Press Release from the LGB&T Anglican Coalition
‘Embrace Civil Partnerships’ - Bishops told.
2nd February 2012 - for immediate use
The time has come for a change in stance on Civil Partnerships is the message from pro-gay groups in the LGB&T Anglican Coalition.
In its submission to the House of Bishops review group on Civil Partnerships, (made public today) the Coalition calls on the Church of England to allow churches to register Civil Partnerships, authorise services of Thanksgiving and Dedication, and end the ban on Bishops in Civil Partnerships.
With over 47,000 Civil partnerships had been registered by the end of 2010, the submission notes that “As social attitudes towards those in same-sex relationships have become increasingly open and accepting, the Church of England is becoming increasingly isolated. This is in turn damaging both our mission and our ability to provide pastoral care to those in our parishes, congregations, and clergy.”
On offering Civil Partnerships in Parish Churches, the Coalition has already identified 95 churches who want to press ahead but General Synod would need to approve the application. Although negative statements have been made by the Church of England’s Press Office,
“the fact that there has been no possibility of discussion within the Church about whether individual churches should be allowed to register their for Civil Partnerships is in itself a retrograde position for the Church of England to be in.”
On services of Thanksgiving and Dedication, the Coalition has called for an experimental liturgy to be introduced in the same way that such services were permitted following marriage after divorce in the 1990’s.
“The present situation where services of blessing are proscribed and the creation of public liturgies deemed to be wrong, is creating pastoral tensions, ecclesiastical ambiguity, and a culture of double standards… As a minimum step, therefore, the Church should permit services of thanksgiving and dedication to take place in pastoral response to the large number of civil partnerships. To refuse to respond in such a way would confirm fears that the present ban is motivated by prejudice rather than theology or religious belief. “
On the current ban on appointments of openly gay clergy to be Bishops the Coalition calls for an immediate end to the moratorium:
“One of the most pressing needs is to see an end to the moratorium on appointment of bishops in civil partnerships even if celibate. There is no justification for the current moratorium and it should be repealed immediately.”
The submission also warns against putting up barriers to such appointments:
“Furthermore, any attempt to deter or exclude such candidates by singling them out for intrusive questions is not only unjust and hurtful to the individuals concerned but also damaging to mission and ministry.”
In response to the submission, the House of Bishops review group has invited members of the Coalition to meet with them to discuss the issues further.
The Coalition is also organising an Act of Witness at General Synod drawing attention to the many hundreds of LGB&T clergy who minister in the Church of England despite the discrimination and suspicion which they often suffer. The Act of Witness will take place on Thursday 9th February, 8:30-10am in Deans Yard, Westminster.
The full text of the submission is available as a PDF file from here.
There is a news report in the Church Times of reactions to the Archbishop of York’s interview by Madeleine Davies headlined Sentamu’s words on gay marriage backed by MPs.
Benny Hazlehurst, who is quoted in that news story, has published God, Marriage and the State giving more background on how marriage has changed.
For more on the demonstration outside York Minster, see local press reports here, and here.
The Church Times has a leader: In the end, it comes down to a word.
…It is good that the C of E is examining its earlier reservations about civil partnerships. Experience has proved them to be serious affairs, with many qualities — dedication, nurture, love, faithfulness — that look like marriage. Libby Purves has quoted the saying: “If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck… it probably is a duck… People who want to marry and treat one another properly should not be made second-class.” If Dr Sentamu and others wish to argue differently, they need to make a stronger case for discriminating against same-sex couples than merely appealing to “tradition and history”.
The Spectator has splashed out with a cover story headlined Sentamu for Canterbury!
From the Diocese of Southwark: Two new Area Bishops for Southwark Diocese.
Downing Street has announced this morning that the Rev Jonathan Clark has been appointed the 10th Bishop of Croydon and the Venerable Dr Michael Ipgrave OBE has been appointed the 12th Bishop of Woolwich. The Revd Jonathan Clark succeeds the Rt Rev Nick Baines who is now the 10th Bishop of Bradford and the Venerable Dr Michael Ipgrave OBE succeeds the Rt Revd Christopher Chessun who is now the 10th Bishop of Southwark. They will be consecrated in Southwark Cathedral on 21 March 2012…
The Archbishop of York has published this transcript of his interview with Martin Beckford of the Daily Telegraph.
Updated again Friday morning
A group of clergy in the Diocese of London have signed a letter calling for the Church of England to reverse its ban on civil partnership ceremonies being held in churches.
This is reported fully today in The Times but that material is all behind a paywall. Here are some other reports:
BBC Church of England clergy challenge civil partnership stance
AFP Church of England clergy rebel on gay ceremonies
Mail Online Nearly 100 clergy revolt over Church ban on ‘gay weddings’
Text of letter to The Times:
We, the undersigned, believe that on the issue of holding civil partnership ceremonies in Church of England churches incumbents / priests in charge should be accorded the same rights as they enjoy at present in the matter of officiating at the marriage of divorced couples in church. Namely, that this should be a matter for the individual conscience of the incumbent / priest in charge.
We would respectfully request that our views in this regard are fully represented in Synod.
Updates
Changing Attitude has now published the full list of signatures to the letter, along with a covering letter sent to the clergy members of General Synod from the London diocese. See Signatories on the letter to The Times and clergy proctors of London Diocese.
The Bishop of London has issued this: Clergy letter about civil partnerships in our churches
I am of course aware of the letter that a number of clergy in this Diocese has signed regarding civil partnerships in our churches. Their request to General Synod is based on very proper pastoral concern and it is right that this matter continues to be discussed openly…
The Church Times has a report: London clergy seek right to choose together with the full list of signatories.
…The letter challenging this ban originated at St Luke’s, Chelsea, where the Rector is Prebendary Brian Leathard. On Wednesday, he said that his motivation had been pastoral: “More and more people are coming to us, and feel that we are turning them away without being able to hear their story. They have a genuine desire for the Church’s fullest ministry, for us to bless their loving relationships.”
His request is for “something akin to the remarriage of divorcees when, under guidelines and in consultation with the bishop, priests act in accordance with their consciences”. The letter asks for permissive legislation: “There will be priests who do not want to do this, and I would respect their desire not to.”
He disagreed with the view that the present system spared the clergy from the responsibility of rejecting individual couples. “For those of us at the front line, there is no sense of hiding behind a blanket ban: we are still turning people away.”
St Luke’s has not approached all the London clergy; none the less, Prebendary Leathard said: “This is a substantial proportion. We should like our General Synod representatives to hear this groundswell, and represent those views in the Synod.”
Guardian Riazat Butt Bishop of London dismisses calls for civil partnerships in churches
WATCH have announced an event A Way in the Wilderness to be held at the start of next week’s meeting of General Synod.
They will be gathering at St Margaret’s Westminster on 6 February from 11.00 am to 2.00 pm for a panel discussion and service in the course of which they will hear from two of the Anglican Communion’s women bishops about their experience of episcopal ministry and pray for the guidance and blessing of the Holy Spirit on the General Synod.
Details and an invitation to the event are below the fold.
WATCH (Women and the Church)
‘A Way in the Wilderness’
at St Margaret’s Westminster
Feb 6th 2012 11am – 2pm
General Information
This is a critical time in the Church of England’s journey to ordaining women as bishops. Diocesan voting on the draft legislation showed overwhelming support: 42/44 dioceses voted in favour. The final vote on the proposed legislation will take place at the General Synod meeting in York in July.
At the February group of sessions (Feb 6-9), members of Synod will be discussing the results of the diocesan consultation on the draft legislation, a following motion calling for greater provision for those opposed will be debated and the draft Code of Practice (published on Friday 13th January) will also be presented.
The Event
WATCH is holding ‘A Way in the Wilderness’ on Feb 6th at the beginning of the February Synod. We are gathering at St Margaret’s Westminster for a panel discussion and service in the course of which we will hear from two of the Anglican Communion’s women bishops about their experience of episcopal ministry and pray for the guidance and blessing of the Holy Spirit on the General Synod. We are most grateful to the Dean and Chapter of Westminster for making us welcome.
As we pray for a way to be found in the wilderness we will be reminded of God’s promise to bring new life even in desert places. Our service will conclude with a silent prayer vigil in Dean’s Yard. Unlit candles will be held by the congregation to symbolise the light of women’s episcopal ministry that is, as yet, unseen by our Church in England.
Aims
WATCH’s aims are to provide the opportunity for supporters of women’s ordained ministry to make a prayerful act of witness at the start of February’s meeting of General Synod. In particular,
Invitation and detailed programme
WATCH (Women and the Church) invites you to join us for
‘A WAY IN THE WILDERNESS’
St Margaret’s, Westminster
Monday 6th February 2012
11.00 am to 2.00 pm
11.00 am Welcome & Coffee
11.30 am Panel discussion
Chaired by the Ven Dr Jane Hedges, Canon Steward of Westminster Abbey
The Rt Revd Geralyn Wolf, Bishop of Rhode Island
The Rt Revd Susan Moxley, Bishop of Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island
The Rt Revd Peter Price, Bishop of Bath and Wells
The Revd Canon Dr Judith Maltby, Chaplain of Corpus Christi College, Oxford
The Revd Rose Hudson-Wilkin, Speaker’s Chaplain in the House of Commons
1.00 to 2.00 pm Service
Preacher – The Rt Revd John Gladwin. Former Bishop of Chelmsford
The service will end with a silent prayer vigil in Dean’s Yard
Bring a sandwich lunch, a new candle, and dress warmly!
For more information, contact Hannah Cleugh
(Hannah.cleugh@yahoo.co.uk or 01865 341382)
The following article is reproduced here by kind permission of the Editor of The Tablet where it appeared in last week’s issue. thetablet.co.uk
Not in its backyard
The eviction of the Occupy movement near St Paul’s Cathedral is on the cards after the City won its case against the protesters last week. Here, a human-rights expert reflects critically on the role of the cathedral authorities in the affair
Wednesday last week, the High Court gave judgment in favour of the City of London in its ongoing effort to evict the Occupy movement, currently ensconced in tents and other structures around St Paul’s Cathedral.
Though the case had been heard over five days before Christmas, the result cannot have been any great surprise, with the law having appeared stacked against the protesters from the outset. Mr Justice Lindblom found that the law prohibiting obstruction of the highway justified removal of Occupy from public areas and that planning law did the same so far as cathedral land was concerned.
Of course, the protesters pleaded the right to freedom of expression under the Human Rights Act but to no avail: the European Court of Human Rights has always been reluctant to extend its protection to those who invade private property in the effort to get heard, and indeed has upheld evictions of analogous (albeit smaller) camps in Europe. So, too, has the Court of Queen’s Bench in Alberta, Canada. Lindblom felt disinclined to blaze the new path that would have been necessary to reach a different decision on the facts before him. The camp’s representatives have said they will appeal, but if permission is refused, their removal could begin as early as this weekend.
The cathedral authorities were not part of the case, but representatives attended the court hoping for a victory over the protesters, supplying evidence with that purpose in mind, but unwilling themselves directly to deploy the law. The City’s job was to do the wishes of its spiritual partners, the first part of which, of course, it has now done with hard-nosed elan.
The camp had arrived at St Paul’s in October last year when the Stock Exchange proved impenetrable. The police did not act initially, and the cathedral itself – in the ebullient and civil libertarian form of the canon chancellor Giles Fraser – was positively supportive. Services continued. The talk was of a presence until Christmas. Early compromises allowed visits to the cathedral to continue. The peaceful nature of the protest was acknowledged by all, the atmosphere good. Treated with respect and properly self-regulated, given, as Giles Fraser was later to say on Newsnight, “nice cups of Anglican tea … and a warm embrace”, a camp such as this might well have grown into a benign witness to the need for radical change, as the anti-nuclear Greenham Common women had done a generation before. And what a gift this would have been to a Church which was about to launch (in November 2011) its persuasive critique of city capitalism, “Value and Values: perceptions of ethics in the City today” (published by the St Paul’s Institute).
But then the church authorities changed tack. The talk was suddenly all of health and safety and of the risk of fire. The advice of professionals in these fields was immediately accepted, leading first to closure of the cathedral (soon shown to be quite unnecessary) and then to a legal action launched with the intention of expelling the protesters. By the time the City stepped in, the cathedral had lost both Fraser and the dean himself, Graeme Knowles.
All flourishing Christian organisations need to steer a careful course between Mammon and morality. On the one hand, there is the wealth, power and influence that flow out of such success, especially if it is millennia old (as with the Catholic Church) or backed by the state (as with Anglicanism): how can one bite the hand that feeds one if the food is so good and one’s corpulent body now so dependent? On the other hand, there is the unsettling example of Jesus himself – uninterested in money; dismissive of luxury and of worldly power; devoted to the needy (or, as we would say today, the disadvantaged).
Some Churches solve this problem by assimilating Mammon to morality – the good are good because they are rich, and vice versa. This is too obviously special pleading for the more thoughtful faiths for whom, however, the problem remains: how can they be rich and radical at the same time? These Churches usually manage to sidestep this dilemma by using their knack of fine rhetoric to call upon others to act. “Value and Values” is in this long tradition of noisy ethical talk. But when the chance came to live their words at modest inconvenience to themselves, the cathedral authorities failed to meet the challenge.
With this judgment now handed down, at the back of everyone’s mind will be the feeling that a rare opportunity has been missed for an heroic religious engagement. Either the camp will go quickly and brutally or the proceedings will come to resemble the Dale Farm debacle, with endless litigation, media summits, appeals, further clarifications of court orders and – eventually – a nasty moment when the camp is physically dismantled by the authorities.
If and when this does come about, the cathedral will have been primarily responsible. Had it adopted Fraser’s line, the protesters would probably be gone by now (as they had always intended), the institute’s report on the City would be a widely admired and much read document, and the Church’s commitment to economic justice would have been given a tremendous boost. Instead, we have this spectacle of a great cathedral acting not as a focus for Christian action but as a grand, religious Nimby.
The chance to undo this damage will not come about – opportunities of the sort offered by the Occupy movement are rare. No doubt there will be many more remarks such as that of the Revd Michael Hampel, canon precentor, who commented of “Value and Values” that “Action is a crucial goal of the protest camp outside St Paul’s Cathedral. We hope that the telling findings of this report can provide a solid foundation for future engagement and highlight issues where action might be of mutual concern for all sides of the debate.” This kind of comment is so within the comfort zone of the Church as to be indistinguishable from complacency.
At Mass at the start of January celebrating the Epiphany, Catholic Christians had Psalm 71: “For he shall save the poor when they cry and the needy who are helpless. He will have pity on the weak and save the lives of the poor.” What kind of an epiphany did St Paul’s offer the world this Christmas season?
British Religion in Numbers reports on the survey behind the claim made by the Sun that
‘Six out of ten Brits think bishops should be booted out of the House of Lords after defeating plans to cap benefits at £26,000 a year.’
As BRIN explains, in Lords Spiritual:
The survey was undertaken online on 24 January 2012, among a sample of 749 adults aged 18 and over, and in the wake of the amendment to the Bill passed by the House of Lords the previous night, which had the effect of excluding child benefit from the £26,000 cap being proposed by the Government. Data tables have been posted at: http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/pbzn4ckvyb/YG-Archives-Pol-Sun-BishopsHouseLords-260112.pdf
Read the full article for reference to an earlier (2010) survey on the same topic, and look in the comments for a further link to yet another recent survey, this one for the Sunday Times.
All this has some relevance to the forthcoming General Synod debate on a Private Member’s Motion on House of Lords Reform.
The briefing papers are here:
Tony Berry and April Alexander
Background Note by the Secretary General
WATCH has published a paper explaining The Case against the Archbishops’ Amendment. This is reproduced in full below the fold.
The reason for doing this now is that next week the General Synod will debate a Diocesan Synod Motion from the Diocese of Manchester. The motion reads:
That this Synod call upon the House of Bishops, in exercise of its powers under Standing Order 60(b), to amend the draft Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure in the manner proposed by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York at the Revision Stage for the draft Measure”.
The briefing papers relating to this can be found here:
Diocese of Manchester
Diocese of Southwark (this diametrically opposed DSM will be moved as an amendment to the Manchester one)
Secretary General’s Background Note
The full voting records from the July 2010 debate, when this was previously considered, can be found here.
The Case against the Archbishops’ Amendment.
Background
The Archbishops’ Amendment was presented to General Synod in June 2010 after the Revision Committee had published its carefully crafted and agreed revised draft legislation. It was an untimely intervention. General Synod did not have scrutiny of how it would work legally or in practice. The Amendment proposes that the diocesan bishop should ‘co-ordinate’ some aspects of episcopal ministry with a male bishop for those parishes that request it, rather than ‘delegate’ this ministry as in the present draft legislation. (“Co-ordinate” is an ambiguous phrase which means variously “share with a willing colleague” and “give away entirely” – experience shows that such ambiguity does not serve the church as a whole)
General Synod debated this Amendment in July 2010 and it was defeated. For those who were not then members of General Synod, the debate is well worth reading. It can be found at www.churchofengland.org/about-us/structure/general-synod/reports-of-proceedings/july-2010-group-of-sessions.aspx pages 150 - 168
Why do we not support the Archbishops’ Amendment?
A. It proposes an apparently legally ‘tidy’ solution that is not an appropriate answer to a pastoral and theological problem.
1. Only a few words in the Measure would be changed: but they are crucial words, for they are the words that would, in law, give all Diocesan bishops the retention of authority over their entire Dioceses. If these words were changed then the Church of England’s traditional historic understanding of episcopacy within a Diocese would be undermined. A parish would then have two bishops with equal jurisdiction, only one of whom they would recognise and only one of whom would regard the other as a bishop.
2. The Amendment would not satisfy the stated need for ‘sacramental assurance’, since co-ordinate jurisdiction would continue to be with a male bishop, not by law a male bishop who has not ordained women or been ordained by a woman.
3. The wording is apparently simple but the consequences have not been examined. General Synod has not seen any work on how the Amendment would work in practice, or any exploration of unforeseen consequences. The debate in July 2010 illustrated how differently the two Archbishops understood the Amendment, as well as how Synod members struggled to interpret the wording.
4. The parallel with Area bishops or army chaplaincy or prison chaplain falls down because of the fact that in this case one party does not recognise the other’s orders and authority. In the offered parallels each party, and those amongst whom they minister, recognises the authority of both bishops (or priests), who can act interchangeably. In this case they cannot. This changes the whole nature of the sharing, where one party has full recognition and the other does not.
5. If the two Coordinate bishops in a Diocese were to disagree, whose authority would prevail? If the female (Diocesan) bishop’s, then surely this is what is offered in the draft legislation; if the (Coordinate) male bishop’s, then this is the same as statutory transfer, which General Synod resoundingly rejected.
6. A Diocesan bishop is a sign and focus of unity across his or her Diocese. This would be sorely challenged when there would be parishes in almost every Diocese where there were overlapping jurisdictions and two Diocesan bishops, one of whom would not recognise the other.
7. Provincial Episcopal Visitors minister to parishes under the delegated authority of Diocesan bishops who have ordained women, doing so because such parishes are unwilling to accept the ministry of their Diocesan bishops. If this has been acceptable for nearly twenty years, then why suddenly is such delegation not acceptable?
8. What will happen when both Archbishops have consecrated women? Who will be left to consecrate the bishops who are not only against women’s ordination but who believe that a male (arch)bishop is unacceptable and invalidates his orders when he ordains or consecrates a woman?
9. Senior women clergy have repeatedly indicated that they would not be prepared to accept appointment as bishops under such amended legislation. Moreover, the Archbishops have never discussed their amendment with senior women clergy, whereas senior women have been well represented on the Revision Committee and the Code of Practice drafting group.
B. For all its (superficially appealing) suggestion of sharing authority and new models of episcopacy, this amendment is still based on the notion that women are a problem and need to be legislated for, to keep the problem from spreading to the whole church.
1. It would put in law a question mark over the Episcopal orders and authority of female bishops. If a female Diocesan bishop must, in law, share her authority with a male bishop who does not recognise her orders, then her status and authority as a bishop would be called into question. This would perpetuate the sense that the Church is ‘not quite sure’ that women are fully human and of equal value in the sight of God.
2. It might be good for the Church to consider different models of authority – but not to take that step simply because it is women who are consecrated.
3. The co-ordinate arrangements would apply not only where there was a female bishop but in almost every other Diocese: where the Diocesan bishop supports the ministry of women and is prepared both to ordain and to participate in the consecration of women. It is therefore legislation which is based around the idea of women as a problem . . .
4. . . . unless it is possible to “pick your Bishop” on other theological grounds – eg interpretation of Scripture, issues re human sexuality – but who wants to go down that path? We would not even conceive of offering such a choice in relation to race or ethnicity.
5. We seem to be losing sight, through trying desperately to accommodate a small minority, of the fact that the Church has decided that women should be ordained in all three orders. Being held by a majority doesn’t automatically make a viewpoint right, but this viewpoint has been very carefully discerned by the Church and should be implemented in a way that does not undermine its central aim.
C. The current draft legislation offers good provision to those opposed to women’s ordination as priest and bishops, but there are fears about what an extension of the current provision would create.
1. Those with difficulties now have three specially consecrated suffragan bishops who act as Provincial Episcopal Visitors. When the Act of Synod is rescinded, the title of PEV will go but their Sees will not. Presumably they will then become suffragan bishops working as part of the Episcopal teams in Canterbury and York Dioceses, but will also be available to minister in parishes in other Dioceses under local Diocesan Schemes created in response to the Measure.
2. If co-ordinate Bishops, like PEVs, work across a whole province, we are in danger of moving towards the “additional dioceses” model, with jurisdiction conferred directly by virtue of the Measure rather than by delegation from the Diocesan. This was clearly rejected by Synod and would undermine the aim of this legislation to enable people of differing views, all loyal Anglicans, to work together in the service of God and God’s people.
WATCH (Women and the Church)
January 2012
Updated again Tuesday evening
Libby Purves wrote an article for The Times titled Retreat from your battle against gay marriage. Only Times subscribers can read it, but if you are such a person, it is well worth reading. Here is the link.
A small fragment is reproduced here.
Andrew Brown wrote at Cif belief that John Sentamu’s argument against gay marriage is already lost.
The archbishop of York, John Sentamu, hopes that people will pay attention to other things in his most recent interview than his attack on gay marriage. Fat chance. When he said that the government will be acting as dictators have done if it introduces gay marriage, he put himself squarely in the wrong on a matter that people care about.
Nor does he give what I think are likely to be his real, animating reasons: that he believes gay marriage is bad because it makes being gay look normal and even admirable, and because gay people should not have sex with each other. Around most of the world, and certainly in most of the Anglican Communion, these would be perfectly respectable and uncontroversial things to say. But in modern Britain they are a minority view, and certainly not a respectable one. They are not going to win a political argument – and that’s what he’s fighting here…
Archbishop Cranmer published Sentamu pitches for Canterbury.
Terry Sanderson of the NSS wrote at Huffington Post that Sentamu’s Shot at Gay Marriage Is Only the First Salvo in a Bitter Battle to Come.
John Smeaton of SPUC wrote British government is afraid of the homosexual lobby.
Megan Moore wrote at Conservative Home that The Archbishop of York doesn’t deserve to be called a “bigot” by Twitter’s intolerants.
YorkVision reports YUSU slam Archbishop over marriage remarks. And see also Archbishop of York criticised for “outdated and homophobic rhetoric”.
Peter Tatchell wrote Archbishop Sentamu is “intolerant and out of touch” and also Archbishop Sentamu Has No Right to Block Gay Civil Marriages.
The Uganda Humanist Association writes Sentamu, your words will travel.
JP Floru Director of Programmes at the Adam Smith Institute, wrote in the Telegraph Gay marriage won’t make the world stop turning
…It is interesting to see that in the most recent debate on the issue of gay marriage, the bigots are falling out of the closet left, right and centre. They speak in code. Instead of shouting that “allowing gays to marry will demean Marriage”, they argue that “any marriage other than one between a male and female would change the meaning of marriage”. In other words: We Believe that Your Union is of Lesser Value than Ours – and the Law should Reflect This! Talk of totalitarianism.
Another argument is the “most people don’t want this” one. Well, there probably was a time when most people believed slavery was quite a useful little custom. A democratic majority does not legitimise trampling over the right of individuals to be treated as equal humans. Democracy can only be accepted by all if the power of the state to trample upon individuals is made impossible…
Updated Sunday evening
Martin Beckford of the Telegraph has spent the week in Jamaica with the Archbishop of York, John Sentamu.
In Saturday’s Telegraph he has two articles:
Dr John Sentamu: Church must avoid being ‘too middle class’
…While the focus has often been on the introduction of homosexual and female clergy, Dr Sentamu is aware that the Church must do more to avoid its leadership being solely white and middle class.
“I used to chair the committee for minority ethnic Anglican concerns, and we seemed to be making some progress but that now seems to be going backwards. Where we have lost out is black people who had been realised Anglicans, who are now joining Pentecostal churches. That’s a huge drain.”
He said white working-class parishioners were also poorly represented in the Church’s leadership, often being relegated to making tea after services, and highlighted support groups for single mothers and replacing theological books with audio versions as ways to help disadvantaged groups.
