House of Bishops responds to Independent Reviewer’s report
on Thursday, 24 April 2025 at 2.03 pm by Peter Owen
categorised as Church of England
A report by the Independent Reviewer, Canon Maggie Swinson, on the process leading to the nomination of the Bishop of Blackburn, Philip North, was published twelve months ago; we linked to it here. The House of Bishops has today issued a formal response to this report and it is copied below the fold.
House of Bishops responds to Independent Reviewer’s report
24/04/2025
The House of Bishops has issued a formal response to the Independent Reviewer’s report on the submission from WATCH (Women and the Church) regarding the appointment of diocesan bishops who do not ordain women as priests.
The House expressed its gratitude to the Independent Reviewer for the work undertaken in producing the report and acknowledged the importance of the concerns raised.
Recognising the need for further reflection and action, the House agreed on the following key points:
- The House reaffirms that the flourishing of women as priests and bishops is integral to the outworking of the Declaration and the Five Guiding Principles. Ensuring that mutual flourishing is possible extends beyond the remit of the Independent Reviewer and requires additional provision to support this.
- The House acknowledges that more work is required to consider the provision for reviewing situations related to the Declaration that are impacting the ministry of women as priests and bishops, as well as those who fully support their ministry. The House is grateful to the Independent Reviewer for drawing attention to this issue.
- The House notes that any changes to the Declaration, including those related to the role of the Independent Reviewer, require consultation with General Synod and would necessitate two-thirds majorities in all three Houses. Care must be taken to ensure that any further provisions for reviewing situations relating to the Declaration and supporting mutual flourishing do not unintentionally undermine the 2014 Declaration.
- To address these concerns, the House has asked the Standing Commission to consider these issues in greater detail and propose options for improving the provision for ordained women and the reviewing of situations relating to the Declaration and their ministry.
- The report also highlights the importance of considering all diocesan bishops’ appointments in relation to the vacancy in see process. It has reminded the House of previous recommendations by a former Independent Reviewer and the Implementation and Dialogue Group regarding the theological and pastoral implications of episcopal appointments. The House is committed to exploring further work in this area.
The House remains committed to ensuring that all traditions within the Church can continue to flourish together.
Should have sorted out the theological issues beforehand- LLF please note!
It’s difficult to ‘sort out’ the theological issues fully before seeing what happens in practice, and the questions WATCH raised were around practicalities like the position of a suffragan in the appointment of a diocesan bishop. While FAOC published a booklet in 2018 – https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2018-02/5-guiding-principles.pdf – with an interesting discussion question about whether you’d like to add a Sixth Guiding Principle, this was not a full response to Sir Philip Mawer’s 2017 ‘Sheffield report’ which included Recommendation 1: I recommend that the House of Bishops commissions a group with balanced membership to review what has been done; distil examples of… Read more »
A group was set up to consider this report from the Independent Reviewer – the Implementation and Dialogue Group. I haven’t tracked down the report yet (it will be in Synod paper somewhere!) and would not really have given priority to reading it all again at the moment! The group appointed to do this completed the report in the autumn of 2019 and submitted it to the H of B. They were then told it did not have enough positive examples. (positive examples of “mutual flourishing working”) Some extra work was done to find positive examples and it was resubmitted… Read more »
Same old same old. The C of E really can’t bear to look at what it does to people.
For those of us who aren’t deeply steeped in the miniuiate of the process here, why did it take over a year for this rather bland response to be formulated and issued?
Reply to Interested Observer. A good question. The minutes of the January meeting of the House of Bishops [HB(25)M1], now available at house-of-bishops-january-2025_0.pdf, disclose that, apparently, this was the first meeting of the House at which the Swinson report on Blackburn diocese was considered: see paragraph 4 at pages 4-6. At least one bishop (not identified) stated that “In considering the specific case the Independent Reviewer had acted beyond her remit.” (para 4.2.3). The House agreed the ‘public response to the report’ – see para 4.4 – but was was divided over the “proposals for diocesan plans”, introduced by the… Read more »
Could the answer possibly, by any chance, be linked to the fact that WATCH has just had a conference, at the end of March, pushing forwards their call for there to be a review of the 2014 Settlement (because it hasn’t been managed and made to work for women, and because it’s actually unethical)? So “Help, we bishops need to look busy! Issue something.Throw some crumbs. Just enough crumbs to make them think we’ll do something. But don’t say anything substantive (which might commit us to actually achieving something) don’t encourage a synodical discussion about whether it has actually failed,… Read more »
It has taken them 12 months to formulate this? Seriously?! No wonder some comment on the paucity of candidates of quality for episcopal appointments.
