday, 18 February 2012

Anglican Covenant rejected in more English dioceses

Four dioceses in the Church of England voted today on the proposal to adopt the draft Anglican Covenant. Earlier results are reported here.

In Leicester the voting was:

Bishops: 2 for 0 against
Clergy: 15 for, 21 against, 3 abstentions
Laity: 21 for, 14 against, 4 abstentions

It appears that there was confusion at the synod in the interpretation of this outcome, but we believe that the defeat in the House of Clergy means that the motion is defeated, and that this will be confirmed in due course.

In Salisbury the voting was:

Bishops: 1 for, 1 against
Clergy: 11 for, 20 against, 2 abstentions
Laity: 19 for, 27 against, 0 abstentions

In Portsmouth the voting was:

Bishop: 1 for, 0 against
Clergy: 12 for, 17 against, 0 abstentions
Laity: 13 for, 17 against, 2 abstentions

In Rochester the voting was:

Bishop: 1 for, 0 against
Clergy: 8 for, 30 against, 3 abstentions
Laity: 14 for, 26 against, 7 abstentions

Posted by Simon Sarmiento on Saturday, 18 February 2012 at 6:57pm GMT | TrackBack
You can make a Permalink to this if you like
Categorised as: Anglican Communion | Church of England
Comments

Days such as this give me more faith in the institutional Church.

Posted by: Jeremy on Saturday, 18 February 2012 at 7:38pm GMT

Hallelujah! What a great day! My cup runneth over.

June Butler

Posted by: Grandmère Mimi on Saturday, 18 February 2012 at 8:19pm GMT

Many thank you from afar (and we are)! No Anglican Covenant por favor, Guatemala, America Central

Posted by: Leonardo Ricardo on Sunday, 19 February 2012 at 12:16am GMT

A very interesting result from the Leicester Synod. The result from the Bishops was maybe predictable, but was pressure put on the Laity by the Bishops, one wonders? Obviously, the Clergy are not persuaded of the value of the Covenant.

Overall, a good outcome. Keep on like this and Bishop Graham Kings' prediction will come about: That, unless more than 50% of dioceses Vote 'for'; the covenant will be a dead duck at G.S.

Posted by: Father Ron Smith on Sunday, 19 February 2012 at 4:46am GMT

Incidentally, I am assuming that in Salisbury, the diocesan, Nick Holtam, will have voted no, and his suffragan, Graham Kings will have voted yes.

Posted by: JeremyP on Sunday, 19 February 2012 at 11:41am GMT

Re the confusion in Leicester: the Synod Standing Orders for that diocese don't appear to be on the Web, but those for Blackburn contain the following provisions - 60. 'Subject to the two next following standing orders, nothing shall be deemed to have the assent of the diocesan synod unless the three houses which constitute the synod have assented thereto...' 62. 'If the vote of the houses of clergy and laity are in favour of any matter referred to the diocesan synod by the General Synod under the provisions of Article 8 of the Constitution of that Synod, that matter shall be deemed to have been approved for the purposes of the said Article.' (The omitted wording of SO60 relates only to decisions NOT made on a General Synod reference, and SO61 relates only to procedural questions.)

These provisions are almost certainly replicated in Leicester; and if so then, taken together, they mean the assent of the clergy is essential to approval of a proposal referred by the General Synod. Lacking that approval, the proposal fails.

Posted by: Augur Pearce on Sunday, 19 February 2012 at 3:42pm GMT

It is impossible to see how, at this rate, the Covenant can be anything other than a divisive piece of attempted legislation ... the exact opposite of what its proponents claim for it.

Hopefully, this exercise will soon be over, the Covenant quietly consigned to an interesting footnote in history and Anglicanism be allowed to work out its current problems in the traditional way, by fudge, by learning to live with differences and by gradual change and development.

This way everyone stays, more or less, in full communion. However, with the Covenant a new Anglican Babylonian captivity will emerge, minus the vineyards of Avignon.

Posted by: Concerned Anglican on Sunday, 19 February 2012 at 3:56pm GMT

This is a very good development in allowing the Church of England to breathe more broadly. It does mean (should it continue) the defeat of the core policy - a highly destructive policy - of the present Archbishop of Canterbury and the cue for him to retire. I wonder, though, if the religious bureaucrats are designing how to bring the Covenant back in to the General Synod and get beyond a constitutional crisis by so doing.

