Women bishops: the debate

Christina Rees of Watch is jubilant after the Church agreed to proceed with legislation to ordain women bishops. The women are prepared to work with the code of practice option, although they would have preferred nothing at all. The reaction of the traditionalists remains to be seen but can perhaps be predicted. I'll bring you more on that when I can speak to them tomorrow. If they're still here. Christina was up here in the press office just now however, where this quick snap was taken: 'It is the result we have been building up to for the last few years,' she said. 'It is very good for the Church, very good for women, very good for the established church, good for the whole nation. A vast majority have wanted this for so long.' She said there was 'absolute respect' for opponents and there would be 'adequate provisions' for them.

The full motion as amended is reproduced below, with the precise voting figures.

This is the final motion approved by Synod:

         ‘That this Synod:

(a)            affirm that the wish of its majority is for women to be admitted to the episcopate;

(b)            affirm its view that special arrangements be available, within the existing structures of the Church of England, for those who as a matter of theological conviction will not be able to receive the ministry of women as bishops or priests;

(c)            affirm that these should be contained in a statutory national code of practice to which all concerned would be required to have regard; and

(d)            instruct the legislative drafting group, in consultation with the House of Bishops, to complete its work accordingly, including preparing the first draft of a code of practice, so that the Business Committee can include first consideration of the draft legislation in the agenda for the February 2009 group of sessions.’

The voting was:

Bishops: 28 for 12 against 1 abs

Clergy: 124 for 44 against 4 abs

Laity: 111 for 68 against 2 abs

 

Debating the main motion, Bishop of Liverpool James Jones: 'In these painstaking steps we have taken we have produced a painstaking motion which lifts the bar on women for ever.' We've had a motion for closure which was carried. Bishop of Gloucester now responding, he has five mins before at last we get final vote. He says he will not respond to every single one of the 72 people who have spoken in the debate. (They do normally respond to speakers individually when they answer.) Asked vote to be received in silence and not with acclamation. 'There are some who have consistently said a code of practice cannot provide what is needed... I hope that those who remain doubtful about a code will give the motion a chance. If we let the Holy Spirit work a code could emerge that would provide a way forward everyone can embrace.' If motion failed or was close, would be a sign that no clear unifying ecclesiology existed in the CofE.

*******************************************************************

Vote on adjournment: 180 in favour. 203 against. 9 abs. no adjournment. So synod narrowly avoided kicking the whole thing into the long grass.

***********************************************************************************

Venner weeping in chair at Synod. Bishop of Durham Tom Wright now making dramatic intervention for adjournment. He said he has always argued that now, a week before Lambeth is a 'bad time' to have this debate. 'One of the most annoying things Paul did was in the middle of the storm, say told you so we should never have come. What we are going to do is break bread.' He said synod should adjourn, meet at 7.30 in the morning to break bread together and pray that they come safely together to land.

Earlier, debate was extended to 10.15pm.

John Packer supported the adjournment mption. Tom Butler Bishop of Southwark however appealed to synod to resist it. 'We have done something radical today. We have worked through many amendments. The end result is we have said we want to ordain women bishops. That is a radical thing. We really do need to get on with the job. To delay it or adjourn would just prolong the agony in an unbearable way.'

More massive applause

***************************************************

Moving at last to debate the final motion, Alan Hargrave pleaded that none would leave the Church and said that staying in the Church was the 'test of a true Anglican.'

Stephen Venner, Bishop of Dover, said: 'I have to say that for the first time in my life I feel ashamed. We have talked for  hours about wanting to give an honourable place for those who disagreed. We have turned down almost every opportunity for those opposed to flourish. And we still talk the talk of being inclusive and generous. The Rochester report said in many many pages that there were a variety of ways in which scripture and reason could be read with integrity. It argued over and over again that it is possible to be a loyal member of the CofE and [accept] some legal safeguards for those who oppose the ordination of women. It is not just those who are opposed to the ordination of women who find the motion we have at the moment difficult. I do. Where is the CofE about which we have spoken today? Is this CofE to which we have come to in this vote the CofE at its best? I have to say I doubt it. Is this the CofE to which I thought I belonged? I have to say with huge sadness, I doubt it.'

Massive applause. Venner sitting in chair, weeping.

*****************************************

Judge Thomas Coningsby, who stands down from synod tomorrow after continuous attendance for 38 years, spoke to an amendment that the national code of practice should be replaced by a code 'which all concerned would be required to follow.' ]

Gloucester noted that this amendment was problematic because the code would have to be done by act of parliament. The possibility of making a code legally binding was rejected by the drafting group.

The Archbishop of York Dr John Sentamu, whose vicar general Judge Coningsby is, and himself a former judge, disagreed with the Judge and said a recent House of Lords ruling had made clear that even a statutory code of practice was not binding. He urged the amendment be rejected.

The amendment was lost. 

************************************************

Vote by houses on Robert Cotton's motion, the penultimate tonight.

Bishops: 1 for 35 against 4 abs

Clergy: 38 for 129 against 5 abs

Laity: 44 for 129 against 7 abs.

*************************************************************************

Canon Robert Cotton of Guildford spoke to his motion 77, urging for a code of practice that would legislate for 'pastoral provision and sacramental care.' This would mean bishops would cooperate, and 'we would recognise the devotion and dedication in each other.'

Gerald O'Brien of Rochester said the synod had been very 'ungenerous' and had voted down provision after provision. 'We can legislate, we can force people out of the Church of England. But the experience in America says you can't force people out of the Anglican Communion. There are a lot of archbishops [hiss hiss] .. you can hiss if you like ... there are a lot of archbishops around the communion who would be willing to provide support.'

Canon Simon Killwick explained why the code of practice was unworkable. 'A code of practice cannot do for traditional Catholics in the Church of England however strong it is legally.' It would be enforceable via judicial review, and he questioned whether the church really wanted enforcement in this way through the civil courts.

**********************************************

Jacqueline Humphreys of Bristol speaking to her motion for a 'statutory' rather than 'national' code of practice. 'A statutory code of practice has real teeth and is robust.' It could be tailor made to fit perfectly, written in easy-to-understand English. 'It actually has the potential to keep us talking and listening and working together in the long term.'

There was no vote by houses. It went straight through by a show of hands.

*********************************************************************

Vote by houses on Dr Baxter's amendment 75. Rowan's head is in his hands. Both Archbishops looking seriously worried.

Bishops: 15 for 19 against 5 abs

Clergy: 86 for 78 against 8 abs

Laity: 81 for 88 against 10 abs.

Motion lost.

*************************************************************

Archbishops' Council member Mark Russell, an evangelical, said: 'One of the things that growing up in Northern Ireland teaches you is that unity does not mean uniformity.' He said he had heard no giving ground in the debate. People outside the Church did not 'get' the debate, he said. 'Martin McGuinness and Ian Paisley sat down together. Surely to God we can find some form of agreement and walk together to proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ.'

(Strongest applause yet.)

Bishop of Gloucester warned that consequences of passing Christina's motion would be to raise the code to the status of legislation. He asked synod to ponder that before voting.

Procedural motion lost and debate on Christina's motion is continuing. But procedural motion to stop debate wasn't by houses, so v difficult to read synod just at the moment. Andrew Dow of Gloucester noted that in spite of the vote by houses, more people had actually supported Packer's motion than voted against it.

Rev Rob Munro of the Chester diocese said the church had moved position. A code would be judged by a secular tribunal. 'I am concerned about the violation of inegrity... I am left with this dilemma. It would be political for me to support Dr Baxter's amendment because that would give me a greater level of protection.' But his conscience would not allow him to accept the code. He pleaded with the synod to work out 'how loyalty might be maintained in the face of illegitimacy.'

*************************************

Sudden change of mood. Cold chill sweeps across Synod. A possible interpretation of Cantuar's remarks just made is that he now wants the whole thing blown out of the water. He seems disappointed by the failure of the Packer amendment. The Bishop of Burnley, the Right Rev John Goddard, has just interrupted the debate to ask for a move to final vote immediately. It was his wife, Vivienne Goddard, who collected those 8,000 signatures of lay women opposed to women bishops. Could the laity be about to scupper the whole thing? The synod is now voting on whether to close the debate immediately on Christina Baxter's amendment. The women won't like it because it brings things too close to a structural solution. The women gave ground on women priests in 1992 but are clearly not going to do so now on women bishops. In Wales, the recent attempt for women bishops was lost over this very issue. Could the same thing happen here?

*********************************************************

Christina Baxter argued for the code of practice to have a stronger legal status in moving her amendment 75. This would mean 'that what we have decided in our code of practice we would not change lightly.' She said: 'Although we haven't said tonight that we are going the route of legislation [for trads] we are going the route of staying together.'

Archbishop of Canterbury: 'I hadn't intended to speak about any of the amendments but felt the need to say something about this because of the drift of the debate.' He said Christina's argument was clear and it was important to decide whether 'this was going to make it easier' for those finding it difficult. He said it was clear that the code of practice was 'not going to make it easier'. The debate so far had left the synod with 'an extremely hard choice about voting for the future of the Church of England.' He warned that legislating the code of practice now could delay things even further for those who so much want women to be bishops.

Rev Jonathan Alderton-Ford said that a stronger code of practice provided a means of going forward. 'If the two extremes in this debate do not give a little bit of ground, they will destroy the very thing they love. The great thing about the Church of England is that they do compromise to stay together. I have not heard much of compromise yet.'

*****************************************************

Vote by houses on amendment 74:

Bishops: 5 for 31 against 3 ab

Clergy: 68 for 85 against 20 abs

Laity: 82 for 90 against 7 ab

(It is worth noting here how quick this is - voting takes 2.5 minutes - two minutes to 'divide', one to vote and then 30 secs to count. This is the new electronic system. Under the old system we'ld have been here all week.)

******************************************************

Rev Sarah Chapman of Southampton described how when she came to be ordained, her local vicar refused to have her any more in his church. She moved to another parish and was ordained, but after 18 months, when she went to the bishop to ask if she could have a full time job, he told her there was no place for people like her in his diocese. So, sad to leave the parishioners she had served and loved for 15 years, she moved to another diocese and got a job right away. That is the kind of discrimination she wants removed from the Church.

******************************

*It's 8pm and synod has come back to finish off the amendments, mostly about the code of practice. Emma Forward of Exeter withdrew her amendment that the 'special arrangements' for traditionalists should be changed merely to 'arrangements'. So we went on to Gillian Henwood who called for special arrangements for those who want to receive the ministry of women.

Timothy Cox opposed it as inviting 'flying women bishops in through the back door.'

Debbie Sutton of Portsmouth also resisted the amendment. 'It is about language, the tone of the language I have been hearing. The language of support seems to be addreessed to those unable to accept the ministry of women. I haven't heard so much about the same level of support being offered to women who believe they should have equal [access] to ministry, right up to the level of bishops... Last week saw the 80th anniversary of women in Britain being given the vote.' She said women clergy used dignificed and generous language. 'What they say and how they say it seems to me to reflect the Christian values that the Church at its best offers the world around it.'

(rg writes: There is a different mood at synod. The malaise has gone. Everyone is laughing a lot, maybe they've imbibed a bit at dinner. I'm looking out for the Catholics. Not sure how many of them are still here.)

*********************************

Division by houses on Ripon and Leeds' amendment 72:

Bishops: 21 for 21 against 1 abs

Clergy: 84 for 92 against 2 abs

Laity: 98 for 87 against

So that's it! Unless the laity throw the whole thing out in the final vote at 10.30, admittedly a possibility, the rest of the amendments concern merely the code of practice. What this means is that the Church is going to move towards the ordination of women bishops with a code of practice, with the draft legislation now to be drawn up to be considered in February next year. It's not over long-term of course. The legislation will have to get a two-thirds majority in each house when it reaches the final vote in two or three years time. The narrowness of the vote on this motion shows just how close it could be and of course the women priests vote in 1992 only went through when one lay traditionalist woman crossed the house and voted for woman priests instead of against at the very last minute.

