Comments: Women Bishops - diocesan debates - 15 October

Surprisingly close vote in Blackburn. Bishops 3 to one against, but passed by the clergy by 1 vote and by the lay delegates by four.

Posted by Lapinbizarre at Saturday, 15 October 2011 at 4:15pm BST

Not so surprising when you remember the "tainted bread" controversy a few years back.

Posted by Jeremy at Saturday, 15 October 2011 at 5:24pm BST

Well done, Blackburn!

Posted by Susan at Saturday, 15 October 2011 at 5:44pm BST

Blackburn was a tough one and those supporting women bishops are to be warmly congratulated

Posted by Jean Mary Mayland at Saturday, 15 October 2011 at 5:44pm BST

Blackburn passed the following motion by 79 votes to 55. Interestingly, this was by a show of hands in plenary, not by a secret ballot by houses. Is this unusual?

Posted by Historian at Saturday, 15 October 2011 at 5:50pm BST

That's the majority of Diocesan Synods in favour now. Whatever happens from now the main motion goes back to General Synod for final approval.

Posted by Wilf at Saturday, 15 October 2011 at 5:52pm BST

Jeremy, what controversy is that? My memory isn't years long...

Posted by Dan Barnes-Davies at Saturday, 15 October 2011 at 5:53pm BST

Dan, see here:

http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/archives/003979.html

Posted by Jeremy at Saturday, 15 October 2011 at 7:06pm BST

How many bishops does Blackburn actually have?

Posted by David Malloch at Saturday, 15 October 2011 at 7:07pm BST

Historian said:
"Blackburn passed the following motion by 79 votes to 55. Interestingly, this was by a show of hands in plenary, not by a secret ballot by houses. Is this unusual?"

Chichester took the following motions by show of hands - the main motion, and the three preliminary "Chichester Questions' were by ballot, and I don't think the synod would have endured ballots for the following motions as well!

Posted by Alastair Cutting at Saturday, 15 October 2011 at 7:11pm BST

Blackburn only has two suffragans, so who was the fourth bishop?

Posted by Justin Brett at Saturday, 15 October 2011 at 7:22pm BST

Interesting on how many bishops are voting for the main measure and abstaining on the following motion. Don't they have a view?

Posted by Grumpy High Church Woman at Saturday, 15 October 2011 at 7:37pm BST

My fellow liberals,

There is no point in saluting 'a majority of dioceses'. It is perfectly clear by now - it always was clear - that there is a substantial minority within the C of E which doesn't want women bishops but is prepared to live with them (note for the enth time that I personally am 100% in favour of women bishops), provided they get some sort of separate 'provision'. It is completely hopeless (and worse) to plough on with 'majority voting', when the Diocese of London (rather a big constituency) registers its dissent. The time has come to 'do deals'. And they must be done with grace. It looks as if 'the Archbishops' amendment' will be enough to do the job. Get behind it, otherwise there will be endless rancour and bitterness.

Posted by john at Saturday, 15 October 2011 at 8:06pm BST

Where did Blackburn get 4 bishops from? Blackburn, Burnley, Lancaster and...??

Posted by Frozenchristian at Saturday, 15 October 2011 at 8:32pm BST

Rochester passed the main motion comfortably and both following motions were defeated. I don't have the exact figures, or know how long it will take to show up on official channels.

Posted by Malcolm Dixon at Saturday, 15 October 2011 at 9:24pm BST

From the Winchester site:

Winchester Diocese says 'yes' ...just!
15 October 2011

By a very tight majority of just two in the House of Clergy, the Diocese of Winchester’s October 15th Synod at St Paul’s, Burseldon, accepted the General Synod’s procedural motion on Women Bishops.


After a vigorous but gracious debate – although dominated by speakers against – the House of Laity voted 37 in favour with 23 against and two abstentions. The House of Clergy voted:a very close 23 in favour with 21 against and two abstentions. Both Bishop Peter and Bishop Jonathan were happy to affirm the motion and for their votes to be public.

Posted by Peter at Saturday, 15 October 2011 at 10:34pm BST

I don't know who the fourth member of the Blackburn House of Bishops is. But membership is not restricted to the diocesan and suffragan bishops.

