Summer of Schism: 'Why women must be bishops'

'Bad behavior in electoral synods is not the only thing that has distressed me here and made me VERY thoughtful. We need a process of re-education throughout the Communion, I think (as Rowan has said) and particularly in ‘liberal’ areas like this. The wide-spread ignorance of the basics of Anglicanism, how it came to be and therefore why it enshrines what it enshrines - the Anglican contribution to the coming great church - astounds me. However, there it is and one must soldier on.'

This is just one of the comments sent me by Christina Rees of Watch from the petition for women bishops launched earlier this week at Westminster Abbey. As we report today, there is a danger the legislation will fall completely on Monday. In 29 study groups today, Saturday, before the arguing starts in earnest, synod members are discussing 'to what extent should the Church of England seek to continue to accommodate the present diversity of views within its life on the issue of women's ordination' and 'what are the implications of that for any possible special arrangements for those who on grounds of theological conviction have difficulties over the ordination of women.' The groups have also been asked to consider whether, in the light of the pros and cons of the various options, synod members are clear about the choices they have to make.

All the comments are below. (I'll finish tidying them up later.) Some of them, you will surely agree, are quite moving. At the top is a Roman Catholic priest. It would be interesting if, were all the traditionalist Anglicans to go over to Rome, the debate went over with them. I've published the entire lot below.

I am a Roman Catholic priest in good standing with my church and I wish to say without any reserve that I hope that women bishops are ordained within the Church of England. It will be a sign to us that these things can be done without the heavens falling in on us and as we get used to seeing women in the episcopate it may begin to dawn on us that there is really nothing wrong with this at all. I firmly believe that all the theological arguments against the ordination of women to the ministry either as priests or bishops do not convince at all.

I have explained to those who are opposed that I do not wish to lose touch with our Catholic heritage, and I believe they would lose a lot by separating themselves from the rest of us. Together we share great richness. Apart we would all be the losers.

I am totally committed to this cause and liked the thoughtful prayerful letter to the House of Bishops. Having broken through glass ceilings in top management in the NHS over many years there are so many paralells, I can t help feeling that the reluctance of some to accept equality is a fear in anticipation, the reality will deal with these fears when we all offer our gifts in the service of God and his people. I pray that Synod may find the courage to do the right thing.

I am also about to see our youngest daughter aged 29, ordained deacon this Petertide, and hopefully with many years of priestly ministry before her. For that generation we must ensure that the church to which they are giving their allegiance is inclusive and vibrant and just.

I wanted to be sure a gracious attitude was extended towards those who disagree with women Bishops. I am now convinced however that this gracious attitude can be shown by working out voluntary codes of practice rather than through legislation.

I have been saddened by the hard-line taken by such as FIF because I feel that some male priests who may have been starting to accept women's priesthood have now been pressured into reaffirming their support for FIF.

I do pray that soon the natural course of events will happen and that our energies and efforts will be able to be channelled into spreading the gospel.

The whole issue is very tiresome and these days just makes me want to hide under a big rock! But I agree with the statement and can see it has been very carefully worded. It is still in danger of allowing those opposed to keep us hanging out to dry tho.

By coming to ECUSA my ministry and gifts are being truly valued, in total contrast to my experience in the C of E, which was utterly dismal.

Thanks for your response, Christina and, to be honest, bad behavior in electoral synods is not the only thing that has distressed me here and made me VERY thoughtful. We need a process of re-education throughout the Communion, I think (as Rowan has said) and particularly in ‘liberal’ areas like this. The wide-spread ignorance of the basics of Anglicanism, how it came to be and therefore why it enshrines what it enshrines - the Anglican contribution to the coming great church - astounds me. However, there it is and one must soldier on.

There are some lovely lay people here and much satisfying work that can be done!

I will have a look at the WATCH site: I've been a member of Inclusive Church since the start, and now CA too, but have not been energetic for women's ministry (apart from doing it) since the early 90s. I owe a lot to some fantastic women who should have been bishops, and had they been so, the Anglican Communion might not be in the mess it is now...

Thank you very much for all you are doing for the cause of women bishops. I think you are God's messenger. You have just the right words and approach and I am praying for you. Currently I am a non stipendiary clergy here in Swansea, S. Wales. I am hoping to be appointed to a hospital chaplain post in the near future.