More debate after dinner with the final amendments, but women are going to be bishops and there will be a national code of practice for the trads. Christina Rees welcomed it as the 'lesser of two evils' and said the women would accept and work with the code of practice. The former Archdeacon of York, Ven George Austin, who was watching the debate, has just left, almost in tears. He will stay in the CofE, as long as he has somewhere to worship. 'If I had been a serving priest, I couldn't have stayed.' I hear rumours of a protest walk-out planned by 100-or so trads at the end of the sessions this evening. And of course there will be more meetings in Rome, more plotting. Father David Houlding said: 'It is getting worse. It is going downhill very badly. It is quite clear there is a pincer movement and we are being squeezed out.'

***************************************

Ven Christine Allsop, Archdeacon of Northampton, said among women she knew in the church, she had seen those who she believed would be called to be bishops in the Church. 'We have a great danger here that if we put in place mandatory transfer, it could be a bridge too far. We could find many senior women clergy with the gifts to offer the church who feel unable to resist the call to be a bishop on that basis.'

The Rev Ferial Etherington of Carlisle said: 'It seems to me a total nonsense that the Church proclaims a gospel of equality for all while seeming to categorise some of its ordained ministers as unacceptable.' It would be institutionalised discrimination enshrinhing legislation which would have the effect of building permanently enduring walls between communities of faith. Love requires trust. Love drives out fear.' Said he alck of trust in those demanding separate structures and deicoeses was an 'unhappy unbiblical sgtate of affairs.'

Sarah Finch of London appealed on the traditionalist side for synod to be generous. 'I appeal to your better nature. Please allow this to go through.'

***********************************************

Super-bishop amendment 72 from Bishop John Packer. This is the crucial vote now, coming in about 19 minutes from here. There will be more hours of debate, but this is when we will get a good idea of what is going to happen.

Bishop Packer said: 'I believe we need to appoint priests who are women to the office of bishop in the church for the sake of the Gospel and of the Kingdom.' It would be wrong not to move forward now. 'To delay would deprive a generation of the real benefits of the ministry of women bishops for the proclaiming of the Gospel.' He said: 'We do need to accommodate the breadth of theological views on this issue that the Church of England currently encompasses - and not only to accommodate but to encourage them.' Not having seen any code of practice, none could know how it might respond to different theological views. Separate dioceses would 'trample on the natural sense of place so crucial to our parishes and leave some of them in an impossible dilemma.' He wanted more work done on what statutory transfer would look like in practice. This would mean that Synod next February looked at two options in depth, rather than juggling with the six in the Manchester report. 'I believe we mustn not wait for a decade or more to move forward and I believe that this way on from now gives us the chance to learn how to bear one another's burdens and so fulfil the law of Christ.'

The Bishop of Gloucester commented that this would allow the church to explore further the possibility of 'statutory transfer' while leaving open the option for a code of practice.

The Archbishop of York Dr John Sentamu backed Ripon and Leeds' amendment. He delegated to his three suffragans and it worked well. He reminded what happened in 1992 when women priests were voted on. 'We made promises to the Church. It was not to a group, it was to ourselves. Delegated authority was the least the opponents would go for. He had no problem with delegated responsibilities, as long as people recognised where the authority lay. 'He who travels fast travels alone. He who travels slowly travels in the company of others. I would like to travel in the company of others in the CofE.' In a society that forgets its memory, it becomes senile, he said. 'We are a family, we are a family of God, and what is important is the mission of the Church. Liberty in the end must be the thing that rules us. In the church it is freedom, liberty, responsibility, care and concern. I want to work with the people who for different reasons find it difficult.'

(Strong applause.....)

Division by houses on Exeter amendment 71:

Bishops: 14 for 29 against 2 abs

Clergy: 65 for 116 against 1 abs

Laity: 77 for 112 against

***********************************************

Canon Pete Spiers of Crosby, Liverpool contested the argument that everyone would win if new structures were put in place. 'I think everyone will lose. I want to reach out and go for a code of practice, make every effort to keep the unity of spirit in the bond of peace.'

***********************************

Rev Jonathan Baker, Principal of Pusey House, Oxford, and a member of the legislative drafting group, supported the Bishop of Exeter's amendment. He said the only thing that offered a way forward for him with integrity was to do more work along the lines of a diocesan solution. 'We need to have bishops who those of us who need to can look to with conviction and assurance but still play our full part in the Church of England.' He wanted to be in a church where he could continue to play his part in 'nurturing the vocation' of young men who had difficulty with the ordination of women. A church in danger of losing its memory was a 'sad church to belong to'. This amendment was the way to ensure that people like him could be not just part of the memory of the CofE, but 'part of its present and part of its future.'

Bishop of Blackburn, Nicholas Reade, who like Lincoln is a veteran of the Guildford group, said that if this was what the church wanted to do, they must make it work, but 'with some provision for change'. The Manchester group should be given the chance to work through the structure outlined in Exeter's amendment. 'We now enter a process in which it is desirable that both those in favour and those opposed should be recognised as holding legitimate positions... The CofE needs to understand itself as a communion in dialogue, committed to staying together in the ongoing discernment of truth. My friends, we want to continue along this route. If we still want to live in this highest degree of communion and let women flourish as bishops in the church then there must be some handing over of jurisdiction, some structural provision.'

Ven Christine Hardman, Archdeacon of Lewisham, criticised the 'blinkered navel gazing' and parochial outlook of the Church of England. 'Were we to follow this path whole communities, without their consent, would find themselves taken out of the local diocese into a federation of congregations. We must equip the CofE in what we decide to serve the people of  England.' Mandated, delegated or transferred authority would not equip male and female bishops to serve the nation as they should. (rg notes: again, massive applause.)

******************************************************

Voting by houses on Killwick's amendment 70:

Bishops: 10 for 32 against 3 abs

Clergy: 53 for 124 against 4 abs

Laity: 71 for 116 against 2 abs

(rg notes: not looking good for the catholics... one said to me just now: 'it's all over.')

***********************************************

Rev Hudson-Wilkin warned that separate structures would create a 'ghetto of no-go areas.' 'We cannot seriously be thinking of creating a church within a church. Can I have a black church because I am a minority? Can I have a gay church? Can I have a church with Mr Sugden in charge?

'We are always changing the goal posts. We need to say who we are as a church. We can be courteous and loving and respectful of each other, we don't need to live in two separate houses. As big as we both are, we can still find space in the same house.'

Bishop of Dudley, David Walker, also strongly urged opposition to Canon Killwick's amendment. He's been a bishop for seven and a half years and hoped he was a 'symbol of unity'. He hoped he shares that with the Bishop of Ebbsfleet, the flying bishop consecrated by his side at St Paul's. He said new structures would create a 'centrifugal effect'. He spared synod the maths but warned of future bishops who would go around 'clutching their episcipal pedigrees' proving there was no hint of the hands of a woman anywhere in them.

Bishop in Europe Geoffrey Rowell said: 'The Catholic inheritance is important. Apostolic order is a gift, part of the DNA of the Church. The unity of the  Church is a gospel imperative and Anglicans have been conspicuous in their commitment to full visible unity... I do think structures can liberate. There should be some diocesan structures that would enable those of us with the theological commitments I have outlined to remain within the Church of England. Structural legal provision is not the creating of a ghetto but enabling the freedom to live together in mission.'

Both these amendments now being commented on by Gloucester, debated and formally moved and voted on.

********************************************

Canon Ruth Worsley, of Southwell and Nottingham, welcomed the main motion which seeks an 'inclusive church' united behind decision made 33 years ago that there are 'no theological barriers' to the ordination of women. She as an evangelical had moved from the position of male headship to one of men and women standing together under the 'headship of Christ.' All bishops should be equal and authoritative in the ministry of Christ. She said evangelicals and catholics recognised that true catholicity recognised episcopal leadership. At a time when the Anglican Communion itself is facing schismatic pressures, the last thing the CofE needed was legislated divisions. It ought to be possible for a national church to accept that both theological stances are held 'with integrity'. There had to be a growth in trust.

The Bishop of Portsmouth, Kenneth Stevenson, said: 'When a code of practice arrives on a bishop's desk there's a sigh at another piece of paper but also a welcome that people are going to hold you to account. A code of practice has teeth. It is also the kind of instrument that has a balance between responsibilities and rights... The advantage of a code of practice without legislation means that you can revise it and that is very important.' He warned against 'structural separatism' and producing a church of 'two groups not in communion with each other.' This was an 'ecclesiological nonsense and an ecumenical stumbling block.'

The large, long round of applause that greeted this speech gave a good indication of where the synod is going.

**********************************************************************

Canon Simon Killwick of Moss Side, Manchester spoke on amendment 70, which like the next amendment provides for new dioceses or structures for opponents. He said his view had been changed. He had supported a third province but now believed new dioceses a better option. New dioceses would be part of CofE structure, would be represented on Synod, would be 'the best option for all of us.' They would have 'theological integrity' and legal clarity. Dioceses are the focus of unity and the source of sacramental life. 'The diocese is the bishop'. He said: 'Everybody wins with this option. Women are admitted to a full episcopate unfettered in any way.' He disputed that new dioceses were an 'extreme' option. 'I have scoured the book of Revelation to see if there is a magic number for diocese in the CofE for all eternity. I am not sure if its 43 or 44 but I cannot find that number anywhere in the Book of Revelation.' He reminded Synod that the Diocese in Europe was only created in 1980.

Bishop of Exeter Michael Langrish spoke on amendment 71. His own dioceses contains largest number of parishes under a flying bishop. He warned that a code of practice would not have sufficed after women priests were ordained. He called for legislation that ensured 'absolute parity of jurisdiction' for male and female diocesan bishops. 'The second principle must be that those who wish to continue to believe and behave as Anglicans have always believed and behaved should be able to and not on sufferance.' His amendment would mandate Manchester group to prepare drafts on possible legislation and bring them to synod in February. 'I do not want delay but I do want clarity.' 

*******************************************

Vote by houses on amendment 69:

Bishops: 7 for 37 against 1 ab

Clergy: 66 for 107 against 9 abs

Laity: 68 for 118 against 4 abs

Miranda's mendment lost.

*********************************************

Canon Dr Chris Sugden, of Oxford diocese and Anglican Mainstream. 'The Church of England at its inception resisted the continental reformation and said it would not require what Scripture did not require.' C of E was not known for religious absolutism. 'So there should be provision for those who cannot accept the ministry of women bishops.' He said it was clear that those who cannot receive the ministry of women bishops want provision by measure. 'We should have the big tent approach, a generosity of spirit.' He quoted: 'He who keeps his oath even when it hurts, he who does these things will never be shaken.'

Bishop of Lincoln John Saxbee said was faced with one of the most difficult decisions of his life. A veteran of the Guildford group, which had been unanimously for women bishops but struggled with the letter of interpretation, his instincts led him to the 'simplest route' but he wanted a situation where the different sides were 'in trust with each other.' He quoted Tanya of East Enders: 'Where there is no trust there is no relationship' and said: 'With Tanya's marital difficulties, she should know.' So he supported the spirit of the amendment... and yet..... he would like to see a code and have a better idea of how pastoral provision would work before synod made a final decision

***********************************

Christina Rees of St Albans, and leader of Women and the Church, said: 'We are voting on going forward on woman as bishops. Three years ago synod voted to remove legal obstacles to women as bishops. Two years ago synod voted that women bishops were consonant with the faith of our church... Anything that distinguishes between bishops in our church is bound to make one set of bishops different.'  This was for the sake of unity, of dioceses and of the Anglican understanding of what it is to be a bishop. What kind of church do we want to be? 'One that says yes to God calling women as He calls men, yes to a Church that ordains women fully as it ordains men. Unless we remove any doubt that they are as fully bishops as are males, some doubt will remain.'

Barry Barnes of Southwark: 'What would John Keble say if he were here?' He was on his second marriage, so for him reception into the Roman church would be difficult. They could go along to Mass like a 'thief in the night' but that was not what he or his wife wanted. 'The assurance we require is that there shall be some sort of provision that will enable us to remain.'