Thank- you Helen for throwing a little more light on the subject. The HOB’s response is indeed bland and long overdue – we might have heard comments like that about the standard C of E can-kicking response to other difficult subjects, usually safeguarding, so maybe there is little to surprise us here. On the other hand how serious the blandness is probably depends on your gender and whether you did actually hope for an answer. To me it looks little short of insulting- and I am a mere old lady sometimes in a pew. The way I look at it,… Read more »
I’ve said before there should be a review of the CNC process and this makes the case even stronger. Ive said that because of multiple failures to appoint/withdrawl of the Durham candidate, why arent appointments being made. If there is still mutual flourishing how will recommendation 4 work. if it just focuses on women priests, why aren’t those who hold conservative views being included. I know a vocation isn’t an ambition. but if I was a conservative priest who felt called to be a bishop are the only sees i can apply to the “flying” ones? Is there a bishop… Read more »
I read it as being what needs to be done if the candidate for a diocesan position refuses to ordain women to provide alternative provision to women priests in that diocese. So I am not sure what would need to be included for conservatives here. They have such provision already.
Of course this is all just a massive mess. I maintain that you really can have a church that truly accepts female ordination and consecration when its leaders do not. Mutual flourishing is a fundamentally flawed principle in this regard.
The CNC process was reviewed in General Synod just two months ago.
I read this earlier and couldn’t decide whether my inability to grasp what the document meant reflected my unfamiliarity with the background or the fact that it had been produced by a specially designed but of AI programmed to produce meaningless soothing dribble
I find the statement by the House of Bishops deeply depressing and indicative of Church in terminal decline. I am strongly in favour of “all traditions within the Church continuing to flourish together” but that does not mean that a bishop opposed to the ordination of women should ever be appointed as a diocesan bishop because it makes absolutely no sense. If you “do not ordain women as priests” that means you do not believe women can be priests and consequently their ordination is invalid or at the very least seriously in doubt. A diocesan bishop has administrative and pastoral… Read more »
I completely agree with you
I agree with you totally. Thank you .
David: According to the earlier independent review into the Sheffield selection, Bishop North’s personal view seems to be roughly: (1) ordaining women is such a significant shift that it ought only be done by consensus of the worldwide Christian church; (2) this “may be the way the Spirit is calling the church,” but the worldwide consensus that he believes is important does not currently exist; and (3) when the Church of England ordains women despite tbe absense of a worldwide consensus, these ordained women are nevertheless priests. That may be less incompatible with being a diocesan bishop (in comparative terms)… Read more »
The worldwide Christian church card is pure bluff. There are too many splinters for any consensus. What is really meant is that it would not meet with approval of Roman Catholic Church & would thus be a barrier to illusory chance of reunion between CofE & RC. To show how irrelevant this issue is to CofE/RC relations note that the Swedish Lutheran Church went all out for women (no 5 GP claptrap) well before CofE without any change in its relationship with RC, & its priestly & episcopal orders have never been condemned by any Pope (unlike CofE).
It may be true, as you say, they have never been condemned by any pope, but that is not the same as being recognised.
No “may” about it, it is true. Moreover the far easier Swedish Lutheran relationship with Rome was not even impacted by having a female primate, Antje Jackelén, from 2013-2022.
Yes, but does Rome recognise their orders. Are they in sacramental Communion?
I think the real question here is why some English priests and bishops claim their objection to female priests is because they’re waiting for Rome, when Rome has gone out of its way to condemn their own orders.
Exactly. Moreover thanks to the Porvoo agreement the Swedish Church and the CofE have been in full sacramental communion (fully interchangeable ministries) since 1995. Perhaps more surprisingly the Swedish Church are also in full sacramental communion with the Old Catholics (the ones that Eric Kemp was so proud to have laying on hands at his consecration, thus making it truly ‘Catholic’). As I understand it the problem for the CofE is that because its orders have been infallibly condemned that action can never be revoked. By contrast the Swedish Church, although currently in a sort of limbo with its orders… Read more »
For what it’s worth, I don’t think the condemnation of Anglican orders is deemed to be a papal infallible declaration.
The only declaration that is generally accepted an infallible since the 1870 Vatican I proclamation of the doctrine of papal infallibility is the 1950 declaration of Pius XII concerning the Assumption of Mary.
That being said, I seriously doubt if the RCC, having publicly declared Anglican orders invalid, whether as an infallible declaration or not, is going to publicly change its mind any time in the foreseeable future.
We possibly need the services of a canon lawyer on this question, but Leo XIII seems to me pretty unbending in Apostolicae Curae, saying: ”40. We decree that these letters and all things contained therein shall not be liable at any time to be impugned or objected to by reason of fault or any other defect whatsoever of subreption or obreption of our intention, but are and shall be always valid and in force and shall be inviolably observed both juridically and otherwise, by all of whatsoever degree and preeminence, declaring null and void anything which, in these matters, may… Read more »
What is “infallible” or not is admittedly a bit squishy. See the Wikipedia article on the subject. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility One list includes only two “infallible” declarations in the last 200 years, the one on the Assumption of Mary, previously mentioned, and the other on the Immaculate Conception of Mary, in 1854. That accords with pretty much everything I’ve ever read on the subject. The main dispute is whether statements on the ordination of women are “infallible” statements or not. My reading on the subject indicates that most theologians do not think those statements were technically “infallible.” Though I seriously doubt Rome… Read more »
Agreed!
