According to Simon Sarmiento's account at Thinking Anglicans, the "Women Bishops" measure has passed, apparently without a vote count. The proposal of Simon Killwick, an Anglo-Catholic priest, that the measure be sent back to committee for further revision, was defeated 102 to 293 (12 abstentions), and an amendment requiring 2/3 majorities for any future revision to the legislation passed by 287 to 78 (20 abstentions) even though the steering committee opposed the measure. Clearly, therefore, General Synod is firmly behind the legislation, notwithstanding the closeness of Saturday's vote.
Thanks, Lapin. The whole process had become too detailed and complicated for me to follow. I don't have a "Robert's Rules of Order" kind of mind. My brain tunes out of its own volition after a spell.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I gather that if the actions taken at General Synod on women bishops are ratified by GS two years from now, after further discussion and consideration by the dioceses of the CofE, the first female bishop could be ordained in 2014. The wheels of justice in the Church of England grind slowly....
And there's Jonathan Wynne-Jones" scarifying piece in the Telegraph:
Canon David Houlding, a prebendary at St Paul’s cathedral, estimated that as many as 200 traditionalist clergy could leave the Church, taking thousands of worshippers with them.
....
Fr Jonathan Baker, principle of Pusey House and a leading traditionalist, warned that young Anglo-Catholic priests will struggle to see a future in the Church of England.
“It is bound to be more difficult to hold on to people now,” he said. “How can you stay in a family where members of the family have no need of you.”
The continuing threats of departure became tiresome after a while, as I know from the ongoing warnings by certain members of our own Episcopal Church, who continue their stance with one foot in and one foot out of the church, all the while bemoaning the church which has fallen into heresy and revisionism and is hardly even Christian any longer. Although I wish that no one would leave, the repeated threats tempt me to give the malcontents a gentle push toward the door. But, of course, I would never do such a thing!
BBC now has a newer post that has been picked up by The Lead. Ann linked the Lead post and I also linked the BBC article on Facebook.
ReplyDeleteHow can you stay in a family where members of the family have no need of you.
ReplyDeleteWhy doesn't he ask LGBT Christians that question? I'm sure they would have some enlightening answers...
Yes, Paige. You wonder if he actually thinks before he comes out with these gems. . .
ReplyDeleteMimi, I think the process now looks like this. First the non-amendable canon goes to the diocese. It needs a simple majority of their approvals to get to to the next available General Synod in about 18 months. To pass, that body must affirm it with 2/3's supper majorities in each house. Then, if all that happens it goes to parliament. Remember they are changing English civil law here because the church is 'established.'
ReplyDeleteAt the same time, the bishops will be preparing a "code of practice" for the same general synod to approve. It will set out general rules about how to accommodate dissenters.
FWIW
jimB
as 200 traditionalist clergy could leave the Church, taking thousands of worshippers with them.
ReplyDeleteNah, I don't buy it. They'll stay in their comfy, familiar CofE parishes, and continue (in familiar comfort) to kvetch!
When the women were in tears as the priesthood was denied them time and time again in General Synod, we were told that we were being 'hysterical' and flaunting our emotions - clearly the weaker sex. But now, after having put up with so much mysogynistic crap for so long the tables have finally been turned over in the temple, and tears and tantrums are coming from a handful of men. Well I suppose it's one way of getting them in touch with their (weaker??) emotions. They are a dying minority, fed on mysogyny and bitterness. They have refused to have anything to do with the rest of the church since women were ordained priest and now they're surprised that they've no longer got any friends. Think on lads...
ReplyDeleteAlthough I wish that no one would leave, the repeated threats tempt me to give the malcontents a gentle push toward the door.
ReplyDeleteShove 'em out, I say.
Doxy has already quoted it: "How can you stay in a family where members of the family have no need of you."
ReplyDeleteShe read my mind, and not only LGBT Christians, Doxy, but women as well.