Professor Marilyn McCord Adams of Oxford University: 'To recognise people as loyal Anglicans is not the same as to recognise that their conscientious principle should be given legal expression.' People would have to think long and hard about remaining in the church. 'Believe me we know the feeling.' For years she and others had wrestled about remaining in a discriminatry church. 'We decided to stay because we love our church.... because it's the arena of Gospel proclamation, because it's the home of the sacraments. We chose to stay and work for change from the inside and we sincerely hope that you will make that choice too.'

********************************************

Rev Dr Miranda Threlfall-Holmes of Durham University speaks on amendment 69. The code of practice is 'unnecessary' she said. Without it the legislation would be 'as simple, clear and elegant as possible' and would have theological coherence. More than 1,300 ordained women had written an open letter calling for women bishops. 'We find ourselves again and again being asked by those outside the church being asked what the church is playing at. We find out mission to the nation being impaired.'

The amendment did not mean no provision would be made. It would provide for a 'proportionate and appropriate' local response and models of best practice from sister churches would be shared. This was the option passed by all the 15 Anglican provinces that have already voted for women bishops. It was a 'tried and tested' solution. Flying bishops had also been tried here, and it was hoped they would be effective and build bridges. 'This has not worked. Instead our fault lines have become deeper and our positions more entrenched.' Legal structures would be counter-productive. There was fear, but where women had been made bishops the mood was of celebration. 'We should not legislate out of fear.'

Gloucester commented that the motion allowed for the mind of Synod to be tested on whether a simple measure was what was wanted.

****************************

Vote by houses on Fr Trott's amendment.

Bishops: 3 for 40 against 2 abs

Clergy: 28 for 149 against 4 abs

Laity: 36 for 147 against 5 abs

Debate now running 20 minutes behind schedule.

Preb Sam Philpott of Exeter said: 'I would like to kill off the Code of Practice immediately.' He said God was not leading him to any new place. 'He is actually telling me to stay where I am.... We are baptised brothers and sisters, going in different directions.' He was not prepared merely to be 'tolerated'. 'If you need a bishop you can fully accept, I need a bishop I can fully accept.' He wanted 'hands on bishops' to be 'leaders of mission.'

Motion for closure. Burridge noted in a point of order that the cost of passing this amendment would be about £300,000 and complained this had not been spelled out earlier to Synod. Also, he noted that all other amendments would fall if it were passed.

****************************************

Stephen Trott moves his amendment and urges synod not to 'gamble everything' on binding itself to a code of practice. Smattering of applause. 'We cannot allow this legislation to become a catalyst for strife,' he warned.

Gloucester opposed it because it failed to narrow down the options and was therefore impractical.

London University's Dr Richard Burridge, wearing a fantastically vivid Hawaiian shirt, also opposed it. He said people at synod were not discussing women bishops or the timing because it was being taken for granted that it would happen. The discussion was all about arrangements for opponents. Father Trott's motion would just take it back to the beginning. He quoted Richard Hooker's praise of 'harmless dissimilitude.'

Bishop of Oxford, the Right Rev John Pritchard: 'I want to honour women's ministry without equivocation. I do not want to lose the excellent ministry of the Catholic priests we have in the diocese of Oxford.' He appealed for a respect for 'elegance', which he said could be seen in the options before synod, meaning the minimal legislation with a code of practice. 'I can be trusted. Please resist the amendment.'

***************************

Vote by houses on amendment 67.

Bishops: 28 for 17 against

Clergy: 90 for 89 against 4 abstentions

Laity:  97 in favour 85 against 7 abstentions

(rg writes: This is important because it gives an indication of how synod is going to go in the end. Although Houlding won, it was very close. The code of practice and the main starting motion will probably prevail, or possibly Bishop Packer's 'super bishops' amendment.)

************************

The Bishop of Burnley, the Right Rev John Goddard, an Anglo-Catholic, said the amendment would allow everyone to vote the motion if it were amended later with stronger provisions. 'Please accept the challenge, allow us all whatever our integrities to vote together.'

*********

Gloucester supported the amendment.

Tim Hind of Bath and Wells: 'I don't want to be cynical about this. What I want to be is synodical about this. We are talking about an episcopally led and synodically governed church.'

Rev Jonathan Clarke of London also urged the amendment to be opposed. 'It is the only part of the motion that makes a positive statement about the reason we are approaching this issue. We believe it [women bishops] is consonant with Holy Scripture and what the Spirit is calling us to today... If it is God's will for us, we must approach it wholeheartedly and joyfully

*******

Father David Houlding speaks to his amendment. He wants the church to be 'honest' about where it is. 'I recognise that the priestly ministry of women has brought a great blessing to our Church. I want to get off the battlefield and onto the mission field.' He wants provision for conscience but also for ecumenical sake. 'It is also for giving an equal and honoured place in the CofE for those who cannot in principle accept this development. It was AB Rowan himself who taught me some 10 yrs ago when a group of Catholics on both sides went to Walsingham. He taught me how it was possible to hold both views in tensions together. There wasn't a right or wrong, both sides were right. It is a matter of Scripture and obedience.'

**************************

Voting results on Winton amendment:

Bishops: 14 for 31 against

Clergy: 62 for 120 against

Laity: 78 for 114 against

No abstentions. Vote lost in all three houses

Rain drums down on roof while various points of order are raised. Amendment to be put to vote, 25 members stand and there is a division by houses. Bell rings and the House divides.

**********************************

Sister Rosemary representing religious communities: 'The most important question we have to face is how their [women's] ministry can be welcomed encouraged celebrated and carried out in collegial cooperation with other bishops.' Said: 'There is something in the nature of a threat being hung over us... ... that if robust enough arrangements are not made, they will leave the CofE.' On the warning of a loss of theological diversity, she contested 'vigorously' that the Catholic element would be lost from the CofE. Order and beauty in worship, veneration of BVM, beauty in liturgy and sacrament - [rattled them off too fast to get down] ... there would still be plenty of people left who would honour all these... 'please accept us as loyal, Catholic Anglicans.'

*******************************

Bishop of Chichester John Hind supported Winton's amendment. 'The question this afternoon makes the dividing line between the strictly theological and the procedural very find indeed.' Added: 'The ministry of women bishops must be unimpeded by [anything] designed to protect people from them.' The choice was therefore between simplest possible approach and a structural solution.

**************************

Bishop of Bath and Wells, Peter Price, said the issue was one of justice. 'Theologyn and justice go together in the ecology of God. Saving justice is marked among other things by a passion for those who are excluded.' Spoke about Peter in Acts being invited to eat unclean food. 'What God has cleansed you must not call common,' said a voice from the heavens in this episode that was a prelude to the mission to the gentiles. This was how to understand the development of tradition today. 'God's saving justice called Peter into a new place... Christian faith cannot gain from human bondage. It is in being fully human that we are made in God's image... The first rule of the Gospel is that you do trust.'

*****************************

Ruth Whitworth of Ripon and Leeds delivered a maiden speech, calling for legislation rather than a code of practice. A code was 'simply not acceptable' to those in principle opposed to women bishops, a group that included young men and women and young ordinands and clergy. Secondly there was the question of trust. Most of her working life had been spent in banking. 'The first rule of banking is that you don't trust anyone.' In church finances as banking, two people always counted the cash. 'Full legal provision needs to be in place for when trust breaks down.' Thirdly the system of flying bishops worked well. 'It is one of the few creative things the CofE has done in the last few years.'

Annette Cooper of Chelmsford resisted Winton's amendment passionately. To opponents of women  bishops, she said: 'Fear not. A national code of practice is a formal way to support you and will not weaken your position but rather strenghen it... There have been times when I thought we would never get to this place. We have studied the scriptures we have debated the theology we have prayed and are praying. A positive decision is consonant with our faith and practice in the CofE and is essential to God's mission in our nation.'

Archdeacon Norman Russell of Oxford noted that bishops are called to lead, archdeacons are called to find practical solutions. 'I don't think anyone on this synod wants to see the CofE fall apart... but nor do we believe that those who have held to the traditional teachings of the Church should be driven out.' An evangelical, he had spent a lot of the weekend talking and trying to understand Anglo-Catholics. 'Not too much has yet been done on the new dioceses option. More needs to be done... Many of my Anglo-Catholic friends are very keen to remain in the mainstream of the CofE. I think that there could be acceptability for new dioceses which would not require very significant changes for practical arrangements eg over church schools.' That said, he was not advocating new dioceses. Conservative evos might well prefer transferrred jurisdiction to a complementary bishop. But he did not think a code of practice would work

*************************************

Bishop of Winchester spoke to his amendment as a man who happily ordains priests: 'Only by really going out onto a limb further than many really want to go to hold within us those for whom this is something they don't want to do, will female diocesan bishops be able to exercise a ministry fully equivalent to that of their male diocesan colleagues in the future.'

Gloucester commented: 'In practical terms it takes us almost back to the drawing board.'

****************************************

Robert Key of Salisbury: 'Women have added a whole new dimension to our church's spirituality. We have tapped into the reservoir of half God's human race.' He spoke movingly of Jesus working through the ministry of the cathedral's Dean, June Osborne.

***************************************

Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams: 'Let me begin by saying that I approach this from the position of someone who is committed to the ordination of women.' He could not see much case for delahying and was 'very unhappy' that there were priests who could not be bishops.

The core of the difficulty was whether the synod was allowed to take this decision. This disagreement over authority had been part of the Anglican legacy for centuries. 'What I want to underline is that embodying that disagreement over the centuries has in all kinds of ways been good for us .. stopped us drifting into being a complacent folk church... ' 'What is the nature of our answerability to the wider church? What is the nature of our answerability to scripture?' If the effect of legislation was to end this internal conflict, that was not healthy. 'We should have changed profoundly.' He also addressed the promises made. There was a difference between tolerating a minority, and recognising that a certain minority was part of the 'defining characteristics' of a Church. This went beyond pragmatic or emotional considerations. It was a question of what kind of church they wanted to be, and how they do their theology. 'I am deeply unhappy with any scheme or any solution to this which ends up structurally humiliating women who might be nominated to the episcopate... which leaves them struggling in a way that no other bishop has to struggle.' But he was equally unhappy about any solution that marginalised traditionalists.

He came 'not very comfortably to his conclusion. 'If we want to preserve the kind of Anglican entity which embodies this sort of conversations, this sort of accountability, I would want to see a more rather than less robus form of structural provision or accommodation. We are going to find ourselves whatever happens this afternoon or subsequently in a deeply changed CofE. My question is what sort of change it is going to be.' He called for synod to preserve the 'crucial and valuable legacy that exists in our historic tensions.'

*******************************

Elaine Storkey: We are called to do something unique, exciting and wonderful. We are called to welcome, celebrate, honour and rejoice and convey our enormous thanks to those women who have been a role model to all of us, have led people to Christ, have in every way modelled something very exciting about the service of our Lord.' We must not lose the 'excitement' of the 'sheer emancipation, the release' that the  Church can celebrate. But the church is also called to honour the diversity, those who 'do not feel this is where God is leading the Church.' That sense of 'lament' must also be shared. 'This is the most difficult task among us.' Divorce was not inevitable, she said. This was a message that needed to be shared with the rest of society.

************************

Vivienne Goddard, of Blackburn, to be followed by Elaine Storkey and ABC. Vivienne described how last week she presented a petition of more than 8,000 lay anglo-catholic women to the Archbishop of Canterbury asking for a place to be kept for them in the church. 'We do not wish to leave the  CofE. We do not wish to become Roman Catholics.... We have taken your promises to mean what we thought they meant... A code of practice would not allow us to do that.' She said many of them also felt, like women priests, that they had been called by God to exercise a ministry in the Church, but it was a lay ministry. A new diocese need not be a new structure, it could be a 'fresh expression' of diocese. (ha ha....) 'We could stay because we could have bishops to whom we could relate where it is essential.'

*********************************

The Bishop of Gloucester, the Right Rev Michael Perham, opens the debate. He confesses he is doing it with some trepidation. 'I also do it with real conviction, because I believe we must move forward with the ordination of women to the episcopate, without unnecessary delay, and that this complex debate ought to allow us to do it.'

