Comments: Church Commissioners Questions

Has parliament asked any question about the impact of section 4 of the proposed covenant on the Royal prerogative? Should it?

Posted by Bishop Alan Wilson at Wednesday, 27 October 2010 at 8:45pm BST

Clergy spouse - the support 'SHE' needs ?

What planet is he on ?

This must be a spoof.

(Or are things in the C of E anachronism-wise far worse than one had feared?).

Posted by Laurence Roberts at Wednesday, 27 October 2010 at 8:53pm BST

Perhaps someone should tell the Commissioner that some clergy are women now, and therefore have male spouses?

Posted by Charlie Peer at Wednesday, 27 October 2010 at 8:55pm BST

'If any clergy spouse feels that SHE....'!!!!! What century is it? No wonder the church is in such a mess!!!

Posted by ShockedofLondon at Wednesday, 27 October 2010 at 9:00pm BST

"I very much hope that if any clergy spouse does not feel that she is getting full support, she will get in touch with me and I will make jolly sure that her diocesan bishops and others ensure that she gets the support that she deserves."

And if the spouse is male?

Posted by Nom de Plume at Wednesday, 27 October 2010 at 9:27pm BST

Perhaps someone should tell the Commissioner that some male ministers have male partners --

some of them have even tied a knot (if not quite -yet- the knot!) down at the Town Hall !

Posted by Laurence Roberts at Wednesday, 27 October 2010 at 11:44pm BST

Alan, it is ESSENTIAL that someone ask the Church Commissioners how the Covenant would affect the Royal Perogative. Indeed, the Covenant overthrows all of the Acts of Henry VIII and since regarding the Church of England.

Posted by Malcolm+ at Thursday, 28 October 2010 at 12:33am BST

I was going to post a comment - but every question and every answer is just full of lunacy - so I won't.

Posted by Peter Edwards at Thursday, 28 October 2010 at 12:56am BST

I have emailed Tony Baldry about his faux pas and would urge all contributers to this thread to do the same. Just google his name to access an email form.

Posted by Terence Dear at Thursday, 28 October 2010 at 8:53am BST

I am a clergyman and a clergy spouse. Should I get double support?

On the covenant and the Royal Prerogative: something like the covenant CANNOT affect the royal prerogative or parliamentary supremacy. A decision to do so by the General Synod would be ultra vires (ie outside of the powers of the synod given to it by the Church Assembly (Powers) Act) and would simply be ineffective.

S 4 of the covenant draft makes clear that the covenant does not affect provincial autonomy. In our case it simply cannot. Action taken by any of the instruments of communion under s 4 would have no effect on the internal workings of the C of E and no effect in England.

I'm not arguing for the covenant. In England it is entirely pointless.

Posted by Wilf at Thursday, 28 October 2010 at 10:28am BST

Me culpa, I accept that the wording in the second part of my answer should have made it clear that, of course, there are now many male spouses.

From the question that had been tabled, it was not immediately clear why my colleague, Dr. Huppert, was asking this question, so not surprisingly, I asked him what was his concern, not least so I could investigate any difficulties with colleagues at Church House and Lambeth, etc. Dr. Huppert explained to me that his question was motivated by the experiences of a woman friend/constituent of his, married to a clergyman, who had expressed strong concerns that whilst women who married clergymen preordination seemed to get a lot of support during the training and ordination process, those who married clergymen who had already been ordained, didn't seem to get similar support.

So, mea culpa, I had been somewhat focused on his particular constituent's concerns, as a clergyman's wife.

But you are absolutely right. I should have made it clear, simply so that friends such as you wouldn't feel the need to write in the way in which you have, but of course, there are now many women priests in the Church.

I think if you read what I had to say to General Synod in York on the matter of women in the Episcopate, I am in absolutely no doubt as to the enormous contribution made by women clergy and women in the Church generally.

Best wishes

Tony Baldry


PS. If you want to read what I said at York, if you go to my website, www.tonybaldry.co.uk and type in "women bishops" in the search box, it will take you to the relevant part of the archive.