Here is the relevant extract from the Church Representation Rules.

30 (2) The members of the house of bishops shall consist of the bishop of the diocese, every suffragan bishop of the diocese and such other person or persons, being a person or persons in episcopal orders working in the diocese, as the bishop of the diocese, with the concurrence of the archbishop of the province, may nominate.

Posted by Peter Owen at Saturday, 15 October 2011 at 11:15pm BST

"The time has come to 'do deals'. And they must be done with grace. It looks as if 'the Archbishops' amendment' will be enough to do the job. Get behind it, otherwise there will be endless rancour and bitterness." - John, on Saturday -

So you, John, would vote for a divided episcopate - those who are acceptable and accepted by the Church, and those who are considered marginal by the 'elite'. Doesn't seem theologically sound to me: Rather like a provisional 'catholicity'. And all on the basis of a 'defective gene mentality'.

Posted by Father Ron Smith at Sunday, 16 October 2011 at 1:16am BST

It really does seem now - in the light of overwhelming approval by a majority of the dioceses of the Church of England - that the female of the species is actually considered to be both biologically and spiritually fitted to exercise a function in the Church that was once, historically, reserved for the males; or at least, sufficiently so for the hoped for passage of the Measure in General synod.

Let's hope that no blunting regulation against the full recognition of women as bishops in the Church of England will ever get past the contraceptive shield of conservatism in that Church.

Posted by Father Ron Smith at Sunday, 16 October 2011 at 9:16am BST

Blackburn's fourth bishop is one working as an incumbent in the diocese

Posted by suep at Sunday, 16 October 2011 at 9:18am BST

The 'fourth Blackburn bishop' is Bishop Alan Winstanley, Vicar of Whittle-le-Woods and Assistant Bishop in the diocese (he was formerly a SAMS bishop in South America).

Posted by Historian at Sunday, 16 October 2011 at 9:53am BST

In response to 'Grumpy High Church Woman', I thought that James +Rochester gave a very good explanation to his Diocesan Synod yesterday. As all the following motions are directed at the House of Bishops, and he is a member of that house, he thought it appropriate to abstain, showing that he was listening but not expressing an opinion at this stage.

Posted by Malcolm Dixon at Sunday, 16 October 2011 at 1:24pm BST

I'm inclined to agree with John - at least provisionally. It's an unpleasant situation to be in, but given a choice between undermining the authority of bishops in their own dioceses and the order of the church, or effectively cutting off a substantial minority of priests and laity who cannot in good conscience accept women priests and bishops, I'd unhappily choose the former. It's no long-term solution, though - and there will inevitably be rancour and bitterness anyway. What happens when we eventually have a lady Archbishop of Canterbury? Will we have to have a 'flying' Archbishop?

Posted by rjb at Sunday, 16 October 2011 at 1:56pm BST

rjb,
but that has always been the problem with provisions, there has never been a clear path to an eventual single solution and they only ever seem to set division further into immovable stone.

If these provisions were accompanied by a long term plan they would be easier to accept but anything, such as an undertaking to provide for existing priests and congregations but not to ordain new priests who cannot accept women's ministry into a church that clearly does, are decried as hospice care.

Where is a long term solution to come from?

Posted by Erika Baker at Sunday, 16 October 2011 at 5:03pm BST

Sorry John et al

- a woman Bishop must be the Authority in her own Diocese and that includes delegation

- those opposed are not content not to have trhe ministry of a woman bishop- the Measure gives them this - but they wanted an untainted male. This would set up a continuation of Flying Bishops as a new 'Donatist ' line.
Heresy in a new guise

Posted by Jean Mary Mayland at Sunday, 16 October 2011 at 5:12pm BST

Yet all these male bishops( pro and anti women bishops) derive their jurisdiction from a woman, Her Majesty the Queen.

In the Church of England jurisdiction comes from the crown.. in the Catholic Church it comes from the Holy See.

Posted by Robert ian Williams at Sunday, 16 October 2011 at 5:30pm BST

I note comments about secret ballots and show of hands. Exeter's voting, on the Measure and the Following Motions, was very public: members left the chamber by 2 doors each side - Clergy left, yes & no; Laity right, yes & no, being counted as they passed through. No abstentions.
Transparency?