He gave his personal position. 'I believe passionately that we ought now to make it possible for women to be bishops in the Church of England. I respect and hold in deep affection those who hold a different view, either about the principle or the timing. But because I believe that to delay undermines our mission and our credibility in the nation, and because I believe the priestly ministry of women has brought huge blessing to the Church, and for other reasons also, I stand where I do.'

He explained that his role was to help the process of exploring the amendments, with as much objectivity as possible.

He admitted he could not pretend there was a consensus, and admitted that even the bishops were divided. He went through the four clauses of the main motion. On clause a, 'it remains the clear majority view in the House that women ought to be eligible to be bishops, for the well being of the Church and for the sake of our mission to the nation.' A delay now would 'create a difficult and anxious period of uncertainty, more hurt all round.'

Clause b: could a solution with arrangements but no fresh structures hold as many as possible of those with conscientious difficulties. Arrangements had to be 'consistent with  Anglican ecclesiology' and not create two ecclesial bodies, out of communion with each other, under the umbrella of one church. New dioceses would 'undermine fundamentally the unity of the Church.'

Clause c: code of practice rather than mandatory delegation. A bishop who had to delegate functions 'would not be a bishop in the sense that this Church has understood episcopal ministry.'

'

Mansell categorising amendments. Six propose a different direction, four modify aspects of code of practice, three raise other issues. 'I hope we can all work together and find a way through the debate to the point where we come together to our conclusion.'

Pausing for prayer. It will the last chance to pray before the end, we're being told by the chair, Ven Clive Mansell, Archdeacon of  Tonbridge.

Visitors now in, they are being asked not to boo or applaud, or respond in any way to how the vote goes.

Bell has just rung... debate about to begin.. last few synod members assembling in chamber. I am wondering why the visitors' gallery is totally empty. It is because everyone is queuing in the rain outside, dozens of them, not being allowed in for some reason.

The debate beings at 2.30pm British Summer Time. So many long, complex amendments have been put down that Synod last night decided to extend the debate from 6.15pm today to 10.30pm, with a break for dinner between 6.15 and 8.30. Among the motions are those we wrote about in today's paper. I am going to try live blogging it. I've posted the motion and all the amendments below. As I'll later be changing the post with the live blog, you can also download the motion and amendments here . If the Bishop of Winchester's goes through, the rest will fall automatically and we might get a result much sooner than expected. Voting will be by simple majority, not two-thirds at this stage, although members might well call for voting by houses. Decipher it better if you can, but I think the Bishop of Winchester's motion means women bishops right away with new structures for traditionalists, not just a code of practice. Thinking Anglicans has a full round-up of today's and other reports.

(nb  My live blogging exercise might fail because of the technical difficulties I am having at York. The News International and the University of York wireless networks really do not like each other very much. I'm going to run and take some pics on my Blackberry now to accompany this blog while waiting for the debate to begin. Oh, and here in York, in case you're interested, it is absolutely peeing down.)

Monday 7th July 2007

2.30 p.m. to 6.15 p.m.

8.30 p.m. to 10.00 p.m.

ORDER PAPER VI

WOMEN BISHOPS:

REPORT OF THE WOMEN BISHOPS LEGISLATIVE DRAFTING GROUP (GS 1685)

REPORT FROM THE HOUSE OF BISHOPS  (GS 1685A)

        The Bishop of Gloucester to move:

20.         ‘That this Synod:

(a)            reaffirm its wish for women to be admitted to the episcopate;

(b)            affirm its view that special arrangements be available, within the existing structures of the Church of England, for those who as a matter of theological conviction will not be able to receive the ministry of women as bishops or priests;

(c)            affirm that these should be contained in a national code of practice to which all concerned would be required to have regard; and

(d)            instruct the legislative drafting group, in consultation with the House of Bishops, to complete its work accordingly, including preparing the first draft of a code of practice, so that the Business Committee can include first consideration of the draft legislation in the agenda for the February 2009 group of sessions.’

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS

PART I – AMENDMENTS AFFECTING PARAGRAPH (a)

The Bishop of Winchester to move as an amendment:

66.   After “That this Synod” leave out paragraph (a) and insert:

“(a)   anticipating the ordination of women to the episcopate in the Church of England, and noting the Manchester Group’s assertion in paragraph 22 of GS 1685 that “far and away the most important question that the Church of England now has to face is the extent to which it wishes to continue to accommodate the breadth of theological views on this issue that it currently encompasses”,

(i)         affirm the assurances included in paragraphs 67-69 of GS 1685;

(ii)      reaffirm (GS 1685 paragraph 74) Resolution III.2 of the 1998 Lambeth Conference “that those who dissent from, as well as those who assent to the ordination of women to the priesthood and the episcopate are both loyal Anglicans”;

In paragraph (b) leave out “within the existing structures of the Church of England”; and

In paragraph (c) after “in” insert “legislation and in”.

If item 66 is lost the Revd Prebendary David Houlding (London) to move as an amendment:

67.   Leave out paragraph (a) and insert:

“(a)  affirm that the wish of its majority is for women to be admitted to the episcopate”.

PART II – ALL ‘MANCHESTER’ REPORT OPTIONS KEPT OPEN

If item 66 is lost the Revd Stephen Trott (Peterborough) to move as an amendment:

68.           Leave out paragraphs (b) and (c) and in paragraph (d) leave out “, including preparing the first draft of a code of practice,”.

PART III – ‘MANCHESTER’ REPORT OPTION 1 (SIMPLEST STATUTORY APPROACH)

If items 66 and 68 are lost the Revd Miranda Threlfall-Holmes (Universities, York) to move as an amendment:

69.   In paragraph (b) leave out all the words after “affirm its view that” and insert “this should be done with the simplest possible statutory approach, with local diocesan arrangements for pastoral provision and sacramental care;”;

Leave out paragraph (c); and

In paragraph (d) leave out “, including preparing the first draft of a code of practice,”.

PART IV – ‘MANCHESTER’ REPORT OPTION 3 (NEW STRUCTURES)

If items 66, 68 and 69 are lost the Revd Canon Simon Killwick (Manchester) to move as an amendment:

70.   In paragraph (b) leave out “the existing structures of”;

In paragraph (c) leave out “national code of practice to which all concerned would be required to have regard” and insert “Measure”; and

In paragraph (d) leave out “accordingly, including preparing the first draft of a code of practice,” and insert “by preparing a draft Measure and associated code of practice providing new dioceses for those who cannot in conscience receive the ministry of women as bishops or priests,” and after the words “so that” insert the words “, if possible,”.

If items 66, 68, 69 and 70 are lost the Bishop of Exeter to move as an amendment:

71.   In paragraph (b) leave out “the existing structures of”;

In paragraph (c) leave out “national code of practice to which all concerned would be required to have regard” and insert “Measure”; and

In paragraph (d) leave out all the words after “accordingly” and insert “by preparing drafts of possible legislation in accordance with paragraph (c), to include further draft Measures, together with associated codes of practice, based on diocesan structures for those who cannot in conscience receive the ministry of women as bishops or priests, so that, if possible, the Business Committee can include consideration of these options in the agenda for the February 2009 group of sessions.”.

PART V – ‘MANCHESTER’ REPORT OPTION 2 (ARRANGEMENTS WITHIN EXISTING STRUCTURES)

If items 66, 68, 69, 70 and 71 are lost the Bishop of Ripon and Leeds to move as an amendment:

72.   In paragraph (c) after the words “affirm that these should be” insert “either by way of statutory transfer of specified responsibilities or”; and

In paragraph (d) leave out “complete” and insert “develop” and leave out the words “first consideration of the draft legislation” and insert “further consideration of both alternatives envisaged in paragraph (c)”.

If items 68 and 69 are lost Miss Emma Forward (Exeter) to move as an amendment:

73.   In paragraph (b) leave out “special”.

The Revd Gillian Henwood (York) to move as an amendment:

74.   Insert after paragraph (b):

“(..)  affirm its view that special arrangements should be available, within the existing structures of the Church of England, for those who as a matter of theological conviction wish to exercise or receive the ministry of women as bishops or priests in episcopal areas where the bishop has stated that he is not able to ordain women;”.

If items 66, 68, 69, 70, 71 and 72 are lost Canon Dr Christina Baxter (Southwell and Nottingham) to move as an amendment:

75.   After paragraph (c) insert as a new paragraph:

“(..)  require that the Measure enabling women to be admitted to the episcopate should require:

(i)              that the Measure should only come into force once the code has been agreed;

(ii)            that in order for the code of practice to come into effect, it must receive the approval of the General Synod with a two-thirds majority in each House; and

(iii)         that any future changes to the code can only be made by the General Synod with a two-thirds majority in each House;”.

If items 66, 68, 69, 70, 71 and 75 are lost Ms Jacqueline Humphreys (Bristol) to move as an amendment:

76.   In paragraph (c) insert “statutory” before the words “national code of practice”.

If items 66, 68, 69, 70, 71 and 72 are lost the Revd Canon Robert Cotton (Guildford) to move as an amendment:

77.   Insert as a new paragraph after paragraph (c):

“(..)  agree that the code of practice should relate only to the exercise of episcopal functions and describe a commitment to mutual support and cooperation between members of the House of Bishops to help with pastoral provision and sacramental care when situations arise affecting those with conscientious difficulties relating to ordination to the priesthood and the episcopate; and”.

If items 66, 68, 69, 70 and 71 are lost His Honour Thomas Coningsby QC (ex officio) to move as an amendment:

78.   In paragraph (c) leave out all the words after “national code of practice” and insert “which all concerned would be required to follow”.

Note:  The headings to the Parts of this Order Paper are included solely for ease of reference.

Comments

[Gregory of Langres]

"but the mistake that some "trad" A/C clergy have made is to elevate women's ordination to a defining issue. RCs don't do it"

No, Fr Mark, that is not the case. Those who are opposed to the ordination of women were happy before 1992. It was liberals who introduced the idea and who now propose a single clause measure or code of practice in order to silence their conscience...us. In deciding that there is no place in the Church of England for those who hold this view, liberals have done exactly what you suggest: they have made it a "defining issue."

If proper provision were made, it would be clear that both views can be held with integrity and, therefore, it would not be a "defining issue." If those opposed are not given an equal place in the Church of England, it clearly makes it a "defining issue" both of Anglicanism and of catholicity - if a doctrinal stance held by both Rome and Constantinople is not embraced by Canterbury, then Canterbury is self-identifying away from catholic Christianity.

Your unpleasantnesses towards catholic clergy and particularly towards SSC, are of poor taste and your insistence that every homosexual, priest or otherwise, should want to publicize their sexuality is misguided. For some people it's not an issue; for you it clearly is.

[Fr Mark]

Fr Bill: there's a lot of sense in what you say above, and you're right "I hear your pain" does sound ghastly, now I look at it again!

But I think it would be naive to imagine that the FiF/SSC axis were composed mainly of straight clergy.

I suppose there are some of us who just think it is wrong that this one issue has become so much the sole definition of orthodoxy by FiF/SSC (their clergy regularly use the term "sound" to mean "anti-women's ordination," for example). And thinking that doesn't make us any less Catholic, yet we have been reviled by the "trads" for the last umpteen years, as if only they are the heirs to the Oxford Movemennt tradition.

All in all, it isn't a healthy situation. I'm looking forward to an Anglican Catholicism that includes everyone, women and men, straight and gay, on equal terms, and it is very frustrating that this should still be a controversial aspiration in the C of E!

And "Chas Lowder", none of your weird scenarios above apply to me. I'm not paid by the Church, but earn my own living in the world outside: my "disappointing personal experience" is that it is impossible to "sell" the C of E as a credible institution to anyone sane in the wider society at the moment, as it seems to be run by the most small-minded people determined to hasten its destruction rather than allow it to modernise.

[Charles Lowder]

"I feel that Fr Mark is speaking in his own pain from perhaps a disappointing personal experience"

Perhaps he is a former member of the Society who's run away with a married man, rescinded resolutions in his parish and lost all his friends.

Perhaps he needs to get a life.

[Fr Bill Bulloch SSC, Vicar S. James the Great]

What an awful expression "I hear your pain" . You might as well say that anything written by a 'Trad' is merely the squealings of an injured animal rather than an attempt to put what is a well thought out and widely accepted understanding of the credal nature of the church and the importance of the Catholic tradition in the life of the C of E.

