Chartres has retired so shouldn't that be vacant not absent?
Interested that Bishop Mike Bristol was absent
I notice Susannah Leafe amongst the laity who voted against which looks like a "it was too liberal" vote to me
The See of London is not vacant until the end of the month.
Votes from Libby Lane, Rachel Treweek and Christine Hardman in favor of a report that sought to maintain institutional homophobia ought to put to rest the sexist nonsense about women bringing a new, caring (or worse, "nurturing") perspective. Instead, they're equal to their male colleagues in all things, and that ain't a compliment.
James, you cannot argue that a vote to Take Note constitutes an endorsement of the content of the report. Speaker after speaker who said they were going to vote for taking note also made trenchant criticisms of its content.
As mentioned in an earlier comment, the Bishop of London's resignation from his see is not effective until 28 February, so he was technically absent. But the informal convention is that a bishop does not normally take part in formal church business after his/her farewell service, and for London this was on 2 February.
A reliable source has informed me that three bishops (Birmingham, Bristol and Rochester) were absent for various good reasons having nothing to do with the matter at hand.
re James's comment on women bishops' voting:
on a quick tot-up, male clergy voted 3 to 2 to 'take note'. Female clergy, in strong contrast, voted over 4 to 1 against against taking note. I'm certainly not going to give a 'sexist nonsense' about 'women bringing a new, more caring perspective' interpretation. But it is rather a striking contrast. Without female clergy the whole Synod would have 'taken note'.
Isn't part of the problem interpreting the outcome that people voted against taking note for a wide range of (sometimes quite opposite) reasons? Some clearly wanted a much more radical way forward, others felt the report went too far from the church's current stance. Of course the vote means the Synod must start again, but isn't that just a change of PROCESS? It doesn't mean that any particular OUTCOME is more (or less) likely.
I wouldn't argue that taking note's an endorsement, Simon, but the hierarchy would've, as they've done previously. You're right, some supporters of equality did vote in favor (as some traditionalists voted against). However, the House of Bishops knew how things were going down, which is why they lobbied so hard in favor, and the new OBOF lobbied so hard against.
That's interesting, Fr. Rob. There could be some subtler gender differences at work, but another possibility's that it breaks down by tradition, and more male clergy are more conservative (due to beliefs about headship and the apostolic succession, generally conservative women are less likely to put themselves forward for ordination).
Taking note of this report would have become an endorsement, because everyone knew the hierarchy would have portrayed it that way. See Archbishop Welby's portrayal of the recent ACC vote to "receive" his report on the primates' meeting. He portrayed it as endorsing the "consequences" the primates had urged. But that is not at all what the ACC intended.
As a result, the Achbishop's inaccurate portrayal of deliberative outcomes has caused Synod to think more carefully about how it deliberates on what the Bishops put in front of it.
And Synod's vote not to take note is _certainly_ a rejection of the Bishops' report. We can disagree about a vote to take note, but a vote _not_ to take note is quite clear. There's no way to silk-purse that sow's ear--in fact, the argument is even stronger if "taking note" is almost meaningless.
Remember: The Bishops couldn't muster up a majority-of-houses vote in favor of something that the Bishops were, at the same time, trying to portray as inconsequential.
Seems to me as though Synod thought that taking note was consequential, and that it shouldn't take note.
I wonder; is one factor in this equation re women's voting on the Bishop's report the possibilty that the women bishops who voted 'For' were likely to have been appointed bishops because of their conservatism ? Just Asking!
"Taking note of this report would have become an endorsement, because everyone knew the hierarchy would have portrayed it that way. See Archbishop Welby's portrayal of the recent ACC vote to "receive" his report on the primates' meeting. He portrayed it as endorsing the "consequences" the primates had urged. But that is not at all what the ACC intended."
There is another factor. "Maximum flexibility" was, deliberately I think, left undefined. That worried both conservatives and liberals. Leaving key terms to be decided after a vote is a common - if unsavoury tactic - of managers forced to govern through committee. Weak managers like it because they think they can then get controversial decision through a committee by hiding how controversial their proposal is; strong managers knows it builds resentment and are far more open with committees.
Father Ron Smith. Except that they are not conservative actually. And in the debate one of the two diocesans admitted to having changed her mind.
There seem to be quite a lot of absent bishops. Is that more than normal? I wonder if people feel it's better to be absent than to abstain.
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.