Updated Friday morning and evening and Friday 7 June
Today’s issue of the Church Times has several articles about the latest proposals from the House of Bishops. Ed Thornton and Glyn Paflin report on them in Next step proposed on women bishops.
In Bleak outlook, says opponent Madeleine Davies reports on several responses to the proposals, in particular this one:
WHILE it might be “difficult for anyone to claim outright victory”, the way forward to women bishops mapped out by the House of Bishops, looked like “outright defeat”, the chairman of Reform, the conservative Evangelical network, Prebendary Rod Thomas, said on Tuesday…
And there is this Leader comment: No cheap trust.
Update
Yes2WomenBishops has issued several tweets including the following:
Church Times Leader gets a couple of important facts wrong. (1) senior women clergy were not at the last House of Bishops meeting and …
(2) proposal is NOT to pass the measure then develop the provisions for opponents – will all be done at the same time
So essentially the whole basis for the article is wrong!Here’s an excellent legal briefing on the oath of canonical obedience and why it is essentially meaningless http://ecclesiasticallaw.wordpress.com/2012/11/03/canonical-obedience/ …
Subsequently the Church Times has published a correction to its leader in response to point (1).
The paper copy of the Church Times dated 7 June 2013 carries this correction on page 8: ” The official women observers were not present at the last House of Bishops’ meeting, as we stated in last week’s leader comment. Also, “option one” allows for the provision for those who object to women bishops to be decided before final approval of the main Measure.”
0 CommentsChurch Society has issued a press release: Church Society calls on House of Lords to put the brakes on Same Sex Marriage Bill. The full text is copied below the fold.
more about Church Society here.
10 CommentsDiocese of Salisbury press release: Bishop restates gay marriage is an endorsement of the institution of marriage and “a matter of justice” which begins thus:
The Bishop of Salisbury writes today that “The possibility of ‘gay marriage’ does not detract from heterosexual marriage unless we think that homosexuality is a choice rather than the given identity of a minority of people. Indeed the development of marriage for same sex couples is a very strong endorsement of the institution of marriage.”
In a letter delivered to Lord Alli at the House of Lords, Bishop Holtam believes that civil partnerships have been a natural precursor of gay marriage being recognised in law: “Open recognition and public support have increased in civil partnerships those very qualities of life for which marriage itself is so highly celebrated. It is not surprising this now needs recognition in law.”
Replying to a letter from Lord Alli of Norbury who requested that Bishop Holtam clarify his position on the issue as a member of the House of Bishops for members of the Upper House, Bishop Holtam stresses that this issue is about justice: “In the current debates it is striking that within the Anglican Communion one of the strongest supporters of same sex marriage is Archbishop Desmond Tutu. From his experience of the racism of Apartheid he sees same sex marriage as primarily a matter of justice.”
Bishop Holtam states: “there are a variety of views within the Church of England where we are experiencing rapid change similar to that in the wider society. This is complex to express, partly because there are those who see this issue as fundamental to the structure of Christian faith.”
In his letter the Bishop of Salisbury also observes that the church has adapted its approach to marriage in light of social change including the widespread availability of contraceptives so that couples may choose to have children; the acceptance of divorce and possibility of marriage in church after divorce so that not all marriages are lifelong, and the acceptance of couples living together before marriage by a Church that still teaches sexual relationships are properly confined to marriage…
The full text of the letter from the Bishop of Salisbury to Lord Alli is available below the fold. It is also on the Diocese of Salisbury website (link in press release), and on the Daily Telegraph website.
Press reports:
Telegraph Edward Malnick Opponents of gay marriage like supporters of apartheid, says senior bishop
17 CommentsThe Bishop of Guildford, the Rt Revd Christopher Hill, announced today that he will retire in September.
7 CommentsLord Mackay of Clashfern who was Lord Chancellor, 1987-1997, delivered the Richard O’Sullivan Memorial Lecture, on behalf of Theos and Law and Justice: the Christian Law Review, on 9 May.
The text of the lecture has been published by Theos, and can be found here: Does Establishment have a Future?
The same page has links to recordings of the lecture itself, and the following Q&A session.
Last week, The Tablet carried an (unsigned) editorial comment about the impact of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill on the establishment of the Church of England. The full text of this article is, with the express permission of the Editor of The Tablet, reproduced below the fold.