Thank you very much for your email and I'm sorry that it has taken me a while to reply. I've thought long and hard about my response to the WATCH statement and eventually decided, with considerable reluctance, that I could not put my name to it. I greatly appreciated the measured tones of the WATCH statement and I thought it a refreshing change to read such a carefully crafted statement. Although I have ended up in a different position to WATCH I am very aware of how deeply these issues are felt by so many of my female colleagues. I have also sent a copy of my response to Lucy Winkett as I assist at the Cathedral very regularly.

As a priest in the Scottish Episcopal church, an autonomous province of the Anglican Communion, I have no say in decisions made in the Church of England. We have already agreed to have women bishops, though so far none have been elected. With regard to those who cannot accept either women priests or women bishops, we have never gone down the road of flying bishops, separate dioceses/ parishes, or legislation, but have learnt to live beside and respect each others' positions. Of course it has not always been easy , but I think in the end it is more peaceable.. So I cannot sign your petition, but perhaps I could suggest you look at our example.

Although I am hugely concerned about the impact which Consecrating a female Bishop will have on those for whom in all conscience this move is totally unacceptable, given that Synod has already reached a decision to press ahead, I am in complete agreement with the text of the specified letter.

Greetings, It was good to read the letter sent to the Cof E Synod and commend the tone of it. As I now live in Scotland, I can only support from afar!. The Scottish Episcopal Church passed the canon to allow women to be bishops, but as yet no woman has been nominated during our election procedure, as far as I know. This seems to work in our small province, and the general feeling is that the day will come when a bishop is elected because they are the right person and gender will not be an issue. Prayers to you all and good memories of MOW!!

You do have my support in principle. I did not sign the letter firstly because I was not aware of it and then when I had heard about it I had time to wonder if I agreed with the content. I am concerned that despite the positive nature of a willingness to wait rather than fracture the church, there are many opposed to women in the episcopate who will simply take our, albeit reluctant, willingness as the strategy they would welcome and that the wait will then be of many years’ duration. I too have cordial relationships with some of those with whom I am in profound disagreement, but I am also aware that there are others who are less cordial (like many women, even 14 years on from the ordination of women to the priesthood, I have first-hand experience of this!) and whose views are not simply that women should not be bishops, but that there should be no women priests and who work actively to overturn that legislation. I should of course like to see a non-statutory code of practice working, as it does in other areas of the Anglican Communion, but I am not certain that this understanding of the Episcopate will be generously shared by those opposed to Women Bishops.

I remain concerned that the Anglican Church often appears to give too little weight to the pastoral needs of its women members (ordained and lay), that it too glibly assumes that a Bishop or Archdeacon opposed to women in the Church can nonetheless offer sufficient pastoral support to those women, or that the Church itself is willing to recognise that it operates a system that may be experienced as akin to apartheid for women. Of course I am very concerned about the vote in Synod and I am completely committed to the inclusion of women in the episcopate. Despite my points above if you wish to add my name to any further lists that may be helpful, please feel free to do so.

I began ministry in 1982 when I was commissioned as a Deaconess, and remember with gratitude the lay workers and deaconesses who worked so hard for the ordination of women, many of whom were retired when we were ordained deacon. They were so generous in wishing us well, and I think that my generation may well be in that position (retiring) when women will be admitted to the episcopacy. I wholeheartedly agree that it must not be at aIny price, and I hope that I will be as gracious to those who come after us as those women were to us.

I attended the consecration of a friend this week, and, having never been in a place with so many Bishops in evidence at one time, I was physically knocked by the reality of the negative impact of having 20 or so Bishops file past me, none of whom were women... It is hard to describe the impact of how I felt. Thank you for all your efforts.

The reason I did not sign initially is that I would rather we omitted the words 'With great regret, we would be prepared to wait longer, rather than see further damage done to the Church of England by passing discriminatory laws.' I would rather say something along the lines of 'we regret the damage already done to the church of England by passing discriminatory laws' because I do not want to say that I am prepared to wait longer. However, I will sign and thank you for taking this initiative and pressing forward on behalf of us all.