Posted by vbj at Sunday, 16 October 2011 at 5:31pm BST

"In the Church of England jurisdiction comes from the crown..in the Catholic Church it comes from the Holy See."
In TEC it comes from the clergy and people of the diocese.

Posted by Old Father William at Sunday, 16 October 2011 at 6:26pm BST

@Erika: there is only one long term solution and that is the Ordinariate. All these votes tell us that the CofE is done with anyone who is unable to accept OOW and protestations notwithstanding the church wants them out. Hospice care as you put it is just a softer way of saying this.

The game is over foe traditionalists just as it is in all the other liberal provinces. That is the mind of the church as expressed in all these diocesan votes.

Come on over, the Tiber is lovely :)

Posted by Clive at Sunday, 16 October 2011 at 7:16pm BST

Obviously, I don't accept opportunistic definitions of 'catholicity' or 'heresy'. It seems to me equally obvious that Reformed Catholics by definition cannot appeal to these concepts as if they were unproblematic.

But here's another 'take', which I hope might be unifying within the C of E. The present Pope's 'generous offer' of an Anglican 'ordinariate' (how these useless terms proliferate) was opportunistic, mischievous and essentially content-free (there is no 'Anglican patrimony' once you've decided to subsume your Anglican identity within the RC church). Liberal Anglicans say that freely. 'Anglo-Catholic' Anglicans of the FiF variety have more difficulty in saying it - but actually it's what they feel - and act. So 'the Archbishops' amendment' offers both sides a wonderful opportunity of saying: one in the eye to the Pope - you won't divide us, we can sort this out internally, thank you very much.

Posted by john at Sunday, 16 October 2011 at 7:41pm BST

I recall voting by division in the Ely Diocesan Synod in 1991 -- we queued up to register our votes at 'aye' or 'no' tables, one of each for each of the laity and clergy. But I understand that next Saturday we shall vote by show of hands. I can't say that I am impressed by that decision, but that's what is intended. And certainly quicker.

Posted by Simon Kershaw at Sunday, 16 October 2011 at 7:47pm BST

We need to decide whether we are looking to staying in a relationship with each other, or drifting apart - being one church, or creating a two-church "solution". The current legislation maintains the one church model. Anything further is more akin to a trial separation, with the dynamic to split, than "let's give it a go" with a dynamic to stay together.

Posted by Mark Bennet at Sunday, 16 October 2011 at 8:25pm BST

In St Albans we voted by standing up to be counted. The place where diocesan synod meets does not have multiple sets of doors to walk through.

Posted by Simon Sarmiento at Sunday, 16 October 2011 at 11:26pm BST

"In the Church of England jurisdiction comes from the crown.. in the Catholic Church it comes from the Holy See." - Robert I Williams (neophyte catholic) -

The Holy 'See' - there's none so blind!

And anyway, Robert, you need to brush up on your ecclesiology; in the Church of England, a bishop's spirituality is not derived from the monarch, but from the Holy Spirit in the Church of God - not, from the Church of Rome.

Posted by Father Ron Smith at Monday, 17 October 2011 at 8:35am BST

Maybe it's being from the other side of the pond and all, but I really don't understand this constant need to "accommodate" dissenters. Didn't these people take an oath to abide by the decisions of General Synod when they were ordained?

Posted by Pat O'Neill at Monday, 17 October 2011 at 11:18am BST

No, Church of England Clergy swear an Oath of Allegiance to the Crown and an Oath of Canonical Obedience to their diocesan bishop. They make no oath or declaration in relation to General Synod.

30 out of 44 dioceses have now voted. 28 in favour, two against. Overall figures: Bishops 77.0% for, 18.0% against, 4.9% abstained; Clergy 73.0% for, 24.5% against 2.5% abstained; Laity 74.1% for, 22.9% against, 3.0% abstained. Overall 73.7% for, 23.5% against, 2.8% abstained.