12 CommentsRevised Tuesday lunchtime
Andrew Brown has analysed the proposals for the Guardian in Church of England leaders propose female bishops by 2015.
The bishops of the Church of England have published a plan to consecrate female bishops by 2015, after the defeat of legislation last autumn. It would end 20 years of bitter struggle with a clear decision in favour of progress.
The proposals, published on Friday and backed by both archbishops, offer a nearly complete victory for the female clergy and their supporters outraged by the failure of the earlier legislation…
Tom Heneghan Reuters Church of England unveils plan for women bishops in 2015
Jonathan Petre in the Mail on Sunday reports that Church leaders may ask Queen to dissolve Synod if it continues to oppose creation of women bishops.
Senior bishops have raised the prospect of asking the Queen to dissolve the Church of England’s ‘Parliament’, the General Synod, if it continues to oppose the creation of women bishops.
The unprecedented proposal was made in a confidential meeting chaired by the Archbishop of Canterbury last week and reflects Church leaders’ frustration with the Synod for narrowly defeating legislation in November to allow women priests to become bishops…
Ed Thornton and Glyn Paflin wrote in the Church Times House of Bishops sets out next steps on women in the episcopate.
…Speaking on Friday, Bishop Stock said that “we have a choice of proceeding by grace or by law. As you go down the options, more law goes into it. It seems wise to start with maximum grace and see where that gets us; that’s where the House of Bishops would like to start.”
Bishop Stock said that small-group facilitated discussions among Synod members would take place on the Saturday of the Synod’s meeting, and warned of the danger of returning to “a zero-sum game”. “We’re hoping people will not start to take positions and sides too soon. . . This is a real attempt to see how we can begin to honour each other rather than be suspicious of each other.”
He went on: “People now really do want to look at a more positive way of being together rather than being in separate silos where you have no real contact with each other. There are various signals about that, and a new way of working.”
It would be “entirely open to anybody to produce an amendment” in the Monday debate, but “the Bishops thought this is where we ought to start.”
The first response from the Conservative Evangelical wing was published by Cranmer’s Curate on Sunday and then, after one modification, taken down. It has now appeared here: CofE Hierarchy terrified of political backlash over women bishops and part of the article is copied below the fold.
16 CommentsThe Church of England has published this press release: New legislative proposals to enable women to become bishops published. The full text is copied below.
The proposals are contained in this document (PDF): Women In the Episcopate – New Legislative Proposals (GS 1886).
The report of the Working Group established by the House of Bishops is at the Annex of the document.
New legislative proposals to enable women to become bishops published
24 May 2013
The Church of England has published, today, new legislative proposals to enable women to become bishops which will be debated by the General Synod in July.
This will be the first occasion that Synod members have met since November 2012, when the previous legislation narrowly failed to secure the requisite majority in all three Houses, despite a 73% majority overall.
The proposals from the House of Bishops accompany the publication of a report of a Working Group which it had established in December. The Working Group’s report sets out four possible options for the shape of the new legislation. Of these the House of Bishops has recommended “the simplest possible legislation” (option one) which reads:
“A measure and amending canon that made it lawful for women to become bishops; and
“The repeal of the statutory rights to pass Resolutions A and B under the 1993 Measure, plus the rescinding of the Episcopal Ministry Act of Synod.”
In addition, option one involves arrangements for those who, as a matter of theological conviction, are unable to receive the ministry of women bishops or priests being set out either in a declaration from the House of Bishops or in a new Act of Synod.
The short report from the Archbishops on behalf of the House sets out the text of a motion which invites the Synod to reaffirm its commitment to admitting women to the episcopate as a matter of urgency, require the legislative process to begin in November so that it can be concluded in 2015 and specify that the legislation should be in the simplest possible form.
The Business Committee of the General Synod met earlier this week and has scheduled the debate for the morning of Monday, 8 July in York. In addition, Synod members will spend a substantial amount of time in York on the Saturday in facilitated conversations, in which the various options can be explored further.