“The Church should be a sign of the kingdom of heaven and should be telling us what it will look like. Heaven is not going to be full of just black people, just working-class people, just middle-class people, it’s going to be, in the words of Desmond Tutu, a rainbow people of God in all its diversity.”
Don’t legalise gay marriage, Archbishop of York Dr John Sentamu warns David Cameron
NB This article now also includes a video interview. Watching it is recommended.
…But the Archbishop says it is not the role of the state to redefine marriage, threatening a new row between the Church and state just days after bishops in the House of Lords led a successful rebellion over plans to cap benefits.
“Marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman,” says Dr Sentamu. “I don’t think it is the role of the state to define what marriage is. It is set in tradition and history and you can’t just [change it] overnight, no matter how powerful you are.
“We’ve seen dictators do it in different contexts and I don’t want to redefine very clear social structures that have been in existence for a long time and then overnight the state believes it could go in a particular way.
“It’s almost like somebody telling you that the Church, whose job is to worship God [will be] an arm of the Armed Forces. They must take arms and fight. You’re completely changing tradition.”
Earlier this week, Lynne Featherstone (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Equalities Office) answered this question in parliament on the subject:
(1) what recent discussions she has had with (a) the Church of England and (b) other church groups on same sex marriages in church;
(2) what representations she has received from the Church of England on same sex marriages in church.
Answer:
The Government will publish a formal consultation on equal civil marriage in March 2012. I have met with a wide range of organisations ahead of this consultation including with representatives from the following church organisations: Church of England, Catholic Church, the Evangelical Alliance, Christian Institute, Quakers and Unitarian and Free Christian Churches. Discussions have been held and are ongoing with other organisations including those representing other faith groups, non-religious groups and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender groups.This consultation will not propose any changes to religious marriage. Same-sex couples will not be able, under these proposals, to have a marriage through a religious ceremony on religious premises.
Update
Rosalind English has written this at UK Human Rights Blog: Archbishop on warpath.
Dr John Sentamu, the Archbishop of York, has thrown a firecracker into the consultation on gay marriage, which is about to begin in March. In an interview with the Daily Telegraph he declared that he did not agree that it was the role of the state to define what marriage is. ”It is set in tradition and history and you can’t just [change it] overnight, no matter how powerful you are”.
Last week’s Church Times carried a detailed report which is now available to non-subscribers: Synod given chance to signal its wishes on women bishops by Margaret Duggan and Ed Thornton.
THE subject of women bishops will dominate the General Synod’s meeting in Church House, Westminster, next month.
Dr Colin Podmore, the new Clerk to the Synod, said at a press briefing a week ago that there were four separate items about it on the agenda, with ten documents to back them. It would be the first time that the membership of the current Synod, elected a year-and-a-half ago, has tackled the subject, and so it would be of great interest to see which way they might go.
The secretary-general, William Fittall, refused to speculate on any outcome. He said that it would be a very significant chapter in a debate that had already gone on for more than a decade. It would be a chance for the Synod to reflect on the draft legislation, and on the Illustrative Draft Code of Practice.
Members would be invited to make suggestions and recommendations, but not to make amendments; only the House of Bishops could amend the legislation when it met in May. Should any of those amendments be substantial, the legislation would have to be referred to the diocese again; otherwise, the final vote could be next July…
Scroll down the same page for a second article: Illustrative code by Glyn Paflin.
THE Code of Practice on women bishops cannot be settled until the Measure itself has been passed, but the Synod will debate an Illustrative Draft Code of Practice on the Tuesday of its next meeting.
Drafted by a House of Bishops working party, chaired by the Bishop of St Edmundsbury & Ipswich, the Rt Revd Nigel Stock, it supersedes the illustrative draft produced by another group in 2008, owing The House of Bishops debated the new draft code in December, and the Archbishops’ foreword to the report says that the House “does not wish to see any outcome that would entrench radical division or given any impression of a ‘two-tier’ episcopate”. But it is committed to “the most adequate and sustainable provision for theological dissent over the ordination of women”, and seeks “a balanced provision” that will enable all members of the Church of England to “flourish”.
The House has committed itself to three principles: (1) ensuring that bishops do not discriminate when selecting candidates for ordination on grounds of their theological convictions about the admission of women to holy orders; (2) paying heed, when new bishops are chosen to provide episcopal ministry under diocesan schemes, to the theological convictions on women’s ordination of those who issued the Letter of Request for their ministry; and (3) maintaining a supply of bishops who can minister to those unable to accept women bishops…
Earlier this week Andrew Brown wrote for the Guardian that The Church of England’s fudge on female bishops is breathtaking.
The Church of England’s House of Bishops – for which, read the archbishops of Canterbury and York – has explained how they hope to mollify the opponents of female clergy. The proposals are breathtaking.
The archbishops envisage that the Church of England, once it has female bishops, will continue ordaining men who do not accept these women, finding them jobs they will deign to accept, and promoting some of them to be bishops who will work to ensure the continued supply of male priests who refuse to accept female clergy. In fact, the church will pay three bishops (the formerly “flying” sees of Ebbsfleet, Richborough, and Beverley) to work full time against their female colleagues, and to nourish the resistance.
The General Synod, last summer, rejected the archbishops’ plan to fix a reservation in law where the opponents could live as if nothing had changed. Now they have brought back the same proposals, but call them “a code of practice” instead. In theory, this gives both sides what they want. In reality neither will find it easy to accept.
Obviously this will be unacceptable to most supporters of women’s ordination. But the cream of the joke is that it will probably be unacceptable to their principled opponents as well. The unscrupulous ones will, of course, be very happy with the deal.
Despite all these concessions, there will be female bishops, as there are already female priests, and these will be treated exactly the same as male ones – except by the men who don’t want to treat them equally and who believe that God has called them to undermine women’s authority wherever it appears.
This is apparently Rowan Williams’s idea of justice…
To read in full what the archbishops wrote in their Foreword to the Report of the Working Group on an Illustrative Draft Code of Practice, see the first couple of pages of GS Misc 1007, available as a PDF here.
Updated again Thursday morning
The Press Association reports:
The Government has suffered a defeat over its welfare reform proposals as peers supported a move to exempt child benefit from the £26,000 benefits cap.
Peers voted by 252 to 237, majority 15, in favour of an amendment introduced by the Bishop of Ripon and Leeds, the Rt Rev John Packer, which received Labour backing.
He said: “It cannot be right for the cap to be the same for a childless couple as for a couple with children. Child benefit is the most appropriate way to right this unfairness.”
He argued that, in effect, the cap denied child benefit payments to people whose other benefits had reached £500 a week.“This cap is not simply targeted at wealthy families living in large houses,” he said. “It will damage those who have to pay high rents because often that rent has increased substantially in the course of their occupancy of that house.”
The defeat was the fifth the Government has received on the Bill, including three on one day earlier this month…
Or, as Channel 4 News reported:
An amendment tabled by the Bishop of Ripon and Leeds, the Rt Rev John Packer, calling for child benefit to be excluded from the cap, was passed by 252 votes to 237, a majority of 15.
A Labour amendment to exempt families threatened by homelessness from the cap was rejected by 250 votes to 222, a majority of 28. But 17 Liberal Democrats, coalition partners with the Conservatives, supported it.
The Lords was debating the government’s plans to ensure that a workless household cannot claim more than £26,000 a year in benefits - the average income after tax of a working family. The cap is equivalent to £500 a week for people with children.
Labour backed Bishop Packer’s amendment, despite being in favour of a cap in principle.
Bishop Packer said the cap “failed to differentiate between households with children and those without”, adding: “This cap is not simply targeted at wealthy families living in large houses. It will damage those who have to pay high rents because often that rent has increased substantially in the course of their occupancy of that house.”
The record of the debate on this amendment starts here.
The voting record on this amendment can be found here.
Five bishops voted in favour of the amendment: Chichester, Ripon & Leeds, Leicester, Lichfield, Manchester.
Speeches:
On an earlier amendment: Ripon and Leeds; Chichester
On this amendment: Ripon and Leeds; Chichester
Andrew Brown wrote at Cif Belief that This welfare bill has united bishops like never before.
The Children’s Society issued this Statement in response to the Government’s defeat in the House of Lords with regard to the proposed benefit cap set out in Welfare Reform Bill:
“The Lords have stood up to the Government and sent a clear message in support of children up and down the country.
“The Children’s Society is delighted that the Lords have seen sense today and excluded child benefit when calculating the benefit cap. Children should not be held responsible and penalised for the employment circumstances of their parents.
“Child benefit is a non-means tested benefit paid to working and non-working families. It’s a benefit all households with children are entitled to and is there to help with the cost of having children.
“If the intention of the benefit cap is to promote fairness, it is totally unfair that a small family with a household income of £80,000 a year receive it, yet a large family with a benefit income of £26,000 are excluded.
“The Government must not ignore the fact that the Lords have spoken out to defend the plight of some of the country’s most disadvantaged children”.
The Guardian has a review of media reactions to all this here.
The BBC has an interesting analysis: What is the role of bishops in UK politics?
George Carey My fellow bishops are wrong. Fuelling the culture of welfare dependency is immoral.
The Bishop of Leicester writes in the Telegraph ‘Lord Carey was wrong to defend government’s welfare reforms’.
The Independent has a leading article: Bishops and benefits don’t mix.
Updated again Saturday evening
GS Misc 1011 has been published: The Church of England and the Anglican Church in North America (PDF).
The document is published over the signatures of the two archbishops.
The final sections read as follows:
15. Where then do matters currently stand concerning ACNA on each of these
three issues, namely relations with the Church of England, relations with the
Anglican Communion and the ability of ACNA clergy to be authorised to
minister in the Church of England?16. The Synod motion rightly began by referring to “the distress caused by recent
divisions within the Anglican churches of the United States of America and
Canada.” That distress, in which we share, is a continuing element in the
present situation and is likely to remain so for some considerable time.17. Wounds are still fresh. Those who follow developments in North America
from some distance have a responsibility not to say or do anything which will
inflame an already difficult situation and make it harder for those directly
involved to manage the various challenges with which they are still grappling.18. We would, therefore, encourage an open-ended engagement with ACNA on
the part of the Church of England and the Communion, while recognising that
the outcome is unlikely to be clear for some time yet, especially given the
strong feelings on all sides of the debate in North America.19. The Church of England remains fully committed to the Anglican Communion
and to being in communion both with the Anglican Church of Canada and the
Episcopal Church (TEC). In addition, the Synod motion has given Church of
England affirmation to the desire of ACNA to remain in some sense within the
Anglican family.20. Among issues that will need to be explored in direct discussions between the
Church of England and ACNA are the canonical situation of the latter, its
relationship to other Churches of the Communion outside North America and
its attitude towards existing Anglican ecumenical agreements.21. Where clergy from ACNA wish to come to England the position in relation to
their orders and their personal suitability for ministry here will be considered
by us on a case by case basis under the Overseas and Other Clergy (Ministry
and Ordination) Measure 1967.
Updates
Episcopal News Service reports this development with the headline Archbishops suggest ‘open-ended engagement’ with breakaway Anglicans.
The American Anglican Council comments on it in its weekly update (scroll down for the article by Phil Ashey).
ACNA itself has now published this statement: Anglican Church Embraces Working Relationship with Church of England and the bulk of it is quoted below the fold.
“We are encouraged by the desire of the Church of England to continue to embrace the Anglican Church in North America and remain in solidarity with us as we proclaim the Gospel message and truth as revealed in Scripture in the way it has always been understood in Anglican formularies,” said Archbishop Duncan…
“As we have demonstrated successfully to the GAFCON primates, the Anglican Church in North America remains committed to our growing relationships with Anglican provinces outside of North America. Our biblical orthodoxy and ministries are strengthening our bond to our Anglican brothers and sisters around the globe. We are gratified that we are already in a relationship of full communion with many Anglican Provinces and look forward to expanding that circle.”
“In that regard, we appreciate the work of the Faith and Order Commission of the Church of England, whose report and recommendations to the Archbishops of Canterbury and York form the basis of the document now released for General Synod, and whose content substantially advances the same ends with the Church of England,” concluded Archbishop Duncan.
The Second Church Estates Commissioner, Tony Baldry MP, answered six Oral Parliamentary Questions and one Written in the Commons yesterday (19 January) covering metal theft, Christian communities in Nigeria and Zimbabwe, marriage, cathedrals and the Lord’s Prayer.
The questions and answers are in Hansard: oral answers and written answers, and are copied below the fold.
Church Commissioners
The hon. Member for Banbury, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked-
ORAL
Metal Theft
1. Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab): What recent estimate the Church Commissioners have made on the cost of metal theft from Church of England property.
6. Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con): What estimate the Church Commissioners have made of the number of churches from which lead has been stolen in the last 12 months.
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Tony Baldry): Ecclesiastical, the insurance company that insures the vast majority of churches, reports that last year alone more than 2,500 churches suffered thefts of lead, and that the cost of the resulting claims was about £4.6 million. Each of those claims represents a loss to a local community and a distraction to parishes from using their resources for local community life.
Diana Johnson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his response. I know that Members on both sides of the House are concerned about the theft of metal from churches and from war memorials, and we hope that legislation or regulation will be introduced fairly quickly to deal with the problem. Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that Ecclesiastical has placed a cap of £5,000 on claims against thefts of metal from churches? If that is correct, what is he doing about it?
Tony Baldry: Ecclesiastical is a private insurance company; it has nothing to do with the Church Commissioners. It has to make commercial decisions about the cover that it can provide to churches, and it has clearly taken the view that churches that have had lead stolen from them present a higher risk in regard to actuarial cover. That is all the more reason for us to find a resolution to the problem of metal theft as soon as possible.
Gray: My hon. Friend may recall that last time we met I raised with him the issue of metal theft from war memorials that happened to be on church property. Since then, I have had meetings with people at the Imperial War museum, who told me that, of the estimated 100,000 war memorials in England today, only 60,000 are recorded. Will my hon. Friend enter into discussions with the Imperial War museum-perhaps in association with the Heritage Lottery Fund-to find not only funding but volunteers, so that we can complete the registration of all 100,000 war memorials?
Tony Baldry: As we come to the anniversary of the first world war from 2014 to 2018, I am sure that there will be considerable interest in war memorials. In my constituency and elsewhere, parishioners are writing books recording the history of those who took part, and I am sure that the Church would want to co-operate constructively with the Imperial War museum, the War Memorials Trust and any other organisation that sought to ensure that we protect war memorials. The theft of lead from war memorials is a particularly despicable crime.
Christian Communities (Nigeria)
4. Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con): What plans the Church Commissioners have to provide support for Christian communities in Nigeria.
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Tony Baldry): Lambeth palace is in regular contact with the Anglican Church in Nigeria. Following a meeting with the Primate of Nigeria last year, the Archbishop of Canterbury has continued to be closely in touch with him about the ongoing situation in the region. The Bishop of Durham, the Right Reverend Justin Welby, is currently visiting Nigeria on behalf of the archbishop. The Church of England supports the work of the Anglican communion in working with the Church of Nigeria to end the murder and violence. It is putting its efforts into supporting movements for peace and reconciliation within the northern and central belt communities of Nigeria.
Mr Nuttall: As my hon. Friend will be aware, attacks on Christians in Nigeria have greatly increased in recent weeks, largely due, it seems, to the activities of the Boko Haram group. Will my hon. Friend join me in condemning those attacks and urge the Church Commissioners, after considering the findings of the Lord Bishop of Durham, to take whatever action is necessary to bring such attacks to an end?
Tony Baldry: I think everyone in the House would agree that to murder people simply for their religion or simply because they are Christians is totally barbaric, taking us back through the centuries. I very much hope that the Government of Nigeria will do everything they can to prevent the continuing murder of Christians. It is particularly disturbing that the person accused of bombing St Theresa’s church just outside Abuja was found hiding in the home of a local state governor.
Several hon. Members rose -
Mr Speaker: I am keen to maximise the number of contributors.
Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op): I think this is the third month in a row in which the hon. Gentleman has had to answer questions relating to persecution or discrimination against Christians. Does he agree that the issue of persecution of Christians-or, indeed, of those of any faith-must now be taken much more seriously by international agencies, by this Government and by other bodies that can play a role?
Tony Baldry: I entirely agree.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD): My borough contains the largest African community in Britain. Will the hon. Gentleman consider whether the Church Commissioners might communicate better to Christian Africans in Britain what is being done by the Church in Nigeria and, indeed, in Zimbabwe, which is the subject of the next question? Will he also contemplate sending a small group of Church representatives who are from Nigeria and Zimbabwe to those countries, where they may be able to build a bridge?
Tony Baldry: The right hon. Gentleman has made two very good suggestions, which I will discuss with those responsible at Lambeth palace.
Christians (Zimbabwe)
5. Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con): What steps the Church Commissioners are taking to support and monitor the treatment of Christians in Zimbabwe.
Tony Baldry: Following a visit by the Archbishop of Canterbury to the region, where he and other bishops from southern Africa presented President Mugabe with a dossier of the abuses suffered by the Anglican community over recent years, the Church is very concerned about the increase in hostilities towards Anglicans in Zimbabwe in the past few months. Most recently, on 2 January, local security forces forcibly evicted 80 clergy who had assembled peacefully for an annual retreat.
Martin Vickers: The attacks on the Christian community should be roundly condemned. The Christian community in Zimbabwe will have valued and felt greatly strengthened by the archbishop’s recent visit, but, as the Bishop of Harare observed recently, the persecution continues. Can my hon. Friend assure me that the Church Commissioners, in co-operation with the Government, will continue and, indeed, increase the pressure?
Tony Baldry: I can certainly give that assurance. I think it particularly despicable that it is now necessary to obtain police permission to gather for prayer in Zimbabwe: that is exceptionally sad. We will continue to co-operate with whoever can help us to exert pressure to ensure that Christians in Zimbabwe and elsewhere in the world are free to worship as they wish.
Marriage
9. Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con): What recent discussions the Church Commissioners have had with Ministers on the Government’s forthcoming consultation on marriage.
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Tony Baldry): There have already been discussions between Church representatives and Government Ministers on this subject, and more are in prospect. It will come as no surprise to the House that the Church of England holds firmly to the view that marriage is a lifelong union between a man and a woman.
Andrew Selous: What reassurance can my hon. Friend give churches in my constituency, which have contacted me about their fear that they may be prosecuted for discrimination if they persist with traditional marriage?
Tony Baldry: The Government have given an assurance that that is not the case. The law states plainly that individual denominations may make perfectly clear that they can continue to ensure that marriage is celebrated between a man and a woman, and the Church of England will continue to do so.
Cathedrals
10. Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con): How much funding the Church Commissioners have made available to cathedrals in the last year.
Tony Baldry: Next year the Church Commissioners will give Truro cathedral some £348,000 towards the operation and running of the dean and chapter, a 4% increase. The cathedrals building division will of course continue to look sympathetically on any specific request from Truro for support relating to the fabric of the cathedral.
Sarah Newton: I are grateful for that response to the discussions that we have been having. Truro cathedral plays a vital role in the city, not only through its ministry but through its contribution to quality of life and the local economy. I welcome the support that the Church Commissioners are giving to the cathedral, and I hope that they will continue to look favourably on the work that it is doing in its Aspire project.
Tony Baldry: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Nowhere else in England are the early Celtic roots of Christianity so obvious as in Cornwall, with its profusion of local saints. Truro has the distinction of being the first entirely new cathedral foundation since the Reformation. Like other cathedrals, it plays an important part in the life of the local community and the county, and the Church Commissioners will continue to give the cathedral of Truro every possible support.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab): The hon. Gentleman will know that other cathedrals have also suffered from metal theft in recent days; there were reports in the newspapers this week of Manchester cathedral being hit. Given the impact of metal theft and further to the hon. Gentleman’s earlier answer, will he tell us how many churches and cathedrals have applied for support from the listed places of worship grant scheme and whether the scheme is sufficient to meet demand?
Tony Baldry: There will always be considerable pressure on the listed places of worship grant scheme. Let us be clear that there is no way that the Church of England or any other Church can cope with the present level of theft of lead from churches and cathedrals. I hope that the Government will introduce measures to amend the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964 as soon as possible to stop that continuing violation of our national heritage.
WRITTEN
The Lord’s Prayer
Dr Thérèse Coffey: To ask the hon. Member for Banbury, representing the Church Commissioners, what assessment the Church Commissioners have made of the teaching of the Lord’s Prayer in schools in England.
Tony Baldry: The Church of England only has information pertaining to its Church of England schools. There are around 4,700 of these schools and academies across the country, spanning both the primary and secondary sectors.
These schools are assessed on a regular basis by Ofsted and the local diocese. From the denominational inspection reports it is clear that the Lord’s Prayer is in regular use in collective worship in the majority of Church of England schools.
The Church Times has today published an electronic copy of the Osborne Report on homosexuality. This should have been published in 1989.
In an accompanying article, the Very Revd Dr Jane Shaw explains the background to its suppression at the time.
When the CofE wanted to talk
A new (all-male) group is rethinking Issues in Human Sexuality, the 1991 report that remains the Bishops’ line on homosexuality…
The increasing acceptance of gay men and lesbians in the wider society in the 1970s and ’80s meant that the Church of England had to address the subject. In 1979, a church report, Homosexual Relationships: A contribution to discussion, was published, but was considered too liberal by many in the Church.
So, in 1986, a standing committee of the House of Bishops asked the Board for Social Responsibility to set up a working party to advise the bishops. This resulted in the Osborne report of 1989 (chaired by the Revd June Osborne, a member of the Board), which drew on the direct testimony of gay and lesbian Christians…
The full text of the report is available as an 8Mb PDF file.
The Church of England has released its provisional attendance figures for 2010. The press release (copied below) gives a summary of the figures, and links to the full figures.
Provisional attendance figures for 2010 released – marriages up four per cent, national ‘mapping’ identifies at least 1,000 fresh expressions of church
19 January 2012
The latest local church attendance figures from the Church of England for 2010 show that approaching 1.7 million people continue to attend Church of England services each month, and around 1.1 million attend one of the Church of England’s 16,000 churches as part of a typical week.
The figures additionally highlight for the first time the results of innovative Church initiatives, such as the ecumenical Fresh Expressions movement and the Archbishops’ Council’s Weddings Project.
Following extensive work by the Weddings Project and the introduction of the 2008 Marriage Measure, marriages in the Church of England increased by four per cent in 2010.
Across all dioceses the statistics reveal at least 1,000 fresh expressions and new forms of church, linked to the Church of England, reaching into communities. There are an estimated 1,000 fresh expressions within the Methodist Church.
The full statistics are available online, in the Resources sidebar.
continued below the fold
Total attendance
Average Sunday attendance dropped two per cent to 923,700 (2009: 944,400). Average weekly attendance at 1,116,100 (2009: 1,130,600) was down by somewhat less, indicating a continuing shift in patterns of church attendance. Average monthly attendance was 1,645,500 (2009: 1,650,600). The average number of children and young people at services each week was down two per cent at 218,600 (2009: 223,000); while the number of children and young people attending on a monthly basis was fractionally up at 437,700 (2009: 436,200).
Marking life events
Marriages in the Church of England increased by four per cent in 2010 to 54,700 compared to 52,730 in 2009, the biggest increase in any one year over the last 10 years; services of prayer and dedication also rose by two per cent to 4,020, up from 3,940.
Child baptisms increased one per cent to 43,850 in 2010, up from 43,480 in 2009; adult baptisms rose one per cent to 11,160 in 2010, up from 11,010; while infant baptisms decreased by one per cent to 83,260, down from 83,820 in 2009.
Funerals in church and crematorium were down two per cent and four per cent respectively.
Fresh Expressions
The first ever statistical analysis of the Fresh Expressions movement has concluded that there are at least 1,000 CofE fresh expressions of church or new congregations across the country. These aim to provide new forms of church which are different in ethos and style from the church which planted them because they are designed to reach a different group of people than those already attending the original church. The emphasis is on planting something which is appropriate to its context rather than cloning something which works elsewhere.
Around 30,000 people attend fresh expressions each month who don’t attend traditional regular services, equating to an average of around 40 people per participating parish exploring new forms of church - the statistical equivalent of an additional diocese. These 30,000 are included in the average weekly and monthly statistics. Almost all dioceses have reported fresh expressions or new congregations with over half of these initiatives aimed at families with young children. More information on fresh expressions of church is available on the Church of England website as a Powerpoint presentation.
Celebrating festivals
As a result of poor weather conditions and many cancelled services, all-age attendance at Christmas Eve/Day services in 2010 dropped by five per cent to 2,298,400; all-age attendance on Easter Day dropped by one per cent to 1,394,700.
Nine in 10 Church of England parish churches completed attendance counts, which have been verified across all 16,000 Church of England churches by the Research and Statistics Department of the Archbishops’ Council.
Tables including the above figures and a breakdown by diocese, along with the Powerpoint on Fresh Expressions, are available online.
Notes
Fresh Expressions is an ecumenical movement to nurture contemporary forms of church life alongside traditional ones. Fresh expressions of church are being formed in a variety of ways, with new communities reaching people such as clubbers, artists and students.
Definition of terms
Average Sunday attendance: the average number of attendees at Sunday church services, typically over a four-week period in October.
Average weekly attendance: the average number of attendees at church services throughout the week, typically over a four-week period in October.