Posted by James at Monday, 17 October 2011 at 3:24pm BST

I must admit I am getting tired of fighting my lonely little fight. But here's another try: everybody who goes to church - any church - whether in the C of E or any other denomination, knows that the 'de facto' differences are far more important than the 'de iure' arrangements. So for me, Mark, it isn't about 'one' church or 'two': it is always about cooperation among people who disagree. Item: home group in our church; we're all in communion, all in favour of WO to the highest level; we disagree about practically everything else, those other things actually being far more important than WO (whose importance I do not at all deny). But we stay together. That's my 'model' and I submit that it is a far more accurate description of reality than simple polarisations between 'traditionalists' and the rest.

Posted by John at Monday, 17 October 2011 at 6:22pm BST

John,
you are all staying together because on the one contentious issue that really matters at the moment you're all of one opinion.
How is that helping here?

Now if you told me that you have people who strongly disagree with WO but who nevertheless join you when a woman presides in your church I would believe in how you all get on in practice and how you don't let polarised theology spoil your way of being church.

But I dare say that when it comes to the crunch, those who don't have a problem with WO can worship in FiF groups while those to do have a problem will insist on absenting themselves when a woman presides.

Or can you envisage a genuinely constructive way of disagreeing over WO that goes beyond "we won't have women"?

Posted by Erika Baker at Monday, 17 October 2011 at 7:54pm BST

"I must admit I am getting tired of fighting my lonely little fight." John

Sorry you are feeling isolated, John. Do keep it up. I remember getting some very stern comments on this site some months ago when I suggested that one of the Canadian dioceses, having clearly (and rightly) won the legal battles over church property, might now try to find an accommodation with their 'dissidents'. I was told that I was condoning schism and had Neville Chamberlain thrown at me.

We are of course wrestling with the classical liberal conundrum. How can I carry out my inclusive approach with you, if your approach is exclusive? if I give up that attempt, I open myself to the conservative cliche that I am being an illiberal liberal

Whether the issue is women bishops, as in the C of E, or issues of sexuality in many parts of the world, we must press for two goals, however much they appear sometimes to be mutually exclusive. How can we press for the right, just, loving and gospel-filled policy (yes to somen bishops, ordination of gays, blessing of same-sex relationships) and at the same time, how can we find a way for those who believe we are wrong to stay with us?

Carry on the good work, John.

Posted by Edward Prebble at Monday, 17 October 2011 at 9:08pm BST

Well said Mr Prebble. We must find a way to live and love - together.

Posted by Davis at Monday, 17 October 2011 at 10:45pm BST

Edward and John:
What I can't work out is how a group that refuses to accept communion from a woman, or a bishop who has ordained a woman, is now apparently being described as "inclusive" by you.

If what is being asked for is the possibility of being able to continue the conversation at some time, even in the future, with groups who disagree (which is how I see the current legislation which is being suppoorted by so many in the dioceses) , rather than close it down and retreat into a world where ordained women can be treated as though they don't exist (which is what those asking for transfer rather than delegation want)I fail to see why the former groups is branded as intolerant and illiberal.

Feels like what George Orwell called "double-speak" to me.

Posted by Rosalind at Monday, 17 October 2011 at 11:30pm BST

"how can we find a way for those who believe we are wrong to stay with us?' - Edward Prebble -

Good try, Edward. Sadly, though, there is a little matter of 'integrity' here. How can anyone who truly believes that the Church they belong to is in error that is grievous enough to trouble their conscience to the degree that they have demanded 'alternative oversight - because they do not believe that the women bishops of their Church are valid dispensers of the charism of a true bishop?.

Surely, such a matter - where the dissenting person is unable to submit themselves to the ministry of an ordained Bishop in their Church - is serious enough for them to leave that Church?

In other words, we can certainly accept them (the dissidents) personally, but we cannot - for the sake of the integrity of our Church - accept their demand for alternative oversight. If they really want to stay, they must surely 'play by the rules'

Posted by Father Ron Smith at Tuesday, 18 October 2011 at 1:51am BST

Edward,
yes to all of that in principle. But in principle alone it's not worth much.
Give me a constructive idea for a long term solution that no-one has yet come up with and that is a genuine solution and not just a postponing to the next stage. One that doesn't completely turn the idea of church on its head by strengthening the move towards creating 2 separate units.