The Chair of the Working Group, the Rt Revd Nigel Stock, Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich, said on behalf of the Group:
“The mandate given to the Working Group in December reflected the House of Bishops’ view that new proposals would need both greater simplicity and a clear embodiment of the principle articulated by the 1998 Lambeth Conference that ‘those who dissent from, as well as those who assent to, the ordination of women to the priesthood and episcopate are both loyal Anglicans’.
“This mandate did not simply reflect the House of Bishops’ assessment of what was achievable, it also reflected its view of what was desirable – namely that the Church of England should retain its defining characteristic of being a broad Church, capable of accommodating a wide range of theological conviction.”
Bishop Nigel continued:
“Given this range of views it is essential to be clear on whether the Church of England is still willing to leave space for those who dissent from its decision. We have approached our task on the basis that the Church of England is so willing.
“To expect unanimity on where the limits of diversity should be drawn may be unrealistic, given the variety of strongly held views which exist and are maintained with integrity. Nevertheless it is necessary to see whether there might be an approach which could command a sufficiently wide measure of assent to enable progress to be made.
“We are perhaps at a moment when the only way forward is one which makes it difficult for anyone to claim outright victory.”
Concluding his statement, Bishop Nigel said:
“The Synod, guided by the recommendation that the House of Bishops has now made, needs in July to come to a clear decision about the proposals and options laid before it and give a mandate for the introduction of a draft measure and amending canon in November.
“That decision-making process will be greatly assisted by all Synod members having first the opportunity in York for facilitated listening and engagement of the kind that the group has found so helpful in producing this report. To that end, we are grateful to the Business Committee for making space for this to take place on the Saturday of our July meeting.”
12 CommentsThe Church Times has this news article: Gay-marriage Bill passes from the Commons despite rebels which reports on what may happen in the House of Lords:
7 Comments…Lord Dear, a crossbencher who is expected to lead the opposition to the Bill in the House of Lords, told The Times that he might table a “fatal motion” to kill it off.
On Wednesday, the Bishop of Leicester, the Rt Revd Tim Stevens, who has led the bishops in the House of Lords on the issue, said: ”We clearly cannot support the Bill because it is contrary to the Church’s historic teaching on the nature of marriage.”
He said, however, that he would want to recognise “that the Government has done a great deal to accommodate some of the Church’s concerns, and to make it clear that individual clergy cannot be proceeded against by anybody”. “Hard work” had been done “to ensure that the Canons of the Church of England will not contravene the civil law of England”.
Bishop Stevens said that he intended to seek more concessions from the Government: further guarantees for teachers in church schools “to teach a traditional view of marriage”, and a “freedom-of-speech amendment to ensure those who argue for a traditional view of marriage are not treated as if they are in contempt of the law or behaving prejudicially”.
The Bill will receive its Second Reading in the House of Lords on 3 June. Bishop Stevens said that the House did not traditionally take a vote at this stage, but that this might happen. Individual bishops would then have to decide how to vote…
The timetable for the July group of General Synod sessions at York has been published. The business items are listed below. * against a time means “not later than”.
GENERAL SYNOD: JULY 2013 Timetable
Friday 5 July
[1-2.30 pm House of Laity]
4.15 pm – 6.15 pm
4.15 pm Opening worship
Formal business
Brief response on behalf of ecumenical guests
Business Committee Report
*5.25 pm Approval of appointments
*5.45 pm Presidential Address
8.30 pm – 10 pm
8.30 pm Questions
Saturday 6 July
9.30-1pm Reflection, discussion and worship in small groups
2.30 pm Further group discussion followed by private plenary session
8.30 pm – 10 pm
8.30 pm Progress on meeting the Challenges for the Quinquennium
Sunday 7 July
10.00 am Holy Communion in York Minster
2.30 pm – 6.15 pm
Legislative Business
2.30 pm Faculty Jurisdiction Rules
Miscellaneous Provisions Measure/Amending Canon No. 31 – Revision Stage
*5.00pm Safeguarding: Follow-up to the Chichester Commissaries’ Reports
8.30 pm – 10 pm
8.30 pm Welfare Reform and the Church
Monday 8 July
9.30 am – 1 pm
9.30 am Morning Worship
Women in the Episcopate: Report from the House of Bishops
Legislative Business Any items of legislative business from Special Agenda I proposed to be dealt with under the Procedure for Deeming will be debated at this point if a debate is required. If debate is not required on any of these items, the First Report by the Business Committee on the Work of the Elections Review Group will be taken.