Each of the above measures is provided separately for adults and children/young people aged under 16 years. The highest and lowest counts over the four-week period are calculated as follows:
Highest Sunday/weekly attendance: the sum of the highest Sunday (weekly) attendances over the four-week period. The ‘highest’ figures on the accompanying tables are proxies (in fact under-estimates) for monthly attendance levels.
Lowest Sunday/weekly attendance: the sum of the lowest Sunday (weekly) attendances over the four-week period.
Attendance figures are only included where local churches held at least one church-based service (which included adult presence) during the week under examination.
The traditional usual Sunday attendance (uSa) measure is interpreted differently across the dioceses and is therefore not regarded as statistically accurate as a comparison.
The Press Association reports:
The City of London Corporation has won its high court bid to evict anti-capitalist protesters from outside St Paul’s Cathedral.
In a judgment that followed a five-day hearing held before Christmas, Mr Justice Lindblom granted orders for possession and injunctions against Occupy London.
He said that the proposed action was “entirely lawful and justified” as well as necessary and proportionate and refused permission to appeal although the protesters have seven working days to renew their applications directly to the Court of Appeal.
The corporation agreed not to enforce the orders until 4pm on 27 January pending such a move, which is to be launched on Friday…
The full judgment can be found via the UK Human Rights Blog at Occupy London to be evicted – full judgment.
St Paul’s Cathedral issued this statement:
“We have always said that a permanent camp is an unsustainable forum, but would reiterate to the protestors that we have offered a number of alternative platforms for the important issues they raise to be voiced. We are, through those platforms, committed to engage in the continued debate on these issues and believe St Paul’s can be an effective forum for such debate.”
David Shariatmadari reports for the Guardian that Occupy London protesters greet news of eviction ruling with quiet dismay.
Updated again on 1 February
There were two news reports in Sunday newspapers concerning the Dean of St Albans.
One was in the Mail on Sunday and written by Jonathan Petre, see ‘I’ll sue Church of England if it bars me from being bishop,’ says gay dean. (A later version with a quite different headline appears here.)
The other was in the Sunday Times by Kate Mansey but is hidden behind a paywall. However, I can say that it included a long quote from the memorandum written by Colin Slee and published some time ago in connection with a Guardian news story.
Several other newspapers have followed up these reports. The most thoughtful is the Independent which has today published the following items:
Updates
Andrew Brown has this analysis: Why is this gay cleric considering suing the church if he won’t win?
…Look at the small print of its legal opinion on civil partnerships, transparently designed to prevent John from being able to sue for discrimination. No selection committee would ask straight candidates for a job whether they had ever had pre-marital sex, and, if they had, whether they were jolly sorry for it. Yet the Church of England believes that it is legally and morally OK to ask the equivalent questions of gay men: “Whether the candidate had always complied with the church’s teachings on sexual activity being solely within matrimony; whether he had expressed repentance for any previous pre-marital sexual activity.”
That is offensive enough, but the real point is found in the apparently balanced statements of disagreement. “It is clear that a significant number of Anglicans, on grounds of strongly held religious conviction, believe that a Christian leader should not entire into a civil partnership, even if celibate … it is equally clear that many other Anglicans believe it is appropriate that clergy who are gay by orientation entire into civil partnerships.” This formulation gives the game away. It is only conservative evangelical opinion which is described as “strongly held religious conviction”. The liberals merely “believe it is appropriate”, with the implication that their beliefs on this are not religious at all. This kind of nonsense was dealt with decades ago where women priests were concerned. What needs saying, loud and clear, is that the case for liberalism here is every bit as religious, and as theologically informed, as the case for the conservatives…
Two further analyses:
New Statesman Nelson Jones Bishop sacrifice
When it was announced that the Church of England had established an advisory group on human sexuality, consisting of four bishops and a retired civil servant, there was some criticism of the fact that all its members were (ahem) male. But that was only to be expected, and not just because it happens to be a group of bishops, which remains, for the time being at least, an exclusively male club. In Anglican parlance, “human sexuality” is code for, “What do we do about the gays?”
…In the case of the Church of England, there are currently two major sticking points, which may or may not be linked: the question of whether civil partnership ceremonies should be allowed to take place in church, and the question of whether openly gay men, even if celibate, should be allowed to become bishops. In both cases the present situation is one of studied hypocrisy…
Episcopal Café Jim Naughton Misleading media coverage: the latest in the Jeffrey John saga
There is a full report in the Church Times see C of E policy on appointing bishops may face legal test
And the Press column by Andrew Brown is now also available to non-subscribers: An enemy hath spun this
…Right at the bottom of the Mail’s story was the line that “one source said Dr John suggested he would drop his legal threat if he felt he would not be ruled out for future posts.”
Of course, a huge amount turns on whether this source was a friend or enemy of Dr John, because the Sunday Times story and the Mail on Sunday’s headline both invite the riposte that they got from George Pitcher on the Mail’s website.
He wasted no time on the ball, and went straight for the man: “We’re forced to ask how seriously we’re likely to take him as a bishop if we harbour the suspicion that he won his post, even by suggestion, because he’d declared that if he wasn’t delivered such-and-such a bishopric then he’d sue.”
But is that really why Dr John was discussing legal action? It is clearly true that Alison Downie has been corresponding with church legal authorities on his behalf. But friends — real friends — of his, and allies, too, suggest that what he was trying to do instead was to ensure that civil partnerships are not in themselves a bar to promotion. That is just as upsetting to conservative Evangelicals as if he were actuated by personal ambition.
It is actually much more difficult for the Archbishop of Canterbury to handle, and much more appealing to public opinion. One begins to see why the story might have emerged from his enemies with the spin that it had.
The usual pre-synod press release has been issued by the Church of England this morning, and is copied below. It provides a summary of the business, much of which has nothing to do with women bishops.
Agenda for February 2012 General Synod
16 January 2012
Women bishops central to General Synod agenda that includes debates on assisted dying, health care, House of Lords reform, and Eucharistic prayers for use when children are present
The General Synod will meet at Church House from 2.15 pm on Monday 6 February until late-afternoon Thursday 9 February.
The Synod will be spending a significant amount of time on the major legislative process designed to make it possible for women to be bishops while also making some provision for those who, for theological reasons, will not be able to receive their ministry. This will be the present Synod’s first opportunity to engage with that process since it was elected 18 months ago.
There will be four separate items of business dealing with different aspects of this complicated process, on the Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. These include fine-tuning of the draft Measure and consideration of making specific requests to the House of Bishops in relation to the next stage of the process in May. In addition, the Synod will have a presentation and opportunity for questions on the report from a working group on an illustrative draft Code of Practice that would be made once the legislation had been approved. These debates lead towards a possible final debate in July.
Other items of legislative business include the approval of an Order that completes a new framework for the charging of fees for weddings, funerals etc and the revision of a draft Measure amending aspects of the Clergy Discipline Measure 2003.
Legislation is an important function of the Synod but not the only one. Its Constitution says its second main function is ‘to consider and express their opinion on any other matters of religious or public interest’. There are some quite important matters of religious and public interest on the agenda for February.
On the Monday, Synod will be asked to approve the sending of a Loyal Address to H. M. the Queen on her Diamond Jubilee. By coincidence there will be an added poignancy in the fact that 6 February will be the 60th anniversary of King George VI’s death and therefore of The Queen’s Accession. Synod will also be invited to approve the appointment of a new member of the Archbishops’ Council, whose name will be announced nearer the time.
Synod will have the opportunity to debate an important matter of religious and public interest in the Private Members Motion on the issue of assisted suicide. Also of interest will be a presentation on the Tuesday about the Anglican Alliance for Relief, Development and Advocacy. This was established by the Archbishop of Canterbury and grew out of the 2008 Lambeth Conference. It aims to co-ordinate the work of the Anglican Communion internationally on relief and development issues.
On the Tuesday evening members of the Synod will join members of the United Reformed Church for a service in Westminster Abbey marking both the 350th anniversary of the departure from the Established Church of those who felt unable to accept ordination by bishops and use the Book of Common Prayer and also the 40th anniversary of the inauguration of the United Reformed Church, which took place in the Abbey.
There is a significant matter of internal Synod business on Wednesday, 8 February. Up to now, the Chair of the Business Committee which sets the Synod’s agenda has been appointed from among the six members directly elected to the Archbishops’ Council. That is a very narrow pool and it is now proposed that in future the Chair of the Business Committee should be elected by and from among the whole Synod. There are a number of other miscellaneous amendments to the Standing Orders.
Synod is in the process of authorizing new Eucharistic Prayers for use at services at which there are significant numbers of children present - at a Communion service in a church school, for example. They have been revised in the light of members’ comments and the Synod will consider the revised texts on Thursday 9 February.
The Synod will also receive a presentation about how the Church plans to respond to changes in the funding of higher education which will have a significant impact on the cost of training new clergy. At present, ordinands receive degrees and certificates from 19 different universities. The proposal is that the Church of England, with its partner churches, should establish a single suite of HE awards with a single set of validation arrangements. Some ordinands will continue to study for general theology degrees of universities such as Oxford and Cambridge, but for those on courses leading to a qualification specifically designed for ordinands there will only be one set of qualifications.
Finally, on the Thursday afternoon there will be a debate on the reform of the House of Lords and a debate about Health Care. The Church of England has always had a strong commitment to the ideals of the NHS. The debate will give the Synod an opportunity to offer a public expression of the Church’s concerns and priorities in the light of its vocation to seek health and healing. There is a particular call in the motion for chaplaincy provision to remain part of the core structure of the NHS, a position recently backed by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. There is also a commendation of the work of Anglican agencies and networks in promoting health and wholeness worldwide.
Communicating Synod
Parishioners can keep in touch with the General Synod while it meets. Background papers and other information will be posted on the Church of England website (www.churchofengland.org) ahead of the General Synod sessions.
A live feed will be available courtesy of Premier Radio (accessible from front page www.churchofengland.org), and audio files of debates, along with updates on each day’s proceedings, will be posted during the sessions.
Online copies of the papers for the February 2012 meeting of General Synod are starting to appear online; they are listed below, with links and a note of the day they are scheduled for debate. I will update the list as more papers become available.
Updated Friday 27 January All papers are now online and linked below. In addition they can all be downloaded in one zip file.
Updated Monday 30 January The first eight notice papers are also available and are linked below.
The Report of the Business Committee (GS 1849) includes a forecast of future business, and I have copied this below the fold.
The Church of England’s own list of papers is presented in agenda order.
GS 1848 Full Agenda
GS 1849 Report by the Business Committee [Monday]
Women Bishops legislation
GS Misc 1007 Draft Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure: Draft Code of Practice2012 [Tuesday]
GS 1854A, GS 1854B, GS 1854C Diocesan Synod Motion: Draft Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure [Wednesday]
GS 1847 Report by the Business Committee on the Article 8 Reference [Wednesday]
GS 1708B Draft Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure [Thursday]
GS 1709B Draft Amending Canon
GS 1708-9Z Report by the Steering Committee (GS 1708-9Z)
GS Misc 1012 Women in the Episcopate: Future Process
Other papers for debate
GS 1814A Draft Clergy Discipline (Amendment) Measure2012 [Tuesday]
GS 1814Y Report by the Revision Committee
GS 1822A Additional Eucharistic Prayers [Thursday]
GS 1822Y Report by the Revision Committee
GS 1846A and GS 1846B Diocesan Synod Motion: Appointment of Archdeacons [Wednesday]
GS 1850 Approval Of Appointments To The Archbishops’ Council [Monday]
GS 1851A and GS 1851B Private Member’s Motion: Independent Commission On Assisted Dying [Monday]
GS 1852 Draft Parochial Fees and Scheduled Matters Amending Order 2012 [Tuesday]
GS 1852X Explanatory Memorandum
GS Misc 1015 Draft Fees Order, An explanation of the proposed fee levels
GS 1853 Draft Diocese in Europe Measure 2012 [Tuesday]
GS 1853X Explanatory Memorandum (GS 1853X)
GS 1855 Chair of the Business Committee and Miscellaneous Amendments: Forty-Sixth Report of the Standing Orders Committee [Wednesday]
GS 1856A and GS 1856B Private Member’s Motion: Reform Of The House Of Lords [Thursday]
GS 1857 Health Care and the Church’s Mission: Report from the Mission and Public Affairs Council [Thursday]
GS 1858 The Ecclesiastical Offices (Terms of Service) (Consequential Provisions) Order 2012
GS 1858X Explanatory Memorandum
GS 1859A and GS 1859B Manifestation of Faith in Public Life [contingency business]
GS Misc 1008 Higher Education Funding Changes [Thursday]
Other papers
GS Misc 1003 Lords Spiritual: Parliamentary Spokespeople
GS Misc 1004 House of Lords Reform
GS Misc 1005 Civil Partnerships in Religious Premises
GS Misc 1006 The 39th Report of the Central Stipends Authority
GS Misc 1009 Council of Oriental Orthodox Churches
GS Misc 1010 Report on Pensions and Remuneration
GS Misc 1011 The Church of England and the Anglican Church in North America
GS Misc 1012 Women in the Episcopate: Future Process
GS Misc 1013 Archbishops’ Council Annual Report
GS Misc 1014 The August Riots, Responding to Austerity and the State of Society
GS Misc 1015 Draft Fees Order, An explanation of the proposed fee levels
GS Misc 1016 Archbishops’ Council Apportionment 2012 and table
GS Misc 1017 Resourcing Christian Community Action: Parishes and Partnerships
GS Misc 1018 Archbishops’ Council response to Richard Moy’s Private Member’s Motion on Visual and Video resources for worship
HBM2 House of Bishops: Summary of Decisions
A(12)1 Appointments Committee: Recent Appointments
Notice Papers
Notice Paper 1
Notice Paper 2
Notice Paper 3
Notice Paper 4
Notice Paper 5
Notice Paper 6
Notice Paper 7
Notice Paper 8
Forecast of future Synod business
July 2012
Legislative BusinessFinancial Business
The Church of England General Synod will meet in London from 6 to 9 February. We have already published the outline agenda and an article about the women bishops legislation.
The usual pre-synod press briefing was held yesterday, resulting in these two reports. Apart from one sentence in each case, they are entirely about the women bishops legislation.
Ed Thornton in the Church Times Women bishops: weathervane debate next month
If the Bishops do amend the legislation, it will be up to the “group of six” — the two Archbishops, the chair and vice-chair of the House of Laity, and the two prolocutors — to decide, after legal advice, whether those amendments have changed the substance of the legislation. If so, it would have to be sent back to the dioceses for further consideration.
Martin Beckford in The Telegraph Archbishops reassure traditionalists ahead of women bishops debates
The two most senior clerics in the Church have stated that they do not want would-be priests to be discriminated against if they oppose the ordination of women.
The Archbishops of Canterbury and York also said they would try to ensure there is a continuing supply of traditionalist bishops to cater for parishes who do not want to be looked after by a female bishop.
The papers for Synod are not yet online, but we will list them when they are.
James Jones, the Bishop of Liverpool, is the Bishop to Her Majesty’s Prisons. He is currently presenting a series of three programmes on BBC Radio 4 The Bishop and the Prisoner. So far two have been broadcast and the last is scheduled for next Monday, 16 January, at 8.00 pm GMT.
The BBC has a synopsis for each programme.
If you are in the UK you can listen to the programmes by following the links in each synopsis.
The Liverpool Echo published this preview article by Paddy Shennan about the series: Bishop of Liverpool Rt Rev James Jones talks about his radio series on prisons and prisoners.
The second programme in particular has prompted some attention by the press.
Nadia Khomami in the Radio Times The Bishop of Liverpool: punish our criminals in public
Liverpool Echo Bishop of Liverpool says too many people are being jailed
The Press Association Too many people jailed, says bishop
There are two related articles in the Church Times. They are currently only available to subscribers, but should be available to all on Friday of this week.
James Jones Community sentencing could change society
Paul Vallely Prison reform isn’t just for prisoners
A group which styles itself as The Commission on Assisted Dying issued a report last week.
The official Church of England response was this: Statement on the report of the Commission for Assisted Dying.
The ‘Commission on Assisted Dying’ is a self-appointed group that excluded from its membership anyone with a known objection to assisted suicide. In contrast, the majority of commissioners, appointed personally by Lord Falconer, were already in favour of changing the law to legitimise assisted suicide. Lord Falconer has, himself, been a leading proponent for legitimising assisted suicide, for some years.
The commission undertook a quest to find effective safeguards that could be put in place to avoid abuse of any new law legitimising assisted suicide. Unsurprisingly, given the commission’s composition, it has claimed to have found such safeguards.
Unlike the commissioners, we are unconvinced that the commission has been successful in its quest. It has singularly failed to demonstrate that vulnerable people are not placed at greater risk under its proposals than is currently the case under present legislation. In spite of the findings of research that it commissioned, it has failed adequately to take into account the fact that in all jurisdictions where assisted suicide or euthanasia is permitted, there are breaches of safeguards as well as notable failures in monitoring and reporting.
The present law strikes an excellent balance between safeguarding hundreds of thousands of vulnerable people and treating with fairness and compassion those few people who, acting out of selfless motives, have assisted a loved one to die.
Put simply, the most effective safeguard against abuse is to leave the law as it is. What Lord Falconer has done is to argue that it is morally acceptable to put many vulnerable people at increased risk so that the aspirations of a small number of individuals, to control the time, place and means of their deaths, might be met. Such a calculus of risk is unnecessary and wholly unacceptable.
The Church Times reported this in a news article by Ed Thornton Assisted dying ‘unwise’, warns Canon
CANON James Woodward, a member of the Falconer Commission on Assisted Dying, this week declined to support its conclusion that there is “a strong case for providing the choice of assisted dying for terminally ill people”.
The Commission, chaired by the former Lord Chancellor, was established in September 2010 “to consider whether the current legal and policy approach to assisted dying in England and Wales is fit for purpose”.
Its report, published yesterday, argues that the law should be changed to allow terminally ill people in the last year of their lives who are mentally sound to ask a doctor to prescribe a lethal dose. A second doctor would have to assess the candidate independently, and alternative treatments would have to be presented. Candidates would have to administer the lethal dose themselves.
The Revd Dr Woodward, a Canon of Windsor, was the sole dissenting voice on the Commission. He said last week that a visit to the Dignitas clinic in Switzerland had been his Damascus-road experience. Writing in today’s Church Times, he says: “Fundamentally, we cannot demand freedom to choose at any cost. I understand that there are significant difficulties with the current law. Yet my visit to Switzerland . . . raised many more questions about the way a culture views life, death, and the freedom to choose…
The full text of Canon Woodward’s article is available at Why I dissented from Falconer.
…It has been a privilege to travel alongside my fellow commissioners, but we have not ended up in the same place. In the end, mine was the single dissenting voice from the conclusions. My fellow commissioners have accommodated my divergence with generosity. I support the coherence, rigour, and quality of this work, and hope that it will be read and used as a basis for further research, work, and public debate…
The Church Times also carried this leader article: Assisting the dying to find dignity.
THE Commission on Assisted Dying assembled by Lord Falconer knew that it had a large stone to push uphill. Parliamentary debates too numerable to recall have considered various schemes for euthanasia and found all wanting. A certain level of help with the stone-pushing has been gained by presenting this as a libertarian issue: those nasty, conservative Churches preventing people from doing what they wish. But, in general, the difficulties of regulation and the lack of safeguards have left a large body of opinion unconvinced that a change in the law can be made securely, even before any slippery-slope arguments are deployed…
Church of England press release:
The membership of a group to advise the House of Bishops on the Church of England’s approach to human sexuality has been announced. The Group will be chaired by Sir Joseph Pilling. Sir Joseph, a former Permanent Secretary of the Northern Ireland Office, chaired the group that produced the report on senior church appointments, Talent and Calling, published in 2007.
The other members of the Group are the Bishop of Gloucester, the Rt Rev Michael Perham, the Bishop of Birkenhead, the Rt Rev Keith Sinclair, the Bishop of Ebbsfleet, the Rt Rev Jonathan Baker and the Bishop of Warwick, the Rt Rev John Stroyan.
The House of Bishops announced on 1 July that it intended to draw together material from the listening process undertaken within the Church of England over recent years in the light of the 1998 Lambeth Conference resolution on human sexuality. It also committed itself to offering proposals on how the continuing discussion within the Church of England about these matters might best be shaped in the light of the listening process. The task of the new group is to help the House discharge its commitment to produce a consultation document in 2013. The membership of another group, advising the House on its review of the 2005 civil partnership statement, was announced on 1 December.
The full text of the 1 July statement.
Iain McLean has written at OurKingdom about Same-sex marriage and the Church of England: an argument for disestablishment.
He starts this way:
The UK government has promised to launch a consultation on ‘how to make civil marriage available to same-sex couples’ in England and Wales. Note: HOW, not WHETHER. This reflects the astonishing social change in the last two decades in the UK and other liberal democracies. Surveys such as British Social Attitudes show that moral opposition to gay relationships has gone from a substantial majority to a minority in only 20 years. The Coalition is going with the flow, although not as fast as the devolved Scottish government, whose consultation on the same subject has already taken place.
This is a very difficult subject for faith communities, many of which have been left stranded; and many of which have a principled opposition to recognising same-sex relationships in their churches, synagogues, or temples. That opposition must be honoured, if religious freedom is to mean anything; but equally, so must the principles of those who do want to recognise same-sex commitments in their places of worship.
And he concludes:
… If Parliament makes same-sex marriage possible, will the obligation not then extend to offering same-sex marriage to any parishioner?
No. it cannot and it must not. As the Quakers, Unitarians, and Liberal Jews told the Lords last month, religious freedom must mean the freedom to say no as well as the freedom to say yes. Article 9 of the European Convention of Human Rights says the same thing. In England, although not in Scotland, the current proposal is to exclude religious communities entirely from the arrangements for same-sex marriage. This will predictably come under pressure if the Government’s intention to legislate for civil same-sex marriage in England and Wales by 2015 comes to pass, and/or if Scotland allows religious celebrants to officiate at same-sex marriages. But, in any such extension of permission to religious communities, there must at an absolute minimum be a conscience clause modelled on the existing ones relating to divorced or transgender people. To force unwilling religious celebrants to celebrate same-sex marriage would be deeply illiberal, and plain stupid.
But this blows English-style establishment out of the water. The courts have already ruled that a Church of England parish is not a “public authority”. This ruling was necessary to protect religious freedom. If parishes were public authorities, they would be subject to the public-sector equality duty laid down in the Equality Act 2010. They could not then refuse to marry an otherwise-qualified same-sex couple. In the interests of religious freedom, it is appropriate to insist that the Church of England is no more a public authority than is any other faith community. But then, it is imperative that it be treated in the same way, and subject to the same law, as all the others. True religious freedom does not only permit, but requires, the full disestablishment of the Church of England and the removal of its bishops from the UK’s legislature. The Church of England could remain a “national” church like the Church of Scotland, but without the entanglements that have led it astray. Each faith community must then decide its attitude to same-sex marriage on its own principles and according to its own rules. There must be no bullying of either side by the other; but nor should there be any claims for special treatment.
Updated Saturday morning
Lambeth Palace has issued this “press advisory”:
The Archbishop of Canterbury today set up an enquiry into the operation of the diocesan child protection policies in the Diocese of Chichester.
He has appointed Bishop John Gladwin and Chancellor Rupert Bursell QC to carry out the enquiry. They will advise the Archbishop on any steps that need to be taken to ensure the highest possible standards of safeguarding in the diocese. This will involve examining current child protection arrangements as well as making recommendations for the future. They will make a preliminary report to the Archbishop by the end of February 2012.
The Bishop of Chichester, the Rt Revd John Hind, has given his full support to the enquiry.
The step which the Archbishop has taken is an Archiepiscopal Visitation under Canon C 17. Bishop John Gladwin and Chancellor Rupert Bursell QC have been appointed as the Archbishop’s commissaries under Canon C 17.
The Diocese of Chichester has issued Archbishop’s Child Protection Enquiry:
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, today set up a visitation of the operation of the Church of England’s Child Protection policies in the Diocese of Chichester.
He has appointed Bishop John Gladwin and Chancellor Rupert Bursell QC to carry out the enquiry. They will advise the Archbishop on any steps that need to be taken to ensure the highest possible standards of safeguarding in the diocese. This will involve examining current child protection arrangements as well as making recommendations for the future. They will make a preliminary report to the Archbishop by the end of February 2012.
The Bishop of Chichester, the Rt Revd John Hind, has given his full support to the enquiry. He said: “Our diocesan staff have been in constant touch with Lambeth Palace over the last year and this is now the outcome of those discussions. We welcome this Visitation as an opportunity to resolve a number of issues in the implementation of best safeguarding practice in the Diocese and more widely, and should also contribute to the response of the Church to the pain victims have experienced as a result of abuse. We trust that it will add to the progress the Diocese has already made and will help to continue to establish robust safeguarding practices.
I expect full cooperation with the Archbishop’s Commissaries. I hope that after my retirement at the end of April 2012, the Diocese will have firm foundations on which the new bishop will be able to build in leading the Diocese in the future.”
Neither of these press releases refer to any earlier events, which were last reported here in this article: BBC challenges accuracy of Chichester sex abuse report which includes a link to this diocesan page responding to the earlier reports from Baroness Elizabeth Butler-Sloss.
And most recently by the BBC in this: Bishop of Lewes, the Rt Rev Wallace Benn may face misconduct probe.