This importance is exemplified in the areas of pastoral care and social concern; in the spiritual and academic life of the Church and in its Ecumenical relationships.

I am afraid that Fr Mark makes the mistake mny do in labelling any that do not accept his own understanding as ignorant, prejudiced and stupid for not seeing what seems blindingly obvious to him.

Surely, just as I can accept that he believes for whatever reason that the C of E can ordain women to the priesthood and consecrate them to the Episcopate, he can accept that whilst the argument for such a move seems won on grounds of inclusion and social justice there are rather large question marks about its consonance with Scripture, two thousand years of church teaching and tradition and not least of all our ecclesiaistical and ecumenical relationships ( Please do try to remember that whilst many of them may not post on this blog the majority of the Anglican communion does not ordain women).

I must also take issue with Fr Mark's observations regarding the nature of the 'Trads' and particularly his outrageous comments about my brethren in the Society of the Holy Cross (SSC).

I could not say that there are no homosexuals amongst the brethren, but I feel that Fr Mark is speaking in his own pain from perhaps a disappointing personal experience when he accuses the Society of being some kind of shield for catty in the closet gays to hide behind.

My own chapter is made up in the majority by married clergy. This was also the case in my previous chapter which was one of the biggest in the country next to London. I shall celebrate my parishes Patronal Festival tonight with six of my local brethren standing alongside me at the altar all of whom are married and all of whom believe like i do that we were promised real safeguards for those of us who in good conscience and after much prayer and thought, rather than through cattiness or mysogony or any other small mindedness, have problems with the C of E decision to press this agenda with no place for any compromise.

I have not visited this page since the day after the vote - I must be one of those who has been too busy being a parish priest to spend hours disagreeing with others or denigrating their position - I had hoped that there would have been some reflection by those who claim the title liberal on just what a bad image that debate was which showed that we (the dear old C of E) have little chance of being a force for peace and reconciliation in our society when we cannot even be nice to one another. A vain hope it seems!

As someone who signed that letter I am disappointed at the way that we have been described as mostly retired or bitterly confused and ashamed about our sexuality. The simple issue remains that whilst most 'trads' accept that the consecration of women Bishops will happen a code of practice is not what we need, not what we want and not enough to enable most of us to continue to minister in a Church that obviously doesn't really want us and will, just like in America and Scandinavia, eventually drive us out without proper statutory and legal protection.

I would ask of Fr Mark and others who have posted here The first question I would ask of most who come to me for Spiritual Direction after listening to what they have to say " where in all of this is Christian charity and love to be found?"

I thimk I will get back to my flock they make much more sense and show a greater christian maturity than most of my fellow bloggers.

Happy S. James day

Fr Bill

[Fr Mark]

Greg de Langres: but the mistake that some "trad" A/C clergy have made is to elevate women's ordination to a defining issue. RCs don't do it: it is not a hallmark of Catholicism to be anti-women priests at all (just ask the RC laity, who are just as liberal as the Anglican laity).

In England, a whole load of "trad", mostly gay but in the closet, Anglo-Catholic clergy have retreated into a catty camp ghetto which excludes ordained women. This has happened over the last 15 years, and is largely because gay clergy cannot come out and still have a happy working life in England, so a lot of them have retreated behind the SSC screen, and by some very unpleasant displacement process have built up the women issue as a reason to remain separate and "safe" from outsiders. It's understandable, as a reaction to a homophobic church, but it's not what Catholicism should be about. Many of the signatories to the famous letter demanding legal provision for objectors before the synod debate are "active" gay clergy. I've known a large number of them socially over the years, and if you mix in those circles, you must have too.

It's time for those walls to come down: the walls that exclude women, and the walls that are non-accepting of the reality of gay clergy. Of course it will be a painful process, and it will demand heroic courage and perseverance in the faith, but the result will be a more, not less, Catholic Church.

Exaggerated statements to hype up the rhetoric - "we're the ones keeping the faith of over 2000 years and of over 1 billion people" - won't help stave off the reality. And, actually, they are rather patronising to the rest of us - who are you to say whether I am any less keeping the faith of 2000 years, for most of which women's ordination wasn't even under discussion because the culture was so male-dominated? And who are you to say what 1 billion Christians believe? Whenever there are any surveys, they always show that the laity are very much more liberal on sex and gender doctrinal issues than their unaccountable leaders claim.

I can hear your pain, but retreating into bitterness and smallness isn't the way forward for the Church: we just have to get on and move forward without this endless foot-dragging, which comes about for purely psychological resaons, and really, at base, has nothing to do with theology at all.

[Gregory of Langres]

Fr Mark - you say that the fundamentalist attitude is "I'm telling you, you MUST believe me!" Isn't that what Synod has done? It's closed down discussion and reception and given a laughable place to traditionalists. So it's the 'liberals' who are saying "I'm telling you [women should be bishops], you MUST believe me!"

You are right, too, that fundamentalism will "bring us[...] heretic-hunting and witch-burning in some new form or other." And this is what will now happen to traditional catholics. Vocations will dry up because there is no real provision, parishes will be forced to take clergy not in sympathy and bit by bit the liberals will hunt us out and burn us - and we're the ones keeping the faith of over 2000 years and of over 1 billion people!

To coin your phrase: "That's not my idea of Christianity, it's not the Anglicanism I was brought up with, and I don't want my Church to be sliding towards it."

[Gregory of Langres]

Fr Mark - you say that the fundamentalist attitude is "I'm telling you, you MUST believe me!" Isn't that what Synod has done? It's closed down discussion and reception and given a laughable place to traditionalists. So it's the 'liberals' who are saying "I'm telling you [women should be bishops], you MUST believe me!"

You are right, too, that fundamentalism will "bring us[...] heretic-hunting and witch-burning in some new form or other." And this is what will now happen to traditional catholics. Vocations will dry up because there is no real provision, parishes will be forced to take clergy not in sympathy and bit by bit the liberals will hunt us out and burn us - and we're the ones keeping the faith of over 2000 years and of over 1 billion people!

To coin your phrase: "That's not my idea of Christianity, it's not the Anglicanism I was brought up with, and I don't want my Church to be sliding towards it."

[Geoffrey Smith]

Actually, Alan, John Henry Newman will be beatified, not canonised, before the end of this year. But what's a few years in the Vatican time-scale? We Catholics can still pray to him for the conversion of those Anglicans who have remained in the Church of England. Another miracle is required for the canonisation of Blessed John. Perhaps your conversion to the Catholic faith would be regarded as such a preternatural event?

[Kate]

Behold the 'resurrection' of the Blessed Geoffrey Smith: bound-up as ever in the decomposing winding cloths of RC supremacy.

What's new? Well nothing really. Just more revelations of frantic paranoia - "Let's just kill all those crazy religious people ...? We certainly expect something like that ...".

Delusion and delirium on "Puritan" RC 'morality' - see Benedict on apologies to the millions of abused faithful Geoff!

The usual obsession with irrelevant RC legalisms; more pitiful theological grand-standing; and "angry red lines and black lines intermixed" - the pathetic fallacy of stylistic/linguistic competence.

Keep it coming Geoff. You confirm, in every post, a world-wide perception of 'abuse' - in all its manifestations - as intrinsic to your out-dated totalitarian ideology.

[Fr Mark]

It is very interesting reading the two absolutists, Alan Marsh and Geoffrey Smith here. The only difference between them is they have a (slightly) different set of absolutes - one fundamentalist Protestant, the other fundamentalist RC. The consequence is violent collision: "I'm telling you, you MUST believe me!"

Could the conclusion one should draw be, perhaps, that Christian fundamentalism is not adequate for dealing with theological complexity, and only leads to ratcheting up increasingly violent language?

Could that be why the C of E has historically avoided becoming a fundamentalist Church? In which case, why on earth are we giving succour to this crazy mindset now? All it will bring us is heretic-hunting and witch-burning in some new form or other. That's not my idea of Christianity, it's not the Anglicanism I was brought up with, and I don't want my Church to be sliding towards it.

[George Parr]

Another unbalanced, unmeasured response from G Smith - I wonder he bothers to reply, since he continually pleads for posts that contain cogent argument. It does seem to confirm a preference for engaging in rhetorical ping-pong however.

[Geoffrey Smith]

"Can't we just get rid of religion altogether and have some peace?"
- Alan, 20 JUL 2008, 07:58:34

Yes, let's, Alan. Let's just kill all those crazy religious people and have done with it. That would solve your problem, right?
We certainly expect something like that in the future from people like you.

[Geoffrey Smith]

"..., much of what you argue here is completely made up, Geoffrey".
- Malcolm, 22 JUL 2008, 17:45:44

In that case, Malcolm, you can easily explain the presence of the 'Dutch Touch' at the Anglican ordinations, and the absence of any Russian Touch, or Greek Touch, or Constantinople Touch, or....

[Malcolm+]

Perhaps you should pay some attention to reality then, Geoffrey. Then you wouldn't get so many things wrong.

Like me being an American. That is false.

Or like this silly suggestion that CofE bishops asked for a papal ruling on Anglican orders. That's a complete fantasy.

But then, much of what you argue here is completely made up, Geoffrey.

[Dr Alan Marsh]

As always, Geoffrey, you are a very poor apologist for your own religion. If you had been reading the news over the past few days instead of practising for the Olympic Small Bore Championship, you would have noticed that John Henry Newman may be canonised at the end of this year. Until then it is inappropriate, in RC etiquette, to speak of him as "Saint" - unless that is you are now speaking for the Congregation of the Causes of Saints, as well as Pope Pius IX?

[Geoffrey Smith]

"I don't know where you ever got the idea I was an American,..."
- Malcolm, 21 JUL 2008, 20:20:57

Reading your contentious exchange with Dr Marsh earlier this year, apropos the widening chasm in the Anglican communion, I was under the impression that you were a member of TEC, defending the appointment of Mr Robinson in New Hampshire. I do apologise for the error, Malcolm, but I stand by every other statement in my previous posts. To quote St John Henry Newman: "To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant". Historically speaking, reverend sir, I don't think you will ever be out of your depth.

[Gregory of Langres]

George - really? Where is are this noisy rabble then? I'm not talking about GAFCONners but those affected by the Synod vote. I don't really think a liberal is in a position to tell us that we are the ones "eaten up with our own concerns." We're the ones who changed the motion, remember, so that we could, in conscience, vote for Women Bishops if provision was sufficient.

Adrian - No, I do NOT think that and I fail to see how my post suggested it. There has been a forum for argument and debate and this can continue. However, there is still a job to do and it's just interesting noting who isn't doing it...

[Adrian]

Greg de Langres: so, you think that those who disagree with you should not be allowed to contribute to public fora discussing issues that affect them intimately?

You confirm my suspicion that a lot of the "debate" from the conservative side is simply about shouting the loudest.

[George Parr]

Gregory, from what I read many traditionalists are busily inflicting wounds, rather than healing them, from a standpoint steeped in discrimination. Silence, amazingly, is not in their repertoire. In some respects they represent the very worst aspects of the Anglican Church; eaten up with their own concerns, rather than ministering to the very real needs of others. The human struggle has always been against those who value others less and act accordngly, which is also reflected in the distinction found within religion, in which the claimed ideal is far from the reality.

[Gregory of Langres]

I do notice that it seems only to be liberal clergy that are contributing to this now. There are, indeed, some traditionalist laity but not clergy.

Perhaps, Fr Mark and others, you should get out into your parishes and proclaim the Gospel rather than ranting at fellow Christians in the public forum and causing further embarrassment to the Church of England in its present poor state.

Funny, though, the traditionalists clergy do seem to be silent. Are they nursing their wounds? NO! They're out in their parishes nursing other people's.

[Malcolm+]

I don't know where you ever got the idea I was an American, Geoffrey. I suppose you got it the same way you get most of your "facts."

My grasp of English is just fine, thanks. As is my grasp of history.

The claim that CofE bishops asked for the a papal opinion on Anglican orders is completely false.

I could use a more concise word, but Ruth prefers us not to be quite so blunt on her blog.