2.30 pm – 6.15 pm
2.30 pm Legislative Business Yorkshire Diocesan Reorganisation
Financial Business Archbishops’ Council budget
8.30 pm – 10 pm
8.30 pm Farewell to the Bishop of Exeter
Church Commissioners Annual Report
Archbishops’ Council Annual Report
Tuesday 9 July
9.30 am – 1 pm
9.30 am Morning Worship
Legislative Business: Any unfinished business
The Work of the Elections Review Group: First Report by the Business Committee (if not taken on Monday)
Legislative Business Amending Canon and Amending Rules giving effect to the proposals contained in the First Report by the Business Committee on the Work of the Elections Review Group
The Work of the Elections Review Group: Possible changes to electorate for House of Laity and online voting: Second Report by the Business Committee
*12.30pm Farewell to the Bishops of Gibraltar in Europe, Hereford and Liverpool
Updated Saturday afternoon
St John’s Nottingham organised an event recently titled Diocesan Church Growth Strategies – A consultation for Southern Dioceses.
David Keen has published a series of articles on his blog about this event, which you can read starting with this one.
This link will take you to all the posts in reverse date order.
But see the update below for a much easier way to navigate through all this.
There are case studies from several dioceses in Southern England, including: Exeter, London. Coventry, Birmingham, and St Albans.
The Archbishop of Canterbury addressed the conference too.
And there is a final post on the role of the national church.
Update
There is now an overview post with links to all the others, at Diocesan Church Growth Strategies – Pulling it All Together.
The following statement was released tonight (scroll down).
Statement on Safeguarding from the House of Bishops of the Church of England
21 May 2013
In its discussions on the safeguarding of children and vulnerable adults during its meeting in York, the House of Bishops recognised the critical nature of safeguarding, discussed past failures and committed itself to a step-change in the way it is practised so as to enable the Church to fulfil its vocation as a place of safety for all. The House committed itself to creating a climate of transparency and trust with profound listening to survivors of past clerical and ecclesiastical abuse.
The House of Bishops considered the report and recommendations of the report of John Gladwin and Rupert Bursell QC to the Archbishop of Canterbury on the Diocese of Chichester and repeated the continuing best practise of the Church – as contained in current guidelines from 2004 – that there remains a duty on all clergy to report to relevant authorities and the police any allegation of abuse from a child or vulnerable adult.
Whilst supporting the continuing good work of diocesan child protection officers and the best practise of safeguarding guidelines currently in operation in the Church, there was also a recognition that there was no room for complacency particularly at a time when cases from past decades were being brought to light.
These steps included the undertaking of an audit of safeguarding provision in every diocese, the review of risk assessment procedures and the review and development of national core materials for safeguarding training. These measures will be accompanied by further work on proposals for legislative change which will be brought to the Archbishops’ Council.
0 CommentsThe following statement has been released tonight.
Statement on Women in the Episcopate from the House of Bishops of the Church of England
21 May 2013
At its meeting in York the House of Bishops of the Church of England has committed itself to publishing new ways forward to enable women to become bishops.
In its discussion on the issue of women in the episcopate, the House received and approved for publication the report from the Working Group on Women in the Episcopate which was set up on 11 December to prepare new legislative proposals following the General Synod’s rejection of the last legislation on 20 November 2012.
The report of the Working Group presented four new options as a way forward and proposed that the General Synod should consider those options at its meeting in July. The Working Group also proposed a timetable which would involve the legislation starting its formal stages in the Synod in November and receiving Final Approval in 2015.
The House of Bishops has agreed that the report of the Working Group should be published with a separate report from the Archbishops on behalf of the House setting out the House’s recommendations to the General Synod. The House has also asked the Business Committee of the General Synod to arrange for a substantial amount of time to be available at the General Synod in July for facilitated conversations in small groups before the Synod comes to a decision on the way forward.
The House also approved the necessary changes in its standing orders to ensure the attendance of senior women clergy at its meetings. These changes were proposed following the House’s decision at its meeting in December to ensure the participation of senior female clergy in its meetings until such time as there are six female members of the house, following the admission of women to the episcopate.