Today’s announcement is reported by the BBC as: Lambeth Palace launches diocese child protection inquiry.
Canon C 17 can be found here (PDF).
Further press reports:
Press Association Church child policies probe set up
AFP Church of England orders child abuse inquiry
The Church of England General Synod will meet in London from 6 to 9 February 2012. The outline agenda is available online and is copied below.
2.15 p.m. Prayers, introductions, welcomes, progress of legislation
Loyal Address
Report by the Business Committee
Dates of Groups of Sessions in 2014-2015
Appointments to the Archbishops’ Council
Private Member’s Motion: Mrs Sarah Finch: Independent Commission on Assisted Dying
Questions
[brief evening worship]
9.30 a.m. Worship
Legislative Business
Draft Parochial Fees and Scheduled Matters Amending Order 2012
Clergy Discipline (Amendment) Measure – Revision Stage
Diocese in Europe (Amendment) Measure – First Consideration
2.30 p.m. Women in the Episcopate: Draft Code of Practice: Presentation and questions
Legislative business not completed in the morning sitting
Presentation by Sally Keeble on the Anglican Alliance for Relief, Development and Advocacy, followed by questions
5.30 p.m. Session ends
6.15 p.m. Joint service with the United Reformed Church at Westminster Abbey
9.15 a.m. Holy Communion in the Assembly Hall
Chichester DSM: Appointment of Archdeacons
Legislative Business
Women in the Episcopate: Report on Reference to Dioceses
2.30 p.m. Women in the Episcopate: Manchester DSM (Southwark DSM as an amendment)
Report of the Standing Orders Committee
[brief evening worship]
9.30 a.m. Worship
Liturgical Business
Additional Eucharistic Prayers
Legislative Business
Women in the Episcopate: Final Drafting
Higher Education Funding Changes: Presentation and questions
2.30 p.m. Private Member’s Motion: Professor Anthony Berry: Reform of the House of Lords
Health and the Church’s Mission:Report from the Mission and Public Affairs Council
Farewell
Prorogation
Contingency Business
PMM: The Revd Stephen Trott: Manifestation of Faith in Public Life
Updated again Wednesday morning
The Church Times reports today: Paintings at risk as Bishop Auckland deal falters
CHURCH officials are working desperately to revive a £15-million deal to safeguard the future of the 12 Zurbarán paintings at Auckland Castle, Co. Durham.
Jonathan Ruffer, who offered to pay £15 million to the Church Commissioners to keep the paintings in the north-east (News, 1 April), announced last week that he was withdrawing his offer.
Mr Ruffer, an investment manager in the City of London, who grew up in Stokesley, near Middlesbrough, blamed “insurmountable” conditions that had been placed on the deal by the Church Commissioners.
Writing in the Church Times, Mr Ruffer describes the First Church Estates Commissioner, Andreas Whittam Smith, and the Commissioners’ Secretary, Andrew Brown, as “decent men who have gone wrong”.
The Church Commissioners have declined to comment in detail on Mr Ruffer’s charges. However, in a letter to Mr Ruffer, sent on Wednesday and seen by the Church Times, the Second Church Estates Commissioner, Tony Baldry MP, writes: “We all hope that the matter is not irretrievable, and that we can press on as planned. . .
“I believe all are committed to achieve the end result that is desired, and I know the Church Commissioners are continuing to work to resolve the outstanding issues. They cannot, however, wave a ‘magic wand’ and bring it all together.”
And scroll down for a sidebar which provides a detailed chronology of how this saga developed.
The full text of Mr Ruffer’s article is, unfortunately, not available this week, except to Church Times subscribers. I will link it here when it is available.
Update
The full text of the article by Jonathan Ruffer is now available here: Why I pulled out of Zurbarán deal.
However, you can get some further idea of its content from another report:
Northern Echo Chris Lloyd Financier says Church commissioners ‘torpedoed’ Zurbarans deal
But today, the Church Times – the leading weekly Anglican magazine – carries a remarkable article by Mr Ruffer in which he says the two leading commissioners, Andreas Whittam Smith and Andrew Brown, are “decent men who have gone wrong” who have “torpedoed” the deals for the Zurbarans and the castle and so have delivered “two slaps in the face for County Durham”.
He says: “Andreas Whittam Smith is by nature a buccaneer: quick to offer the hand of friendship, decisive and brave. He generously accepted an apology for a remark I made which had hurt him.
“Andrew Brown is a very different character, the antithesis of the smutty joke: he is wholesome, serious, and dutiful.
He would make an excellent minor royal.
“Yet these men have managed to torpedo two deals, to the detriment of one of the neediest regions of the UK.”
Mr Ruffer paints a colourful picture of Dr Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, becoming involved in the debate. He writes: “I witnessed last month the Primate of All England pleading for the future of the castle.
The Archbishop pleading; Andreas untouchable, untouched.”
Update In the Guardian Riazat Butt writes Would-be saviour of £15 million paintings hits back at Church Commissioners.
From 1 to 4 November, the Churches of the Porvoo Communion held a consultation in Turku, Finland on the Churches’ teaching on marriage. Delegates represented the Anglican Churches in England, Ireland and Scotland, and the Lutheran Churches in Iceland, Norway, Denmark, Sweden and Finland. Observers were present from the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Latvia, the Lutheran Church in Great Britain, and the Latvian Lutheran Church Abroad.
Read more about this:
Church of Ireland Gazette High-level Porvoo Communion consultation on marriage
…The Archbishop of Dublin, the Most Revd Michael Jackson, and the Bishop of Cashel and Ossory, the Rt Revd Michael Burrows, attended from the Church of Ireland. Archbishop Jackson had been invited to give a series of Bible studies and Bishop Burrows acted as a Group Convener.
Each member-Church of the Porvoo Communion was invited to submit copies of its marriage liturgies and regulations. Dr Jackson told the Gazette that this material, together with lectures on the interpretation of biblical passages related to marriage, on theological arguments surrounding the issue of same- sex marriage, and on aspects of human genetics “gave scope and shape to the discussions”.
The Archbishop said that in a climate of “tension” relating to marriage practice across the Churches of the Porvoo Communion, the consultation had been conducted “in a spirit of attentive listening and courteous interchange of ideas and experiences”.
Bishop David Hamid Anglicans and Lutherans in Northern Europe meet to discuss the doctrine of marriage
…During the days together members from each Church shared their official teaching on marriage, as well as their pastoral experiences. There were also presentations covering aspects of the scriptural foundations for marriage, the development of doctrine, and human genetics.
The consultation concluded that differences over the introduction of same-sex marriage remain unresolved. The Churches hold a variety of views and pastoral practices along a theological spectrum. Some believe same sex marriage to be a legitimate development in the Christian tradition, whilst others see the potential for a serious departure from the received tradition. Nevertheless the consultation affirmed the benefits of “belonging to one another” and the value of honest encounter. The strong relationship of the Porvoo Communion, provides a “platform of sustained communication in the face of issues which raise difficulties for [the Churches]”
The full text of the communique issued can be found here (PDF).
We reported on 24 November and again on 2 December on attempts to force a debate in the House of Lords on The Marriages and Civil Partnerships (Approved Premises) (Amendment) Regulations 2011 which come into force tomorrow.
The Quaker website Nayler has published two articles concerning this development, containing a great deal of useful background information:
Baroness aiming to stop religious civil partnerships
Religious civil partnerships: almost law
And Ekklesia has published Quakers in Britain welcome civil partnerships opportunity.
Iain McLean has written an article at Our Kingdom Time to save religious freedom from the UK’s religious right.
…What faith groups want to conduct civil partnerships on their premises? At the moment, a handful: the Metropolitan Community Church, the Quakers, the Unitarians, and Liberal Judaism. The Act, the regulations and ministers in both Labour and Coalition Governments have all made it clear that s.202 is purely permissive. No faith community can be penalised for not requesting to hold civil partnerships. And yet a coalition of conservative Christian groups continues to insist that this measure exposes them to litigation from those seeking to force them to hold civil partnerships against their will. This is part of a victimhood narrative in which, it is said, people are being penalised “for being Christians” (read: for discriminating against gay clients) in various roles such as registrars, relationship counsellors, would-be adopters, and hotel proprietors. In each of these cases, the courts have ruled against the Christians. This is bad for the individual Christians, who have been encouraged to bring (or defend) hopeless cases; it is good for their lobby groups, who need to keep the victimhood narrative going…
And he concludes:
…Furthermore, in a legal opinion published only on 1 December (long after Lady O’Cathain had secured her debate), the Church of England Legal Office reveals that both it and the government’s own lawyers agree with us and disagree with Mark Hill. It is a mystery why the Legal Office did not pass this opinion on to the Lords committee, which could then have seen that the regulations pose no real threat: neither to the Church of England, nor, as the C of E’s lawyers proceed helpfully to add, to any other faith community, whether congregational or hierarchical.
Lady O’Cathain’s campaign is not about protecting faithful Christians from the threat of vexatious litigation. If it were, then Quakers and Jews, who have suffered more than their fair share of that over the centuries, would be on the same side. It is about restricting religious freedom, and thwarting the will of parliament. Section 202 was enacted under the Labour government. The disputed regulations were promulgated by the coalition. All three parties have therefore endorsed it. As a Quaker, I totally respect the right of other Christian denominations not to host civil partnerships, if that is where their conscience leads them. But we have consciences too. Please get your tanks off our lawn, Lady O’Cathain. I hope that Peers will turn out in force on December 15th to protect religious freedom by defeating the O’Cathain motion.
Recent press coverage has tended to focus more on the Church of England’s own position than on the threat to the regulations themselves:
Martin Beckford Telegraph Church of England insists it will not have to host civil partnerships
Jasmine Coleman Guardian Church of England pours cold water on hopes for civil partnership ceremonies
Steve Doughty Mail Church ‘may have to offer gay weddings’ if Cameron’s plans given go-ahead
AFP Church of England against ‘gay wedding’ use
BBC Church of England bans hosting civil partnership ceremonies
Press Association Tatchell asks clergy to defy ruling
The Church Times has a report today, by Ed Beavan which is only available to paid subscribers until next week, headlined Lawyers dispute civil partnership opt-ins for sacred venues. (£)
A SUBMISSION by a leading ecclesiastical lawyer, Professor Mark Hill QC — which says that the planned changes to the regulations on civil partnerships in religious premises could lead to “costly litigation” for faith groups who object in conscience — has been challenged by an Oxford academic…
Here is the full text of the memorandum (PDF) by Scot Peterson to which the report refers. This criticises the opinion of Professor Mark Hill QC which was published previously. He concludes:
…From a more general point of view, the Objectors‘ position becomes clearer. Rather than objecting to the Proposed Regulations, which offer all the protection available to faith groups, denominations, individual ministers and congregations, which is available under the existing regime for licensing religious premises for conducting marriages, Objectors wish section 202 had never been passed in the first place. They want a second chance to defeat the principle of the Alli amendment. In order to accomplish this, they have used every effort to identify problems with the regulatory regime that cannot be solved without a complete overhaul of English marriage law, as well as the Equality Act itself. Rather than offering constructive suggestions for modifying the Proposed Regulations, which the GEO could incorporate into its regime, they have put the perfect (in their view) in the way of the possible.
Neither the GEO nor the legislature should cave in to these efforts. The regulatory scheme proposed and submitted to the legislature offers every protection to the Objectors which is available under English law and applicable human rights and equality laws. They should be permitted to go into force as planned.
Yesterday, after the Church Times had gone to press, the Church of England’s Legal Office published its opinion, which also disagrees with Mark Hill.
…5. The question has been raised in Parliament and elsewhere of whether a religious denomination, or a local church, which declined to seek to have its premises approved for the registration of civil partnerships could be held to be discriminating in a way which is unlawful under the Equality Act 2010. The clear view of the Legal Office is that it could not. This is also the declared view of the Government’s lawyers.
6. A key relevant provision is section 29 of the Equality Act which makes it unlawful for “a person (a “service-provider”) concerned with the provision of a service to the public or a section of the public” to discriminate on various grounds, including sexual orientation, “against a person requiring the service by not providing the person with the service”. A Church which provides couples with the opportunity to marry (but not to register civil partnerships) is “concerned with” the provision of marriage only; it is simply not “concerned with” the provision of facilities to register civil partnerships.
7. That would be a different “service”, marriage and civil partnership being legally distinct concepts. If Parliament were in due course to legislate for same sex marriage, as recently suggested by the Prime Minister, we would of course be in new territory. But that is a separate issue which would have to be addressed in the course of that new legislation.
8. The non-discrimination requirement imposed by the Equality Act on service-providers does not include a requirement to undertake the provision of other services that a service-provider is not already concerned with providing just because the services that it currently offers are of such a nature that they tend to benefit only persons of a particular age, sex, sexual orientation etc. Thus, for, example, a gentlemen’s outfitter is not required to supply women’s clothes. A children’s book shop is not required to stock books that are intended for adults. And a Church that provides a facility to marry is not required to provide a facility to same-sex couples for registering civil partnerships…
Meanwhile, over in the House of Commons, Edward Leigh MP has tabled an Early Day Motion to annul the new regulations. See this report in the Catholic Herald MP takes on Government over same-sex regulations.
And this report in the Telegraph by Martin Beckford Tory MPs try to stop civil partnerships in places of worship.
Gavin Drake has written twice for the Church Times about the employment tribunal hearing last week in Birmingham.
First, last week’s report: QC: ‘Spirit of Trollope is alive’
A LEADING ecclesiastical lawyer has suggested that “the spirit of Trollope is alive and well in the Church of England.” Geoffrey Tattersall QC made the admission on the second day of a week-long preliminary hearing at an employment tribunal in Birmingham.
The tribunal, chaired by A. J. McCarry, is being asked to decide whether the Revd Mark Sharpe, formerly Rector of Teme Valley South near Tenbury Wells, was an employee. If he was, he would be entitled to bring his claim for unfair dismissal to a full tribunal hearing.
On Tuesday, Mr Tattersall, who represents the Bishop and diocese of Worcester, told the tribunal that a priest with freehold status, such as Mr Sharpe, had absolute liberty within his parish, and the bishop had no power to direct the work he did or remove him from office…
And this week: Judge must decide on priests’ employment status
…In his closing submission, Geoffrey Tattersall QC, for the Bishop and the diocese, told the judge that he was dealing with a test case, and that whatever he decided “for this freehold incumbent in the diocese of Worcester would decide the status of all freehold incumbents in the Church of England”.
He said that the Church of England’s case rested on the lack of an expressed contract between the parties and the very high level of autonomy exercised by incumbents — as governed by Measures that had the same force of law as Acts of Parliament.
The judge replied that he had not been aware of the strength of the Measures at the beginning of this case.
John Benson QC, for Mr Sharpe, told the judge that “there has been a great deal of information that, at first hand, is very difficult to understand. A lot of the material is arcane and bedded in history. The Church of England is an organisation that doesn’t fall comfortably in the role of an employer; nor does an incumbent fall into the role of an employee.”
He said that the evidence heard during the hearing and the past case law meant that he was “ploughing a lonely furrow in arguing that Mr Sharpe is an employee, but that won’t deter me”…
And scroll down in the second link for a sidebar, giving a succinct summary of the previous cases that have relevance to this.
Judgement was reserved and appears unlikely to be given before February.
The original tribunal hearing was reported in 2008 as Worcestershire rector claims harassment.
The Secretary General, William Fittall, has issued a paper on Civil Partnerships in Religious Premises to General Synod members today: GS Misc 1005 (pdf file). We have made an html version available.
The paper starts:
In view of the likely media interest in and possible controversy over a change in the law which comes into effect on 5 December this note and the attachment prepared by the Legal Office provide some background information and explanation for the benefit of Synod members.
and concludes
In short, the position under the new arrangements is that no Church of England religious premises may become “approved premises” for the registration of civil partnerships without there having been a formal decision by the General Synod to that effect.
An analysis by the Legal Office to justify this conclusion is attached to the paper.
Church of England press release:
The House of Bishops has announced the membership of a Group established to advise it on reviewing its Pastoral Statement issued prior to the introduction of civil partnerships in December 2005. The Group will be chaired by the Bishop of Sodor and Man, the Rt Rev Robert Paterson. The other two members of the Group are the Bishop of Portsmouth, the Rt Rev Christopher Foster, and the Bishop of Dorchester, the Rt Rev Colin Fletcher. The Group will start work in December and report to the House in time for the House to reach conclusions during 2012.
The preparation of the pastoral statement was the last occasion when the House of Bishops devoted substantial time to the issue of same sex relationships. The House undertook to keep that Pastoral Statement under review and announced in July, this year, http://www.churchofengland.org/media/1289380/gsmisc997.pdf , that the time had come for a review to take place.
The House of Bishops also announced in July further work on the Church of England’s approach to human sexuality more generally. The expectation is that the membership of that Group, whose work will be considered by the House during 2013, will be announced in the next few weeks.
The original 2005 Pastoral Statement is here.
As noted here earlier this week, the announcement of the review said:
“It is now nearly six years since the House issued its Pastoral Statement prior to the introduction of civil partnerships in December 2005. The preparation of that document was the last occasion when the House devoted substantial time to the issue of same sex relationships. We undertook to keep that Pastoral Statement under review. We have decided that the time has come for a review to take place.
“Over the past five and half years there have been several developments. Consistent with the guidelines in the Pastoral Statement a number of clergy are now in civil partnerships. The General Synod decided to amend the clergy pension scheme to improve the provision for the surviving civil partners of clergy who have died. More recently Parliament has decided that civil partnerships may be registered on religious premises where the relevant religious authority has consented (the necessary regulations are expected this autumn).
“The review will need to take account of this changing scene…”
Updated again Sunday 4 December
The Archbishop of Canterbury appeared yesterday evening before the Joint Committee on the House of Lords Reform Bill.
The draft bill, together with explanatory notes, is available here (PDF).
There is also a House of Lords Library research note on Religious Representation (PDF).
This Library Note provides background information on the role of Bishops in the second chamber, and in the context of the Government’s proposals for reform of the House, it examines arguments made both in favour and against their continued membership. The Note then considers further issues arising from the Government’s proposals, as well as arguments made regarding the formal representation of other denominations or faiths in Parliament.
The written evidence previously submitted by the Archbishop of Canterbury and York is over here (PDF).
Parliament TV has archived its video coverage of the session.
Update A transcript is now available as a PDF file: Draft House of Lords Reform Bill - uncorrected oral evidence from: The Archbishop of Canterbury, THEOS, and the British Humanist Association.
News reports concentrated on one aspect of his remarks:
Telegraph Martin Beckford Archbishop of Canterbury backs ‘fast-tracking’ women bishops to Lords
Guardian Riazat Butt Rowan Williams urges fast-tracking of women bishops to Lords
The same session also heard from Theos and the British Humanist Association. The former submitted this written evidence (.doc file). The latter has published this: Church and humanists clash over Bishops in parliament.
Update
Nelson Jones at the New Statesman has written A very British anomaly.
…In what was perhaps his most audacious comment in favour of the status quo, Rowan Williams suggested that for him and his fellow prelates to be ejected from a reformed second chamber (something that doesn’t form part of the present reform proposals) “would be to send a signal that the voice of faith is not welcomed” in the legislative process. It would represent, in other words, not just a snub to the Church of England but for religion as a whole.
But that’s nonsense. In no other democracy would such a confusion of religious leadership and law-making even be imagined. Bishops, and other faith leaders, play a valuable and significant role in society. So do members of both houses of Parliament. But it is in no sense the same job. Taking bishops out of the House of Lords would free them to devote more time to their diocesan responsibilities; to become better bishops. Sometimes the only thing to do with an historical anomaly is to end it.
Earlier, we reported on the outcome of the government consultation on allowing civil partnerships to be registered on religious premises. In particular we noted that a statement had been issued to the press (not a press release) which said:
“…The Church of England has no intention of allowing Civil Partnerships to be registered in its churches.”
In June, in evidence to the consultation, the Church of England had said:
“…In the case of the Church of England that would mean that its churches would not be able to become approved premises for the registration of civil partnerships until and unless the General Synod had first decided as a matter of policy that that should be possible.”
Changing Attitude has questioned the accuracy of that press statement Changing Attitude questions whether the C of E has made a decision not to opt in to CPs in church.
…William Fittall says the Church of England has no intention of allowing civil partnerships to be registered in our churches because it would be inconsistent with the 2005 statement from the House of Bishops.
He is of course right when he says that he and his colleagues are expected to have regard to official reports, resolutions and decisions of authoritative bodies within the Church. Therefore, the matter is not entirely open as we implied. He gently reprimands us for suggesting that anyone at Church House might turn their personal opinions into official statements, thus questioning the professionalism of the staff team.
His general point that different bodies exercise authority in different areas is true – they do. The question we raise is whether or not they should or if they have the authority to do so. The Archbishops’ Council has been given a great deal of executive authority but we are not sure they have the authority to determine policy issues like this. Mr Fittall’s basic premise is that the Church of England will not opt in to CPs in church as it would be inconsistent with the House of Bishops’ statement, 2005. As a prediction this may be accurate but we maintain it is for General Synod to decide, and the matter has not yet been put to Synod…
The House of Bishops Pastoral Statement in 2005 did not of course contemplate the possibility of registration of civil partnerships on religious premises since at the time that was forbidden by civil law. What it said was:
…the House of Bishops affirms that clergy of the Church of England should not provide services of blessing for those who register a civil partnership.
Much more recently the House of Bishops issued this statement, announcing a review of the pastoral statement.
“It is now nearly six years since the House issued its Pastoral Statement prior to the introduction of civil partnerships in December 2005. The preparation of that document was the last occasion when the House devoted substantial time to the issue of same sex relationships. We undertook to keep that Pastoral Statement under review. We have decided that the time has come for a review to take place.
“Over the past five and half years there have been several developments. Consistent with the guidelines in the Pastoral Statement a number of clergy are now in civil partnerships. The General Synod decided to amend the clergy pension scheme to improve the provision for the surviving civil partners of clergy who have died. More recently Parliament has decided that civil partnerships may be registered on religious premises where the relevant religious authority has consented (the necessary regulations are expected this autumn).
“The review will need to take account of this changing scene…”
The Second Church Estates Commissioner, Tony Baldry MP, answered eight Oral and one Written Parliamentary Questions yesterday (24 November) covering civil partnerships, metal theft, Pakistan, tourism, foodbanks, the Olympics, women bishops, St Paul’s Cathedral and engaging local communities.
We have already quoted the question and answers on civil partnerships.
Another question was on Women and the Episcopacy
The hon. Member for Banbury, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab): What assessment the Church Commissioners made of the number of dioceses which have voted in favour of the proposed legislation on women and the episcopacy.Tony Baldry: The result of the reference of the draft legislation to the dioceses was that out of a total of 44 dioceses, 42 approved of women and the episcopacy.
Diana Johnson: How will the exceptional level of support from both the laity and the clergy be reflected in the passage of the legislation through the House?
Tony Baldry: I think that it is clear that there is overwhelming support for women bishops. The outcome of the recent vote in the dioceses will be reported formally to the General Synod in February, following which it will be asked to approve any necessary final adjustments to the drafting of the legislation. I certainly hope that during the lifetime of this Parliament it will be possible for me to bring forward a Measure to the House so that we can approve women bishops in the Church of England.
All the questions are available in the House of Commons Hansard.
oral questions
oral questions - continued
written question
The Alliance of Religions and Conservation has announced the launch of the Green Pilgrimage Network.
See press release: Green Pilgrimage Network launches with joy, hope, faith and practical plans.
Founder members of the Green Pilgrimage Network include:
Amritsar, India (for Sikhs);
Assisi, Italy (Roman Catholic);
Etchmiadzin, Armenia (Armenian Orthodox);
Haifa, Israel (Bahà’ì);
Jerusalem (for Jews, Christians and Muslims);
Jinja Honcho, the Association of Shinto shrines in Japan;
Kano, Nigeria (Islam’s Qadiriyyah Sufi tradition);
Louguan in the People’s Republic of China (Daoists);
St Albans, England (Church of England);
Luss, Loch Lomond, Scotland (Church of Scotland);
St Pishoy Monastery, Wadi El Natroun, Egypt (the Coptic Orthodox Church);
Trondheim, Norway (Lutheran Church of Norway).
The involvement of St Albans was announced here: St Albans Cathedral and City become founder members of international Green Pilgrimage Network and also here: Green Pilgrimage Network launched in Assisi, Italy.
There are some interesting figures on the scale of religious pilgrimages here.
Updated Thursday evening
See earlier report here.
The draft regulations were laid before Parliament on 8 November:
The Marriages and Civil Partnerships (Approved Premises) (Amendment) Regulations 2011 or available here as a PDF.
And there is an explanatory memorandum (PDF only).
Last weekend, the Independent reported Tory peers to rebel on civil partnerships in churches.
Conservative peers in the House of Lords are attempting to scupper plans to allow same-sex couples to hold civil partnerships in churches.
Under regulations drawn up by ministers, religious denominations would be allowed to open their doors to same-sex couples in the new year. But the move is now being opposed by Tory peers, led by Baroness O’Cathain, pictured,who argue that the new law would not properly protect faith groups from being “compelled” to register civil partnerships against their beliefs.
