On the one hand - and on the other

Fifteen of our more catholic-minded bishops in the Church of England have penned a letter to the clergy. I am not sure quite why they did it. Apart from encouraging us all to attend regional meetings in the Autumn, and saying we must not be uncharitable, there is not a great deal which I can discern there of leadership.
Perhaps that will come later, when those who have made decisions will declare themselves and call on the rest of us to do the same. I hope and believe this is so, and reckon the waiting is simply in order to get the visit of the Holy Father behind us. That's very laudable, for we would not want the media focussing on Anglican turncoats (as they will call us) rather than on the visit of the Pope and what he has to say.
Yet it is frustrating to be told by those who are thought to be our leaders "we must be honest and say we are not united as to how we should respond to these developments". We all know there are catholic-minded CofE bishops who have those four letters written down their spine, and they will find ways of staying CofE even when an Imam is installed in Canterbury. We have come across men like them before, who claimed to be catholic, but once they were in high office simply failed to help us. Such men are not our leaders; they will go on playing games until kingdom come. We do not want or need their advice.
These are the ones who say "the closeness of the vote on the Archbishops' amendment for co-ordinate jursidiction suggest (sic) at least a measure of disquiet in the majority". But they also say that even if that amendment had been accepted, there were "concerns about its adequacy". Concerns! I'll say there were concerns! It was a pathetic sop, which no one with any integrity could have swallowed. It gave no jurisdiction to any bishop appointed to care for us, and no certainty about what sort of bishop that might be - male, yes, but nothing at all about what he believed, or whether or not he himself participated in women's 'ordination'. What is more, he would be wished on us by a women 'bishop'. We said, and many of these fifteen bishops agreed, that "A Code of Practice will not do"... and now they seem to be saying, 'Well, maybe we will have to put up with that, and it will all be alright in the end'.
So the Bishops turn to consider those who will stay "perhaps even reluctantly because of family circumstances". These are those who "cannot currently imagine themselves being anywhere else but within the Church of England". Surely it is for our bishops to say to such people, "Well, you'd better start imagining". There will BE no Church of England, or rather none that can feasibly call itself part of the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, after women are consecrated as Bishops. The shell may remain, appearances will be kept up here and there, but it will all be a sham. A Church, a real Church, served by priests who were once called without any irony "stupor mundi" - that will have gone.
"Those who are not actively seeking a home elsewhere must work to defeat the currently proposed legislation". Oh dear, what can we say to such dreamers? The legislation is all but through. Any amendment accepted now will be no more than applying a fresh coat of paint to Titanic's deckchairs - even less worthwhile than rearranging them, and a great deal more trouble. Those bishops among the signatories who think there is any hope of defeating the legislation are not capable of leading anyone anywhere. Sorry, it is just too late. And it is cruel to encourage people to stand for Synod knowing that their role will be to be abused, ignored, and mocked.
We are told that even such people 'not seeking a home elsewhere' must be respected. "Each of the possibilities we have outlined has its own integrity and is to be honoured". I do not think it is a kindness to encourage people to live like Mr Micawber, hoping against hope that something will turn up. It will not, and it is no kindness to pretend otherwise.
Why was there this special meeting of bishops who disagreed with one another, called in order to put out a statement? We have enough of that from the official C of E. What we want is leadership; and I pray we may get it, for like the Holy Father I am too old to be patient.

[I have also submitted this piece to the Anglo Catholic blogsite]

Too late, too late.

For more years than I care to remember, between the 1970s and 1995, I was a member of General Synod, and of the Catholic Group in Synod. It always has had a difficult task, but in recent years that has become almost impossible. Women clergy and their supporters have swamped Synod, and on the rare occasions I have visited since leaving it I have been saddened by the bitter and divisive tone of that body. Once we valued those of other opinions, and could share a joke with them. Now, it seems, there is only rancour.

So it is brave, if also foolhardy, of today's Catholic Group in Synod to continue trying to participate. In particular it was unwise of them to continue taking part in the debate once it was clear that only a Code of Practice will be available for anyone staying in the C of E after women are consecrated. We have said "A Code of Practice Will Not Do". We have explained why this is so. We have too much evidence already of 'codes of practice' being ignored; and even the 'code' has not yet been formulated, let alone agreed to. A pig in a poke is a safer bet than a code of practice with no legal backing.

The Group has my sympathy. For all that, the "statement" they have issued is so feeble, and so clearly evidence that they think we are in "business as usual", that I feel I must respond to it.

"The Catholic Group in General Synod is encouraged by the remarks of the Archbishop of Canterbury that there is still ‘unfinished business’ and that ‘the Church is only part of the way through the process’ of determining the way forward for women bishops legislation".

Well of course we are all always encouraged by remarks of the Archbishop of Canterbury. Encouraging remarks is what he is so good at. But he made plenty of remarks during the recent Synod, and they were all ignored. There will not be any change in the "way forward for women bishops' legislation". That way is already determined. The liberals have not given an inch, and they are not going to.

"The Group was, however, disappointed that there was a lack of support for financial hardship where clergy feel by conscience that they need to resign from the Church of England."