[George Parr]

Oh well done Geoff. Write the blog yourself then!

If you think that anything you have written so far constitutes a credible argument, you are more deluded than I thought. Since your posts all consist of the same dire warnings about salvation, the supposed supremacy by Catholics over Anglicans and posturing nonsense about who wins a prize for shaky theology, most educated people would quickly see that you have nothing to say. I do not agree with some views that Alan Marsh holds, but he certainly has the measure of you on another thread. Your observations over infallibility are neither credible nor accurate.

Whilst you are able to churn out your own prejudiced stereotypes, you are clearly using invective in an attempot to nullify the comments of others. You have no more rights or control here than I do. If you find my posts pompous and predictable, hard luck - don't bother replying to them.

PS. Your frequent use of 'turgid' belies your immodest claim to an exemplary command of English. Equally 'Interminable blather without one single rational argument.' has no verb and is not a sentence. It's also better to say 'I know precisely what you will write.' It makes more sense. I hope this helps.

[Geoffrey Smith]

"I note that Geoffrey admits to every one of his false statements".
- Malcolm, 21 JUL 2008, 02:19:14

Incredible. An American who doesn't understand English! Er, you ARE an American, aren't you, Malcolm? Perhaps an immigrant still getting to grips with a difficult language? In that case, I will make allowances for you and wait patiently for you to become really proficient in your national first language. Like the aircraft carrier, I am impressed by any enterprise.

[Malcolm+]

I note that Geoffrey admits to every one of his false statements.

Thanks Geoff. Time for you to declare victory again, I think. Can you order up the aircraft carrier and the flight suit in time?

[Geoffrey Smith]

I knew my replies to Dr Marsh and Malcolm would have this effect, the oh-so-predictable ranting from Mr Parr. I can tell exactly what he intends to post even before he has actually typed it!! Have you ever read or heard such fanciful rhetoric?! Interminable blather without one single rational argument. You needn't bother posting any more replies, Mr Parr. I'll do it for you; I know precisely what you would write and my English is far better than your turgid waffle.

[George Parr]

Yes indeed! These are the things that MATTER in this world - pinpoint accuracy over titles, edicts and infallibility, proving absolutely who is RIGHT and WINNING the holy argument!

Tactics include: defining Anglican malevolance and spurious claims; deifying names, enlarging pronouncements by ordinary human beings out of all proportion, defining rulings, validity and religious lies. Here the most pious of Catholics can ride the sea of distorted 'truths' and discuss valid ordinals, as if it all has some important meaning or other

Well done for highlighting just how futile and negative these things are, whilst firmly identifying the province of unbending obsessives. These attitudes are far removed from the paths taken by the gentle and positive open-minded Christians I have met.

As a case for seriously trying to control the deleterious effects of religious bias in a rational, caring society, it just gets better and better!

[Geoffrey Smith]

"..your false claim that Roman Catholics are forbidden to accord non-Roman clergy the courtesy title "Father"..."
- Malcolm, 20 JUL 2008, 05:59:25

No such claim. I said that 'Father' is a title reserved for Catholic priests. 'Non-Roman' clergy are not Catholic priests. Priests maybe, Catholics, no.

"...your false claim that it was the Church of England which asked Leo XIII to rule on Anglican orders..."

No such claim. I refer you to my post of 15 July, 17:20:55. I said that Pope Leo "was asked by certain bishops of the C of E to give a ruling on the validity of Anglican orders, and he did so". I did not say that these 'bishops' represented the C of E. Indeed, it would have been impossible for them to do so, given the malevolence of the Anglican attitude at that time towards the Catholic Church.

"...your false denial that all present Roman orders derive through Henry Benedict Stuart..."

No such denial. By your own admission (17 July 2008, 05:25:24), Stuart was only one of the co-consecrators of a number of bishops. 'Roman' orders do not depend on the sole officiation of Stuart at an ordination ceremony, as your post clearly implied.

"...your false claim that Henry Benedict never claimed to be King".

No such claim. I said that Stuart never made a FORMAL claim to the throne. It is one thing to stake a spurious claim, but something else entirely to establish it. I can claim to be the rightful President of the United States, appointed by God, but would the American people acknowledge my claim? I don't think so, Malcolm, do you?
Once again, reverend sir, you are not paying attention to the content of my post, but rushing all too hastily to defend
what is an historically poor case. But then, since the Anglican community is entirely founded on a laceration of historical fact, not to mention theological legerdemain, it's unreasonable of me to expect anything else.

[alan]

Lovely stuff! Believers in the god of love having a real go at each other! Goebbels would be delighted.
Can't we just get rid of religion altogether and have some peace?

[Malcolm+]

Not a single lie in my posts in this thread.

One typo - which I acknowledged and corrected.

And one inacccurate statement in another thread I have also taken time to address.

But the principle inaccuraccies in this thread mostly seem to have been from you - such as your false claim that Roman Catholics are forbidden to accord non-Roman clergy the courtesy title "Father", or you false claim that it was the Church of England which asked Leo XIII to rule on Anglican orders, or you false denial that all present Roman orders, as it happens, derive through Henry Benedict Stuart, or your false claim thhat Henry Benedict never claimed to be King.

But then, I'm sure you will repeat them. You do seem to be a faithful student of Dr. Goebbels (who would be your co-religionist, not mine) in that regard.

[Geoffrey Smith]

So, Mr Malcolm, Henry Benedict had a medal struck describing himself as "Henry IX". So what? I've just had a medal struck to commemorate my accession to the throne of North America as King Geoff I.
Kneel down before me, peasant.

[Geoffrey Smith]

Another mistake, Mr Malcolm. Keep it up, lad. Nothing like clangers to prove your opponent's case. You remind me of your fellow-Catholic, Josef Goebbels. Tell it loud and tell it often, sooner or later the lies will be believed.

[Malcolm+]

Ooo. Typo on my part.

Geoffrey didn't assert that all modern Roman orders trace through Henry Benedict Stuart. I mentioned this curiosity and Geoffrey had a meltdown denying it (even though it is perfectly true).

The fault for the confusion is mine. I was obviously editing while writing - always a bad idea. What I clearly meant was Geoffrey's "completely false DENIAL that all modern Roman orders trace through Henry Benedict Stuart."

In any event, I see that Geoffrey has asked us to stop correcting his many an manifold errors, distortions and untruths. In a response common to those who are losing, he has declared victory and now intends to move on.

Badd news though, Geoff. Some of us will continue to call you on your creative approach to facts when you start spreading tripe on future threads.

[Geoffrey Smith]

"- your completely false assertion that modern Roman orders all trace through Henry Benedict Stuart, and..."
- 17 JUL 2008, 19:53:05

Another guy who wont read my post.
I never said any such thing. I have come to the conclusion that you are deliberately putting words into my posts in an attempt to discredit the Catholic Church and her faith. Like Dr Marsh, your bias is all too obvious. It allows you to propagate the same old fiction and distortions with which we are all so familiar ever since the reformation. Don't bother answering this post; I don't have the stomach to take any more of your cornball crap (your word, not mine).

[Malcolm+]

Because the Papal States had entered into a treaty with the de facto UK government in which they recognized the Hanoverian succession (a treaty which Henry Benedict did formally protest), Henry Benedict made no formal assertion of his claim to the throne. There were, however, a number of less formal assertions which make his position very clear - includng the provsion of his will acknowledging Charles Emmanuel as his heir, as well as his striking of a medallion on which he was referred to as "Henry IX' (with the amusing legend, "Not by the will of men, but of God").

Clearly your knowledge of Jacobte history is a spotty as your knowledge of most everything else - a hodgepodge of your vain imaginings.

Oh, and the Church of England didn't "require" the Dutch Touch, nor either the participation of the former +Spoleto in the consecration of Laud. No one here has argued that either was required, despite your deliberate misrepresentations.

What those two things do point out, however, is that the findings of Apostolicae Curae, even if it hadn't been utter rubbish from start to finish, would no longer be operative due to those events.

Thus, even if we pretend that Apostolicae Curae was something other than self-serving tripe, it would still be wrong now.

And what disturbs me about your posts, Geoffrey, is the manner in which you post complete crap as though it were true. You really have no room to preach about accuracy since you have been demonstrably and indisputably wrong on inumerable points, including but not limited to:

- your completely false claim that the CofE requested a Papal finding on Anglican orders,
- your completely false assertion that moder Roman orders all trace through Henry Benedict Stuart, and
- your completely false claim that "Father" is a title restricted only to Roman Catholic priests.

Given that you have either such a small grasp on reality or such a great contempt for the truth, it isn't surprising that anyone who values truth should find your constant half-truth, dissembling and distortion disturbing.

[Geoffrey Smith]

Perhaps, Mr Mark, instead of imitating Mr Parr's inane one-liners, you would answer the question I addressed to Mr Malcolm?

[Fr Mark]

Geoffrey Smith: "your command of history is rather less than adequate."

'ark at 'er!

[Geoffrey Smith]

One more point, Mr Malcolm, to add to my previous post: are you going to answer my first question? Why would it be necessary for Anglicans to require the participation of Old Catholics in their ordination services if the ordinal they were accustomed to using was perfectly valid and effective?

[Geoffrey Smith]

My word, Mr Malcolm, you really are teed off, aren't you? Could it be that my comments are a little unsettling, and tending to dispel your illusions? As I suspected, your command of history is rather less than adequate. Henry Benedict Stuart, Cardinal Duke of York, was never the King of England. When his brother, Charles Edward Stuart, died in 1788 leaving no heirs, Henry made no formal claim to the throne. Before you resume your posting on this blog, please ensure that your facts are correct. As a Romish historian, albeit an amateur one, I do insist on accuracy.

[George Parr]

"Puritan sexual ethics... have always been important to the Catholic Church"

Ho! Ho! Ho! Ho!

As usual Smithy implies a distinction between his own soaring piety and immaculate standards, and that of the known world, including Popes - against a moribund argument elsewhere over infallibility!

[Malcolm+]

There is nothing in the world, nothing from Rome, nothing by any of your precious popes, nothing at all which purports to restrict the title "Father" to Romish priests.

You can keep repeating this canard all you want, it won't make it true.

And yes, every current Roman bishop, as it happens, traces their succession through Henry Benedict, the Cardinal King. He was Dean of the Sacred College of Cardinals. He was Papal Chamberlain. He was one of the coconsecrators of more than one bishop who subsequently became pope.

Why the curiosity that this particular Romish bishop happens to be part of the succession of every ordained Roman bishop, priest or deacon today should cause you to have some sort of enraged meltdown iis beyond me. But it does seem your rather typical response to most anything.

BTW, Henry Benedict was loyal to Rome through his whole life, unlike his brother Charles, who was received into the Church of England in the 1750s (though he subsequently reverted to the Roman obedience).

And, as much fun as it may be to tweek your enraged nose, I don't think Fr. Mark's contention of Henry Benedict's sexuality is actually sustainable on the available evidence.

[Geoffrey Smith]

"Puritan sexual ethics", Mr Mark, have always been of great importance to the Catholic Church, they are not a recent innovation. If Pope Alexander VI fell far short of Our Lord's requirements, he is now repenting at leisure in Hades - a salutary reminder to any other priest or bishop who
may have similar proclivities.

[Fr Mark]

Geoffrey Smith: Henry Benedict Stuart Cardinal of York was not just gay (which is why he was shoved into the RC Church by his family at a very young age - a cardinal in his 20s), but ostentatiously so. Being both royal and a cardinal, he could do pretty much what he liked, and evidently did. Look up the Wikipedia entry for him - it makes interesting reading. Puritan sexual ethics have become fashionable in the RC Church only very recently, as the lives of many senior clergy in previous centuries should remind us...

[Geoffrey Smith]

Mr Malcolm, why would it be necessary for Anglicans to require the participation of the Old Catholics in their ordination services if the ordinal they were accustomed to using was perfectly valid and effective?
Ordination by a renegade Catholic bishop means nothing without the final approval of Rome. Such ordinations are gravely illicit. Contrary to your astounding belief in Henry Benedict Stuart's progenitorship, very few Catholic priests trace their ordination through him.
There are 404,000 such priests in the world, and your 'Little Englander' attitude towards them does you no credit.
Neither does Mr Mark's irrelevant reference to Stuart's sexuality earn for him any brownie points.
The use of the title 'Father' to address a Catholic priest is not, of course, required by Apostolicae Curae. I never said it was. It is your unauthorised use of that term to address your lay brethren in their clerical garb that earns our rebuke.