Posted by: Pluralist on Sunday, 19 February 2012 at 5:11pm GMT

Again, I would be interested to see arguments used by those addressing these or any other synods - from both sides. if anyone has anything please get in touch.

Posted by: Martin Reynolds on Sunday, 19 February 2012 at 5:35pm GMT

It certainly is beginning to look as if considerable numbers in the C of E can't receive the proposed development of an Anglican Covenant. I wonder what special provisions might be proposed for those of us in that position? Hmm?

Posted by: Andrew Godsall on Monday, 20 February 2012 at 9:14am GMT

I suggest Martin looks on the Rochester Diocesan web site

Posted by: Jean Mary Mayland on Monday, 20 February 2012 at 10:16am GMT

Augur

Diocesan Synods have no discretion about how votes are to be interpreted on matters referred to them under Article 8. The Church Representation Rules specify what must be in their standing orders. Here is the relevant rule.

34 (1) The diocesan synod shall make standing orders which shall provide—
...
(h) that if the votes of the houses of clergy and laity are in favour of any matter referred to the diocesan synod by the General Synod under the provisions of Article 8 of Schedule 2 to this Measure, that matter shall be deemed to have been approved for the purposes of the said Article;

Posted by: Peter Owen on Monday, 20 February 2012 at 10:27am GMT

The views of Graham Kings and Nick Holtam are a matter of public record, as are the voting figures so, yes, in Salisbury Graham Kings presented the motion and voted for it and Nick Holtam voted against.

Posted by: Nigel LLoyd on Monday, 20 February 2012 at 10:41am GMT

Have followed your advice to Martin and looked at the Rochester web site, Jean. Nothing obvious relating to the vote. A link or other clarification of your statement might help make sense of your short comment.

Posted by: Lapinbizarre on Monday, 20 February 2012 at 12:02pm GMT

Could we have an up date as to which dioceses have voted in favour and which against? Which other diocesan synods are due to vote soon?

Posted by: Perry Butler on Monday, 20 February 2012 at 12:07pm GMT

Perry -- Modern Church has a table that shows all this.

Go to their home page and click on "synod dates and results" on the right-hand side, under "Covenant debates."

According to that list, Sheffield and Worcester are next on February 25, Sodor and Man on March 1, and Chelmsford, Bradford, Carlisle, and Hereford on March 3.

Posted by: Jeremy on Monday, 20 February 2012 at 2:32pm GMT

Look in
Covenant Doc 070911x-Diocese of Rochester

http://www.rochester.anglican.org/Documents/Admin/Committee/Covenant%20Document.pdf

Posted by: Jean Mayland on Monday, 20 February 2012 at 2:57pm GMT

It is becoming painfully obvious that there is no emerging positive consensus about a document purporting to be a way to ensure action by consensus.

The refusal to submit to further drafts and revisions was a tragic choice. The draft as proposed was not "ready for prime time."

Posted by: Tobias Haller on Monday, 20 February 2012 at 2:59pm GMT

The draft was not ready? I would have thought that the fault lay not with the drafting, but with the un-Anglican idea.

Posted by: Jeremy on Monday, 20 February 2012 at 3:59pm GMT

Our Diocesan vote (Bath & Wells) is on 10th March. I note in passing that our Diocesan Synod has 200 seats, compared to an average of 80 votes in the above examples. Either the turnout for the vote is pretty poor, or we have a vastly oversized Synod.

Posted by: David Keen on Monday, 20 February 2012 at 4:24pm GMT

Jesus himself summarised 'All the Law and the Prophets' in this single Commandment - 'Love God, first, and then your neighbour as yourself'

Perhaps the Covenant Promoters need to acknowledge the perspicacity (and charity) of Jesus, and just quietly drop the Covenant in favour of another of Jesus' sayings: "They will know you're my disciples BY YOUR LOVE.

This ought to fulfil the 'Law and the Prophets'.

Posted by: Father Ron Smith on Monday, 20 February 2012 at 8:35pm GMT

When the vote on women bishops is narrowly lost and this is voted down,..maybe Rowan Williams will have the integrity to resign.

Posted by: Robert ian Williams on Tuesday, 21 February 2012 at 4:27pm GMT

With reference to the comment by RIW, just think of what might happen to the Roman Curia, if they had to depend on a popular vote to maintain the edict about No Contraception. There would simply be no contest.

Posted by: Father Ron Smith on Wednesday, 22 February 2012 at 1:48am GMT
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.