Government whips are confident that the measure will pass but Downing Street will be embarrassed at the sight of Tory peers rebelling against government equality legislation…
Today, the House of Lords Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee published a report (also available as a PDF) which deals with these regulations. The substance of what it says is below the fold.
Several related documents are also published by the committee:
Evangelical Alliance submission
Christian Institute submission
Thursday evening update
Also today, in the House of Commons the following exchange took place:
Church Commissioners
The hon. Member for Banbury, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—
Civil Partnerships
1. Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab): What the authority is for the policy of the Church of England that services of blessing should not be conducted in church premises for those who register civil partnerships. [82259]The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Tony Baldry): In its pastoral statement of July 2005, the House of Bishops affirmed that clergy of the Church of England should not provide services of blessing for those who register a civil partnership. The Church of England’s response to the Government’s consultation document on civil partnerships on religious premises, which was produced earlier this year, reflected that policy and was approved by the Archbishops Council and by the Standing Committee of the House of Bishops.
Mr Bradshaw: I am grateful for that reply. Given that when the law changes to allow civil partnerships to be conducted on religious premises many Church of England priests and parishes will want to conduct such ceremonies, would it not be better for the Church of England to do what it did when it first allowed the remarriage of divorcees in church, and allow individual priests and parishes to make the decision?
Tony Baldry: In fairness, I would contend that the Church of England, led by its bishops, has to be free to determine its own stance on matters of doctrine and ethics. The Government have said that the new option to register civil partnerships in places of worship must be entirely voluntary. That means that those who think that the Church of England should opt in need to win the argument within the Church.
What the House of Lords committee said:
This instrument is drawn to the special attention of the House on the grounds that it gives rise to issues of public policy likely to be of interest to the House.
1. The Equality Act 2010 (“the 2010 Act”) amended the Civil Partnership Act 2004 to remove the prohibition on religious premises being approved for the registration of civil partnerships. The framework for the approval of premises for marriages and civil partnership registrations is set out in the Marriages and Civil Partnerships (Approved Premises) Regulations 2005 (“the 2005 Regulations”). These Regulations amend the 2005 Regulations and establish the procedure for religious premises to be approved for civil partnership registrations (but not civil marriages).
2. The Explanatory Memorandum (“EM”) says that the provision in the 2010 Act is entirely permissive and religious organisations will not be obliged to host civil partnership registrations if they do not wish to do so (EM paragraph 7.2).
3. The Government ran a public consultation on the proposal which closed on 23 June 2011 and received 1,617 responses (EM paragraph 8.1). The EM says the majority of the responses were objecting to the introduction of this proposal on principle rather than focussing on the detail of the consultation which was the practical arrangements to put in place the changes to the approved premises scheme (EM paragraph 8.2).
4. The Committee has been made aware of an opinion prepared by Mark Hill QC on the Regulations and this has been made available on the Committee’s website. The Committee has also received submissions from the ‘Evangelical Alliance’, ‘The Christian Institute’ and ‘CARE’ which raise a number of concerns about the instrument, in particular whether it will achieve its intended purpose. These too are available on the website. The concerns raised by ‘Evangelical Alliance’ include:
- Many independent churches operate in buildings they do not own, and officials for such a denomination may try to register all its premises, leaving evangelical ministers in a very difficult position; and
- If a church itself is registered but the minister or congregation refuses to host a particular civil partnership, they are vulnerable to legal action by the couple concerned.
The concerns raised by ‘The Christian Institute’ include:
- That the Regulations do not offer sufficient legal protection to churches that do not wish to host civil partnerships;
- Combined with the public sector equality duty, the Regulations raise the prospect of churches being refused the right to register marriages at all, if they will not also register civil partnerships; and
- The complexities of the different types of church structure are not properly accounted for in the Regulations.
5. ‘CARE’ argue that the Regulations do not achieve the stated purpose of advancing religious liberty by enabling places of worship that do wish to host civil partnerships to do so, whilst not obliging any place of worship that does not wish to host civil partnerships to do so.
press release from Women and the Church (WATCH)
Women Bishops Legislation
Overwhelming support for the draft Measure:
“Follow on Motions” confirm the Dioceses’ desire for draft legislation to be passed unamended by General Synod in JulyBackground
General Synod has just consulted the dioceses on new legislation (a Measure and amending Canon) which would allow women to become bishops for the first time in the Church of England. This legislation outlined a scheme of delegation so that people who could not accept the ministry of a female bishop would have alternative provision – any parish can request a male priest or the oversight of a male bishop.
Such a scheme is a major compromise for many who are in favour of consecrating women as bishops and has been supported by many of them as a way of keeping the Church together.
Overwhelming support for the draft Measure
Of the 44 Dioceses which considered this, 42 voted for it and just two against with the overall majority of votes exceeding three-quarters. Overall 85% bishops, 76% clergy and 77% laity have said ‘yes’.
This is significantly better than the Diocesan voting in 1992 for the legislation allowing women to become priests, and is well clear of the two thirds majority required in General Synod for the legislation to pass.‘Follow On Motions’
Alongside the main legislation 42 of the 44 Dioceses considered motions which would request consideration of additional provision for those opposed to the ministry of women as bishops.
9 of the 42 Dioceses passed such motions, while 33 did not. The two dioceses where this was not tested were amongst the strongest in favour of the main legislation with majorities of over 90% in favour.
Fewer than 25% of the dioceses therefore made requests for further provision, and even if the figure of a quarter advanced by some commentators were true, it would be below the one third figure which would be required to block the legislation in General Synod.
The failure to meet even that one third threshhold (let alone a majority) is also indicated by the overall voting figures on the motions for alternative provision.
Conclusion
The overall picture is clear. The Measure and Amending Canon on which General Synod consulted the dioceses were supported in the vast majority of dioceses with large majorities.
The case for an alternative approach was extensively tested, and fell well short of a majority, passing in just 9 Dioceses out of 44.
The case for changing the legislation has been put, considered, and lost in the Dioceses. The current legislation with its clear scheme of provision by delegation should be taken forward and passed so that we can, at last, have women as bishops in our Church.
Hilary Cotton, Head of Campaign said,
“The clear message from the Dioceses is: this is the right way forward. It would be very puzzling for the House of Bishops to amend the legislation in the face of such overwhelming endorsement from the Church at large. It would also seem dismissive of the ordinary Church of England membership if General Synod members chose to vote against such large majority opinion next July”.
press release from The Catholic Group in General Synod
Women Bishops Legislation
A quarter of Church of England Dioceses vote for proper provision for traditionalists
While Dioceses showed overall support for women bishops, a quarter of Dioceses voted for proper provision to be made for those who are unable in conscience to accept the oversight of women bishops. This figure is highly significant, given the need for a two-thirds majority for the legislation in all three Houses of General Synod; put bluntly, the legislation needs to be amended if its safe passage through the Synod is to be guaranteed.
The legislation as currently drafted provides neither for conservative Catholics in the Church of England, who need bishops and priests ordained by male bishops, nor for conservative Evangelicals who could not accept the oversight of a woman bishop on scriptural grounds. It relies on a Code of Practice to fill out its provisions – a draft of the Code will be discussed by the House of Bishops in December, and by the General Synod in February. General Synod members will want to scrutinise the draft Code carefully to see how the draft legislation is seen as working in practice, and whether it provides fairly and graciously for the significant minority of traditionalists.
It is likely that the February Synod will also debate a motion calling on the House of Bishops to exercise its powers to amend the Measure in the manner of the amendment jointly proposed by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York in July 2010 – an amendment which commanded an overall majority of the Synod at the time, and could have gone a long way to meeting the needs of traditionalists.
40% of the members of the current Synod are new; it is vital that they have the opportunity to consider these issues properly before the Synod comes to the Final Approval vote in July 2012. Members of the current Synod have already expressed their disquiet on legislation passed by the previous Synod, when they took the unprecedented step last July of refusing to approve a new Parochial Fees Order made under legislation passed by the previous Synod – effectively blocking implementation of that legislation.
Canon Simon Killwick, Chairman of the Catholic Group in General Synod, said, “Final Approval of the current draft Women Bishops legislation is not a foregone conclusion; the best way to secure its safe passage would be to amend it to provide properly for traditionalists; modest amendment of the legislation, together with a suitably drafted Code of Practice could yet enable the Church of England to move forward together on women bishops in 2012. Failure to amend the legislation could result in the failure of the legislation at Final Approval, which would delay the introduction of women bishops for many years to come.”
The Catholic Group in General Synod is the voice of conservative Catholic Anglicans on the General Synod. We include bishops, clergy and lay people among our members, and represent members of the Church of England, male and female, lay and ordained, who hold to the faith and order of the undivided Church, a conviction shared with many other Anglicans worldwide, and with the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches.
The Mission and Public Affairs Council of the Church of England has issued its Response to the Discussion Paper from the Commission on a UK Bill of Rights.
Offering a clear “no” in answer to the question, “Do we need a UK Bill of Rights?”, the response goes on to argue that a UK Bill of Rights would either re-state the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights, in which case it would be superfluous, or would add to them, in which case the additional rights and obligations would not be binding in the same sense as the Convention and their status in UK law would be unclear.
If on the other hand the Bill attempted to restrict or abolish Convention rights, it would be incompatible with the UK’s international obligations, the response argues; it is also unclear what specific additional rights would be included in a UK Bill.
The response comments that the parties in the coalition Government have diametrically opposed attitudes to human rights, and therefore the proposal does not offer a coherent basis for legislating on such an important subject.
Then the response offers five considerations in answer to the question “Having regard to our terms of reference, are there any other views which you would like to put forward at this stage?”. One point suggests that “some of the concerns driving the demand for a UK Bill of Rights would be met by appropriate reforms of the operation of the European Court of Human Rights”, the final point adding: “A better way forward might be increased use by the European Court of the ‘margin of appreciation’, whereby variations in the application of the Convention are allowed in view of the diverse history, traditions and institutions of different states.”
Full response (only four pages, but a PDF).
The Mission & Public Affairs Council of the Church of England is the body responsible for overseeing research and comment on social and political issues on behalf of the Church. The Council comprises a representative group of bishops, clergy and lay people with interest and expertise in the relevant areas, and reports to the General Synod through the Archbishops’ Council.
The following letter has been published in Sunday’s Observer newspaper:
The introduction of a cap on benefits, as suggested in the Welfare Reform Bill, could push some of the most vulnerable children in the country into severe poverty. While 70,000 adults are likely to be affected by the cap, the Children’s Society has found that it is going to cut support for an estimated 210,000 children, leaving as many as 80,000 homeless. The Church of England has a commitment and moral obligation to speak up for those who have no voice. As such, we feel compelled to speak for children who might be faced with severe poverty and potentially homelessness, as a result of the choices or circumstances of their parents. Such an impact is profoundly unjust.
We are urging the government to consider some of the options offered by the Children’s Society before the bill is passed into legislation, such as removing child benefit from household income for the purposes of calculating the level of the cap and calculating the level of the cap based on earnings of families with children, rather than all households. The government could also consider removing certain vulnerable groups from the cap and the introduction of a significant “grace period” of exemption from the cap for households which have recently left employment.
The Bishops of Bath & Wells, Blackburn, Bristol, Chichester, Derby, Exeter, Gloucester, Guildford, Leicester, Lichfield, London, Manchester, Norwich, Oxford, Ripon and Leeds, St Edmundsbury and Ipswich, Wakefield and Truro
In the accompanying news story, Archbishop Rowan Williams backs revolt against coalition’s welfare cuts it is reported that:
…Eighteen Church of England bishops, backed by Williams and the archbishop of York, John Sentamu, are demanding that ministers rewrite their flagship plan to impose a £500-a-week benefit cap on families.
In an open letter in Observer, they say the Church of England has a “moral obligation to speak up for those who have no voice”. Their message is that the cap could be “profoundly unjust” to the poorest children in society, especially those in larger families and those living in expensive major cities.
The high-profile intervention comes after the Church of England became embroiled in an embarrassing row over its attitude to anti-capitalist protests outside St Paul’s Cathedral in London. One cleric resigned over plans to evict the protesters forcibly, arguing that the Church should have been more supportive of their cause.
The bishops are calling on ministers to back a series of amendments to the welfare reform bill – due to be debated in the House of Lords tomorrow – that have been tabled by the bishop of Leeds and Ripon, John Packer.
A spokesman at Lambeth Palace said Williams was fully behind the bishops’ initiative. “As a president of the Children’s Society the archbishop fully supports the proposed amendments to the welfare reform bill.”
Sentamu also threw his weight behind the changes. “I hope that the government will listen to the concerns being raised and ensure that children, especially the most vulnerable, are protected from cuts to family benefits.”
And the newspaper has published an editorial article in support: The welfare state: the social glue that binds us must be preserved.
Here’s the original analysis by the Children’s Society to the capping proposal: More than 200,000 children to be biggest “losers” of Benefit Cap.
The Bishop of London has issued this pastoral letter: Do this in remembrance of me.
A Pastoral Letter from the Bishop of London on the Eucharistic Life of the Church in London
A PDF version is available here.
His comments on the Ordinariate and the use of Roman liturgical texts by Anglicans in London are copied below the fold. The following excerpt is addressed primarily to other parts of the diocese:
Our liturgy is one which arises from the command of Jesus Christ, “Do this in remembrance of me” not in order to build a temple made with hands but to build his body which the gospel writers say has replaced the physical temple.
It follows from all this that obeying his command is an integral part of Christian discipleship. In this context there are a number of aspects of our own church life which deserve urgent consideration at the present time.
In some parts of our church it can appear that the service of Holy Communion is an appendix to services of the Word and not accorded the central significance which the express command of Jesus would seem to warrant. The reformers of our own church, Cranmer and Ridley [as Bishop of London] desired more frequent communion than was the practice in the late mediaeval Western church. Calvin also commends weekly eucharistic practice in his Institutes [IV: xvii. 46], “At least once in every week the table of the Lord ought to have been spread before each congregation of Christians.”
Despite the teaching of the early Reformers their intention was overtaken later in the 16th century by a near exclusive focus in some parts of the church on the ministry of the Word.
The recent conclusion of more than twenty years work has resulted in a wealth of provision for celebrating the liturgy. Styles will differ in tune with the culture of different parishes and communities and provision has been made for rich variety but there should be a common core and not least our celebrations of the Eucharist on Sunday, the Day of Resurrection.
On the Ordinariate and the Roman Rite:
Our part of the Church is not alone in having spent a great deal of effort on liturgical reform. At Advent, our brothers and sisters in the Roman Catholic Church will be required to use new liturgical texts. We can always learn from the example of other members of the Christian community and indeed our own liturgy has been reformed by reference to the testimony and practices of the Church of the first centuries.
In former times before the liturgies of our Church had fully recovered these early forms, some of our priests adopted the Roman rite as a sign of fidelity to the ancient common tradition and an expression of our unity in Christ. At best their intention was to contribute to the recovery of a tradition which is both Catholic and Reformed, while pointing the way to the liturgical convergence we now enjoy, not least through the work of the international English Language Liturgical Consultation. They also recognised the proper place in the liturgy of prayer for leaders in the world wide church in addition to our own Archbishop. This is especially true of the Pope, who is undeniably the Patriarch of the West and as head of the Roman Catholic Church is charged with awesome pastoral and missionary responsibilities.
Much has been achieved and the debates of previous generations have influenced the Church’s liturgical practice and contributed to a convergence of eucharistic doctrine and rites. So it is with some dismay that I have learned of the intentions of some clergy in the Diocese to follow instructions which have been addressed to the Roman Catholic Church and to adopt the new Roman eucharistic rites at Advent.
The Pope has recently issued an invitation to Anglicans to move into full communion with the See of Rome in the Ordinariate where it is possible to enjoy the “Anglican patrimony” as full members of the Roman Catholic Church. Three priests in the Diocese have taken this step. They have followed their consciences.
For those who remain there can be no logic in the claim to be offering the Eucharist in communion with the Roman Church which the adoption of the new rites would imply. In these rites there is not only a prayer for the Pope but the expression of a communion with him; a communion Pope Benedict XVI would certainly repudiate.
At the same time rather than building on the hard won convergence of liturgical texts, the new Roman rite varies considerably from its predecessor and thus from Common Worship as well. The rationale for the changes is that the revised texts represent a more faithful translation of the Latin originals and are a return to more traditional language.
Priests and parishes which do adopt the new rites – with their marked divergences from the ELLC texts and in the altered circumstances created by the Pope’s invitation to Anglicans to join the Ordinariate – are making a clear statement of their disassociation not only from the Church of England but from the Roman Communion as well. This is a pastoral unkindness to the laity and a serious canonical matter. The clergy involved have sworn oaths of canonical obedience as well as making their Declaration of Assent. I urge them not to create further disunity by adopting the new rites.
There will be no persecution and no creation of ritual martyrs but at the same time there will be no opportunity to claim that the Bishop’s directions have been unclear. All the bishops of the Diocese when visiting parishes will celebrate according to the rites of the Church of England allowing for permitted local variations under Canon B5.
The Diocese of Truro voted today on the Anglican Covenant, and rejected it.
According to our correspondent, the voting was over two-thirds against it in both houses. We will report the actual figures as soon as we can.
The Diocese of Birmingham voted today on the Anglican Covenant, and rejected it.
According to our correspondent, the voting was:
Bishops 1 for. (Suffragan bishop absent).
Clergy 17 for, 17 against, 1 abstention.
Laity 12 for, 25 against, 1 abstention.
Updated Friday 25 November
The Chapter issued this statement on Wednesday:
The Chapter of St Paul’s met today (16 November) and issued the following statement
We are committed to maintaining St Paul’s as a sacred space in the heart of London and we are enormously grateful to all Cathedral staff for meeting the challenges of recent weeks.
We recognise the local authority’s statutory right to proceed with the action it has today.
We have always desired a peaceful resolution and the Canons will continue to hold regular meetings with representative of the protesters.
We remain committed to continuing and developing the agenda on some of the important issues raised by the protest.
Ed Beavan at the Church Times reports today that St Paul’s stays cool as City turns up heat.
Peter Walker and Riazat Butt report in the Guardian that Occupy London: business as usual as eviction deadline passes.
Meanwhile, Giles Fraser also writes for the Guardian that Occupy St Paul’s: no church should insulate itself from raw human need.
And there is a helpful backgrounder on the legal issues by Giles Pinker, see Bid to evict Occupy London is just the start of legal wrangling.
Once again, here is last week’s Church Times press column by Andrew Brown on the coverage of this story, including an explanation of the term “reverse ferret”.
And Christopher Landau wrote about How to stop being a media victim. The fact that Rob Marshall has strongly attacked this article today in the letters to the editor (to which only subscribers have access until next week) should make you want to read it.
Update this letter from Rob Marshall is now available: St Paul’s Cathedral: a PR adviser’s response to criticism, and further reflections. See what you think.
On Monday, the Archbishop of Canterbury spoke at the annual Lord Mayor of London’s Banquet. The full text of his speech is available here.
This was reported by Riazat Butt in the Guardian as Archbishop pays tribute to St Paul’s cathedral clergy for ‘holding balance’.
And Nick Spencer of Theos published Comment: St Paul’s protest has revealed pressures at the heart of the Church at politics.co.uk.
Earlier, the Church of England Mission and Public Affairs Council had published The Church and capitalism (press release, leading to PDF document.)
On Tuesday, Riazat Butt and Shiv Malik at the Guardian reported Occupy London camp given 24 hours to disband or face legal action
Activists camped outside St Paul’s Cathedral will be given 24 hours to remove their tents and equipment before high court proceedings are issued, the City of London corporation said on Tuesday.
Occupy London, which arrived in the churchyard on 15 October, last week rejected a request to scale back part of its camp to allow better fire engine access. The notice applies to tents standing on public highways.
St Paul’s is meeting on Wednesday to decide how to respond to the corporation’s decision. A spokesman said the cathedral was still “working towards a peaceful outcome”.
Stuart Fraser, policy chairman at the corporation, said: “We paused legal action for two weeks for talks with those in the camp on how to shrink the extent of the tents and to set a departure date – but got nowhere. So, sadly, now they have rejected a reasonable offer to let them stay until the new year, it’s got to be the courts. We’d still like to sort this without court action but from now on we will have to have any talks in parallel with court action – not instead…
Cathy Newman at Channel 4 News interviewed Stuart Fraser, see Talks break down between St Paul’s protesters and officials.
The protesters have issued this: Occupy London statement on renewed legal action from the City of London Corporation.
Updated Saturday night to add Portsmouth results.
Updated Monday morning to add links to reports on diocesan websites of Oxford, Portsmouth and York.
In the final day of diocesan debates, Liverpool, Newcastle, Oxford, Portsmouth, Southwark, and York diocesan synods debated the draft legislation to allow women bishops today. In each case the main motion was
That this Synod approve the proposals embodied in the draft Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure and in Amending Canon No 30.
The CEEC following motion was
This Synod
1. desires that all faithful Anglicans remain and thrive together in the Church of England
2. calls upon the House of Bishops to bring forward amendments to the draft Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure to ensure that those who are unable to accept the ministry of women bishops are able to receive Episcopal oversight from a bishop with authority (i.e. ordinary jurisdiction) conferred by the Measure rather than by delegation from a Diocesan Bishop.
1) Liverpool passed the main motion in all three houses.
For Against Abstentions Bishops 2 0 0 Clergy 40 8 0 Laity 26 12 2
The CEEC following motion was defeated with 16 votes in favour, 61 against and 8 abstentions.
The diocese has promptly published this report: Synod votes in favour of women bishops legislation.
2) Newcastle passed the main motion in all three houses.
For Against Abstentions Bishops 2 0 0 Clergy 34 10 1 Laity 28 7 1
There is a report on the diocesan website: Newcastle Diocesan Synod supports Church of England’s proposals for women bishops.
3) Oxford passed the main motion in all three houses.
For Against Abstentions Bishops 4 0 0 Clergy 46 19 0 Laity 55 15 2
CEEC following motion was divided. Paragraph 1 was overwhelmingly carried. Paragraph 2 was defeated as follows.
For Against Abstentions Bishops 0 4 0 Clergy 19 53 1 Laity 15 52 1
The diocesan website has: Oxford votes for women bishops draft.
4) Portsmouth passed the main motion in all three houses.
For Against Abstentions Bishops 1 0 0 Clergy 36 2 0 Laity 36 6 0
A following motion described as “positive” by our correspondent (a supporter of women in the episcopate) was lost - by 13 votes to 58 with 11 abstentions. A second “negative” following motion was also lost - by 13 votes to 66 with one abstention.
There is a brief report on the home page of the diocesan website.
5) Southwark passed the main motion in all three houses.
For Against Abstentions Bishops 2 0 0 Clergy 50 14 0 Laity 38 13 3
There were three following motions. Details are on the diocesan website: Southwark Diocesan Synod votes for the Women Bishops legislation.
6) York passed the main motion in all three houses.
For Against Abstentions Bishops 3 2 0 Clergy 25 14 1 Laity 42 8 0
This following motion
This Synod calls upon the House of Bishops, in exercise of its powers under Standing Order 60 (b), to amend the draft…Measure in the manner proposed by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York at the Revision Stage for the draft Measure
was carried by 62 votes to 24 with 6 abstentions. Details are on the diocesan website.
Press release from the Church of England: Archbishops question case for elected House of Lords.
The Archbishops of Canterbury and York question the rationale for a wholly or mainly elected House of Lords in their submission to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Government’s Draft Bill and White Paper (the submission can be read on the CofE website).
Whilst welcoming the Draft Bill’s proposals to provide continued places for bishops of the established Church in a partly appointed House, the Archbishops ask that the appointments process also have regard to increasing the presence of leaders of other denominations and faiths.
The Draft Bill and White Paper proposes a House of Lords of 300 members, with either 80% or 100% elected by proportional representation. If the reformed House were to retain an appointed element, there would be places for Church of England bishops, though reduced to 12 from their current 26. Bishops would not be allowed to remain in a 100% elected House under the Government’s plans…
The full submission is available as a PDF file here.
First, there were several articles in the Church Times last week, that have only now become available to non-subscribers. Although events have moved on, I list them:
Richard Chartres Time for the Church to be heard
Arnold Hunt Lessons from history at St Paul’s
Paul Vallely Turn the debate back to the money
Andrew Brown Press: With the Express on their side
…FROM a PR point of view, there was a special difficulty with the whole story. The Church of England is widely misunderstood to be an organisation. Therefore, the man at the top is expected to be able to control his subordinates. Thus the wider Church, which largely disagreed with the Chapter’s line, was unable to say anything to criticise it.
But these difficulties are made to be overcome. The fact that the cathedral had outsourced its PR to the Revd Rob Marshall, a nice man but one based outside Hull, suggests that the Church is so used to being ignored that, when the country was, for a moment, interested in its opinions, it was almost entirely unable to handle it.
Now, turning to this week’s issue:
Ed Thornton Church support for camps is tested by protesters’ conduct
…Senior clerics this week expressed unease at the way that St Paul’s had initially responded to the protesters. The Bishop of Salisbury, the Rt Revd Nick Holtam, told Salisbury diocesan synod last Saturday that the threat to evict the protesters “showed the cathedral as willing to use the power of the City of London to protect itself, which is the very thing that worries the rest of us.