You might be interested to know that there is a very small but passionate Roman Catholic group that advocates for women priesthood (in the Roman Catholic Church) called Housetop.
I am pleased that, in a sense, the senior women seem to have judged fairly accurately where the opinion of the wider church lies because I believe that one of our tasks is to represent the wider concerns of the church. I am passionately of the opinion that Now is the time for women bishops, bit I do not want the church saddled with unwieldy and incomprehensible (to the secular world) legislation for generations to come.

I am very glad to add my name to the list of those supporting the letter. As one of the 25 Women Deacons on General Synod in 1992, I voted for the Act of Synod. I still believe it was the right thing to do at that time; but like many others I have been saddened by the way it has been (mis)used to entrench positions rather than to encourage 'reception' as originally understood. In any case, the issue of the Episcopate brings in additional, different theological issues. I agree with the letter writers' contention that any proposal enshrining discrimination in law will not only be offensive to women (inside and outside the Church) but also damage the integrity of the Church - effectively legislating for the schism the proposal is theoretically designed to avoid.

It would be absolutely right to reject any proposal which would allow the consecration of women bishops only with legal 'safeguards'. I have worked with people who were unable to accept the validity of my orders initially, but in the majority of cases they changed their minds after experiencing my ministry, so I know that it is important to keep channels of communication open. Perhaps this is what those who challenge the validity of our orders are afraid of? I am very pleased to add my support to the letter from women clergy. This comes with thanks for all you and those who work with you are doing, and my prayers for a right decision on this issue.

I totally endorse the approach taken in the petition. It has been my view for some time now that it is better to wait longer for women bishops than have any legislation which restricted their ministry. It seems to me impossible to think of a bishop's authority being limited in any way. The alternatives suggested are all abhorrent in my view.

Thank you for your email and for all the work that you are doing for this cause. You have asked for a brief email - but I am writing more than this for a reason. I do hope that you will have the time to read what follows... I was invited to sign both of the letters to which you refer, although it was unfortunately at the time of my mother-in-law's sudden illness, death and funeral. I felt uneasy about an aspect of the letters, and did not wish to make a hurried decision to put my name to public documents at a time when I was dashing between work and hospital, without proper time for reflection. In retrospect, I am still uneasy about the same aspect - which is to give the opponents of the ordination of women to the priesthood any further leverage by saying that we would be 'prepared to wait'. I agree with everything else in those letters, and wholeheartedly support all else that is being said. I just wish that being prepared to wait had not been added to the strong expression of our determination not to sanction further discrimination. I don't want people to think that - because we have said that we would be prepared to wait - this is, therefore, the most obvious path for the Church to take for the sake of peace and unity, and for the whole process to be shelved. Having said this, however, I can see that these letters are making an effective impact, and for this reason, I would be prepared to overlook my reservations and add my name to both letters. If there are other petitions arranged in the future, perhaps the 'waiting' might be omitted?

I am in my early 40’s, with a background career as a Chartered Accountant and part of my encouragement to consider ordained ministry was that the church is in a process of change and is removing an institutionalised sexism which is so very alien to contemporary life. I feel called to be ordained to be part of a transforming church of the future of which I have high expectations and tremendous optimism. In a similar way that my ordination training is about allowing God to challenge me and transform me for my future mission and ministry, the church is going through a period of challenge and transformation for its future mission and ministry. Surely a transformational church can transform itself.

As someone currently ministering in a part of the Anglican Communion that has only ordained women for the last 9 years, I am enthusiastic about the progress being made in the C of E. However frustratingly slow it seems at times, as the letter states the key thing this time is to get it right - or as right as we are able! Many of us, myself included, have suffered personal hurt and distress as a result of the Act of Synod passed for the Ordination of Priests (women) measure and the resolutions available to PCCs. Thank you and every blessing in your future ministry.

I was ordained Deacon in 2000 and priested in May 2004 and initially had some very difficult encounters, though with time virtually all the people I have been in contact with in the Church who were anti women's priesthood have graciously moved on their stance and now are fully accepting of my ministry and therefore of that of other women. I am quite sure that dividing the Church with "safeguards" for those opposed means that the dialogue necessary for a truly unified stance on this issue and other issues will never happen.
If it is not too late, please add my name to those who oppose the amendments, which would include such words as 'protection' and 'safeguard'. I am appalled to think that anyone needs to be protected from my ministry or even my presence. Personally, I have never wanted to be a bishop, believing that I am called to parochial life but that does not preclude other women if that is their calling. All Bishops, regardless of gender, should be people of God, i.e. people of love, integrity and justice, people we all can respect and trust. If there is still mistrust, then we have to wait and give God the time to sort this out himself.