I hope women in the rest of the Anglican Communion around the world, where they are too many times second class citizens, are taking notice.
Read what Jim wrote. I believe he may be right. The ordination of women bishops is not a done deal. Rowan and Sentamu will not take the reversal lying down and will be maneuvering in the dioceses. Today I am less hopeful than I was yesterday.
ReplyDeleteIf, in order for the canon to pass, all three houses in GS must approve by a 2/3 supermajority, I'm not certain that will happen. In the end, the women priests in the Church of England may have to wait years beyond 2014.
The whole drama is disgraceful and scandalous. The church is the only institution in England that is still free to practice job discrimination.
Mimi--I wouldn't despair. The dam has been breached. The clergy have thumbed their noses at Canterbury and York, and nearly 40% of the bishops voted against them. The laity won't be far behind.
ReplyDeleteIf we're lucky, and the malcontents leave, it will be like GC09 all over again. Once they go, you'll see the 2/3s majorities.
That's what I pray for, anyway...
Pax,
Doxy
Doxy, I don't despair, and I hope you're more right than I am. Still, I doubt that great numbers of the malcontents will make good on their threats and leave.
ReplyDeleteFrom my point of view, the Episcopal Church -- particularly at this time in its history -- couldn't have a more effective leader than Presiding Bishop Katharine.
ReplyDeleteWere the current ABC a woman ... surely the Anglican Communion would be in much less of a mess than it is today. I say this assuming she'd be -- more likely than not -- of a more liberal mind (and action) than Rowan Williams is at present.
Of course, I find myself wondering if, in my lifetime, I will see a woman as the Archbishop of Canterbury? If she makes it on the list (let us pray that it will be open to her) and is the best candidate, I certainly hope I do see a woman in that capacity.
PS Mimi, thank you for your kind welcome after my post a few days ago. Please feel free to call me Robert (my Christian name) ... or ... Hopper (a nickname that dates from childhood) ... or ... Scott (my middle name which I more commonly use). I leave the choice to you.
mimi,
ReplyDeletewould you get in touch with me, please,
It is about Da veed.
The antis are bullies, and many good people are intimidated by bullies. If just a handful leave (and some will have to now, or they will have no credibility whatsoever), the tenor in Synod will change. I suspect even some of the bishops will backtrack now that they've seen the rebellion among their own number and among the clergy.
ReplyDeleteOCICBW...but we live in hope. ;-)
...but we live in hope.
ReplyDeleteAmen.
Muthah, I sent you an email.
ReplyDeleteRobert, (I'll stick with Robert, OK?) don't you know it would be different if the ABC were a woman! I have no idea how old you are, but I doubt that I will live to see a woman in the chair of Canterbury. Whenever women begin to be ordained, they will need to serve as bishops for a number of years before they can be considered as candidates for the position.
ReplyDeleteNew piece from Riazat Butt in this morning's Guardian, Archbishop warns against delay over women bishops. "Leading evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics made last-ditch attempts to stall the legislation, asking for more time to debate it, but members shouted down their pleas."
ReplyDeleteAnd an excellent post this morning by "Wilf" at Thinking Anglicans:
ReplyDelete"What none of the press reports seem to acknowledge is that there is significant accommodation of those opposed to the ordination of women as priests and bishops. They have a statutory right to ask for male only ministry, which they will then get. For many of us that is a pretty big concession.
What has happened is that the legislation commended by the Synod has framed concessions for objectors in this way (the ability to decline ministry) rather than by setting up alternative structures or introducing the ability to claim that women priests are lawful but invalid. This is consistent with the approach of the 1992 measure (i.e. resolutions A and B).
If press journalists are reading this - please stop saying that there is no accommodation for those opposed in the legislation.
And if the ABC is reading this - please say something positive about the wonderful contribution of women priests over the last 16 years and deacons over the last 23. This sort of morale-boosting affirmation would be very well received by a group of priests who have to spend a great deal of time being told that they're a problem."