“Whilst it is not clear from the New Testament whether the Church is of, with, or for the poor, the Church isn’t credible if we don’t attempt something along one of those lines. St Paul’s seem not to have asked themselves that root question, and they lacked the instinct to respond to the great opportunity of a crisis.”The Bishop of St Edmundsbury & Ipswich, the Rt Revd Nigel Stock, said this week that he “was not alone in being astonished that the decision was taken to close St Paul’s”. The decision to reopen the cathedral, and the high-profile resignations of the Dean and the Canon Fraser “increased the impressions of chaos”.
In an article published on his diocesan website, the Bishop of Coventry, Dr Christopher Cocksworth, wrote of the “irony of careful, professional, well-meaning advice on managing a potentially dangerous and threatening situation closing the doors on the gospel practices of hospitality, engagement and the patient building of trusting relationships.”
St Paul’s had, though, managed to realign itself, he said, “through some brave decisions, some courageous public contrition, and decisive leadership from the Bishop of London”. This helped to “open up an opportunity for real debate on the matters that really do count”.
and also
We shan’t listen to advice, say bankers
…Seventy-six per cent of those surveyed in the report disagreed — most of them strongly — with the statement: “The City of London needs to listen more to the guidance of the Church.” In addition, 47 per cent said that they “never attend a religious service or meeting, apart from special occasions”, and 38 per cent said that they did not believe in God…
Leader Restoring a human scale to the City
THERE are perhaps other interpretations, but it is reassuring that 76 per cent of the bankers interviewed for the St Paul’s Institute do not think that they should listen more to the guidance of the Church. Had they thought otherwise, and the present injustices of the City been practised by sermon-listening citizens, it would have pointed to a much more fundamental problem than the Church’s being just a bit feeble at putting its arguments across. Now, at least, its task is clear: to develop the sort of knowledge that professionals in the financial sector will respect, and use it to argue the case for the imposition of the checks and balances that will bring the City back in touch with some sort of moral code…
The Group for Rescinding the Act of Synod (GRAS) has published a table (the “Furlong Table”) showing how far the Church of England is from gender equality in 2000, 2005 and now 2010.
The 2010 table is below the fold, and below is the accompanying press release giving an explanation and GRAS’s commentary on the figures.
PRESS RELEASE 9.45am
THURSDAY 10 NOVEMBER 2011
GRAS (GROUP FOR RESCINDING THE ACT OF SYNOD)
The Furlong Table 2010
Figures show that The Church of the England is a Third of the way to Gender Equality
The Furlong Table was first produced for GRAS, and is named in honour of the late Monica Furlong, who first suggested that these statistics be gathered. The table uses official Church of England statistics and published data. It combines the percentage of women employed as clergy in each diocese with a score indicating the percentage of women in senior posts. The first table was published in 2000, with an update in 2005. The 2010 statistics have just become available, and so we can now reveal movement in women’s employment and deployment in the Church of England over a full decade, from 2000 to 2010.
A perfect score in this table would be 100, representing 50% of senior clergy and 50% of all other full time stipendiary clergy in a diocese being female.
On average, the Church of England is a third of the way to gender equality: the average score across all dioceses is 34.9. This remains disappointing, but is a significant improvement on the position in 2005, when the average score was 25.8. Since 2000 the average score has nearly doubled, from 18.6 to 34.9, so things are moving in the right direction.
The top-scoring diocese in 2010 was St.Edmundsbury & Ipswich. Their score of 60.7 represents them being nearly two thirds of the way to gender equality, and a more than doubling of their score (up 117%) from 2005.
Most dioceses have improved their scores from 2005. Winchester, the most improved diocese, has increased its score by 135% from 13.5 to 31.8.
Five other dioceses can be congratulated on over 100% improvement: Canterbury, Birmingham, Exeter, Portsmouth and (from a very low starting point!) Chichester.
There are signs of some complacency amongst dioceses that were highly ranked in 2005. Oxford, which topped the table in 2005, has increased its score by a respectable 15%, but the 2nd and 3rd ranked in 2005, St.Albans and Ely, have each improved by less than 1%.
As the Church of England moves towards the final vote on women bishops in July 2012, these figures confirm that there is a great pool of untapped talent among the female clergy.
The Furlong Table 2010
| Rank 2010 | Diocese | Score 2010 | Score 2005 | Rank 2005 | Score 2000 | Rank 2000 |
| 1 | St Edms & Ipswich | 60.7 | 27.5 | 19 | 22.0 | 13 |
| 2 | Canterbury | 53.5 | 24.7 | 25 | 13.5 | 32 |
| 3 | Ripon & Leeds | 53.2 | 34.2 | 7 | 31.6 | 4 |
| 4 | Southwark | 47.5 | 34.3 | 6 | 34.8 | 1 |
| 5 | Manchester | 47.0 | 25.7 | 22 | 17.7 | 25 |
| 6 | Southwell & Nottingham | 46.5 | 28.7 | 16 | 29.4 | 5 |
| 7 | Oxford | 45.8 | 39.9 | 1 | 20.7 | 16 |
| 8 | Leicester | 45.7 | 36.7 | 5 | 32.9 | 2 |
| 9 | Hereford | 45.4 | 32.7 | 10 | 22.2 | 12 |
| 10 | Birmingham | 45.4 | 20.3 | 34 | 18.6 | 22 |
| 11 | Salisbury | 44.4 | 30.8 | 12 | 25.1 | 9 |
| 12 | Wakefield | 42.8 | 30.6 | 13 | 20.6 | 17 |
| 13 | Derby | 42.6 | 27.9 | 18 | 13.0 | 35 |
| 14 | Bath & Wells | 41.2 | 25.0 | 24 | 13.4 | 33 |
| 15 | Gloucester | 40.2 | 25.1 | 23 | 21.4 | 14 |
| 16 | St Albans | 39.6 | 39.3 | 2 | 24.3 | 10 |
| 17 | Peterborough | 39.3 | 31.9 | 11 | 17.5 | 26 |
| 18 | Worcester | 39.1 | 36.9 | 4 | 31.9 | 3 |
| 19 | Ely | 39.1 | 38.9 | 3 | 21.3 | 15 |
| 20 | Newcastle | 38.1 | 23.1 | 28 | 17.8 | 24 |
| 21 | Exeter | 37.1 | 17.8 | 37 | 12.3 | 36 |
| 22 | Chester | 34.9 | 21.7 | 33 | 15.8 | 28 |
| 23 | Liverpool | 34.3 | 32.9 | 9 | 19.7 | 19 |
| 24 | Bristol | 34.2 | 17.1 | 38 | 23.1 | 11 |
| 25 | Norwich | 33.8 | 28.0 | 17 | 18.5 | 23 |
| 26 | Sheffield | 33.6 | 29.0 | 15 | 28.7 | 6 |
| 27 | Portsmouth | 32.1 | 14.4 | 39 | 14.6 | 31 |
| 28 | Winchester | 31.8 | 13.5 | 40 | 8.3 | 39 |
| 29 | Chelmsford | 30.6 | 27.4 | 20 | 19.7 | 20 |
| 30 | Bradford | 29.9 | 22.6 | 31 | 10.8 | 37 |
| 31 | Durham | 29.6 | 33.6 | 8 | 13.3 | 34 |
| 32 | Coventry | 28.9 | 23.0 | 29 | 15.9 | 27 |
| 33 | Guildford | 28.7 | 22.9 | 30 | 28.4 | 7 |
| 34 | Lincoln | 28.4 | 25.7 | 21 | 25.7 | 8 |
| 35 | Truro | 26.5 | 29.7 | 14 | 6.5 | 40 |
| 36 | Carlisle | 25.8 | 19.0 | 36 | 9.9 | 38 |
| 37 | Rochester | 25.5 | 19.9 | 35 | 20.6 | 18 |
| 38 | London | 24.4 | 23.7 | 27 | 15.5 | 29 |
| 39 | York | 23.0 | 24.7 | 26 | 15.5 | 30 |
| 40 | Lichfield | 20.5 | 21.9 | 32 | 19.0 | 21 |
| 41 | Chichester | 11.2 | 5.5 | 43 | 2.6 | 42 |
| 42 | Blackburn | 11.0 | 10.4 | 42 | 6.0 | 41 |
| 43 | Sodor & Man | 0.0 | 11.8 | 41 | 0.0 | 43 |
| Average: | 34.9 | 25.8 | 18.6 |
2010 figures compiled by Peter O’Connell from Church of England Statistics 2010 and The Church of England Yearbook.
Table design and previous years figures by Miranda Threlfall-Holmes
The diocesan synod of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich has debated the Anglican Covenant, and voted against the motion put to it by the General Synod, i.e.
“That this Synod approve the draft Act of Synod adopting the Anglican Communion Covenant”.
The voting was as follows:
For Against Abstentions Bishops 2 0 0 Clergy 9 29 4 Laity 8 33 9
The papers provided in advance for this debate can be found here.
More details of the meeting will be posted on the diocesan website soon.
Updated again Thursday morning
The Guardian has published a news report by Riazat Butt concerning an article published on 28 October in the Church of England Newspaper.
Anglican newspaper defends ‘Gaystapo’ article.
An Anglican newspaper has defended the publication of an article that compares gay rights campaigners to Nazis, saying the author has “pertinent views”.
The column, by former east London councillor Alan Craig, appeared in the 28 October edition of the Church of England Newspaper, one of the oldest newspapers in the world. Although it is independent of the institution bearing the same name, it carries adverts for Church of England jobs and is read by its clergy…
The full text of the original article can be found here.
Although the formatting is hard to decipher, you can see some of the CEN letters to the editor which are referred to in the article, by going here.
See also this article on the Anglican Mainstream website, whose trustees etc. are listed here. This extract from the article by Alan Craig is not linked or credited to the CEN.
Updates
Alan Wilson has written at Cif belief Hitler and the ‘Gaystapo’ have no place in gay rights debate
Nick Baines has written Allo Allo?
The report from St Paul’s Institute that was recently delayed is now published.
See Value and Values: Perceptions of Ethics in the City Today
Download the full report from here. (PDF, 1.6 Mb)
From the press release:
Professionals in the Financial Services sector believe that City bond traders, FTSE Chief Executives and stock brokers are paid too much, teachers are paid too little and that there is too great a gap between rich and poor in the UK, according to a survey carried out by ComRes on behalf of St Paul’s Institute.
Marking the 25th anniversary of the financial ‘Big Bang’, the survey also indicates that the majority of Financial Services professionals do not know that the London Stock Exchange’s motto is ‘My Word is My Bond’ and many think that deregulation of financial markets results in less ethical behaviour…
From the Notes:
Because the report was completed preceding the Occupy London encampment outside the cathedral it makes no mention of it and contains contributions from both the former Dean and Canon Chancellor of St Paul’s Cathedral. We are releasing the report in its original and unaltered form. The report was always intended to help develop a context for serious engagement that moves beyond colloquialisms about the financial sector and towards an understanding of true opinion and the culture of ethics in the City today.
Independent Matt Thomas, Brian Brady We are paid too much, bankers confess in St Paul’s survey
Mail Jonathan Petre and Lawrie Holmes St Paul’s Cathedral funded by 80 wealthy City asset-strippers
Yorkshire Post John Sentamu Our unequal, unjust society… the richest are getting richer and the poorest lose all hope
Telegraph Ken Costa St Paul’s initiative: ‘It’s time for radical change’
Joan Bakewell My verdict on the St Paul’s protest
Observer Yvonne Roberts Is capitalism broken… and what is the world going to do to fix it?
Guardian Richard Coles St Paul’s, the church’s reality check
The report below will be updated as more details become available.
Updated Sunday evening to add Derby votes, and again to correct the bishops’ votes and to add to the Chester details.
Updated Wednesday morning to add Coventry breakdown from WATCH website and Derby abstentions and Bradford votes and following motions.
Updated Wednesday evening to correct Coventry breakdown.
Updated again Wednesday evening to clarify what actually happened to the following motion at Coventry
Updated Sunday 13 November to add link to updated Coventry press release.
Bradford, Chester, Coventry, Derby, and Lincoln diocesan synods debated the draft legislation to allow women bishops yesterday. In each case the main motion was
That this Synod approve the proposals embodied in the draft Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure and in Amending Canon No 30.
1) Bradford passed the main motion in all three houses.
For Against Abstentions Bishops 1 0 0 Clergy 22 9 1 Laity 22 14 3
The synod also passed two following motions.
This Synod desires that all faithful Anglicans remain and thrive together in the C of E and therefore calls upon the House of Bishops to bring forward amendments to the draft Bishops and priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) measure to ensure that those unable on theological grounds to accept the ministry of woman bishops are able to receive episcopal oversight from a bishop with authority (ie ordinary jurisdiction) conferred by the Measure rather than by delegation from a Diocesan Bishop
voting: for 41; against 18; abstentions 5
This Synod deplores the exemption in the Measure from the Equalities Act, and requests the HoB to produce a Code of Practice or other measure which does not require the Cof E to continue legal discrimination against women
voting; for 51; against 4; abstentions 12
Our correspondent points out that these two motions are incompatible.
2) Chester passed the main motion in all three houses.
For Against Abstentions Bishops 2 0 2 Clergy 46 21 3 Laity 50 15 3
This following motion
This Synod
1. Desires that all faithful Anglicans remain and thrive together in the Church of England; and therefore request the General Synod to debate a motion in the following form:
“That this synod [ie the General Synod] call upon the House of Bishops, in exercise of its powers under standing order 60(b), to amend the draft Bishops and Priests[Consecration and Ordination of Women] Measure in the manner propose by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York at the Revision Stage for the draft Measure
was voted on by houses, and failed because the vote was tied in the house of laity.
Details are on the diocesan website.
3) Coventry has issued this press release. This gives the votes on the main motion as 71 votes in favour, 6 votes against, 5 abstentions, but there is no breakdown by houses.
Coventry has issued (on 13 November) an updated version of the press release with full details of the votes in each house on the main motion.
WATCH gives this breakdown by houses, but there is clearly a mistake somewhere as the total of votes in favour is only 47.
For Against Abstentions Bishops 2 0 0 Clergy 35 2 4 Laity 34 4 1
There was extensive debate on a following motion, to which an amendment was proposed. The amended motion eventually read as follows:
This Synod:
• Desires that all faithful Anglicans remain and thrive together in the Church of England;
• And supports efforts being made by the Diocese to achieve reconciliation; and therefore,
• Calls upon the House of Bishops to ensure that sufficient provision is made within the Code of Practice for those who cannot in conscience agree with the Measure.
• Calls upon the House of Bishops to bring forward amendments to the draft Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure to ensure that those unable on theological grounds to accept the ministry of women bishops are able to receive episcopal oversight from the bishop with authority (i.e. ordinary jurisdiction) conferred by the Measure rather than by delegation from a Diocesan Bishop
Each of the four sections was voted upon separately.
The first three were carried by substantial majorities. The fourth one was rejected: 17 votes in favour, 58 votes against, 3 abstentions.
There were two following motions
This Synod:
• Desires that all faithful Anglicans remain and thrive together in the Church of England;
• And supports efforts being made by the Diocese to achieve reconciliation; and therefore,
• Calls upon the House of Bishops to ensure that sufficient provision is made within the Code of Practice for those who cannot in conscience agree with the Measure.
was carried by a substantial majority.
This Synod calls upon the House of Bishops to bring forward amendments to the draft Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure to ensure that those unable on theological grounds to accept the ministry of women bishops are able to receive episcopal oversight from the bishop with authority (i.e. ordinary jurisdiction) conferred by the Measure rather than by delegation from a Diocesan Bishop.
was rejected: 17 votes in favour, 58 votes against, 3 abstentions.
4) Derby passed the main motion.
For Against Abstentions Bishops 2 0 0 Clergy 18 7 1 Laity 27 10 3
The CEEC following motion was defeated.
That this Synod
1. Desires that all faithful Anglicans remain and thrive together in the Church of England; and therefore
2. Calls upon the House of Bishops to bring forward amendments to the draft Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure to ensure that those unable, on theological grounds, to accept the ministry of Women Bishops are able to receive episcopal oversight from a Bishop with authority (i.e. ordinary jurisdiction) conferred by the Measure rather than by delegation from a Diocesan Bishop.
For Against Abstentions Bishops 0 2 Clergy 8 18 Laity 12 27
5) At Lincoln the main motion in favour of the legislation was passed in all three houses.
For Against Abstentions Bishops 2 0 0 Clergy 39 9 3 Laity 40 5 2
There were two following motions, which were both defeated.
This Synod
1. Desires that all faithful Anglicans remain and thrive together in the Church of England; and therefore
2. Calls upon the House of Bishops to bring forward amendments to the draft Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure to ensure that those unable on theological grounds to accept the ministry of women bishops are able to receive Episcopal oversight from a bishop with authority (ie ordinary jurisdiction) conferred by the measure rather than by delegation from a Diocesan Bishop.
For Against Abstentions Bishops 0 1 1 Clergy 18 27 5 Laity 13 38 4
This Synod calls upon the House of Bishops to bring forward amendments to the draft Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure to ensure that the Measure contains only a single clause permitting the ordination of women to the episcopate in the Church of England.
For Against Abstentions Bishops 0 1 1 Clergy 5 38 8 Laity 3 41 10
The diocese has issued a press release.
Today’s Church Times has extensive coverage, some of which will not be available to non-subscribers until next week.
Ed Thornton Dean goes, Chartres steps in, as St Paul’s turns 180 degrees
Also Cameron comes out in support of Dr Williams
And scroll down that page for Ed Beavan Protesters are tired but sympathetic.
Giles Fraser Sitting on a fault-line at St Paul’s
Leader St Paul’s: going in the right direction
There is also comment elsewhere:
Economist Bells and yells
Telegraph Martin Beckford, and Victoria Ward Giles Fraser: Church risks being ‘spiritual arm of heritage industry’
And Nick Baines has written Playing the game.
We have previously reported on the proposals of the Dioceses Commission on the four Yorkshire dioceses of Bradford, Ripon & Leeds, Sheffield and Wakefield, and their boundaries with the Diocese of York in July and last December.
The Dioceses Commission has now begun the formal consultation phase of its proposals for the Yorkshire dioceses with the publication of a Draft Dioceses of Bradford, Ripon and Leeds and Wakefield Reorganisation Scheme. The Commission’s report, draft scheme and associated documents can be read at www.diocom.org/yorkshire.
There is also this press release, Formal consultation begins on reorganisation of West Yorkshire dioceses, which is copied below the fold.
Formal consultation begins on reorganisation of West Yorkshire dioceses
01 November 2011
The Dioceses Commission has begun the formal consultation phase of its proposals for the Yorkshire dioceses with the publication of a Draft Dioceses of Bradford, Ripon and Leeds and Wakefield Reorganisation Scheme. Consultation on the Draft Scheme will run until 30 April, 2012 and follows consideration of more than 140 written responses to the Commission’s initial vision for the Yorkshire dioceses in its December 2010 report.
“There has been a general welcome for the main thrust of our proposals,” said Prof Michael Clarke, who chairs the Dioceses Commission, “namely the dissolution of the existing dioceses of Bradford, Ripon & Leeds and Wakefield, and the creation of a new diocese in their place. Our vision of a new diocese more aligned to today’s communities, with reconfigured episcopal ministry closer to the parishes, and a streamlined administration, has clearly struck chords with many. We have nevertheless listened carefully to what we have been told and our Draft Reorganisation Scheme includes a number of important changes.”
After careful reflection on the responses to the first report, the Commission has accepted the consensus view that the new diocese should be called Leeds (rather than Wakefield) and that it may also be known informally as the Diocese of West Yorkshire and the Dales. The diocese would, as originally proposed, be configured with five episcopal areas.
The three cathedrals of Bradford, Ripon and Wakefield will be retained with equal status; but the Scheme leaves open the possibility of a future Bishop of Leeds giving Leeds Parish Church ‘Pro-cathedral’ status.
Some parishes not in West or North Yorkshire that might have moved to neighbouring dioceses will now definitely remain in the new diocese.
In most other respects the Commission has confirmed its original thinking as set out in its earlier report. There have been a range of responses on some aspects and the Commission will welcome further comments on these and the proposals as a whole over the next six months. This current draft reorganisation scheme can be amended in the light of further submissions.
“We recognise the short term uncertainties created within the three dioceses by our proposals,” said Prof Michael Clarke. “This is an inevitable consequence of change of this kind, but we want to keep these to a minimum. We welcome the establishment by the three bishops’ councils of a Preparation Group, which will enable the clergy and people of the prospective new diocese, with their staff, to shape its future by filling in all of the details that can only be decided locally.”
Alongside the detailed draft scheme, the Commission has published its latest explanatory report; a statement of the effect of the proposals on the mission of the Church of England; and a financial estimate for the changes. The financial estimate indicates that the new diocese could, within five years, cost about £0.8 million a year less than keeping the current diocesan structure. The Commission is clear that its work is mission-led and not finance-driven.
This formal consultation period will run for six months until 30 April, 2012. The Commission will then produce a final draft scheme for consideration by the relevant diocesan synods before it is debated by the General Synod. The earliest the scheme could come into effect would be late 2013 to early 2014.
Note The Commission’s report, draft scheme and associated documents can be read at www.diocom.org/yorkshire.
In addition to the piece already linked below, by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Time for us to challenge the idols of high finance, here are some more articles on the economic issues involved. (h/t Fulcrum)
Ken Costa wrote in the Financial Times about Why the City should heed the discordant voices of St Paul’s. An edited version is available here..
Luke Bretherton wrote The Real Battle of St Paul’s Cathedral: The Occupy Movement and Millennial Politics.
And we linked here earlier to Occupy London is a nursery for the mind by Madeleine Bunting.
In addition to those recommendations, today there is also:
Jonathan Bartley Occupy LSX and the Church: Why the danger isn’t over
And for some other comments, see also:
Dan Milmo Occupy protesters should target governments not City, LSE chairman says
Sunny Hundal The Church of England should be a natural ally for Occupy protesters
Alan Green Outside St Paul’s Cathedral sits a mess, but it’s a holy mess
Guardian
Alan Rusbridger St Paul’s seeks new direction and suspends legal action
Editorial St Paul’s protests: faith in the City
Peter Walker St Paul’s and Corporation of London halt legal action against Occupy camp
Stephen Bates Big tent church: clerics across England lean on side of the angels
Riazat Butt What do clergy who have resigned do next?
Telegraph
Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams calls for new tax on bankers
George Pitcher Murdering St Paul’s Cathedral
Lambeth Palace has published the full text of an article written for the Financial Times by the Archbishop of Canterbury.
See Time for us to challenge the idols of high finance.
It’s sometimes been said in recent years that the Church of England is still used by British society as a sort of stage on which to conduct by proxy the arguments that society itself doesn’t know how to handle. It certainly helps to explain the obsessional interest in what the Church has to say about issues of sex and gender. It may help to explain just what has been going on around St Paul’s Cathedral in the last couple of weeks.
The protest at St Paul’s was seen by an unexpectedly large number of people as the expression of a widespread and deep exasperation with the financial establishment that shows no sign at all of diminishing. There is still a powerful sense around – fair or not – of a whole society paying for the errors and irresponsibility of bankers; of messages not getting through; of impatience with a return to ‘business as usual’ – represented by still soaring bonuses and little visible change in banking practices.
So it was not surprising that initial reactions to what was happening at St Paul’s and to the welcome offered by the Cathedral were quite sympathetic. Here were people – protesters and clergy too, it seemed – saying on our behalf that ‘something must be done’. A marker had been put down, though, comfortingly, not in a way that made any very specific demands.
The cataract of unintended consequences that followed has been dramatic. The Cathedral found itself trapped between what must have looked like equally unpleasant alternative courses of action. Two outstandingly gifted clergy have resigned. The Chapter has now decided against legal action. Everyone has been able to be wise after the event and to pour scorn on the Cathedral in particular and the Church of England in general for failing to know how to square the circle of public interest and public protest….
Following the announcement this morning from St Paul’s, there has been a further development, in that the City of London has issued this press release:
City of London Corporation presses ‘pause’ button overnight on St Paul’s legal action
Stuart Fraser, the City of London Corporation’s Policy Chairman, said today:
‘The Church has changed its standpoint and announced it is suspending legal action on its land.Given that change, we’ve pressed the ‘pause’ button overnight on legal action affecting the highways – in order to support the Cathedral as an important national institution and give time for reflection.
‘We want to leave more space for a resolution of this difficult issue – while at the same time not backing away from our responsibilities as a Highway Authority.
‘We’re hoping to use a pause – probably of days not weeks – to work out a measured solution.
‘We will make a further announcement tomorrow lunchtime.’Ends
The press release also links to a summary of last Friday’s committee meeting (PDF)
Media reports on all this:
Guardian
Peter Walker St Paul’s and Corporation of London halt legal action against Occupy camp and earlier Riazat Butt St Paul’s Cathedral suspends legal action to evict Occupy protesters
Telegraph
St Paul’s legal action suspension a ‘breakthrough’ (video from press briefing)
Victoria Ward, and Richard Alleyne Protesters at St Paul’s claim victory as legal action is suspended and earlier Victoria Ward St Paul’s suspends legal action against protesters
press release from Diocese of London website and now also the cathedral website
St Paul’s Suspends Legal Action Against Protest Camp
St Paul’s, 1 November 2011 (All Saints Day)
The Chapter of St Paul’s Cathedral has unanimously agreed to suspend its current legal action against the protest camp outside the church, following meetings with Dr Richard Chartres, the Bishop of London, late last night and early this morning.