There’s a delightful story, which I have no reason to disbelieve, that when Pope Benedict made his State Visit to the United Kingdom in 2010 the Papal Master of Ceremonies Mgr Marini packed in the suitcase, and Benedict wore, the Papal stole of Leo XIII. Whether intentional or not, the significance of this wasn’t lost at the time!
My impression, backed by a statistical sample of one, is that those priests who have moved from Anglicanism to Rome are the most virulent in their attacks on the priesthood of Anglican priests. The old joke is that the Anglican high church is more high than Roman Catholics. I have no idea if this continues to be a joke. What Rome thinks is for Rome. It is not a single voice. It is not static. [I hope that one day ‘Rome’ will be sensible and allow female priests. Who knows, God works in mysterious ways. I see nothing scriptural or… Read more »
Thanks for that clarification Edward. However that still means that Bishop North thinks that women shouldn’t be ordained as priests ? I think a good diocesan bishop should try to equally value all clergy in his care. For that reason being a diocesan bishop in the Church of England requires particular skills so that “all traditions within the Church can continue to flourish together”. At the very least refusing to ordain women will surely make women clergy in the diocese feel uncomfortable and undervalued? For that reason I feel that bishops “who do not ordain women” should be ineligible for… Read more »
And in cases where the diocesan bishop does not ordain women, and his views that women should not be priests are widely known, a female parish priest’s authority is undermined. Alternatively, the bishop’s authority is undermined in the eyes of those who disapprove of his views. Neither is a good scenario.
Martin Warner’s mental gymnastics are quite something. He will fob-off a pro-women group by saying that he “cannot say that nothing happens at female ordination”, and will make token female priests into canons of Chi Cathedral, but he will never concelebrate, and he will only ordain those now rare male priests who do not accept female orders
When Martin Warner installed me as Priest-in-Charge of a parish in January 2010, he conducted the service without ever using the word ‘priest’. Shepherd, pastor, minister, but not priest. I think he got his knuckles rapped for it, because after that he did use the word ‘priest’ of female clergy.
Typical Martin Warner. Although he made some apparently liberal noises to calm the waters when he arrived at Chi, once he got settled he reverted to full-on Society. His retirement by age comes up in three & a half years and it will be interesting to see whether CofE will inflict yet another Society bishop on Chi. We have had them continuously since 1974 – Kemp, Hind, Warner.
At least he’s too old for Canterbury.
Although I take your point Francis, Vanessa Baron is far from a token at the Cathedral in Chichester. I, and many many others are wonderfully blessed by her ministry.
Warner’s political manoeuvring is no reflection on any female priest in his diocese, far from it, they all have my deepest sympathy.
Martyn Percy’s analysis at the time is summarised in paragraph 76 et seq of the Mawer Review. He’s basically saying (and I apologise if this summary over-simplifies) that North is a senior member of The Society of St Wilfrid and St Hilda and that they definitely do believe that the ministries of women are invalid, and either North is being dishonest by remaining a member or he is being dishonest by avoiding stating whether he believes women’s ministries are valid. Essentially, that he can’t have it both ways. To quote Percy, himself quoted at paragraph 82 (op. cit.), Bishop North is… Read more »
IO: It seemed to be Sir Philip Mawer’s view that Martyn Percy didn’t understand what Bishop North believes. Sir Philip’s report includes a passage written by Bishop North that seems to be our only direct way to understand what he personally believes, which I tried to paraphrase earlier. I think it may be reasonable to criticize Bishop North for not explaining his views in more detail. With respect to the Society, exactly what its position is and whether Bishop North fully shares it is also not always clear. The short passage by Bishop North in Sir Philip’s report talks about… Read more »
Indeed, one could summarise North’s position as stated at paragraph 141 as “women should not have been ordained for wider reasons, but given they have been ordained that ordination is in my eyes valid”. Except unfortunately, he’s very careful not to quite say that. He says that he holds that women’s orders are “transformative and grace-filled”. But the question is whether he believes them to be both true and lawful. The obvious conclusion is that he doesn’t, because otherwise he would have said so. Far too much of this discourse consists of dishonest point-scoring, in which fine distinctions are drawn… Read more »
Point 3 is refreshingly clear: if you want change to the Declaration and 5GPs take it to Synod, and don’t do anything to undermine them in the meantime.
So it’s not a veiled threat then?