For all that John talks about people in real life not being so polarised and just getting on with worshipping together, that worked fine until now. But it's clear, isn't it, that with the introduction of women bishops it won't work any longer, that ever complex, ever more excluding (of either side) provisions have to be put in place to supposedly keep us together.

In the meantime, the reality of all of us keeping together in Christian harmony means, for example, that Katharine Jefferts Schori was politely asked not to wear her mitre when she was in England.
Is that really what you mean by all of us living together in harmony?

I know I argued just a strongly for your position earlier and I still feel that something important will be lost if we fragment further.
On the other hand, I am more than a little tired of people considering the Ordinariate talking about obedience (to Rome), to ancient ways of doing things etc, while not being obedient to the discernment process of their own church. Do they not believe in the process? Do they genuinely not believe that God can guide his church into something new? And that the CoE way of governance is one of those paths for discernment? Then that throws up much larger questions than creating eternal provisions.
Doesn’t there come a point where you have to recognise that life has changed? That discernment has changed? That your response to that is your responsibility not that of those who have discerned the change?
I know of no other church that has introduced women priests and bishops and has tied itself in such knots over it. It’s a wonderfully accommodating and tolerant Anglican approach. But it also, ultimately, creates a huge sense of entitlement for all groups and an unholy muddle that will never get solved properly.
Unless you do have a genuine long term solution that allows for genuine side by side in tolerance and harmony?

Posted by Erika Baker at Tuesday, 18 October 2011 at 7:50am BST

Edward,

Many thanks. Kindness and compassion are also principles.

Erika,

I think it's all out of proportion. Sounds arrogant. The 'proportion', however, is this: our churches are empty, we expend most of our energy fighting each other: it's crazy and worse. We don't all have to be identical. Living together in harmony/disharmony can allow a certain separation over things people feel defining of their particular brand of Christianity, or Anglicanism. There are Evangelical churches I wouldn't be seen dead in - and nor would you, but I wish them well, they are Anglicans, there is a certain shared identity - as much as people, on either side or all sides, can cope with.

One of the reasons I defend the 'rights' of anti-WO people within the C of E is that I feel sorry for them. Not patronisingly sorry. Another is that certainly in some cases they are treated unjustly, precisely because they are FiF. I am also against the endless whining of some and the unseemly grovelling of others, but those two phenomena/tendencies are largely gone, and we're left with people who genuinely wish to remain Anglicans. Frankly (and this is another reason), we can't afford to lose them.

I am aware of all the ironies and difficulties.

Posted by john at Tuesday, 18 October 2011 at 10:21am BST

Ron confuses jurisdiction with Holy orders.

Jurisdiction ( as with the first Anglican bishop of New Zealand ) comes from the Crown.

The Truro vote was amazing . As this diocese was once the bolt hole of anti-women's ordination forces. See what happens when you change the bishop.

As for talks of Anglican patrimony..as I point out the Anglo Catholic converts to Rome are in the main bringing back what they copied from Rome in the nineteenth century.

Posted by Robert IAN WILLIAMS at Tuesday, 18 October 2011 at 10:49am BST

OK--I see the difference. But if you are sworn to obey your diocesan bishop, how do you then ask for him to be replaced by an alternate when you disagree with him?

Posted by Pat O'Neill at Tuesday, 18 October 2011 at 11:50am BST

Erika said, "I know of no other church that has introduced women priests and bishops and has tied itself in such knots over it."

In some quarters the failure to ordain women as bishops threatens to make the C of E a moral laughingstock.

Posted by Jeremy at Tuesday, 18 October 2011 at 12:53pm BST

John -

I am with Jean Mayland. I don't think it is unreasonable (in fact I never have) for our church to make its decision in relation to women deacons, priests and bishops. Some thought it was insufficiently ecumenical in stepping out ahead of Rome and Constantinople: others of us thought it was time we caught up with Methodists and Presbyterians and others - so you could argue it both ways. 1991 was a close but clear decision: the truly daft move was the Act of Synod - which was why I joined GRAS at once. If people don't like a decision they don't have to stay in a body that no longer sustains "catholic order" as they understood it: but it was the height of folly to enshrine that understanding in the parallel world of the 'flying bishops'.