10 CommentsStephen Bates writes in today’s Diary column in the Guardian about that report.
Fulcrum has published an article by Andrew Goddard which is titled Men and Women in Marriage: Study or Ignore? It starts out this way:
6 CommentsUpdated Friday evening and again Sunday afternoon
Update Sunday afternoon The entire briefing paper has now been published as a press release here.
The Parliamentary Unit, Mission and Public Affairs Division and Legal Office of the Church of England, at Church House, Westminster has issued this briefing note. It begins this way:
The House of Commons will consider the Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Bill at Report Stage and Third Reading on Monday 20th and Tuesday 21st May.
A Church of England briefing for MPs in advance of the Bill’s Second Reading was published in February. That briefing summarised the principled reasons why the Church could not support the Bill and included a detailed Q&A on some of the more commonly asked questions (and misconceptions) about the impact of the legislation on the Church of England. It can be seen here.
This briefing should be read alongside the document produced for Second Reading and focuses on some of the issues that are likely to arise during debate on Report and Third Reading.
Summary
The Church of England cannot support the Bill, because of its concern for the uncertain and unforeseen consequences for wider society and the common good, when marriage is redefined in gender-neutral terms.
We are grateful for the positive way in which the Government has sought to engage with the Church of England on the detail of the Bill prior to Report and Third Reading.
We do not doubt the Government’s good intentions in seeking to leave each church and faith to reach its own view on same-sex marriage and offering provisions to protect them from discrimination challenges. The ‘quadruple lock’ does, in our view, achieve the Government’s policy intentions in this area and we believe it is essential that the various locks in the Bill are preserved. The Church of England, whose clergy solemnize around a quarter of all marriages in England, has not sought or been granted any greater safeguards in substance than those provided for other Churches and faiths.
In our Second Reading briefing we said:
“The Church of England recognises the evident growth in openness to and understanding of same-sex relations in wider society. Within the membership of the Church there are a variety of views about the ethics of such relations, with a new appreciation of the need for and value of faithful and committed lifelong relationships recognised by civil partnerships.”
“Civil partnerships have proved themselves as an important way to address past inequalities faced by LGBT people and already confer the same rights as marriage. To apply uniformity of treatment to objectively different sorts of relationship – as illustrated by the remaining unanswered questions about consummation and adultery- is an unwise way of promoting LGBT equality.”
“The continuing uncertainty about teachers, the position of others holding traditional views of marriage working in public service delivery, and the risk of challenges to churches in the European courts despite the protections provided, suggest that if the legislation becomes law it will be the focus for a series of continued legal disputes for years to come.”
Those concerns are now the subject of several amendments at Report and Third Reading.
The following commentary does not address specific amendments, but is a guide to Church of England concerns on the presenting issues…
The paper carries a footnote which reads:
It draws on the formal position on same-sex marriage as set out in the official Church of England submission to the Government’s consultation of June 2012, which was agreed by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, the House of Bishops and the Archbishops’ Council.
Update
A press release has been issued, titled Opposite-Sex Civil Partnerships. The full text is copied below the fold. The same wording is contained in the briefing paper.
24 CommentsUpdated Wednesday morning, Thursday morning
The Church Commissioners for England have issued their Annual Report and Accounts for 2012 today, together with a press release which is reproduced below. General Information about the Church Commissioners is available here.
Church Commissioners announce annual results for 2012
14 May 2013
The Church Commissioners have today published their full Annual Report and Accounts for 2012, announcing a 9.7 per cent total return on their investments during the year and confirming the fund’s strong long-term performance.
The Commissioners’ fund is a closed fund, taking in no new money, and has performed in line with or better than its target return of RPI +5.0% p.a. and its comparator group over the past, three, 10 and 20 years.**
Andrew Brown, Secretary to the Church Commissioners, said: “2012 has proved to be a better year for markets following 2011’s challenging environment and we have performed very satisfactorily. The fund grew by 9.7%, comfortably exceeding the inflation plus five per cent return target. The Assets Committee made wise decisions keeping away from certain longer term bonds, within equities our managers significantly outperformed the market and our residential and rural property holdings performed strongly.