Not undermining the 5GPs is tricky since they are internally contradictory. The first is clear: the Church of England has agreed that women can be ordained as priests and bishops and all who minister should accept that this is the case – hence the mental gymnastics of those who do not agree with ordained women to distinguish between saying that women can be lawfully ordained and acting on that. The latter is what the bishops of Blackburn and Chichester, amongst others, refuse to do. Is refusing to ordain women undermining this principle? It certainly feels like it to many of… Read more »
Point 3 of the 5 key points made by the House of Bishops points out that ‘…any changes to the Declaration, including those related to the role of the Independent Reviewer, require consultation with General Synod and would necessitate two-thirds majorities in all three Houses’. And there you have it fingered: there is minimal chance of that being achievable. And even if it was, why would it even be attempted at a juncture when working arrangements for conservative evangelicals over LLF are being pondered? Instead of constantly moaning about the Society whose position on the 5GPs is publicly stated, WATCH… Read more »
So WATCH are guilty of “constantly moaning”. Implicit is that they are ‘middle class women of a certain age’! Actually it is not only female priests who have problems because they are not fully accepted by Society bishops, there are also increasing numbers of male priests who were ordained by female bishops, and are in the same boat. Then there are those males who were ordained alongside females by a male ordaining bishop. Even Chi is no longer entirely safe since Martin Warner brought in a female suffragan/area bishop for Horsham (and no I do not understand the mental gymnastics… Read more »
If you do not believe that women can or should be ordained then you are at liberty to join a Church of England parish that agrees with you. But the relationship of a woman priest to her diocesan bishop is completely different because she is under his authority whether she likes it or not. If he questions the legitimacy of her ordination or refuses to take communion from her hands that undermines her legitimacy as a priest and it personally wounding. A diocesan bishop is in a different position to all other Church of England clergy because he has administrative… Read more »
Can you educate me?
Once a PCC has taken the stance that women cannot or should not be ordained what could happen that would change that? And how does that fit in with the fact that a CofE parish is intended to be for the whole local community. In many settings a potential Anglican church goer doesn’t have a choice of churches, and wider public opinion is less likely to subscribe to this anti viewpoint.
In a diocese where the diocesan bishop is from The Society there is no need for a flying bishop & quite a few anti-female parishes have ducked out of formally making a resolution & rely on parish profile & the diocesan to ensure that any new vicar is pure. In Chi one of the suffragan/area bishops is also Society, so they have extra cover. When you look at their websites decoding where such parishes stand as regards female ordination can be a real challenge & you have to be fully up to speed with all the code words & phrases.… Read more »
The answer to your first question is, I think, that during a vacancy, the decision has to be re-visited – that certainly happened in the parish where (many years ago now) I was vicar.
A Resolution requesting extended oversight from a bishop who does not ordain women can be rescinded by the same process by which it was passed. It is good practice to review it regularly, and if it is being reviewed it is also good practice (but sadly not compulsory) to consult the whole parish, or at least the congregation rather than keep all debate within the PCC.
You don’t seem to have noticed that diocesan bishops can be male or female! I was interested in viewing the collation and induction of the Vicar of All Saints Margaret Street, that the Bishop of London and the Bishop of Fulham sat on either side of the chancel step. The Vicar duly took his oaths before the Bishop of London, the Bishop of Fulham, I think, did everything else. I wonder whether it is uncomfortable for priests who do not recognize the sacramental validity of women bishops, to have to accede to their legal authority? Mitres off to the Bishop… Read more »
+ Martin Warner (Chichester) does not ordain women and is opposed to the ordination of women. What’s so unique about + Philip North’s position? Am I missing something?
Part of the difference may be that when Warner went to Chi it was no surprise as this diocese has had High Anglican hardline anti-female bishops continuously since 1974 (Kemp, then Hind), and both suffragan/area bishops were anti-female (one High Anglican & the other ConEvo). However, when first consecrated Warner had allowed that to be done by Sentamu as ABY, although he was an ‘ordainer (indeed his wife is now a priest). By contrast for North a fudge was arranged whereby Warner did the consecration while Sentamu stood back, and laying on of hands was restricted to three bishops “who… Read more »
Martin Warner was appointed to Chichester before 2014. Philip North was ordained to Burnley in 2015 as the first “non ordaining ” bishop after the 2014 legislation in a separate ordination, and a week after LIbby Lane was consecrated, . The decision on a separate ordination and only “untainted” bishops laying on hands was, I think, the first time this had happened and was said by those with power in the C of E, notably the ABY, that this was a demonstration of mutual flourishing. However, there was no consultation or conversation with those who had only a few months… Read more »
The hypocrisy of all this is embedded and sappingly demoralising. Dress the bigots up in their best copes and and choreograph the service to pretend they are not misogynists and hey presto! They are all suddenly respectable .