Saturday, 24 November 2012
Women Bishops: latest news
Guardian Aida Edemariam and Lizzy Davies Pressure piles on church to vote again on female bishops
Aida Edemariam Maria Miller interview: ‘It’s very disappointing that the Church of England has taken this decision’
Telegraph John-Paul Ford Rojas Lord Carey calls for Church of England to push through introduction of women bishops
Liverpool Echo Alan Weston Frank Field MP tables parliamentary Bill over women bishops
Here is a press release from Frank Field and this is the bill’s entry on the UK Parliament website: Equality Act 2010 (Amendment) Bill.
Stephen Croft, the Bishop of Sheffield, gave this presidential address to his diocesan synod this morning.
Posted by Peter Owen on
Saturday, 24 November 2012 at 5:06pm GMT
You can make a Permalink to this if you like
Church of England
| General Synod
Of course Frank Field's bill will not likely get to third reading.
As of Thursday, however, the following MPs were supporting the bill. It is an interesting list, as it contains two Tories and a Lib Dem.
Frank Field (Labour—Birkenhead)
Diana Johnson (Labour—Kingston upon Hull North)
Natascha Engel (Labour—North East Derbyshire)
Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru—Dwyfor Merionnydd)
Andrew George (Liberal Democrat—St. Ives)
Nicholas Soames (Conservative—Mid Sussex)
Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour—City of Durham)
Eleanor Laing (Conservative—Epping Forest)
Helen Goodman (Labour—Bishop Auckland)
Calls to remove the CofE's exemptions from equality legislation are understandable when considering the absurdity of arguments about priests becoming bishops based on the following taxonomy:
A woman priest
B man priest
Category B subdivided into:
B 1 straight man priest
B 2 gay man priest
The latter further subdivided for the purposes of argument as:
B 2a celibate partnered gay man priest
B 2b assumed-to-be non-celibate partnered gay man priest
The reverse appointment of a category B 2a priest to a suffragan see in the Oxford diocese in 2003 has been formalised into a moratorium by the House of Bishops pending a review. The kerfuffle following the election of a category B 2b priest to the episcopate in USA in the same year led to the setting up of a global ecclesial entity intended to block any additional B 2b priests; this was approved by General Synod in 2007 but thwarted by diocesan synods earlier in this year. Hence Tuesday’s quid pro quo?
The Synod debate this week seems to have been complicated by the fact that there are people vehemently opposed to anyone from B 2 being made bishop and made a song and a dance about Category A priests, partly in anticipation of a B 2a episcopal appointment at some point in the future should the ‘sexuality reviews’ not go in their favour, and who wish to ensure they are ministered by a bishop only from Category B 1 – to satisfy both headship (not A) and ‘bedship’ (not B 2) requirements.
A further complication arises when strategic alliances where forged with those who oppose Category As, not on headship grounds, but on sacramental, and where B 1 bishops may have ordained or received communion from a Category A priest.
Added to the mix are those supporters of Category A, but opponents of B 2a and b, or just b. In this Category are the majority of B 1 bishops who strongly advocated the Anglican Covenant and the CofE’s opposition to gay marriage – the dominant themes of the House of Bishops contribution to the equalities debate it seems - but who also argued in favour of Tuesday’s Measure.
Little wonder then that the Measure failed, with mixed messages on the equalities front from the top. And so we have a right pickle.
George Carey encourages the Church to "rip up the rulebook" in order to speed up the introduction of women bishops which, as we all know, failed to achieve the necessary majority in the House of Laity by 6 votes. I don't recall a similar request being made in 1992 when the introduction of women priests was passed in the House of Laity by a mere 2 votes. The then Archbishop Carey was in the Chair at the General Synod to make the announcement and to give the voting figures.
Reported on the front page of today's TIMES newspaper "Lord Carey declined to offer formal advice to the next Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby". How refreshing is that? For the past decade unsolicited advice has been freely and lavishly given to Archbishop Rowan Williams by his immediate predecessor. Indeed in a GUARDIAN Editorial today - we are given a spoof memoir of the top 10 things Rowan found tricky about being Archbishop of Canterbury. Top of the list at Number 1) "George Carey. He didn't exactly keep quiet when he went and I was on the receiving end of a lot of it."
Not a comment, but a question. Are there details of the voting identities somewhere? Or are they not being disclosed for some reason? So much comment that I can't see the wood for the trees if these are already published somewhere.
An excellent Address by the Bishop of Sheffield, to his diocesan synod, giving cogent reasons for the need of Women Bishops in the Church of England.
His clear explanation of references to the New Testament that indicate a change to the O.T. patriarchal paradigm - which sees the emergence of women's ministry - is a very good invitation to both Evangelical and Anglo-Catholic protesters against women's ministry to, prayerfully, examine again, 'What the Spirit said, and is saying today, to the Church'. "In Christ - neither male nor female" - all are one in the Spirit of God
No, the voting details, i.e. the lists of names with how each person voted, is not yet available. They should appear on the CofE website in the course of the coming week. We will publish the full details here as soon as we can.
"Little wonder then that the Measure failed, with mixed messages on the equalities front from the top."
And why were the messages mixed? Because leadership on the equalities front at home would have had repercussions abroad.
Rowan Williams was so fixated on a false vision of the Communion that he couldn't lead his own province properly.
Fortunately this week's fiasco has made plain to Justin Welby where his priorities should lie.
Come home, Canterbury!
Ah! At last! Lord Carey can be seen to say something in public that chimes with the majority of 'Thinking Anglicans'. However, let's not let our guard down, there might yet be a 'sting in the tail'.