“Much of our expenditure, representing 15 per cent of the cost of the Church’s mission, is devoted to clergy pensions, but in partnership with the Archbishops’ Council we aim also to invest in Church growth and in maintaining a nationwide Christian presence, identifying areas of need and opportunity in all contexts.”
The Commissioners – who contributed nearly £210 million in 2012 towards the cost of supporting the mission of the Church of England – manage assets which were valued at £5.5 billion at the end of 2012. More than half of their current distributions meet the cost of clergy pensions earned up to the end of 1997. The generous giving of today’s parishioners accounts for around £700m of the Church’s annual budget.
Writing in the report’s foreword Andreas Whittam Smith, First Church Estates Commissioner, reflected on the long term success of the fund: “The best way to judge the investment performance of an endowment fund like the Church Commissioners is to examine the results over a lengthy period of time. This shows whether the workings parts of the investment process are in good order.
“From 2003-2012 the Commissioners funds grew by 9.1% per annum. This exceeded our target, which was the rate of inflation in the period plus five percentage points, which was 8.3% per annum. Our performance was nearly a percentage point better than that of similar funds.
“Finally, in reviewing past performance, it is interesting to review the 20 year record. It would be difficult not to be proud of it. Inflation ran at 2.9% during the period. Add five percentage points to establish our target: 7.9%. The Commissioners’ assets, however, grew through this long 20-year period by 9.9%. In other words, a substantial amount of extra resources has been created to put at the service of the Church.”
The Commissioners’ overall 9.7 per cent return was achieved against a comparator performance of 8.4 per cent for 2012. Over the past 10 years, total returns averaged 9.1 per cent per year, against the comparator group’s 8.3 per cent per year. Over the past 20 years, the Commissioners outperformed the comparator group with an average annual return of 9.9 per cent against 7.8 per cent.
The Commissioners manage their investments within ethical guidelines with advice from the Church of England’s Ethical Investment Advisory Group.
The fund is held in a broad range of assets. Returns contribute to the ministry of each of the Church’s 44 dioceses by: paying for clergy pensions for service up to the end of 1997; supporting poorer dioceses with the costs of ministry; funding some mission activities; paying for bishops’ ministries and some cathedral costs; and funding the legal framework for parish reorganisation.
In 2012, the Church Commissioners continued to provide significant support to encourage the growth of the Church’s existing ministries and new opportunities. Along with the Archbishops’ Council the Commissioners have earmarked £12 million (2011-2013) for research and development funding to help understand better which parts of the Church are growing and why, and to seek to develop that growth.
The main items of expenditure were (with 2011 figures in brackets):
Notes
Watch the video on the work of the Church Commissioners and the 2012 annual results.
http://youtu.be/yUfDAxtuOog
** as measured overall these time periods by the WM All Funds universe.
The Church Commissioners picked up two awards at last month’s Portfolio Institutional awards: Best charity/endowment/foundation and Best investor in property –
http://www.portfolio-institutional.co.uk/interviews/ellison-picks-up-industry-achievement-gong-at-second-portfolio-institutional-awards/
Update
Three papers write about what the report has to say about Barclays Bank.
6 CommentsHannah Kuchler in the Financial Times Barclays let down society, says Church
Jill Treanor in The Guardian Barclays has ‘repeatedly let down society’, says Church of England
Victoria Ward in The Telegraph Church accuses Barclays of “letting down society”
Bishop Wallace Benn, who was Bishop of Lewes until October last year until his retirement, has this morning issued a public statement (dated 11 May) concerning the dismissal of complaints made against him under the Clergy Discipline Measure.
The full text of his statement is copied below the fold, and is also available here.
2 CommentsLucy Kellaway has interviewed the Archbishop of Canterbury for the Financial Times: Lunch with the FT: Justin Welby. “The Archbishop of Canterbury talks to Lucy Kellaway about baiting bankers, trusting God over Google and having pizza delivered to Lambeth Palace.”
It’s well worth reading.
13 CommentsUpdated Saturday afternoon and Sunday morning
Madeleine Davies reports in the Church Times on a joint investigation by The Times and The Australian: C of E accused of cover-up over child abuse.
The Times story is behind its paywall, but other UK media have online reports.