The resignation of the Dean, the Rt Rev Graeme Knowles, has given the opportunity to reassess the situation, involving fresh input from the Bishop. Members of Chapter this morning have met with representatives from the protest camp to demonstrate that St Paul’s intends to engage directly and constructively with both the protesters and the moral and ethical issues they wish to address, without the threat of forcible eviction hanging over both the camp and the church.
It is being widely reported that the Corporation of London plans to ask protesters to leave imminently. The Chapter of course recognises the Corporation’s right to take such action on Corporation land.
The Bishop has invited investment banker, Ken Costa, formerly Chair of UBS Europe and Chairman of Lazard International, to spearhead an initiative reconnecting the financial with the ethical. Mr Costa will be supported by a number of City, Church and public figures, including Giles Fraser, who although no longer a member of Chapter, will help ensure that the diverse voices of the protest are involved in this.
The Bishop of London, Dr Richard Chartres, said: “The alarm bells are ringing all over the world. St Paul’s has now heard that call. Today’s decision means that the doors are most emphatically open to engage with matters concerning not only those encamped around the Cathedral but millions of others in this country and around the globe. I am delighted that Ken Costa has agreed to spearhead this new initiative which has the opportunity to make a profound difference.”
The Rt Rev Michael Colclough, Canon Pastor of St Paul’s Cathedral and a member of Chapter, added: “This has been an enormously difficult time for the Cathedral but the Chapter is unanimous in its desire to engage constructively with the protest and the serious issues that have been raised, without the threat of legal action hanging over us. Legal concerns have been at the forefront in recent weeks but now is the time for the moral, the spiritual and the theological to come to the fore.”
ENDS
Updated Tuesday 8 am
Church Times
Ed Thornton Monday: Dean of St Paul’s resigns
Evening Standard
Tom Harper, Miranda Bryant and Peter Dominiczak Dean who shut St Paul’s resigns: second cleric quits over ‘tent city’ protest
Guardian
Peter Walker Dean of St Paul’s Cathedral resigns over Occupy London protest row and later version for tomorrow’s paper St Paul’s Cathedral dean resigns over Occupy London protest row
Riazat Butt Graeme Knowles resignation ‘very sad news’, says archbishop of Canterbury
And later, for tomorrow’s paper St Pauls brought to its knees by confusion and indecision
Telegraph
Dean of St Paul’s Cathedral resigns with ‘great sadness’ over Occupy London protest (video)
Victoria Ward Dean of St Paul’s Cathedral resigns over Occupy London protest
And Rowan Williams warns of ‘urgent issues’ raised by protests as third St Paul’s clergyman resigns
Martin Beckford, Victoria Ward and Richard Alleyne St Paul’s Cathedral protesters: cloistered clerics who can only pray for an end to the crisis and also Timeline of the St Paul’s protest
Independent
Jerome Taylor St Paul’s dean quits over protest
BBC
St Paul’s Dean Graeme Knowles resigns over protests
St Paul’s protesters urged to remove tents
Channel 4 News St Paul’s dean resigns over Occupy London protest
Andrew Brown has written at Cif belief St Paul’s must change direction.
After the resignation of its dean, St Paul’s must negotiate a peaceful settlement with the protesters, as quickly as possible.
The resignation of the dean of St Paul’s Cathedral, Graeme Knowles, has landed responsibility for the crisis with the bishop of London, Richard Chartres. If the dean’s sacrifice is not to be in vain, the bishop must reverse his policy within the next 24 hours, and preferably by tomorrow morning. The alternatives are very much worse.
The bishop has a simple choice. Either he plans to throw all the protesters out, or he acquiesces in the presence of some sort of camp right outside his front door for the indefinite future. The lawyers, and perhaps the health-and-safety people, believe he must expel the protesters. The rest of the church sees clearly that this would be wrong in principle, and hugely damaging to the reputation of Christianity.
There’s no tidy way out of this, but there is a wrong one, which is to continue digging the grave Knowles had with such effort prepared for the Church of England’s reputation. The bishop will have to defy his own lawyers and negotiate a peaceful settlement with the protesters. Since he must do this, he had best do it at once. To wait for a week and then change his mind would be nearly as disastrous as settling for expulsion….
Updated 8 pm
press release from St Paul’s Cathedral: Dean of St Paul’s Cathedral announces intention to resign (31 October 2011)
St Paul’s, 31 October 2011 The Dean of St Paul’s Cathedral, the Rt Rev Graeme Knowles, announced his intention to resign from his post this afternoon. He made his decision known to the Chapter and to the Bishop of London last night and has removed himself from Cathedral operations with immediate effect. He intended to submit his resignation as Dean of St Paul’s to HM the Queen today.
In the light of the Dean’s resignation, the Chapter has unanimously voted to request the Bishop of London to assist them in providing an independent voice on the ongoing situation at St Paul’s. The Bishop has had no part to date in the discussions and decisions made by Chapter and it is felt his input is now required…
Archbishop of Canterbury issues statement: Archbishop’s statement on resignation of the Dean of St Paul’s
The Archbishop of Canterbury has issued the following statement on the resignation of the Dean of St Paul’s:
“The announcement today of the resignation of the Dean of St Paul’s, coming as it does in the wake of the resignation of Canon Giles Fraser last week, is very sad news. The events of the last couple of weeks have shown very clearly how decisions made in good faith by good people under unusual pressure can have utterly unforeseen and unwelcome consequences, and the clergy of St Paul’s deserve our understanding in these circumstances.
Graeme Knowles has been a very distinguished Dean of St Paul’s, who has done a great deal to strengthen the pastoral and intellectual life of the Cathedral and its involvement in the life of London. He will be much missed, and I wish him and Susan well in whatever lies ahead.”
The Archbishop also said:
“The urgent larger issues raised by the protesters at St Paul’s remain very much on the table and we need – as a Church and as society as a whole – to work to make sure that they are properly addressed.”
Update
Video of the entire press conference, including Q and A, is now available here.
See preceding article for Guardian reports. But the front page picture of the Dean of St Paul’s is here.
Telegraph
Victoria Ward Bishop of London branded hypocrite as he backs St Paul’s protest… and eviction
And by way of historical background, Boris Johnson writes about Mellitus, the saint who retook London from barbarians.
Independent
Paul Calahan Bishop comes face to face with protesters – but won’t back down
…A spokesman said the Dean and the cathedral are considering “all options”.
As well as a scaled-down tented protest, it is understood St Paul’s is open to the idea of having a tent inside the cathedral “for as long as necessary”.
All sides agree any eviction would only follow months of legal wrangling. Meanwhile, protesters remain adamant they will not be moving.
Yesterday, one protester, Tammy Semede, told the Bishop, Dean and assembled crowd the Church’s stance had caused her doubts about her faith.
“I went for Communion [in the cathedral] and didn’t feel I was able. The Church’s behaviour has affected my faith,” she said.
One piece of good news for St Paul’s was the decision by a cathedral canon to stay. Canon Mark Oakley was said to be considering resigning but yesterday used Twitter to confirm he will not…
From Twitter: @CanonOakley: For clarity - I’m not resigning. I’d like to play my part for the future of St P’s work and witness.
Mail An olive branch for St Paul’s protesters: Using force to clear site is not inevitable, says Bishop
New York Times John F Burns ‘Occupy’ Protest at St. Paul’s Cathedral in London Divides Church
Updated 11 pm
The Dean and Bishop met some protesters today.
Guardian Lizzy Davies and Haroon Siddique Bishop defends ‘prudent’ legal steps for possible eviction of St Paul’s camp and some pictures here.
BBC St Paul’s protest camp: Bishop calls for no violence (with video)
And earlier, Is the Church inside or outside the establishment?
Channel 4 News this evening’s video report: Evictions ‘prudent’ for protesters
Coming in Monday’s Guardian
Occupy London: silence of once-critical clerics is infuriating but understandable by Riazat Butt
The St Paul’s situation puts Rowan Williams and other bishops who have decried banking practices in an impossible quandary.
She concludes:
…The archbishops’ silence – and that of the wider church – on the crisis at the cathedral is extraordinary, then, given their past remarks. But the truth is they gain nothing from commenting on it.
Siding with protesters would undermine the bishop of London and the dean of St Paul’s, who are already under fire for their actions, and represent an extrajudicial intervention not often seen in the Church of England. To ally themselves with their beleaguered colleagues would make them hypocrites. Those who have aired their views are retired – like Lord Carey – or relatively unknown outside Anglican circles.
However infuriating their reticence, the clerics who bashed the bankers during the global financial meltdown are unlikely to put themselves forward to debate the merits or otherwise of Occupy London, a subject made toxic by the prospect of eviction, but it is inconceivable that they do not have opinions on the events at St Paul’s.
Madeleine Bunting Occupy London is a nursery for the mind
…The critics complain that there are no clearly identified objectives, no manifesto. But this is not some proto-political party. Critics insist there must be leaders or representatives. But the protesters stubbornly refuse to conform to any of the conventions of our political and media culture. That is why the invitation from the Bishop of London, Richard Chartres, for representatives to join a panel discussion with business leaders was so inept. The protesters are challenging how the illusion of public debate is created through a stage-managed process that excludes all but a self-regarding elite who are largely in agreement, quibbling only over technocratic detail…
Updated again Sunday noon
The Independent on Sunday has a front page splash which leads to two articles:
Brian Brady, Jane Merrick Exclusive: Cover-up at St Paul’s
Clerics suppress report on bankers’ greed to save church embarrassment
Leading article: St Paul’s is a national problem
…Ever since the collapse of many of the world’s leading banks in 2008, the world has been suffused with unease about the ethical basis of a part of capitalism that seemed to reward failure as much as, if not more than, success. When those banks were put back upright with public credit, and seemed to continue to pay their executives excessively, that unease grew. Over the past three years, the feeling has strengthened around the world that, for the financial and corporate elite, the credit crunch, the government bailouts and the recession were a minor blip, and now it is business as usual, with rewards at the very top more extravagant than ever.
The response of political and spiritual leaders has been uncertain. Barack Obama said he was going to cap the bonuses of bankers, and then didn’t. David Cameron was going to limit the earnings of public-sector bosses to 20 times the lowest-paid in their organisation, and then didn’t. Last week, the Prime Minister sounded concerned about the rise in pay of FTSE-100 executives, but his only suggestion for restraining it was that more women should be appointed to corporate boards – which sounded as if he were suggesting that women should continue to be lower paid than men.
Meanwhile, the leaders of the Church of England have responded with all the courage and clarity for which they are renowned. As we report today, the St Paul’s Institute, associated with the cathedral, decided not to publish a report on the City that called for banks to show more responsibility, for fear that it might seem to side with the tent people. Rowan Williams, the leader of the Anglican communion, has been audible in his silence, although, as we also report today, he is believed to be sympathetic to the protesters. Before long, he too will have to admit that this is more than a local issue…
In the Observer
Mark Townsend Occupy London could be protected by Christian ring of prayer
Coalition of Christian groups plan to prevent forcible attempts to remove tents outside St Paul’s Cathedral
Peter Stanford How the church lost a fine chance to redeem itself
By taking the wrong side at St Paul’s, Anglican leaders abandoned the moral high ground.
Editorial: The church’s reaction to the protesters has lacked humanity
…The difficulty is that in its affluence at least, the real world of some of those at the top of the ecclesiastical hierarchy has more in common with those whom the anti-capitalist protesters correctly argue are “rewarded” grossly out of proportion to their efforts. Nay, are rewarded even when criminally at fault and abject failures. While Matthew insisted that you cannot serve both God and Mammon, some still try to give it a good go.
So what are we to make of the events of the past fortnight? Undoubtedly, there has been an awakening. As Andrew Rawnsley reports, while many in the media have been hostile to the protesters, there is perhaps now a change of mood abroad. Ironically, not for a long time has the Bible been so forensically mined, nor the disciples so closely examined.
It reminds us that in the New Testament, at least, the quest for a fairer society, requiring deeds as well as words, was a recurring motif. To be fair, in the Church of England many a fine priest works, unheralded, in impoverished communities, of which, as the protesters may point out, there are sadly still too many.
However, what has been missing from the reaction of many of the senior figures at St Paul’s is an inclination to listen to what the protesters have to say, however inchoate.
How much more productive might it have been to invite several to pitch their tents inside the cathedral, to request that they speak from the pulpit and to stand side by side with the protesters in acknowledging that social capital and the bonds we have with each other are infinitely more valuable than those are that are traded daily.
In 1985, at another seismic moment, the Church of England published a ground-breaking report, “Faith in the City”, that then as now encapsulated a general unease.
It wrote: “Poverty is not only about shortage of money. It is about rights and relationships; about how people are treated and how they regard themselves; about powerlessness, exclusion and loss of dignity.”
Those words still have a resonance. That’s why the handling by St Paul’s of this situation has been far more than a public-relations disaster for the church. It has also given us a glimpse of a frost in a corner of its soul.
Andrew Rawnsley The protesters seem more adult than politicians and plutocrats
…A big mistake is to think that because the protesters tend to be youthful it follows that they should be treated like children. Richard Chartres, the Bishop of London, has made that error by suggesting to the campers that they ought to leave in return for a debate under the dome of St Paul’s – gosh, thanks my Lord Bishop. He further asks them to go on the grounds that: “I am involved in ongoing discussion with City leaders about improving shareholder influence on excessive remuneration.”
I am sure that the bishop is well-meaning, but that is not going to cut it. There has been “ongoing discussion” for years. The result, according to the latest report by Incomes Data Services: Britain’s top executives gave themselves a 49% increase in their salaries, benefits and bonuses in the past year. It does not even occur to the business and financial elite that it might be good old cynical public relations to moderate their greed while so many of their fellow citizens are suffering the consequences of corporate follies…
Sunday Telegraph
Jonathan Wynne-Jones The struggle for St Paul’s
The anti-capitalist protest outside the gates of St Paul’s has sparked a moral battle inside the cathedral.
More from the Observer
Heather Stewart They may be saying it in a kooky way, but the St Paul’s protesters are right
What the Occupy London crew has correctly identified is that the relationship between finance and the rest of the economy is seriously awry.
Victoria Coren I pooh-pooh the pooping pooch
Among the Christmas toys that she proposes is this:
Mini St Paul’s Cathedral
Fully domed and mechanised dolls’ house: at the touch of a button, your children can lock the doors and hose unwanted people off the steps, flooding the carpet. It comes with a Canon Giles Fraser doll that endlessly repeats: “A church should never force people away”; if his head is snapped off, wealthy bishops cackle in the rafters. (Warning: they may not cackle if water comes into contact with the batteries.)
The Bishop of Buckingham, Alan Wilson, was interviewed on Channel 4 News this evening by Krishnan Guru-Murthy.
This is a selection of those that I read during the past week. Some of them are several days old now, and don’t reflect the latest developments.
Bishop Alan Wilson has written Showing off? shutting shop? showing up?
Catherine Mayer of Time has written London Protestors 1 God 0: Anti-Capitalism Camp Scores PR Victory Against St Paul’s.
Nick Baines wrote Giles Frazzled.
David Allen Green of the New Statesman has written The protesters and the corporation.
Rachel Mann wrote Not Resigned: Giles Fraser and Establishment and earlier The curious case of St Paul’s and the blocked drains.
Sam Norton wrote Occupy London, St Paul’s and the Rebel.
Charlie Peer wrote Occupy London protest at St Paul’s divides Church of England.
Updated to correct number of abstentions in house of laity
Updated to add texts of the following motions
Bath and Wells diocesan synod debated the women bishops legislation today.
The main motion, in favour of the legislation, was passed in all three houses. Here are the voting figures.
For Against Abstentions Bishops 2 0 0 Clergy 52 9 0 Laity 55 10 3
Twitter reports “Following [motion] on Archbishops’ amendment failed Following [motion] encouraging early Code passed”.
Here are the texts of the two following motions.
That this synod [ie the diocesan synod] request the General Synod to debate a motion in the following form:
That this synod [ie the General Synod] call upon the House of Bishops, in exercise of its powers under standing order 60(b), to amend the draft Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure in the manner proposed by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York at the Revision Stage for the draft Measure.
[defeated 21 votes to 100]This Synod, supportive of women in the episcopate, urges General Synod to expedite the production of the Code of Practice by the House of Bishops and to take seriously its role in debating and approving the contents with due regard to those who find the consecration of women to the episcopate unacceptable.
[passed]
Evening Standard last night
A loose Canon, his Bishop, the Dean and unholy war at St Paul’s
Nick Curtis on how the creators of BBC2 sitcom rev might have written up the theological storm of the past days…
AN Wilson C of E has lost the plot over the St Paul’s camp
The camp outside St Paul’s Cathedral has been a public relations disaster for the Church of England.
Independent this morning
Jerome Taylor Mystery of Archbishop who didn’t speak for his Church
With the prospect of anti-corporate protesters being forcibly removed from the steps of St Paul’s Cathedral by riot police now almost inevitable, the silence from across the river at Lambeth Palace has been deafening.
So far the Archbishop of Canterbury has kept his head far below the ramparts, choosing not to utter a single word on a deepening public relations disaster for the Established Church…
Paul Cahalan and Jerome Taylor God vs Mammon: Britain takes sides
As St Paul’s reopens its doors, the City of London and the cathedral launch legal actions to evict demonstrators, another clergyman resigns in dismay, David Cameron threatens legislation to ban protest camps – and the Archbishop of Canterbury…says nothing.
Telegraph
Tim Walker Canon Mark Oakley considers his position at St Paul’s cathedral
The Rev Dr Giles Fraser’s resignation as Canon Chancellor of St Paul’s over the cathedral’s muddled response to the demonstrators on its doorstep looks unlikely to be the last.
Mandrake is reliably informed that another senior figure in the hierarchy of St Paul’s, Canon Mark Oakley, its affable Canon Treasurer as well as a well-known author and broadcaster, is this weekend wrestling with his conscience.
“I voted the same way as Giles at Chapter as I couldn’t vote for any course of action that might lead at some point to violent behaviour,” Oakley, 43, tells me.
Guardian
Lucy Mangan St Paul’s – embrace your new flock
‘When you’re dealing with protesters who bring their own portable loos, what’s the worst that can happen?’
Stephen Bates St Paul’s Cathedral resumes normal service after week of rancour (longer version of yesterday’s report)
Marina Hyde Jesus may be with Occupy London, but St Paul would have sided with health and safety
The cathedral’s namesake was a sucker for authority – as the church is and ever was.
Riazat Butt, Shiv Malik and Sandra Laville St Paul’s showdown: lawyers act to clear Occupy London camp
Lawyers will serve notice on activists camped out around St Paul’s Cathedral as early as Monday, as police also finalise plans to forcibly remove them if senior officers are convinced they are causing disruption…
Updated 4.30 pm
First, the City of London has issued this announcement: City of London Corporation approves court action to remove St Paul’s campsite
Second, there is this announcement from the Dean and Chapter of St Paul’s: Statement from the Dean and Chapter (28 October 2011)
28 October 2011
The Chapter has previously asked the encampment to leave the cathedral precinct in peace. This has not yet happened and so, following the advice of our lawyers, legal action has regrettably become necessary.The Chapter only takes this step with the greatest reluctance and remains committed to a peaceful solution. At each step of the legal process the Chapter will continue to entreat the protesters to agree to a peaceful solution and, if an injunction is granted, will then be able to discuss with the protesters how to reach this solution.
Theirs is a message that the Chapter has both heard and shares and looks forward to engaging with the protesters to identify how the message may continue to be debated at St Paul’s and acted upon.
According to the latest report from Riazat Butt in Guardian the tents are the key issue:
“If this [Occupy London] were not a camped protest it would constitute a reasonable user of the highway. The City of London Corporation is not seeking to prevent protest but to limit the exact nature and form of protest it has chosen. A 24-hour non-camped protest would be permissible in this location.”
Stephen Bates has a report of the first service in the re-opened building: St Paul’s congregation swells to hundreds for first lunchtime service and you can read the full text of the Homily given by The Dean of St Paul’s at Eucharist, 28 October 2011
Although Europe’s diocesan synod voted on the legislation to allow women to become bishops in June, it is the Bishop’s Council which makes the official decision for the diocese.
The Bishop’s Council has now held its debate, and here are the votes on the main motion in favour of the legislation.
For Against Abstentions Bishops 0 2 0 Clergy 10 4 0 Laity 6 3 1
As in all these debates it is the votes in the houses of clergy and laity that count, so Europe has voted in favour of the legislation.
There is a report of the debate on the diocesan website: Diocese in Europe agrees Women Bishops legislation.
This also gives details of a following motion asking for more provision for opponents; voting was 13 in favour, 10 against with 3 abstentions.
Updated 10.30 am
Telegraph
Victoria Ward, Jonathan Wynne-Jones and Richard Alleyne Chancellor of St Paul’s Cathedral resigns in protest at legal action to evict protesters
Victoria Ward George Carey: St Paul’s Cathedral protest damaging Christianity
…It can also be disclosed that a damning report Canon Fraser had been due to publish on Thursday about bankers’ lack of ethics, had been shelved by the cathedral amid concerns that it would only escalate the row…
George Carey The Occupy protest at St Paul’s Cathedral - a parable of our times
Independent
Paul Cahalan, Jerome Taylor, Kevin Rawlinson Church shaken to its foundations as row over anti-capitalism protest escalates
Peter Owen-Jones: The Church is now well and truly in the dock
Liam O’Brien: ‘At night, the cold and the bells make sleep impossible’
More material from the Guardian
Sam Jones St Paul’s and Occupy London at odds over reason for cathedral closure
Marina Warner What St Paul’s could learn from Mary, the patron of the Occupy protesters
Steve Bell on Church of England and protest camp at St Paul’s – cartoon
Alexander Chancellor Think the canon who quit St Paul’s is radical? You should have met his predecessor …
Church Times
Ed Thornton St Paul’s row: Giles Fraser resigns
Giles Fraser Clarity at the heart of the St Paul’s storm
THE reader will, I hope, excuse me if I do not address the complicated issues that currently beset St Paul’s Cathedral. Suffice to say, when you sit in the middle of a storm, and a great deal of misinformation is flying about, you are thrown back on the fundamentals of your faith.
No one ever said that following Jesus would be easy. In fact, as Christians, we are given fair warning that the opposite is likely to be the case. And so it turns out.
But one of the most interesting things about these challenging times is how scripture comes alive. Indeed, I do not remember the Bible ever speaking to me as vividly as it does today. As the saying goes, I don’t read scripture: scripture reads me…
Leader: Wealth and safety: the St Paul’s dilemma
TO GIVE them their due, the Dean and Chapter of St Paul’s knew the reaction they would get when they cited health and safety as the reason for the closure of the cathedral. Their mistake last Friday was to treat this as a normal crisis: make the statement, get the official spokesman lined up, and plan to follow up on the Monday, when senior staff were next available for consultation. From this viewpoint, it did not seem to be a problem that the completed health-and-safety report would not be ready until late on Monday. Unfortunately, and predictably, the story continued to develop throughout the weekend, and, without a robust and detailed defence of the closure, suspicion was allowed to grow that the Chapter had turned against the protesters, concerned more for its lost tourist revenue than for a courageous witness against the evils of capitalism. As a result, when some (not all) of the report was released on Tuesday, it was largely derided…
Guardian
Riazat Butt, Sandra Laville and Shiv Malik Giles Fraser resignation: ‘I couldn’t face Dale Farm on the steps of St Paul’s
…Forcible eviction looks inevitable, however, with the Metropolitan police taking a keen interest in the escalating crisis.
The land around the cathedral is within the City of London police area but the force is working with the Met to decide how to deal with the encampment.
Amid growing tensions, protesters using Twitter said armed police had entered the camp, as a tent belonging to Kurdish activists was searched. The City of London police said its officers had gone to the camp in response to reports of a firearm.
Bernard Hogan-Howe, the commissioner of the Met, said police were in the last stages of assessing whether to clear the demonstrators under section 14 of the Public Order Act. Under section 14 police can forcefully remove the protesters outside St Paul’s and those gathered in Finsbury Square if they believe the disruption to the public and the people working in the area is “serious”.
The commissioner indicated a judgment on that would come within 48 hours. “Deciding what is serious is what we are in the process of doing,” he told the Metropolitan Police Authority. “We need to have some kind of consensus so we are in the process of asking that question.”
He said discussions were continuing and information was being gathered from shopkeepers, the landowners and other members of the public to assess the level of disruption. Once this work had been done a decision on taking clearance action would be made. The MPA was told by some members that shopkeepers in the area had seen their takings down by 80% since the tented encampment began.
Hogan-Howe said the situation facing the police was complex. “If there is criminality being committed we need to do something about it. And there is some evidence that some of the protesters are leaving at night and coming back during the day. Taken together they have got a legitimate right to protest, they have no legitimate right to commit crimes. That is the complexity of what we are trying to deal with.”
The land was owned by different people, which compounded the issue, Hogan-Howe said. “Either we ignore it and the property owners take some kind of injunctions out, or we use the criminal law, or we use injunctions and the criminal law … that will require careful judgments over the coming days.”