And whatever happens I do not want to see women when they become bishops being only bishop in part of their diocese, and not being able to delegate authority to whomsoever they chose when they choose it as any male bishop might. There must be nothing, to my mind, that smacks of them not being quite as "bishoppy" as other bishops.

Frankly, the analogy with the rest of life is a good one. People moaned endlessly about the pros and cons of wearing seat belts before the law changed. Once it had changed they got on with it. Ditto with smoking in pubs, restaurants and other public buildings (I still rather miss the sight of smoke rising through the projected light in a cinema).

If the Church of England changes her law then we go with it. Conscience is an overworked get out. If you don't like the way the church is (after a vote for women bishops), then find one you do like. No hard feelings, but all good things sometimes come to an end. If the C of E ever did something that I in conscience could not agree with, then I would have to find another spiritual home or go it alone. But I wouldn't stay and spend my time demanding a special enclave for me and my kind. It is the height of arrogance to think that my understanding of Anglicanism is the "true" one that must be preserved at all costs by special measures.

Posted by Jeremy P at Tuesday, 18 October 2011 at 3:18pm BST

It might be helpful for those outside the UK to see the statutory Affirmation and Oaths

Bishop
The Church of England is part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church worshipping the one true God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
It professes the faith uniquely revealed in the Holy Scriptures and set forth in the Catholic Creeds, which faith the Church is called to proclaim afresh in each generation.
Led by the Holy Spirit it has borne witness to Christian truth in its historic formularies, the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, the Book of Common Prayer and the ordering of Bishops, Priests and Deacons.
In the declaration you are about to make, will you affirm your loyalty to this inheritance of faith as your inspiration and guidance under God in bringing the grace and truth of Christ to this generation and making him known to those in your care?

Priest
I, AB, Clerk, do so affirm, and accordingly declare my belief in the faith which is revealed in the Holy Scriptures and set forth in the Catholic creeds and to which the historic formularies of the Church of England bear witness; and in public prayer and administration of the sacraments, I will use only the forms of service which are authorised or allowed by canon .

Facing the people, the priest, holding the New Testament in his right hand, makes the Oath of Allegiance
I, AB, Clerk, swear by Almighty God, that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, her heirs and successors according to law, so help me God.

Facing the Bishop, the priest makes the Oath of Canonical Obedience
I, AB, Clerk, swear by Almighty God that I will pay true and canonical obedience to the Lord Bishop of Z and his successors, in all things lawful and honest, so help me God.

Posted by John Roch at Tuesday, 18 October 2011 at 7:38pm BST

"You go your way I go mine," *is* living together in love.

"Staying together for the children," is a variant of "What will the neighbors think?" and hurts everyone, especially the children.

Surely, John, you must realize there is a difference between the *idealized* church and the *de facto* church(es)? If you want to live together, how does that translate - do you fight, constantly, with Baptists, or Catholics, or Methodists, or Orthodox - all of whom, at some point, have rejected us or been rejected by us? This magical thinking is not helping anyone. Hurting people, then demanding those hurt be gracious and accommodating is simply not realistic . . . don't start with "Jesus did it!" because you, I, ACNA, AoC, CofE, USA, NBC, WTFROFLMAO, are *not* Jesus, and no institution can *ever* be Christlike.

Best solution for the church you want - get rid of church. Take away the buildings, the legal standing, the collars, the titles, the canon law, the articles of corporation. Then, we will have to live together, because there will be nothing to fight for but Christ.

Are you willing to give up your church to be Church? The two can never exist together.

Posted by MarkBrunson at Wednesday, 19 October 2011 at 5:47am BST

I think that Erika fully answered the conciliators on an earlier thread:

"I am very conscious in the lgbt debate that the people calling me to moderation and to live and let live *are finding their liberalism easy because it doesn't cost them anything,* and they're quite happy to place the price for tolerance on me.

I am a little concerned that many liberals here are doing the same in the women bishops debate. There is a self righteousness about telling women priests and FiF to be tolerant, when we know this tolerance costs both dear, maybe too dear! while we don't find it at all difficult to be nice to both sides."

The asterisks are mine, to give emphasis.

She's kinder than I - I would say that the constant call of "accommodation" is the result of cheap grace.