David Batty in The Guardian Church of England facing new child abuse allegations
Rob Williams in The Independent Former Archbishop of York accused of covering up allegations of Church of England abuse
Alice Philipson in The Telegraph Former Archbishop of York accused of covering up abuse allegations
BBC Lord Hope denies abuse claim ‘negligence’
update
The Archbishop of York has issued the following statement.
Robert Waddington – Independent Inquiry To Be Established
Saturday 11th May 2013A statement from the Office of the Archbishop of York regarding allegations relating to the late Robert Waddington follows…
‘The Archbishop of York is in the process of setting up an Independent Inquiry specifically into the issues surrounding the reports relating to alleged child abuse by the late Robert Waddington. When any church related abuse comes to light the Church’s first concern must be for the victim offering support and apologising for the abuse, acknowledging that the effects can be lifelong. When the Inquiry makes its report the Archbishop will make its findings public. The Church of England continues to review its Child Protection and Safeguarding policies regularly to ensure that the Church is a safe place for all. Child abuse is a heinous and personally damaging crime, it is therefore incumbent on the Church to treat such matters with the utmost seriousness.’
Notes to Editors:
1. The Terms of Reference and membership of the independent inquiry will be announced in due course.
2. The Archbishop of York is not available for further comment on this matter at the current time.
The Sunday papers carry reports of the setting up of an inquiry.
4 CommentsJamie Doward in The Observer Church to set up inquiry into claims of abuse by former dean of Manchester
Josie Ensor in The Telegraph Archbishop of York to launch inquiry into Church sex abuse claims
BBC News Inquiry into CofE cleric abuse claim set up
The final event in this year’s Westminster Faith Debates series took place last week. The debate itself is reported here.
As explained in the advance press release
A YouGov poll commissioned for the final 2013 Westminster Faith Debate on assisted suicide this Thursday sheds light on the reasons people have for supporting or opposing a change in the law on assisted suicide – a change which would make it possible to help someone with an incurable disease die without risk of prosecution for doing so.
And it continues with this:
Most religious people ignore their leaders and support a relaxation of the law.
An absolute majority of religious adherents – i.e. those who identify with a religious tradition – support assisted suicide: 64% of religious people support a change in the law on euthanasia, 21% think the law should be kept as it is, 14% don’t know (sums to 99 due to rounding).
The only constituencies for which this is not true are Baptists, Muslims and Hindus. (See Appendix 3)
Adherents of all other traditions favour a change in the law. In doing so many are rejecting the official message given by their religious leaders.
- Anglicans are in favour of change by a margin of 57% (total in favour 72%) – which is greater even than the general population at 54% (total in favour 70%). Only those who say they have those “no religion” show greater support – by a huge margin of 72% (total in favour 81%).
- Roman Catholics are in favour of change by a margin of 26%,
- Jewish people are in favour of change by a margin of 48%
- Although many Hindus don’t know, those with a view are in favour of change by a margin of 8%.
Those who actively participate in a church or other religious group – rather than merely identifying with a religion – also support change (49% support, 36% against, 15% don’t know; see Appendix 3 for a breakdown by tradition)
Those who say they have “no religion” are most likely to support a change in the law – 81% for, 9% against. The vast majority (87%) do so because they believe in a person’s right to choose when to die.
The full results of that survey are available (PDF).
The survey is discussed in some detail by Clive Field in an article at British Religion in Numbers titled Assisted Dying and Other News
The British public overwhelmingly (70%, with just 16% in disagreement) favours a change in the law to enable persons with incurable diseases to have the right to ask close friends or relatives to help them commit suicide, and without those friends or relatives running the risk of prosecution (as is currently the case). Moreover, while those who profess no religion are especially likely (81% versus 9%) to support reform, even people of faith back it overall (64% versus 21%), with the conspicuous exception of Muslims, who take the contrary line (by 55% to 26%). A plurality (49%, with 36% against) of individuals who actively participate in a religious group also wants to see the law amended. Not until we reach the ‘strict believers’ – the 9% of the population who take their authority in life from religious sources, who certainly believe in God, and who actively participate in a religious group – is there a religious core hostile to legalizing assisted dying and thus in tune with the teaching of many mainstream faiths and denominations. These believers’ motivations are that ‘human life is sacred’ (80%) and/or ‘death should take its natural course’ (69%).