The Home Office refused to say whether the home secretary, Theresa May, or Home Office representatives had been in direct contact with church authorities after suggestions that the government department had put pressure on the church to get protesters evicted…
Stephen Bates Church of England split over St Paul’s handling of Occupy London protest
“It is very hard to take the temperature of the Church of England,” said Paul Handley, editor of the Church Times. “In a poll last week we found 65% of church members believing it was right to welcome the protesters, but there are equally bound to be lots of churchgoers out in the country who think it is right to take a firm hand to them. I suspect whatever people think of the demonstrators though, most will think the church has taken an utterly wrong approach to dealing with the situation. It is such a shame: we have just had our best publicity for ages over Rowan Williams challenging Robert Mugabe to his face and now this comes up and clearly damages the church’s reputation once again.”
Lizzy Davies Occupy London anger after resignation of St Paul’s Cathedral canon
Editorial: In praise of … Giles Fraser
…Now we’re told the cathedral will reopen and the bishop of London, who lives over the occupation, will descend and speak to the protesters on Sunday. That should be fun. By now the whole situation is approaching farce, in which all the players are adding to the spectacle. That is not a dignified position for the cathedral, but one it richly deserves. In the meantime, at least the chapter has proved to a doubting nation that the Church of England can make a fool of itself about a subject which has nothing to do with sex.
More in the morning…
The Guardian has published a lengthy interview with Giles Fraser.
See Alan Rusbridger Canon of St Paul’s ‘unable to reconcile conscience with evicting protest camp’.
And there is a podcast: Guardian Focus podcast: Rev Giles Fraser and the Occupy London camp.
Updated again 7.00 pm
BBC
St Paul’s chancellor Canon Dr Giles Fraser ‘to resign’ headlined now changed after write-through: St Paul’s protest: Canon Chancellor Giles Fraser quits
St Paul’s Cathedral ‘may reopen’ despite protest camp
Independent
Paul Cahalan, Jerome Taylor St Paul’s tries to heal rifts and offers to open its doors
Mark Donne A chauffeur-driven bishop, and a Church that refuses sanctuary
Leading article: More right than wrong in the precincts of St Paul’s
Tweet from @giles_fraser: It is with great regret and sadness that I have handed in my notice at St Paul’s Cathedral.
Statement from St Paul’s Cathedral: Canon Giles Fraser to step down.
27 October 2011
The Reverend Canon Dr Giles Fraser, Chancellor of St Paul’s Cathedral, has resigned from his post.
Canon Fraser, a former Vicar of Putney who took up his post in June 2009, informed the Dean and Chapter colleagues of his decision today.
The Dean of St Paul’s, The Right Reverend Graeme Knowles, said today: “Giles has brought a unique contribution to the life and ministry of St Paul’s and we will be very sorry to see him go. He has developed the work of the St Paul’s Institute and has raised the profile of our work in the City. We are obviously disappointed that he is not able to continue to his work with Chapter during these challenging days. We will miss his humour and humanity and wish Giles and his family every good wish into the future.”
The post of Canon Chancellor is a Crown appointment. The process to appoint Canon Fraser’s successor will begin shortly.
Guardian St Paul’s Cathedral canon resigns by Shiv Malik and Riazat Butt
…In a short statement to the Guardian, Fraser, who was appointed canon in May 2009, confirmed his resignation, saying: “I resigned because I believe that the chapter has set on a course of action that could mean there will be violence in the name of the church.”
Statement by the Bishop of London: Giles Fraser: a statement from the Bishop of London
27/10/11
A statement by the Bishop of London on the resignation of Giles Fraser.
“I heard, with regret, the news of Giles Fraser’s resignation from the Chapter of St Paul’s this morning and I have now contacted him. His is an important voice in the Church and I have offered to meet him immediately to discuss how we can ensure it continues to be heard.”
Statement by Occupy London: Statement regarding resignation of Reverend Canon Dr Giles Fraser
Guardian Stephen Bates Giles Fraser: St Paul’s jeans and T-shirt wearing cleric
Telegraph
Victoria Ward, and Sarah Rainey St Paul’s Cathedral to reopen as City moves to evict protest camp
Sarah Rainey Dr Giles Fraser resigns from St Paul’s
Sarah Rainey and Victoria Ward Dr Giles Fraser resigns from St Paul’s over ‘violence in the name of the Church’
Evening Standard Tom Harper and Peter Dominiczak St Paul’s Canon blasts church over ‘violent treatment’ of tent protesters
…The Bishop of London said he will meet the protesters on Sunday to invite them to a debate inside the cathedral if they agree to leave the camp…
…It is understood Dr Fraser is not alone in his view among senior colleagues at St Paul’s that enforced removal of demonstrators would be a disaster for the Church.
Dr Fraser quit as the Dean of St Paul’s admitted the crisis engulfing the cathedral was “its most difficult times since the Second World War”.
Church Times Ed Thornton St Paul’s row: Giles Fraser resigns
Guardian Comment is Free Andrew Brown Giles Fraser is never taken in by establishment self-delusion
So much of the church’s energies are taken up in make-believe about its position in society that Fraser is really shocking to anyone used to professional Anglicans.
There was an example of this just this week in the Bishop of London’s statement about the protesters explaining that they could go away now because the grown-ups had taken over: “The St Paul’s Institute has itself focused on the issue of executive pay and I am involved in ongoing discussions with City leaders about improving shareholder influence on excessive remuneration.”
Never mind that the St Paul’s Institute was run by Giles Fraser, who the bishop must have known was about to resign. There is one huge shrieking question about a press release like that: who is it meant to fool? Does anyone really think that the City takes more notice of a bishop than of a genuine popular demonstration? Does anyone in the wider world think that the bishop’s words count for as much as the protesters’ acts, or that they mean anything at all?
Evening Standard Common sense wins with reopening of St Paul’s Dr Richard Chartres, The Bishop of London
It is easy to be cynical about health and safety but it would be naive of the Dean and Chapter, in charge of a tourist attraction visited by thousands each week, to ignore the attached public liability responsibilities.
It is much easier for those looking on to cry, “Ignore the lawyers”, let alone the insurers and the myriad appointed experts who invariably have a “worst case scenario” outlook.
The fact remains that it was unavoidable for the Cathedral to close last week but the Dean, Chapter and staff should be commended for working tirelessly since then to find a way of reopening - and indeed the protesters for readily complying.
Yet it is symptomatic of what the scene outside has become that so much attention remains focused upon what represents a “trip and slip” hazard, a flammable substance or a safe tent configuration.
The debate has also been about whether it is capitalist to own an iPad or buy a Starbucks coffee, or whether a protester should take a break at night.
The Church’s own role in this has now inevitably come under scrutiny. Calls for the camp to disband peacefully have been deliberately interpreted as taking the side of Mammon, which is simply not the case.
The original purpose of the protests, to shine a light on issues such as corporate greed and executive pay, has been all but extinguished - yet these are issues that the St Paul’s Institute has taken to heart and has been engaged in examining.
The time has come to change the setting. Now that St Paul’s can function again, albeit on a limited basis, the cathedral wants to help recapture the serious issues.
If the protesters will disband peacefully, I will join the Dean and Chapter in organising a St Paul’s Institute debate on the real issues here under the Dome.
We will convene a panel from across the political and business spectrum and will invite the protesters to be represented.
The Dean and I will be available on Sunday morning, outside St Paul’s, to listen and engage. Our message will be simple: pack up your tents voluntarily and let us make you heard.
Guardian Riazat Butt Bishop of London offers debate with Occupy protesters if they disband
And another tweet from @giles_fraser: It is completely unfair for people to have a go at my colleagues. They have acted out of principle just as much as I.
Alan Rusbridger Canon of St Paul’s: church cannot answer peaceful protest with violence
BBC
Dr Giles Fraser explains why he resigned from St Paul’s video interview with Robert Pigott
St Paul’s Cathedral Canon Chancellor Giles Fraser in profile
Guardian
Riazat Butt, Sam Jones and James Ball Occupy London protest at St Paul’s faces action from City officials
Riazat Butt, Sam Jones and James Ball St Paul’s Cathedral set to reopen after Occupy London shuffles tents
Patrick Kingsley Occupy London empty tent claims based on ‘rubbish science’
Telegraph
Victoria Ward St Paul’s Cathedral to reopen on Friday despite Occupy London protest camp
Musical flashmob at St Paul’s protest (video)
Press Association
St Paul’s ‘could reopen on Friday’
Legal action mooted over protesters
Press release from St Paul’s Cathedral
Statement from the Dean of St Paul’s (26 October)
26 October 2011
The Dean of St Paul’s, The Right Reverend Graeme Knowles, said tonight that he was optimistic that St Paul’s Cathedral would be able to reopen to the public on Friday afternoon (28 October) following significant changes to the layout of those dwelling in tents outside of the Cathedral which was achieved this afternoon.
“The staff team here have been working flat out with the police, fire brigade and health and safety officers to try to ensure that we have confidence in the safety of our worshippers, visitors and staff which will allow us to reopen.” said Dean Knowles this evening.
“We have wide statutory obligations to ensure the safety of our staff, congregation, visitors and pilgrims and final checks will be made tomorrow. A passageway allowing evacuation procedures to be improved has been created; the kitchen providing food for those in the camp has been moved from close proximity to the building; bicycles chained to the railings have been shifted and a clear pathway restored”, said the Dean tonight.
He added: “We have alternative arrangements in place to safeguard the evacuation of the crypt and floor areas but, for the time being, the galleries and dome will remained closed. Our continued dialogue with the fire brigade, police, and our own fire safety advisors has been encouraging.”
Dean Knowles said that the Chapter would reach a final decision tomorrow on the re-opening: “We will revisit the risk assessment in the light of any overnight developments and subject to us getting the green light we hope to reopen in time for the 1230 Eucharist on Friday to which everyone is welcome.”
On the question of the future of the campsite, the Dean explained: “We reiterate our basic belief in the right to protest as well as requesting that those people living in the tents now leave the site peacefully.”
He added: “We want the site to be fully open to members of the public to have open access over the area as well as for those wanting to visit St. Paul’s. The mission of the cathedral is committed to the Christian Gospel message of justice, dignity and peace. The debate about social justice and economic policy will remain at the heart of the work of the St Paul’s Institute.”
As regards any other action the Dean said “We have been and continue to take legal advice on a range of options including court action. Chapter very much hopes that we will achieve a peaceful solution.”
David Allen Green has published a detailed and lucid analysis of the situation at the New Statesman.
Read it in full at Closing the doors at St Paul’s Cathedral.
How seriously is the Cathedral taking health and safety concerns?
…The worrying refusal by the Cathedral to share the details of its supposed health and safety concerns with the protesters after Wednesday would seem to undermine the sincerity of its reliance on those concerns to close the Cathedral. Whatever one’s views as to the merits of the protesters, there can be no good reason for these details not to be shared, especially as it is claimed that the health and safety concerns are so serious as to mean that the Cathedral should be closed down completely.
This is a particularly depressing notion, given the Dean said expressly that the decision was taken “because of the legal requirements placed upon us by fire, health and safety issues”. So I asked the Cathedral for a full description of these health and safety issues, and this list was provided in response:
- Presence of unknown quantities of flammable liquids.
- Smoking/drinking within the tented areas.
- Potential gas safety within the catering facility.
- Compromised free fire exits, usually open now closed but manned.
- Slips, trips and falls exacerbated at night with cover of darkness.
- Due to the darkness issues on North side, use of naked flame lighting.
- Sleeping risk within the tented area, if fire should break out.
- Public heath issues
a Sanitation
b Food hygiene
c Rodent/pest issue- The issues of rope/guy-lines attached to trees, bollards, lamp standards possibly causing injury to face/neck/upper limbs and trips on low level guy-lines.
- VIP security due to camp protest.
- All of the above are representative of the possible injury to life and limb.
This prompts an obvious question, and so I asked the Cathedral what it was actually doing now to manage these risks, other than closing the Cathedral. What had it done since the closure, if it thought these risks were serious? But the Cathedral was not able to say.
I asked who compiled this list of issues. The vague response was “health and safety advisers”. Who were these advisers? The Cathedral would not say. What are their qualifications and expertise? The Cathedral would not say. Are they external or internal? The Cathedral would not say…
And there is a great deal more, including a very full response by the protesters. Read it all.
Updated 1 pm Wednesday
According to Episcopal Cafe Ruth Gledhill and Fay Schlesinger in The Times are reporting [subscription only] that Canon Dr. Giles Fraser will resign if the Cathedral moves to evict Occupy London protesters:
…Dr Giles Fraser, who is responsible for the cathedral’s relations with the financial institutions of the City of London, is understood to be prepared to quit should it take legal action against the 200 tents forming an increasingly permanent-looking settlement on its land.
…. A resignation from Dr Fraser would make him a martyr for the anti-capitalist cause and prove hugely embarrassing to the cathedral and the Church. If the cathedral does not try to oust the protesters, however, it will be forced into the humiliating position of reopening with the tents still in place, or remaining closed for months — putting events such as the Remembrance Day services at risk and losing the cathedral about £16,000 a day in tourist revenue.
Update The BBC reports that Giles Fraser’s resignation threat relates to “use of force” rather than the taking of legal action to remove the protestors.
Telegraph St Paul’s Cathedral protest: Blitz landmark closed because you might trip over guy rope by Victoria Ward, Richard Alleyne and Tim Ross
At the height of the Blitz, the relentless pounding of London by Luftwaffe bombers forced St Paul’s Cathedral to close its doors for a total of four days.
But today (Weds) health and safety fears about people tripping over tent guy ropes and blocked emergency exits have achieved what Hitler did not, and shut it for a fifth day.
The cathedral has been criticised after it released a full list of the health and safety concerns that has been used as justification for closing it for the longest time in living memory.
Mark Field, Tory MP for Cities of London and Westminster – in which the cathedral sits - said they were “spurious health and safety excuses” and called for them to be ignored.
“There never seemed to be any substance to the health and safety reasons for the closure. It was a nuclear option and it has been a monumental own goal,” he said…
The Guardian newspaper has tonight published an editorial which severely criticises the Dean and Chapter of St Paul’s (and by implication the Bishop of London - see previous article).
City and cathedral: The whited sepulchre
The dean and chapter of St Paul’s risk playing the villains in a national pantomime
The last time St Paul’s Cathedral was so much in the news was the wedding of Charles and Diana: a vast if moth-eaten musical parade which ended very badly when the fairytale wedding turned into a marriage of unfaithful human beings. That helped turn the cathedral into a major tourist attraction, though it did nothing for the Christian message. Now another piece of theatre has swept it up, and with it won a turn on the national stage.
Protesters hoping to “Occupy the London Stock Exchange” were prevented from entering Paternoster Square, a shopping development which had been their original target, and instead have camped, in orderly rows, around the north side of the cathedral and across its main west entrance. This rather messy and absurd situation has handed the dean and chapter of St Paul’s a truly historic opportunity to discredit Christianity in this country. They seem determined to take it. They should think, and stop.
The dean and chapter appear to have decided that health and safety considerations mean they must be rid of the makeshift camp. These grounds are frankly risible. Pretending otherwise compounds the first mistake, which was to shut the cathedral altogether, rather than expose visitors to the sight and smells of a couple of hundred protesters. A cathedral isn’t really there for the tourists, even if it can charge visitors £14.50, as St Paul’s does. It is a place for prayer and worship. The congregations who come for these, the real purposes of the building, should remember that Jesus talked to publicans and tax collectors. He might even have talked to merchant bankers. He would certainly have talked to the protesters camped outside.
Aspects of the protest camp are silly and rather squalid. But it still represents a profound and important moral revulsion which the Church of England needs to take seriously. These aren’t the usual Spartist suspects. The sense that there is something outrageous, unjust and absurd about the world of modern finance has spread across the whole political and religious spectrum. Even Pope Benedict XVI has reinforced his predecessor’s teaching with a demand that the markets of the world be brought under human control. The Church of England needs to be part of this discussion, for its own sake and for the sake of the country. And that is done far more effectively by theatre and by conversation than by lecturing or even preaching. It is no use having clever bishops saying clever things that no one listens to. Here at St Paul’s right now, there is a chance to catch the attention of millions of people who would never listen to a bishop or recognise a Dean without a Torvill.
The protesters aren’t right about everything. A lot of the time they aren’t even coherent enough to be wrong. But the role of the church is to talk with them and to find out how their sense of injustice at the present slump can be refined and educated and brought out into the wider conversation. The cathedral has a chance to take Marx’s taunt about religion being “the heart of a heartless world” and try to make it true, and valuable. It must not fumble this.
If the dean and chapter continue their steps towards evicting they will be playing the villains in a national pantomime. There will be legal battles and, eventually, physical force. At every step, the cathedral authorities will be acting in the service of absurdity and injustice. Yet this is where the logic of their position is leading them. They must see this, and stop. Jesus denounced his Pharisaic enemies as whited sepulchres, or shining tombs; and that is what the steam-cleaned marble frontage of St Paul’s will become if the protesters are evicted to make room for empty pomp: a whited sepulchre, where morality and truth count for nothing against the convenience of the heritage industry.
St Paul’s Cathedral: a statement from the Bishop of London
25/10/11
A statement by the Bishop of London on the protest outside St Paul’s Cathedral.
“This demonstration has undoubtedly raised a number of very important questions. The St Paul’s Institute has itself focused on the issue of executive pay and I am involved in ongoing discussions with City leaders about improving shareholder influence on excessive remuneration.
“Nevertheless, the time has come for the protestors to leave, before the camp’s presence threatens to eclipse entirely the issues that it was set up to address. The Dean and the Chapter, who are responsible for St Paul’s, have already made it clear that the protest should come to an end and I fully support that view.”
Guardian letters to the editor in Tuesday’s paper: St Paul’s: pulpit, pavement and piety and in Monday’s paper: Conflict and crisis at the cathedral
Telegraph editorial in Tuesday’s paper: A sullied cathedral and news article Richard Alleyne Just 10% of St Paul’s protesters stay overnight
BBC St Paul’s camp: Occupy London is ‘tourist attraction’
ITN St Pauls still closed (video report)
Mail Online St Paul’s may have to cancel Remembrance Sunday service because of ‘Occupy London’ protests
Independent St Paul’s protesters call in their own safety expert and vow to stay put and earlier Peter Popham: A cathedral turns its back on the people
Sunday afternoon/Monday morning news reports:
Guardian
Peter Walker Occupy protesters seek explanation over cathedral’s call to move on
Peter Walker and Riazat Butt St Paul’s may seek injunction to move Occupy London activists
…With the deadlock seemingly set to continue, St Paul’s and other nearby institutions have consulted lawyers about possible efforts to forcibly evict the protesters. Cathedral staff were due to hold an emergency meeting with fire officers, police and officials from the Corporation of London, which administers the City district, on Monday. A St Paul’s spokesman, the Reverand Rob Marshall, said the impact of the closure would be felt more intensively next week as tourist numbers swell during half-term.
“The penny is dropping,” he said. “Half-term has started and we’ve got hundreds and thousands of visitors from around the world in London. It will soon begin to dawn that the cathedral will not be open for the foreseeable future. It’s such a chunk of a visitor’s itinerary and there will be a momentum that this is a reality. If there is no sign of movement in the early part of the week there will be further negotiations.”
The Corporation of London has not commented publicly since Friday, when it also called on the camp to disband. But the organisation is known to have consulted lawyers about how an eviction might take place, and whether the legal options could even include an emergency injunction to clear the space immediately.
But this is seen as a last resort. Aside from the potential public relations disaster of police officers dragging peaceful protesters from their tents in the shadow of a cathedral, eviction proceedings would most likely take some weeks.
Part of the land housing the camp is owned by St Paul’s, who would need to take action for trespass, while other parts belong to the Corporation, requiring a case under laws relating to obstruction of the highways. The Occupy movement has said it, too, has been taking legal advice, and cannot be expected to leave voluntarily without more information from St Paul’s…
Updated to include following motion
Updated 1 November to correct voting figures for the following motion
Ely diocesan synod debated the women bishops legislation today.
The main motion, in favour of the legislation, was passed in all three houses. Here are the voting figures.
For Against Abstentions Bishops 2 0 0 Clergy 39 6 1 Laity 30 10 2
A following motion, seeking more provision for opponents was defeated with 12 votes in favour, 74 72 against and 6 abstentions. The abstentions included both bishops.
Updated again Friday evening
Ed Thornton reports in the Church Times this morning: Crisis brings crowd to steps of St Paul’s
Update There has been a major update of this story, now headlined Protest means we must shut, says Dean of St Paul’s.
THE Dean and Chapter of St Paul’s Cathedral appealed this week for cathedral life to “be allowed to operate as normally as possible”, after hundreds of activists, protesting against corporate greed and economic inequality, set up camp in St Paul’s Churchyard…
The Church Times also has editorial comment on the subject: Leader: Cold comfort for protesters.
The statements by the Dean and Chapter can be found here, and earlier here.
Friday afternoon update
Two further statements from the Dean of St Paul’s:
Statement from the Dean of St Paul’s (21 October)
Update Video of this statement here.
…Last night, I met with members of the Chapter to discuss some of these key issues. As the week has gone on, and in a statement we issued earlier this week, we intimated how difficult the situation was becoming.
As a result of that meeting, and reports received today from our independent Health, Safety and Fire officers, I have written an open letter to the protestors this afternoon advising them that we have no lawful alternative but to close St Paul’s Cathedral until further notice. I have here copies of the letter clearly outlining the reasons we have had to take this dramatic course of action which I will ask my colleagues to distribute.
The Health, Safety and Fire officers have pointed out that access to and from the Cathedral is seriously limited. With so many stoves and fires and lots of different types of fuel around, there is a clear fire hazard. Then there is the public health aspect which speaks for itself. The dangers relate not just to Cathedral staff and visitors but are a potential hazard to those encamped themselves.
The decision to close St Paul’s Cathedral is unprecedented in modern times and I have asked the Registrar to implement emergency procedures whereby the building remains closed but fit for purpose until such a time that we can open safely. Our 200 staff and 100 volunteers are also being informed of this decision this afternoon.
I want to say two simple things at this point.1)We have done this with a very heavy heart, but it is simply not possible to fulfil our day to day obligations to worshippers, visitors and pilgrims in current circumstances.
2)That all of the Chapter are at one on this and recognise the complexities of the issues facing us at this time…
Open Letter from the Dean of St Paul’s Cathedral
…With a heavy heart I have to tell you that St Paul’s Cathedral has to be closed today until further notice, because of the legal requirements placed upon us by fire, health and safety issues. I know you will appreciate that in taking on the burden of responsibility for the care and well being of people entering our building, we must also be able to ensure everyone’s safety and, according to those who are expert in this regard, we cannot do so at the moment. I wanted to inform you of this necessary decision before I announced it to the Press.
I am therefore appealing to you directly to recognise that a great deal had been achieved by your presence here outside St Paul’s but that, in order that we might re-open the Cathedral as speedily as possible, we ask you to withdraw peacefully. We are concerned about public safety in terms of evacuation and fire hazards and the consequent knock-on effects which this has with regards to visitors…
Guardian Peter Walker and Riazat Butt
Occupy London Stock Exchange protesters asked to leave by cathedral officials
Occupy London Stock Exchange camp refuses to leave despite cathedral plea
Update 16 November
Truro diocesan synod debated the women bishops legislation today.
The main motion, in favour of the legislation, was passed in all three houses. Here are the voting figures.
For Against Abstentions Bishops 1 0 0 Clergy 27 3 1 Laity 33 6 1
The following motion asking for more provision for those opposed was “decisively defeated”.
Update The following motion was the standard CEEC motion.
That this Synod
“Desires that all faithful Anglicans remain and thrive together in the Church of England; and therefore
Calls upon the House of Bishops to bring forward amendments to the draft Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure to ensure that those unable on theological grounds to accept the ministry of women bishops are able to receive episcopal oversight from a bishop with authority (i.e. ordinary jurisdiction) conferred by the Measure rather than by delegation from a Diocesan Bishop.”
Updated Saturday afternoon and evening
Updated Saturday night (including corrections to Blackburn and Norwich figures)
Updated Monday night to add Wakefield following motion
Updated Tuesday to add links to reports on Blackburn and Rochester diocesan websites. In addition the voting figures for clergy and laity in the first following motion at Rochester have been corrected to match the diocesan report.
Seven diocesan synods debated the women bishops legislation today. We will update this article as results become available.
A majority of diocesan synods have now voted in favour of the main motion, and the draft legislation can now return to General Synod.
The main motion, which all synods have to vote on by houses and without amendment, is:
That this Synod approves the proposals embodied in the draft Bishops and Priests (Consecration and ordination of women) Measure and in draft Amending Canon Number 30.
The usual following motion (the “CEEC motion”) seeks further provision for opponents.
That this Synod
1. Desires that all faithful Anglicans remain and thrive together in the Church of England; and therefore
2. Calls upon the House of Bishops to bring forward amendments to the draft Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure to ensure that those unable, on theological grounds, to accept the ministry of Women Bishops are able to receive episcopal oversight from a Bishop with authority (i.e. ordinary jurisdiction) conferred by the Measure rather than by delegation from a Diocesan Bishop.
1) Blackburn passed the main motion in the houses of clergy and laity (which is what matters)..
For Against Abstentions Bishops 1 3 0 Clergy