Comments: General Synod - Wednesday's business

The BBC and the Irish Times et al do not seem to have realised that the current legislation before General Synod IS a compromise.What is being proposed today by Manchester Diocese and the Archbishops is NOT a compromise. It is a step beyond and a step too far What the Bishop of Bath and Wells wants is the legislation and NOT the step too far

Posted by Jean Mayland at Wednesday, 8 February 2012 at 12:41pm GMT

Totally opaque to me what is really going on. Nevertheless, it seems that this really is a decisive moment: the moment when the C of E has to decide whether or not to 'cut slack' to those who, otherwise emotionally and religiously committed to the C of E (which the great majority of them are), either reject or are unsure about WO, especially women bishops. I would remind readers that at our recent requiem mass for much loved gay parishioner women priests and FiF lay people worked together in the altar space. That remains my C of E. It is many others' as well. It is supremely worth fighting for.

Posted by john at Wednesday, 8 February 2012 at 8:26pm GMT

If I am understanding this correctly, motion 13, as amended is exactly the opposite of motion 13 as proposed? Depending on what "substantially" means?

Posted by Tobias Haller at Wednesday, 8 February 2012 at 8:55pm GMT

Jean's comment here is an important reminder that the Draft Measure already approved by the last General Synod Meeting, and substantially approved by the subsequent Diocesan Synods; is already a compromise: allowing the opponents of Women Bishops and Clergy to access non-diocesan episcopal ministry at the discretion of the female Diocesan Bishop.

Any further compromising of the Diocesan Bishop's authority - such as is being advocated by the Archbishops' amendment (and Manchester's support of the amendment) must surely be a step too far.

The resultant 2-tier episcopate would not lead to 'Unity' within the Church of England. Nor would it find any equivalence with the Anglican Communion.

Posted by Father Ron Smith at Wednesday, 8 February 2012 at 10:08pm GMT

With those voting figures.. I think the measure will not receive a two thirds majority in July.

Posted by Robert ian Williams at Thursday, 9 February 2012 at 9:00am GMT

Robert- never despair until the last minute.We have been here before

Posted by Jean Mary Mayland at Thursday, 9 February 2012 at 10:29am GMT

RIW, on final drafting it just did.

Posted by Jeremy at Thursday, 9 February 2012 at 12:30pm GMT

I am indebted to the editors of TA - most of the time. I'm not a Synod best, but am passionately concerned about the women bishops legislation. I am abroad, and relying on TA to find out what's going on this week- and, in truth, I don't really understand what has actually happened. I wish someone would explain in lay terms... Has Manchester been kicked out of touch- I wish I knew! Didn't realise how dumb I was!

Posted by Dominic Barrington at Thursday, 9 February 2012 at 9:38pm GMT

Also indebted to TA for the coverage, making it easy to follow from Canada. As an outside observer, I do find it remarkable how the Church of England manages to continue to find "wiggle room" within ever narrower and narrower spaces, such that when we thought we really had got down to one way or the other, yet a third way was again pulled like the proverbial rabbit from the hat. Will it be enough for Anglo-Catholics to stay with integrity? Time will tell, but I doubt it will mean any further concessions to them. Experience in the other provinces tells us that the traditionalists will be hounded out, probably within a few years. The Code will be ineffective - the first female bishops will play ball for a while with it and then gradually stop, and they'll say "so sue me" and the parishes in question won't be able to afford judicial review, and so it goes.

While I don't think that's right, and people like Fr. Ron who are so contemptuous of traditionalists drive me crazy on a personal level, what it really leaves me wondering is why anyone of the Catholic persuasion would want to stay any longer. They are not wanted, they are not welcome, they are wilfully misunderstood, mischaracterised and insulted in this and other forums.

I find it sad to see so many old friends putting themselves through that when the fight is so clearly lost. The signpost labelled "integrity" points to the Ordinariate.

Posted by Clive at Friday, 10 February 2012 at 4:24am GMT

"The signpost labelled "integrity" points to the Ordinariate" - Clive, on Friday -

That, then, must be called the 'Third Integrity'.
The Church of England, sadly, has already enshrined 2 of them. Let's hope an undiluted Code of Practice that allows Women Bishops to be fully Bishops in the Church, will reduce the integrities in the Church of England to just one - based on Truth & Justice.

Posted by Father Ron Smith at Friday, 10 February 2012 at 9:54am GMT

Is 'Truth and Justice' what classic Christian thought has labelled 'Law'?

Is it 'righteousness'?

Or is it a Lockian idea/abstraction, pointing to power and its allocations?

Posted by c.r.seitz at Sunday, 12 February 2012 at 2:18pm GMT

You mean, Christopher, like the "Anglican Communion Institute" - another Lockian abstraction ?

Posted by Father Ron Smith at Sunday, 12 February 2012 at 10:21pm GMT

What a puerile comment. I apologise if my point was too obscure for you to track, but it was not delivered in jest.
My hunch is that when Christian theologians speak about the character of 'law' -- how it works 'all the way down' in the case of the 'second use' or 'theological use' of the law -- they are getting at something meant now by your appeal to 'Truth and Justice.' But of course when Luther spoke of Law in this way, he meant that it exposed all of us. One could not be 'on the side' of Law. I doubt that one can genuinely be 'on the side' of Truth and Justice. All 'Truth and Justice' can do is expose us as sinners in need of grace. Hence the psalmist when he speaks of mercy and justice kissing each other. Truth and Justice cannot embrace each other. They can only up the ante and point to a Cross.
Locke of course formulated his account of Ethics in a different universe than Paul's Letter to the Romans or Luther's account of Law and the human will.

Posted by c.r.seitz at Monday, 13 February 2012 at 10:15pm GMT

Appears my comment was trashed.

ED NOTE: Retrieved and published.

Posted by c.r.seitz at Tuesday, 14 February 2012 at 1:00pm GMT

One man's trash is another person's gold.

Sorrow, Christopher, If I've offended you. I can only embrace you - as one sinner does another.

Pace!

Posted by Father Ron Smith at Thursday, 16 February 2012 at 11:56pm GMT
Post a comment









Remember personal info?






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

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