… Assisted dying has been a contested matter for decades. The campaign organization now known as Dignity in Dying was founded as the Voluntary Euthanasia Legalisation Society as far back as 1935. Soon afterwards, in 1937, Gallup conducted the first opinion poll on the subject, asking its sample whether ‘doctors should be given power to end the life of a person incurably ill’, and finding that 69% thought that they should. The proportion in favour of physician-assisted suicide has grown since, hovering around four-fifths in six British Social Attitudes Surveys from 1983 to 2008; in 2008 it stood at 82% (90% for those of no religion, 85% for Anglicans, 75% for Catholics, 70% for other Christians, and 63% for non-Christians). Endorsement of non-doctor-assisted suicide has run at a somewhat lower but still high level; a question worded not dissimilarly to that in the Westminster Faith Debates poll, asking about a change in the law to enable friends and relatives to assist in a suicide, was posed by YouGov on five occasions between 2008 and 2012, recording majorities for legislative reform of between 68% and 74%. However, it should be noted that the public is less approving of suicide in instances where an incurable disease does not exist; indeed, in the most recent (January 2013) Angus Reid poll only 29% of Britons deemed suicide in general to be morally acceptable.
Today’s Church Times publishes a letter from Professor Linda Woodhead under the headline Unhelpful comments from Church House in which she says that “the Church of England’s Communications Office is making the C of E look ridiculous”.
3 Comments…The C of E Communications Office simply attacked the survey (which it did not ask to see), and concluded: “This survey adds nothing of value to the current complex debate on assisted suicide, but seeks to reduce to ‘sound-bites’ issues that deserve proper and full consideration.”
In fact, the survey adds considerable new knowledge. Its findings were extensively debated at the Westminster Faith Debate on euthanasia last week. It was also featured in The Times, the Telegraph and Guardian, BBC News Online, The Washington Post, the BMJ, on Radio 4, and elsewhere.
Last week, another large poll reported in The Independent found that many single Christians felt isolated and out of place in their congregations. A C of E spokesperson (unnamed) commented: “If the church doesn’t fit then try another one.”
“Get lost” is not a good message for the Church to give, whether directed at serious research, or at the Christians whose views it reports.
In the Independent today there is an article by Frank Field MP titled The new Archbishop should stop this gesture politics. It begins:
It is about time the Church became serious about politics. The debacle over its opposition to the Government’s welfare reform programme offers the new Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, a God-given opportunity to totally reshape the role of bishops in the House of Lords.
A week before the House of Lords voted on key aspects of the Government’s welfare cuts [in March], 43 bishops issued a statement to the effect that this was the most vicious attack on children since Herod slaughtered the innocent. The welfare cuts are serious in the impact they will have on the living standards of some families, but let’s leave aside the judgment as to whether the cuts were almost of a criminal nature. What did the bishops do?
And it continues with this:
…Why doesn’t the Archbishop introduce his own House of Lords Reform Bill? It would surrender most of the bishops’ places that lie unused which should then be redistributed to the different denominations. This bill should give the Archbishop the power to appoint bishops and senior women to the places that would be designated to Anglicans.
Included in the redistribution of seats should be those groups who assert that they have no faith in a Godly presence, but have shown themselves to be concerned about the ethical standards by which individuals and groups live their lives. It would be up to those groups to elect their representatives. If they fail to do so they will find that the political tide runs strongly against them.
Such a move would set both the temper and basis for further reform. It would speak loudly on how voters regard representation as being a fundamental part of our democracy. It would also set in hand how the new House of Lords would be elected, but not on absurd party lines…
The Independent also has a news report about this, Exclusive: Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, urged to scrap most bishops’ seats in House of Lords
A Church of England spokesman said: “This article is an interesting contribution to debate but it does not look as if there is a favourable political context for returning to the subject of constitutional reform just at the moment.” Lambeth Palace did not comment.
Some Church figures believe that Mr Field has misunderstood the way the bishops in the Lords work, saying they do not “vote as a bloc”. They said six bishops voted a total of 14 times on welfare on 19 March.
And an editorial: Editorial: The bishops in the House of Lords are the least of the problem.
There is a curious mistake running through all three of these pieces, namely that the number of seats for bishops is misstated. The correct number is 26.
4 Comments