Posted by MarkBrunson at Wednesday, 19 October 2011 at 6:01am BST

"Facing the Bishop, the priest makes the Oath of Canonical Obedience
I, AB, Clerk, swear by Almighty God that I will pay true and canonical obedience to the Lord Bishop of Z and his successors, in all things lawful and honest, so help me God."

Then, again, I ask--how can one make this oath in good conscience, and then ask for (demand?) an alternate bishop when you disagree with the one you have?

Posted by Pat O'Neill at Wednesday, 19 October 2011 at 11:31am BST

I am my bishop's vicar and he has licensed me to be that, but he doesn't believe that women can be priests, so how can I be his vicar? All of this is very confusing, but I would guess it is the secret behind why some men (mostly men I think) don't want women to be priests and less still bishops. Women tend to be less hypocritical/subtle/perspicatious/blind-sided/tradtionally reserved/hypocritical (choose one or more) than men. We are more used to seeing things all around, saying it like it is,being above board, being inclusive and so forth and so on, because we have been outside of everything for so many eons. Our greater inclusiveness is (evidently) scary to some men. The same fraction of the church universal which ordained them ordained us. If it is 'really' their fraction of the church universal, then they should gracefully (I think) admit they got it wrong and stay and pray together and for heaven sake's let Katharine wear her mitre (an esthetically poor innovation for Anglicans, in my eyes, but never mind about that).

Posted by Sara MacVane at Wednesday, 19 October 2011 at 11:49am BST

Pat O'Neill - because, for the last 20 years, and under the doctrine of reception of women priests, you can worship in a PEV care church, be ordained by a PEV after having gone through diocesan discernment, then minister in a PEV church - think of all the (self described) "Ebbsfleet Ordinands" that have gone through Staggers since 1994 (and most of them are/were in their 20s so, unless they swim, they're going to be around for another 40 years...)

That's where the new legislation moves/destroys the goalposts. Arguably the PEVs should never have been allowed to develop like this, but they have so developed, and that's where we are.

Posted by primroseleague at Wednesday, 19 October 2011 at 12:58pm BST

Not to mention the intention to disregard

". . and in public prayer and administration of the sacraments, I will use only the forms of service which are authorised or allowed by canon . "


and use the Roman Rite.

Posted by John Roch at Wednesday, 19 October 2011 at 3:54pm BST

Sara said, "Women tend to be less hypocritical/subtle/perspicatious/blind-sided/tradtionally reserved/hypocritical (choose one or more) than men. We are more used to seeing things all around, saying it like it is,being above board, being inclusive and so forth and so on, because we have been outside of everything for so many eons."

Oh, please.

I'm all for women bishops.

But in making our case, let's not make stereotyping claims that are entirely unsupported by any evidence whatsoever.

Posted by Jeremy at Wednesday, 19 October 2011 at 7:34pm BST

Primroseleague:

I guess that's my main point: that the PEV system should never have come about in the first place--either you declare "allegiance" to your diocesan or you don't. You don't get to choose what your diocesan believes (at least in the CoE; on this side of the pond, we vote on this stuff).

Posted by Pat O'Neill at Wednesday, 19 October 2011 at 9:01pm BST

To me, no matter how one would like to paint it, opposition to women in the ordained priesthood and episcopate incorporates two evil factors: misogyny and homophobia. It seems a highly dysfunctional Church that would go out of its' way to accommodate those who believe women can't perform these functions. There is a point where INTEGRITY and INCLUSIVENESS matter immensely. This is that time. Those who believe women inferior and can't perform these two offices in the Church, should either leave and form their own Church or join another Church that enshrines these two evil factors.

Posted by Chris Smith at Wednesday, 19 October 2011 at 10:00pm BST

To continue to accommodate the idea of a no-go area for Women Bishops creates the un-catholic ethos of a Church divided against itself. Two-tier diocesan bishops was never a 'catholic' principle.

This is why the whole idea of an 'Ordinariate' is so divisive - they end up being neither fish nor fowl in the scheme of things - able to evade whatever doesn't suit them from either perspective. Is that in any way edifying - to anyone?