Posted by tony baldry at Thursday, 28 October 2010 at 12:24pm BST

'seemed to get a lot of support during the training and ordination process'

'Seemed' being the operative word. Many many of us can testify to the appalling lack of support 'the Church of England' gives to its ministers and their families. As an institution it makes no concerted effort at it at all.

Places that have tried have met derision (talk of psychobabble) and oppostion at times. A wonderful trail-blazing support programme and network set up in Mervyn Stockwood's time, was not supported by Tom Butler leading to the resignation of its one paid worker- a committed Christian and psychotherapist - and the demise of the programme after decades. Butler himself spoke publicly of the need for ministers to stand on their own two feet and not be wimps. Not much encouragement there; and clearly he himself was uncomfortable with feelings, though they will out, as I believe he eventually discovered.

At this very moment ministers are languishing under suspension and little support for marrying too many people, some of whom it turns out deceived the minister. The diocese failed to support them too, in its public statement on the matter.

Pleeease don't get me started.

Posted by Laurence Roberts at Thursday, 28 October 2010 at 5:05pm BST

"Action taken by any of the instruments of communion under s 4 would have no effect on the internal workings of the C of E and no effect in England.

I'm not arguing for the covenant. In England it is entirely pointless."

If what Wilf says is true, that may explain much of the indifference to the Anglican Covenant in England. As the Covenant can and will affect sister churches in the Anglican Communion, which are not established churches, the only reason for those in the Church of England to care would be for the sake of the rest of us.

Posted by Grandmère Mimi at Thursday, 28 October 2010 at 7:02pm BST

Wilf, while of course the Church of England - like any other province - could carry on despite punitive measures by the Standing Committee, if this Committee were to declare that a C of E decision was incompatible with the Covenant and imposed penalties, e.g. non-attendance at an international Anglican gathering, would that not create an awkward situation? This would not happen now, but could happen in a few years' time if the composition of the SC changed enough. And what if a breakaway church were recognised by the SC?

Posted by Savi H at Thursday, 28 October 2010 at 11:42pm BST

The Covenant certainly pretends to have no effect on the internal functionings of any province. In moral theology, this is known as a lie.

The Criminal Code of Canada does not have any effect on the internal decision making process of any citizen, nor in the citizen chooses to undertake an action which may be forbidden by the Criminal Code of Canada. However, the Criminal Code of Canada also sets out certain consequences should one choose to do that.

There is aa very good argument that it would be beyond the constitutional competence of the Church of England General Synod to adopt the Anglican Covenant. Apparently some particularly jesuitical members of Synod (or perhaps merely intellectually lazy members of synod) believe that there is therefore no reason to bother voting it down. If so, the are either dishonest or daft - neither of which is particularly admirable.

The constraints of the Covenant would be effectively operative until and unless the UK courts were to rule that it was ultra vires. Much damage can be done.

Better, surely, to do the right thing off the top and defeat this Abominable Covenant on 24 Nov.

Posted by Malcolm+ at Friday, 29 October 2010 at 12:38am BST

I'm surprised that Malcolm is so concerned for the survival of the Acts of Henry VIII!

Posted by Tim Chesterton at Friday, 29 October 2010 at 2:33am BST

;-)

That was Acts of Henry VIII and since. I'm rather a fan of the Acts of Henry VIII (and reaffirmed since) that say the Church of England is not subject to the authority of foreign prelates. Overturning them would undermine the principle that the Anglican Church of Canada should not be subject to the authority of foreign prelates.

Posted by Malcolm+ at Friday, 29 October 2010 at 10:54pm BST

Whatever may be said about the proposed Anglican Covenant - both pro and anti - one wonders whether the present independence of individual Provinces will be undermined by its acceptance. This is a matter which should concern not only the Church of England, but each and every province

Posted by Father Ron Smith at Saturday, 30 October 2010 at 12:56am BST
Post a comment









Remember personal info?






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

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