Disappointed! I was scandalised. There will have to be a fight over this. The Ecclesiastical Committee of Parliament in 1993 could see that what was then proposed amounted to constructive dismissal, and they insisted that financial provision should be made for those who in conscience had to leave the ministry of the Church of England. That should be even more necessary now, since many of us were hoodwinked into staying with promises of lasting provision. If the Ecclesiastical Committee does not come to our rescue (and it should, for priests are being deprived of their Livings, which parliament recognises as property) then the Law may; and the Law must be proved if necessary with some test cases, backed financially by anglican catholics and our catholic societies.

The onus now is on the Church of England to provide for its clergy to remain within the Church for which we have always fought as loyal Anglicans.

Dream on my dear friends in the Catholic Group. No provision is going to be made, except what individual bishops, male or female, might feel they can offer fromtheir goodness of heart. And what bishops give they can also take away. We asked for provision for our children and grand-children. The provision from Synod will not even see us out, let alone future generations.

"We remain committed to both the process and our Church, and would wish to play a major part in helping the Church in its ongoing journey in a spirit of unity that is Christ’s way".

But the process is already played out, and our Church is no longer recognisable as the Church of England we have known and loved. Friends, stop playing games. The game is over. The fat lady has sung. It is too late.

Goodbye, Goodbye, I'm leaving you...

PEACE IN OUR TIME

Good to hear from the Catholic Group in Synod. They perform a necessary and generally thankless task. Comparing their statement with what the Archbishops are proposing, though, a few questions remain. Here is what they said:


PRESS STATEMENT
From the Catholic Group in General Synod
Responding to the statement of the Archbishops of Canterbury and York Re. forthcoming women bishops debates
The Catholic Group in General Synod is grateful to the Archbishops for their suggestion of a possible way forward for the Church of England, both to enable the consecration of women bishops and to provide for those who cannot in conscience accept the ministry of women bishops. We are particularly grateful for their recognition of the need for bishops with jurisdiction in their own right to minister to us, and to all those who share our convictions.
We look forward to studying the amendments in detail when they are published. We very much hope that they will provide ‘nominated bishops’ who will be real leaders in mission and ministry. It is also be vital that the amendments provide for us to continue to hold a principled theological position, looking to the faith and order of the undivided Church. We believe that the Church will be better served by the consistency of a national scheme of provision.
The Catholic Group is wholly committed to securing provision within the Church of England.Canon Simon Killwick


The Archbishops
are proposing that the Flying Bishop Substitutes (I cannot help thinking of them as "Grounded Bishops") will have jurisdiction, and that this jurisdiction does not come from the Diocesan Bishops but "from the measure". The diocesan bishop would have every right to exercise ministry of any sort in any parish is his or her diocese, "the diocesan would in practice refrain from exercising certain of his or her functions in such a parish" (a parish which had written a letter asking for special treatment).

I hope members of the Catholic group will press Synod on this. What are the 'certain functions' which the diocesan will not exercise? Will it include the selection of candidates for ordination?

Will it include all confirmations in parishes which ask for special provision?


Moreover, who will monitor this? In the bad old Act of Synod days, with PEVs and all the rest, the Archbishops took an active interest in how the Act was being operated, and did a bit of gentle leaning on episcopal colleagues who ignored the Bishops' Guidelines. Now, it appears that everything will be decided by the Diocesan Bishop (after consulting, not with disaffected parishes, but with their own Diocesan Synod).

So what safeguards are there for any parish, when the Diocesan Bishop decides she has had enough of all this and will disregard any guidelines?

And who will choose the "Nominated Bishop" for any diocese? In the PEV system, the Archbishops consulted widely and ensured that those appointed were themselves opposed to women's ordination. Will the same apply in the new circumstances? Surely not - and it would be hard to find anyone prepared to act as a Nominated Bishop (with jurisdiction) whose jurisdiction in reality is hedged about by a Diocesan Bishop who can change the rules whenever s/he pleases. But it is a good question, so again I hope some member of the Catholic Group will ask it, and tell us the answer.

And what of those ordained by women 'bishops'? At present such people, male or female, may not be licensed to officiate in the Church of England. Indeed I understand that even when we have women bishops, those ordained by women bishops overseas will still have orders which the Church of England cannot recognise.


Will it be possible for ordinands to require ordination from the hands of a Nominated Bishop? That has been a sticking point for many Diocesan bishops in the present dispensation.


Will parishes have the right to refuse the ministry of those ordained by women 'bishops'?


These are just a few of the many questions which must be answered before anyone should accept the Archbishops' amendments as worthwhile.


It looks terribly as though what is being proposed is well intentioned, but depends upon human beings always acting honourably. They have not in the past, and it is certain they will not in future. Naturally every diocesan bishop will consider his/her arrangements to be absolutely fair; but who is to monitor this fairness? Call me cynical if you will; once, before I became a Provincial Bishop and had to deal with Diocesan Bishops and their Archdeacons, I was just an innocent trusting babe. The iron entered my soul when I discovered that promises made ("Just rescind the votes: we promise you will have a male priest") have been broken more often than not.


I am sure Canon Killwick and the catholic group will do their best for those who feel they must refuse the offer from Pope Benedict. I hope they and the Archbishops get something worthwhile from the July Synod; but I have a horrid feeling that they will come down the steps of the York Synod saying "I have a letter here giving us the firmest of promises: it will be peace in our time".