Posted by Father Ron Smith at Wednesday, 19 October 2011 at 10:13pm BST

@Jeremy: the list (come on, a bit, but only a bit, tongue in cheek) wasn't intended as qualifications for the episcopate, but qualities or perception of qualities or attribution of qualities which make (some) men scared of breaking up the old boys club by letting in women.

Posted by Sara MacVane at Thursday, 20 October 2011 at 7:49am BST

V: "Come on over, the Tiber is lovely."

- Posted by: Clive on Sunday -

R1: Aye, but very, very narrow

R2: Anyway, the Ordinariate is neither one thing nor the other. How does one plant one foot in the Tiber and one in the Thames" Must be v.uncomfortable!

Posted by Father Ron Smith at Thursday, 20 October 2011 at 9:00pm BST

": "Come on over, the Tiber is lovely."

- Posted by: Clive on Sunday -

R1: Aye, but very, very narrow"

Not to mention just crammed with the bodies of those who disagree with the Emperor of Rome.

Posted by MarkBrunson at Friday, 21 October 2011 at 4:58am BST

Sara, I read your post as an assertion about men and women in general. In my view, countering stereotype with stereotype does not help.

And your response to me fudges three questions:
-- whether you meant to be humorous;
-- whether you meant to describe what some men think about women, or what you yourself think about women; and
-- whether you were describing perceptions of attributes or the attributes themselves.

There's such a thing as taking Anglican fence-sitting too far.

Perhaps you could clarify what you meant?

Posted by Jeremy at Saturday, 22 October 2011 at 3:07pm BST

"Anyway, the Ordinariate is neither one thing nor the other. How does one plant one foot in the Tiber and one in the Thames" Must be v.uncomfortable!"

Not true Ron - they are Latin Catholics in full communion with the Holy See. Many of these men are now functioning as parish priests in ordinary dioceses. Most of them seem delighted to have left behind the fighting and are keen to get on with the work of the Gospel.

Posted by William at Saturday, 22 October 2011 at 6:26pm BST

"Many of these men are now functioning as parish priests in ordinary dioceses." - William -

And are these Roman Catholic dioceses, william? If so, then I guess the men concerned have actually become R.C.s and are not Ordinariate clergy.

Posted by Father Ron Smith at Sunday, 23 October 2011 at 11:51am BST

Ron, there seems to be quite a bit of wrong information as to what the Ordinariate is - I know that many Anglicans don't agree with it, that is one thing. But the facts remain; Ordinariate clergy are Roman Catholics in the fullest possible sense. They bring with them their own history and culture and liturgical expression but they are now in full communion with the whole Church. This means that they can function as Catholic priests anywhere in the world. There is no sense at all that they are second rate or half baked. We welcome them with joy and hope to benefit from some of the gifts that they bring.

Posted by William at Sunday, 23 October 2011 at 5:54pm BST

No Fr Ron, they are Ordinariate clergy; just that several of them are now doing RC parish work alongside their Ordinariate ministry - along with filling RC slots in hospital chaplaincy, etc...

The Ordinariate is in full communion, therefore there is no difficulty.

Posted by primroseleague at Sunday, 23 October 2011 at 7:12pm BST

Thanks, William and Primroseleague, for the info.
If the Ordinariate is now fully integrated into the Roman Catholic Church, why is the Ordinariate so worried about funding? Surely the local Roman Catholic Church will provide all their needs - especially if Ordinariate clergy can officiate in R.C. churches. That surely will help to make up the deficiency in R.C. Ordinands coming forward.

Posted by Father Ron Smith at Monday, 24 October 2011 at 3:21am BST

Ron,
RC stipends are geared at supporting single men, many of the Ordinariate priests are married with children. Funding is a huge issue for them.

Posted by Erika Baker at Monday, 24 October 2011 at 8:38am BST

The main difference between the Anglican and Catholic system is that RC priests get funded by the parish to which they are attached. All clergy costs come from the parish itself rather than a central fund. If an Ordinariate priest is attached to a parish within the diocese then it would be fair to ask the parish to contribute - but otherwise they will have to fund themselves. Some of them may have to get secular jobs and I think provision has been made for this.

Posted by William at Monday, 24 October 2011 at 4:47pm 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.