[Fr Mark]

Malcolm: and, of course, Henry Benedict Stuart was himself gay...

[John]

Thank you for explaining matters to Mr Smith, Malcolm. He has an astonishing incapacity for chronology, let alone theology.

[Malcolm+]

1. There is nothing in Apostolicae Curae, or anywhere else but your fevered imagination, which limits the title "Father" to Roman Catholic priests.

2. Your claim that CofE bishops requested a papal ruling on Anglican orders is completely false. To the degree that anyone was asking for such a statement, it was the Roman heirarchy in Britain (aka the Italian Mission) who (wrongly) believed that a finding of nullity would open the floodgate of conversions.

3. You might do well to read, Geoffrey. Might I suggest, to begin, the response of the Archbishops of York and Canterbury to the papal bull (self-indulgent snicker at the propriety of that label). The Archbishops demonstrated (in better Latin) that the argyuments of Apostolicae Curae would render both Roman and Orthodox orders invalid as well. You might also read "Absolutely Null and Utterly Void" and Stewards of the Lord" by Fr. John Hughes.

4. In large part, the case made by Merry del Val and signed off by Leo XIII conceded that the 1604 English ordinal was sufficient for validity, but that Anglican orders were void because the alleged deficiencies of the Edwardian / Elizabethan ordinal had effectively left the CofE with no valid bishops by 1604. Even accepting this dubious analysis, since 1604, there have been two events which render this irrelevant.

a) the participation of Old Catjolic bishops in the consecration of Anglican bishops - the so-called "Dutch Touch."

b) the participation of the former Roman bishop of Spoleto in the consecration of Archbishop Laud. Every ordained Anglican alive today traces their ordination through the therefore validly ordained Laud.

(As an aside, every ordained Roman Catholic today traces their orders through the sometime Cardinal Bishop of Frascati - one Henry Benedict Stuart, younger brother of "Bonnie Prince Charlie," acknowledged by Jacobites as Henry IX.)

[Fr Mark]

Geoffrey Smith: I don't think you've got any idea about the history of ecclesiastical forms of address (not, admittedly the most important byway of debate, but still, perhaps you ought to have if you're going to spout such strong views). Apostolicae Curae doesn't say anything about ecclesiastical titles. In England, in fact, they were regulated by the State until the 1920s by the Ecclesiastical Titles Act, which forbade any RC to appropriate titles already in use by Anglicans. "Fr" was only used for religious, as opposed to secular, RC priests until very recently: the older title in England for the secular clergy was "Sir", in fact. Read Eamon Duffy's "Voices of Morebath" if you want to know more. The traditional practice in England is that the monarch is the fount of all honour, and that only titles granted by the monarch were to be officially recognised, which, I suppose, if I wanted to be pedantic, would include my "Revd", but not a Roman one. But, then, that is the sort of traditionalism that "traditionalists" don't much care for if it doesn;t suit them, isn't it?

It doesn't much matter what people say - I'm perfectly used to people using my first name alone - except if they're trying to be rude, in which case churlishness should not prevail, I think. I suppose international, let alone interchurch or interreligious relations could never work at any level without basic politeness, could it?

[Geoffrey Smith]

You just don't bother reading my posts, do you, John? The Old Catholic sect originated in 1870, when they refused to accept the definition of papal infallibility. The Church of England has been anti-papal since 1558, so the Anglicans have nothing to learn from the OCs, except to exploit their valid ordinal in a pointless damage limitation exercise. Pope Leo XIII did not issue his encyclical entirely off his own bat; he was asked by certain bishops of the C o E to give a ruling on the validity of Anglican orders, and he did so. They didn't like what Leo gave them so they tried to dispute his decision. Some bright spark came up with this idea of approaching the OCs and requesting ordination according to their ordinal, knowing that it was recognised by Rome.
In this way, they fondly imagined that they could 'prove' that Leo's verdict was not correct and they did, in fact, have valid orders. The fact that they were 300 years too late does not seem to have occurred to them. For this reason, as I stated in a previous post, although the Church of England is fully entitled to appoint women to any positions in their ministry, they are not entitled to call them priests or bishops, because the Church long ago lost the apostolic succession and with it the right to consider itself a legitimate part of the Catholic Church. If there is anything bizarre about this matter, it is the refusal of the Church of England to concede that the Elizabethan adoption of the Edwardine ordinal put the kibosh on the Church's valid orders - as it was intended to. In Apostolicae Curae Pope Leo merely pointed this out, but he was talking to a stone wall.

[George Parr]

Geoff, I've just read your silly post to KM. So, for those who take themselves very seriously, so much so that they cannot allow themselves to raise a smile. I can confirm that my post, amid a sea of gloom, was indeed satirical. And also that as far as I am aware, no spinsters were fired as a result of the decision to admit women to the episcopate.

[John]

I think that conclusively makes you a heretic, Geoffrey, since you dispute the official teaching of the Vatican that Old Catholic orders are "valid". The Church of England has been Old Catholic since the 1930s, but you still cling on to that bizarre document, Apostolicae Curae which, sadly for the reputation of the papacy, was published in 1896.

[Geoffrey Smith]

"Oh dear, Mr Smith, you disagree with the Vatican as to the status of Old Catholics!
Does that make you a heretic? Or merely eternally condemned?"
- John, 14 JUL 2008, 21:24:27

A heretic? No, John, no. I have always
acknowledged the validity of the Old Catholics ordinal. It was/is the attempt by the Church of England to recover the pre-Reformation status of the English Church by resorting to ordination in a sect that post-dated that Church by 300 years that rules out any possibility of recognising the Church of England as a part of the Catholic Church.
Eternally condemned? Well, as a sinner like every one else, there is always that possibility. Like St Paul, I too must work out my salvation in fear and trembling - like every one else.

[George Parr]

Ho! Ho! Geoff, you really do have nothing whatsoever to say do you!

Speaking of tautology tell us the one about Apostolicae Curae again - in which the late 19thC Pope Leo declares the Anglican church to be utterly null and void...

[George Parr]

Rick, thanks for the McDonalds offer. Since I'm a vegetarian and would rather eat my own trousers than consume an Offalburger, I'll pass on that one. I'm sure that you are a really nice guy underneath all this hellfire!

PS. Few Brits use "blimey" as an expletive. You sound like Dick van Dyke in Mary Poppins!

You have a nice day.

[Geoffrey Smith]

If you have read Apostolicae Curae only once, Malcolm, you will be aware that Pope Leo definitively proclaimed Anglican orders to be totally null and void. The title of 'Fr' is reserved for a Catholic priest. Since by Pope Leo's definition neither you nor Mr Mark is such a priest, it follows that you also must be regarded as just a plain 'Mr'. Have a nice day.

[Geoffrey Smith]

Mr Parr, your tautological drivel is becoming really irritating. Would you please form your sentences in a recognisably good style of English?

[John]

Oh dear, Mr Smith, you disagree with the Vatican as to the status of Old Catholics!

Does that make you a heretic? Or merely eternally condemned?

[Tom Moderate]

Extract from

Will Rome really take our trads?
By Ruth Gledhill

The Bishop of Dover, who is a supporter of women bi shops, said in Synod: ‘for the first time in my life I feel ashamed’.

Women Bi Shops
- local branch The Close, Canterbury
- Frocks from Kevin Mayhew a speciality….!
- Come in for a Consultation

- drop in for a cuppa of our speciality brew
-
- and a special greeting from Dover

[Malcolm+]

"What it is not entitled to do is to call them Christian priests, any more than you are entitled to call yourself a priest (Apostolicae Curae).
Hence I must decline to address you as 'Fr'."

I'm sorry, Geoffrey, I don't follow.

I've read Apostolicae Curae several times, and I don't recall a single sentence in which it demands that those of the Roman obedience be rude and ignorant in their dealings with Anglicans.

Personally, I don't believe in the titles of Cardinal or Pope. However, because I try not to be too rude or too ignorant, I was quite happy to refer to Bishop Ratzinger as Cardinal during his former office, and as Pope now that he has become Bishop of Rome.

You silly-ass refusal says far more about you than about either Fr. Mark or the status of Anglican orders.

Perhaps you should consult your parish priest about how to behave in public.

[Rick Beekman]

George Parr;

You suggested Geoff have a great "Beekman-style day". I serve a loving savior..everyday is Great!

Is it true you get up every morning look in your mirror and say "Blimey I can't wait for tomorrow because I'm getting better looking every day"? or this just some Roumer??? George we still love you I'm just "Picking" on you. If I ever come across the Pond I'll certainly take you and yours for a great dinner! (what time does Mc Donald's Close over there??!)

[George Parr]

Oh well spun Geoffrey; as you well know there has been 2000 years of generic narrative constructed as a continuum around the imaginings and human interpretations of numerous unscrupulous 'holy' regimes, all designed to control, cajole, influence, impress and terrify the ignorant; piety in the name of unbridled self-interest, financial enrichment and power - this includes the rubbish from all patriarchal Christian hierarchies, Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant. It has had very little to do with true faith - in my humble view.

[Rick Beekman]

George Parr;

You suggested Geoff have a great "Beekman-style day". I serve a loving savior..everyday is Great!

Is it true you get up every morning look in your mirror and say "Blimey I can't wait for tomorrow because I'm getting better looking every day"? or this just some Roumer??? George we still love you I'm just "Picking" on you. If I ever come across the Pond I'll certainly take you and yours for a great dinner! (what time does Mc Donald's Close over there??!)

[Geoffrey Smith]

"This was as far as I understand it a "joke"..."
- KM, 13 JUL 2008, 16:06:52

This was no joke, KM. Neither was it an attempt at satire. It was a typical snidy and bitchy remark from a typical atheist, which would have landed him in court if he had met my challenge to name one such 'trad'.

[KM]

Some 'trads' have fired their spinster housekeepers as an act of revenge".
- The Legend, 11 July 2008, 07:31 PM

Name one.

This was as far as I understand it a "joke" (Alt. definitions: Levity. Humour. Satire. The kind of scurrilous stuff women will bring into the church because they don't have any respect for tradition etc), a species of communication in which the truth is not spoken entirely seriously, or not spoken at all for comic purposes. Some of the more faithful or narrow-minded posters may recall having heard this strange thing "joke" in their childhood, before they became real men and put away such childish things.

[Geoffrey Smith]

"Geoffrey Smith appears to be unaware of the fact that all the clergy and bishops of the Church of England are now in Old Catholic orders, and have been for many years".
- John, 12 JUL 2008, 13:39:34

Meaning, of course, that Pope Leo XIII was absolutely correct and Anglican orders were null and void, and had been so for many years. In that event, the apostolic succession was most certainly lost and the Church of England is now, as confirmed by the York synod, a wholly Protestant church and not a Catholic one.
"Organic identity depends on dogmatic identity", and no amount of tinkering with
the ordinal of another sect will ever convert the C of E into something it never was and never will be - an integral part of
Christ's Church.

[Geoffrey Smith]

"...miles of niggling and arcane papal bulls, edicts and encyclicals - a ton of rubbish which has been wholly constructed OVER TWO MILLENIA..." (my capitals).
- George Parr, 12 JUL 2008 16:08:07

Thank you very much, Mr Parr, for your frank admission that the Catholic Church has existed for 2000 years. There are some people on this blog who don't know that. You should have a word with your atheist soul-mate, Mr Pearce, who is quite convinced that the Catholic Church began in the 11th century when it 'split off from the Orthodox Church'. But then, accuracy has never been an atheist's strong point, has it, eh?

[Geoffrey Smith]

"Well what charming people, etc, etc..."
- Mr Mark, 12 JUL 2008 15:53:21

Like I said, you rhetoric is far, far better than mine! I have given up hope of getting a rational response from you.