Oh, dear, will this nonsense ever end? Yes I absolutely believe that women should be bishops - any other position is a nonsense - and to put special legislation in place is a nonsense too. But what is even more of a nonsense is that men are still being ordained into the Church of England when they are opposed to the ministry of women.

My personal position is total opposition to a third province. This diocese is liberal and tolerant. It makes suitable provision for those who are opposed at institutional level. At deanery level, I get on extremely well with my colleagues who are opposed to women priests. One in my deanery who is most firmly opposed to female priesthood nevertheless accepts my personal ministry. I have explained to those who are opposed that I do not wish to lose touch with our Catholic heritage, and I believe they would lose a lot by separating themselves from the rest of us. Together we share great richness. Apart we would all be the losers.
It is nonsensical that women cannot be ordained bishops in this day and age. We are all baptised equal in Christ. End of story.

I wholeheartedly support the ordination of women bishops.

There can be no possible reason not to support legislation for women bishops free from discrimination. Talk of 'safeguards' and 'legislation' (of anything) in one breath is a nonsense. We need no safeguards for there being male bishops. Of what are we afraid if some bishops are female? We don't need 'safeguards' to protect us from female parents and nor should we need them for female bishops. We should grow up and take St Paul seriously: in Christ there is no longer male and female.

Discernment was a key characteristic of the Life of Christ; Discrimination was not part of it. His example is to be emulated, not cast aside.

The time is now.

When Bishops have agreed that there can be no theological reson for excluding women from the episcopate following their admission to the priesthood, any language of stautory safeguards is an insult and should be avoided at all cost

The time has come for women to be ordained as Bishops.

I strongly feel that as women can achieve the status of Archdeacon, then Bishop is the next logical step for the. This would also bring us in line with other Anglican communions elsewhere in the world, such as New Zealand and Canada.

Women are equal before the law and should be equal before God.The Church of England should stop it's discrimination policy against women (and others) immediately, and permit the election of women bishops as of right.

Women bishops are long overdue and they should have equal status with male bishops. If this cannot be so, then I have full sympathy with their 'boycott'. The current situation makes the C of E a laughing stock to those outside the church. They cannot understand why we allow the situation to continue.

Read the rest here .

Comments

[Fr. Van Windsor]

A cradle Episcopalian, I live in the USA, and for years was a priest in a "continuing Anglican Church" (I left TEC 30 years ago over women's ordination and the Prayer Book changes). I was priested in 1986 by a bishop who had left TEC. I was very self-righteous in my bigotry for years (I was received back into TEC in 1994). I justified my stances by attacking those who disagreed with me. While I don't believe I was wrong on all points, I was wrong headed. One cannot leave the Church, and Rome does not have all the answers, only a different set of problems. I do not believe the powers of Hell can prevail against the Church, and those who say that the "world, the Flesh, and the Devil, have won, had best re-examine the words and promises of Christ. I look for God's will to win out in the end. The Church is the Bride of our Lord, after all, and as one with Him, His Body, then we should be ashamed of our present attitudes, because we know in Him we have already won. And, by the way, there are already women bishops, fine ones, and one came to my Church to celebrate Communion not long ago, the Presiding Bishop, and it was valid and most efficacious.

[Geoffrey Smith]

Your anonymous 'Catholic' priest has obviously never read "Ordinatio Sacer dotalis". Please disclose his identity so we can pack him off to Canterbury. It's not only the skulls of bishops which will pave the floor of Hell - some sacerdotal craniums will be embedded in it as well.

[Bob Chapman]

Why is it that these people ask for equal rights and such. It is a mission, not a job. Anyway, let's start with the Lords or Mam's Prayer- dear person who art in another place...etc or even Hail person full of grace - can a man have a womb...but we just had one

[Rick Beekman]

Anon;
All the reasons you listed is exactly what the World's Spiritual advisor (Satan) wants. Even the devil knows about God; James 2 v 19 "Thou beleivest that there is one God; thou doest well. The devils also believe and tremble".
If the devil has enough common sense to tremble and fear God; why don't most people? think about it.

