Comments: Bush v Rochester

Perhaps I'm just a stupid American, but I just don't see why the status quo, with its A, B and (unofficially) C options won't be satisfactory with women bishops. I understand that FIF says it won't be satisfactory, but I can't for the life of me understand their argument.

Posted by Ruidh at Friday, 12 November 2004 at 9:02pm GMT

What I find so frustrating is the fact that the options listed don't really make a lot of sense.

People who want to see women bishops are not prepared to accept any artificial glass ceilings

Those who oppose them can only accept a Third province.

So, they are the two choices. We move ahead - which has to happen as there is no conceivable reason why women can be priests but not bishops

And we then decide if we are to set up a church within a church which further institutionalises discrimination.

I sincerely hope that the answer will be no.

Posted by Merseymike at Sunday, 14 November 2004 at 2:20pm GMT

Merseymike wrote:
"And we then decide if we are to set up a church within a church which further institutionalises discrimination."

But the answer may very well be "yes." It certainly happened here in the U.S. where we have a de facto "church within a church" (The Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes) who has institutionalized discrimination against gays and lesbians, and has a non-geographical "province" which also discriminates against women.

Posted by David Huff at Monday, 15 November 2004 at 6:25pm GMT

Ruidh wrote:

"Perhaps I’m just a stupid American, but I just don’t see why the status quo, with its A, B and (unofficially) C options won’t be satisfactory with women bishops. I understand that FIF says it won’t be satisfactory, but I can’t for the life of me understand their argument."

There are two pretty obvious reasons, I think.

The provision currently made is that the diocesan bishop remains the ordinary, and that extended episcopal oversight is provided on his behalf by the "flying bishop". This can work only on the basis that the diocesan bishop IS a bishop. So, if we imagine that the Bishop of Barchester "ordains" women, Fr Lacey-Cotter, the parish priest of Saint Sexburga's, Barchester, may believe that +Theophilus Barcestr: is a heretic and insist that his curate is ordained and his layfolk confirmed by the flying bishop, but he acknowledges that +Theophilus is the ordinary and that he IS a bishop whose sacramental actions, apart from the purported "ordination" of women, remain valid. If +Sharon Barcestr: is the "bishop", this is no longer the case.

Secondly, the provisions currently in place apply only to the ministry of women as priests. At present, if an American turns up in England identifying himself as Fr Elmer, whether or not he can function as a priest depends on whether his letters of orders originate from +Dave Dakota (valid) or +Nellie Nebraska (invalid). No provision is made for the refusal to allow male "priests" purportedly ordained by a hypothetical +Sharon Barcestr: to celebrate the Eucharist. So, Fr Lacey-Cotter could find himself no longer knowing whether he could accept as validly ordained priests other men apparently ordained in the C of E.

Alan Harrison

Posted by Alan Harrison at Friday, 19 November 2004 at 5:14pm GMT