Comments: Welsh Code for Women Bishops published

So the opponents will have to content themselves being served by male bishops, who may have had female bishops participate in their consecration!

Posted by robert ian williams at Wednesday, 17 September 2014 at 9:34pm BST

Having been at one of the consultation meetings in my diocese, I can witness to the strong feelings on both sides. ++Barry's address on behalf of the Welsh college of bishops is clear and balanced. I congratulate the bishops on the strong statement on catholicity so that there cannot be any question of there being two grades of bishop or of gender distinction or of alternative oversight undermining the diocesan's role and authority. The provision of sacramental support on a pastoral basis moves the issue away from arguments over legalities. Its reciprocal nature between the bishops specifically allows not only for those who cannot accept the sacramental ministry of a woman to receive confirmation and ordination from another bishop, but also those who wish to receive those sacraments from a woman bishop who is not their diocesan will be able to do so. All in all, and recognising that there will be those who will be disappointed, this has to be a good day in the life of the CinW.

Posted by Roger Antell at Wednesday, 17 September 2014 at 10:25pm BST

"So the opponents will have to content themselves being served by male bishops, who may have had female bishops participate in their consecration!"

'Have to content' sounds so begrudging! It is the desire on the part of opponents for the ministrations of such bishops that prompted the CiW to work so hard to develop a procotol ensuring their ongoing recourse to the same. (The presence of female co-consecrators is an academic question, since a consecration by only female bishops is difficult to imagine, and after all the opponents assure us that the sort of "theology of taint" which might make it a problem is unknown among them).

Posted by Geoff at Thursday, 18 September 2014 at 3:38pm BST

"No bishop shall be *obliged* to bring proceedings..." (my emphasis)

Am I alone in being concerned that this permits the possiblity that a bishop could choose so to do on those grounds?

Posted by Richard at Thursday, 18 September 2014 at 5:15pm BST

Richard, I'm not sure why provision 5 speaks to "members."

But I suspect that if a bishop knew that a rector dissented from a canon, then that bishop would be required to consider whether or how to proceed formally against that rector.

In other words, there seems here to be a special protection for people who dissent from this particular canon.

Posted by Jeremy at Friday, 19 September 2014 at 4:36pm BST

Thanks, Jeremy. That makes sense but I'd have felt decidedly more comfortable with "No bishop shall bring proceedings..."

Posted by Richard at Friday, 19 September 2014 at 9:49pm BST

It is interesting that in Wales it is "individual members" who will need to request alternative oversight, whereas in England it is complete congregations, or at least their PCCs.

I wonder how that will affect the dynamics going forward?


Posted by Simon Dawson at Saturday, 20 September 2014 at 11:22am 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.