[Robert Ian Williams]

As for the RC priest will you name him...as the matter has been decreed de fide and non -negotiable?
If he was in good standing why is he anonymous?!

This weekend the Church Times published a colour supplement of the Petertide ordinations. The sheer nunber of women, shows that in the end they will win. You can not reverse this now...the best the socalled trads can do is delay it.
However the longer they hold out, the poorer their final settlement will be. They will be like the white Rhodesians, delaying the inevitable but ending up with nothing.

I hope the best of them do "Pope",but I do not expect many.

[Ysabel Howard]

There is of course the possibility that those of us appalled by a primitive obsession with gender might return to the CofE. I do not think that has occurred to the 'guardians of tradition'. Jesus was hardly Organization Man - or afraid to 'shatter'. Let them go. Love is stronger than death. The defining feature of the cosmos is not the sexual equipment of the human male.

[Anon]

The church discriminates against:
- Gays - says they have to change
- Women - says they can't lead the church
- People of other religions - says the only way to heaven is through Jesus
- Sex - says people who have more than one partner are wrong and forces monogomy
- Divorcees - says divorce is wrong

And its all because of that silly bible. Lets ban the bible as it just promotes intolerance. We need a new bible that represents modern values. And lets ban all those silly practises in the bible, and throw anyone that wants to talk about those out of the church, and make laws to ensure they can't open another church and spread those views. Lets force all religions to adopt our culture.

[Conchúr]

"It would be interesting if, were all the traditionalist Anglicans to go over to Rome, the debate went over with them. I've published the entire lot below."

What debate? The question has been answered defintively. Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is perfectly clear. And if I may quote from the May 29th general decree of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith:

"On the delict of attempted sacred ordination of a woman

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in virtue of the special faculty granted to it by the Supreme Authority of the Church (cf. Can. 30, Code of Canon Law), in order to safeguard the nature and validity of the sacrament of Holy Orders, decreed, in the Ordinary Session of December 19, 2007:

In accordance with what is disposed by Can. 1378 of the Code of Canon Law, he who shall have attempted to confer holy orders on a woman, as well as the woman who may have attempted to receive Holy Orders, incurs in a latae sententiae excommunication, reserved to the Apostolic See.

If he who shall have attempted to confer Holy Orders on a woman or if the woman who shall have attempted to received Holy Orders is a faithful bound to the Code of Canons of the Oriental Churches, he is to be punished with the major excommunication, whose remission remains reserved to the Apostolic See, in accordance with can. 1443 of the same Code (cf. can. 1423, Code of Canons of the Oriental Churches).

The present decree enters in force immediately after its publication in L'Osservatore Romano."

William Cardinal Levada
Prefect
Angelo Amato, s.d.b.
Titular Archbishop of Sila
Secretary

[yarrrrr]

What a bunch crap. The Church of England has become the Church of Emos.

[saint]

Not painting a pretty picture here Ruth.

The Church of England: proclaiming the Jesus who is everyone's dhimmi and nobody's Lord.

[Larry]

wow. Does everyone agree with you then Ruth? I have to say, and this from the viewpoint of someone who is undecided there was a lot of emotional gumpf in those comments and very few attempts to tackle the Biblical qualifications for an elder as laid out in Paul's letters to Timothy, nor the famous creation order which God displays, not anyone else but God!, in asking "where are you Adam" in the Garden of Eden!

[robroy]

The arguments can be summed up as "justice" or feelings.

Will the heavens fall? No. But the CoE will become as dynamic and relevant as the established church in Sweden where, in a formerly Christian country, it now has a whopping 1% of the populace in church on a given Sunday. (And most of those are probably little old ladies who will be dying off soon.)

[Mike Peters]

Its interesting that you value the comment of an itinerant Catholic priest above all others? I wonder why? He is clearly not in good standing with the catholic church. However John Paul the Great and Pope Benedict are in good standing with the Catholic church and history will show what great and true love they showed in their understanding of gods will on these issues.

[Chris Gillibrand]

"the Anglican contribution to the coming great church"- which the self-excluding consecration of female bishops will ensure would be non-existent. Anglicans are nothing if not ambitious- rather Our Lord said
"But yet the Son of man, when he cometh, shall he find, think you, faith on earth? (Luke 18.8)