[Geoffrey Smith]

"It is easy to understand the viewpoint of the traditionalists if you take the Bible literally".
- Ian, 12 JUL 2008 18:25:37

That is the whole point, Ian. A traditionalist does not take the Bible literally where it is not intended to be taken literally. Genesis 1-2, for example. No Catholic , educated in science, believes that God created the universe in six days of twenty-four hours each! Genesis is an account of WHY God created the world, not how. It is the refusal of some self-styled traditionalists to impart an allegorical interpretation to
certain parts of the Bible that causes people like yourself to misunderstand the Catholic position.

[George Parr]

Dear Geoff, (who may just be a dull boy!)

The remark about housekeepers was satirical, along with the rest of the post. Look up 'levity'.

Have a great Beekman-style day!

[ian]

As one who is not a committed Christian I still find it a sad spectacle to see the Church of England tearing itself apart over the issue of Women Bishops. It is easy to understand the viewpoint of the traditionalists if you take the Bible literally.But considering that it appeared to be written so long after the events surely makes it impossible to do so.
There is no doubt that Women seem to make fine priests so it follows thatsome of their number will make fine Bishops.

[George Parr]

Congratulations Fr Mark, like Mr Halsall and myself you join the ranks of those whose views are judged to be worthless through a Smithian definition of foolishness.

If there is a God, and personally I am by no means certain there is, I am horrified to think that He will be welcoming those who cloak themselves in unthinking and rigid 'traditionalist' raiment; those who define the last nut and bolt of existence, through miles of niggling and arcane papal bulls, edicts and encyclicals - a ton of rubbish which has been wholly constructed over two millenia and represents the accumulated 'wisdom' of every self-serving male hierarchy that ever existed. Sadly Mr Smith has fallen for it all.

Fear, trembling and hell figure highly in the psyche of these gloomy, hopeless people, who surround themselves with barbs and sharp edges, laid out to cut others in order to defend their arguably unorthodox position within the world.

Mr Smith cannot be typical can he? Are all Catholics uncivil and discourteous to others, as they trot out the same rote-learnt jargon over contraception and one-track sexual morality.

According to him, being a Catholic is no guarantee of salvation; 'millions' of them are going to hell anyway. Presumably this does not include Mr Smith who, amazingly, has been chosen to interpret and carry out the duties of a proper Catholic in the correct way. In short he seems convinced he has all the credentials; a Special Christian and possibly nearer to God than many of his fellow travellers. Salvation is guaranteed.

Holiness at this level of course allows an unmitigated vitriolic response, should he be presented with the terror of being asked to think outside of the box in which he resides.

[Fr Mark]

Well what charming people some of these "traditional" Catholics are - that'll be "traditional" in the sense of "bring back the Inquisition/ we're up for a good old-fashioned bit of witch-burning" then, I suppose...

[John]

Geoffrey Smith appears to be unware of the fact that all the clergy and bishops of the Church of England are now in Old Catholic orders, and have been for many years.

[Geoffrey Smith]

"Some 'trads' have fired their spinster housekeepers as an act of revenge".
- The Legend, 11 July 2008, 07:31 PM

Name one.

[Stephen Marsden]

Why anyone should think I am a Roman Catholic entirely defeats me! Perhaps it's because I believe that 'lived experience' has sod all to do with revealed religion.

Until last Monday, Catholics believed that they had an honoured place in the Church of England. I sat through that disgrace which passed for a 'debate' at the General Synod and, like the Bishop of Dover, I was ashamed to be a member of the C of E.

Presumably, Mark was proud of what the Synod did. That's fine, as presumably pride is no longer a sin in his super new church. The trouble is that 'his' church appears not to be that of our Lord.

[Geoffrey Smith]

"Being rude to those who disagree with you will not alter reality".
- Mr Mark, 11 July 2008, 09:23:48

I'll say one thing for you, Mr Mark, your rhetoric is far better than mine. I take it that you have now read John 6 and realised just how foolish your previous comment was about the opinion polls.
Our disagreement concerns YOUR ordination, not the ordination of women in your Church. The Church of England is fully entitled to appoint women members to its clergy, if it so wishes. What it is not entitled to do is to call them Christian priests, any more than you are entitled to call yourself a priest (Apostolicae Curae).
Hence I must decline to address you as 'Fr'. If, however, you acknowledged the force of Pope Leo's encyclical and acquired ordination at the hands of someone like the Old Catholics, then I will apologise and readily address you by your priestly title.

"They certainly don't think they're any less Catholic because the Pope ignores their lived experience".
- op. cit.

"Not everyone who says to me 'Lord, Lord, will enter the Kingdom of Heaven, but they who do the will of my Father in Heaven".
"He that hears you, hears me, and he that despises you, despises me".

This means one thing, Mr Mark: Millions of Catholics are Hell-bound. Simply being a member of the Catholic Church is no guarantee of salvation. Like St Paul we must work out our salvation in fear and trembling, an arduous task that meets with the disapproval of the sneering, supercilious liberals in the Anglican sect.
The Pope does not ignore their 'lived experience'. On the contrary, our Holy Mother Church constantly warns her children not to become embroiled in the wickedness of this secular world, and her wisdom in the context of condemning contraception is clearly shown by the stark fact that Britain, (and therefore the Church of England) with an abysmally
low birth-rate of only 1.65, has no future. No way are you going to beat demography, Mr Mark. No babies, no country. It's as simple as that, and the pantomime at York this week was just urinating into the wind.

[George Parr]

Have you any idea what your 'lighthearted comments' might do to some of these traditional people KM? Many are on the verge of ecclesiastical suicide. Some are out buying birettas, Marian images and investigating EasyJet prices. Others are stunned and woeful, not allowed anything sharp and are receiving emergency male counselling involving pipe-smoking and a Lambeth sponsored 'knit your own braces' course. There are even some wearing 'male-bonding' patches - as a substitute, in a desperate attempt to wean themselves off it, as droves of jubilant women steadily approach. Some 'trads' have fired their spinster housekeepers as an act of revenge.

There is also a rumour that despite claims to the contrary Anglican 'traddist' splinter groups are running out of suitably grand titles and may have to rely on ambiguous initials in order to preserve an essence of patriarchal mystery. And you speak of lightheartedness...

[KM]

Well, personally I always dislike using the term Christian in front of bitter and twisted people.

It seems such a waste of a good prefix.

Not that I think you are, Stephen, I don't know anything about you. You might very well be lovely and much more Christian than I am.

Am I the only one making slightly lighthearted comments on this blog? (thinks of running back to Alphamummy)

[Fr Mark]

Stephen Marsden: Well, if you're a member of the RC Church, then why would you need to get worked up about what we Anglicans are doing? The RC Church thinks that the Bishop of Ebbsfleet is no more a priest than I am, remember, nor any less a priest than my female colleagues. If you think the Anglican Church is fake, that's fine, you don't need to be in it. But if you think that only people who agree with you are entitled to call themselves Anglican, then it looks as if you'd soon be in a church of one. And you won't find many RC laypeople who are happy with your ecclesiology either, in fact. What the Vatican says is simply not what most RC faithful believe or do - witness the total failure of the teaching on contraception; the fact that RCs divorce, or enter same-sex marriages, in numbers equal to any other Christians. They certainly don't think they're any less Catholic because the Pope ignores their lived experience.

[Stephen Marsden]

Whatever I am, it is neither bitter nor twisted. But I admit that I dislike using the title 'Fr' in respect of protestant ** ministers, however high church they may be.

As for the Presiding Bishop, at least when I call her 'Ms', I go on to spell her name correctly.

** And before you object to my use of the word protestant, I would only repeat the words of the late Holy Father: '...I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful.' As a faithful member of the Church, I have no choice but to accept that ruling. What, I wonder, is your excuse?

[Kieron Wood]

As a member of the pre-Henry VIII unreformed Catholic Church, I'd like to say that - whatever the views of the Catholic hierarchy of England and Wales - those who oppose this latest attack on Catholic tradition will be warmly welcomed by ordinary Catholics into our Church.

[KM]

No, Fr Mark, not all traditionalists are like that. I know loads of them, and they are lovely. We disagree about theology, and then we get on with serving the Church together. It works pretty well on the whole.

But then I'm just a soppy woman who is probably too emotional to take these theological debates seriously enough (ducks and runs for cover)

[George Parr]

Ho! Ho! Geoffrey Smith, what or who tells you what to do! You have absolutely no real idea do you! Unfortunately for you your voices are clearly telling you to be superior, discriminatory and unpleasant to others. Mind you that's mild in comparison with other 'holy' brethren, some of whom are being instructed to wage wars and wield axes! Lets have some more balanced mental poise Geoff. The global value of some forms of religous thinking is of course inestimable.

[Fr Mark]

Geoffrey Smith and Stephen Marsden: are all "traditionalists" also required to be as insulting, or is it just the really bitter and twisted ones? You can't even bear to put "Fr" in front of the name of someone who disagrees with you on women's ordination: just like the rude "orthodox" who refer to "Ms" Jefferts Schorri. Being so discourteous is not a good advertisement for what a church run by trads might look like, is it? Elevating women's ordination to being the test of orthodoxy is a mistake, and out of line with both historic Christianity and with the reality of lived Christian experience today. Being rude to those who disagree with you will not alter reality.

[Geoffrey Smith]

"One day, the RC Church hierarchy will represent the sensus fidelium, instead of dictating to(and being ignored by)the faithful".
- Mr Mark, 10 July 2008 18:28:05

One day, one day, one day.
Always one day. Typical Anglican. You'll be telling me next that you believe in miracles. For your information, Mr Mark, public opinion has never determined the teaching of Our Lord's Church. John 6. Try reading it some time. You will find the novelty enthralling.

KM: The Tablistas are notorious for their rejection of the teaching of the Catholic Church. Like the CFFC and CTA in America, they fondly imagine that they are still Catholics. If Mr Halsall is one such, I do most earnestly urge him to abandon this pernicious pulp before it ruins his soul.

[John]

What troubled me most of all as I watched the debate were the routine invitations from the revisionists to "trust" them, as they voted down the various amendments which would have provided trust, and discarded the promises and assurances given in 1992 that the conscience clauses provided then were not just a temporary expedient aimed at getting the legislation on to the statute book. One American speaker even asserted that promises are not really commitments to do anything.

The result of the debate is that all trust is permanently broken.

And, what the revisionists seem to have failed to take into account in their calculations, is that by denying any provision for traditionalists in the Measure, they have effectively forced them to campaign against women bishops, something which they had no intention of doing when the debate started. How's that for unintended consequences?!

[Stephen Marsden]

I see that 'Fr' Mark is one of those who believes in the infallibility of the next pope but one!

When will the revisionists get it into their heads?

A conservative pope is elected.
He appoints conservative cardinals.
The pope dies.
The conclave elect on of their own number as the next pope.
And so:
A conservative pope is elected.
He appoints conservative cardinals.
The pope dies.
The conclave elect on of their own number as the next pope.
etc ad infinitum

Deo gratias!

[Geoffrey Smith]

Careful, Mr Parr! You are spending too much time on this religious blog. You are beginning to hear voices in your head.

[Chris Gillibrand]

"Now in the Catholic Church itself we take the greatest care to hold that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all. That is truly and properly 'Catholic,' as is shown by the very force and meaning of the word, which comprehends everything almost universally. We shall hold to this rule if we follow universality [i.e. oecumenicity], antiquity, and consent. We shall follow universality if we acknowledge that one Faith to be true which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is clear that our ancestors and fathers proclaimed; consent, if in antiquity itself we keep following the definitions and opinions of all, or certainly nearly all, bishops and doctors alike.

(4) What then will the Catholic Christian do, if a small part of the Church has cut itself off from the communion of the universal Faith? The answer is sure. He will prefer the healthiness of the whole body to the morbid and corrupt limb. But what if some novel contagion try to infect the whole Church, and not merely a tiny part of it? Then he will take care to cleave to antiquity, which cannot now be led astray by any deceit of novelty. What if in antiquity itself two or three men, or it may be a city, or even a whole province be detected in error? Then he will take the greatest care to prefer the decrees of the ancient General Councils, if there are such, to the irresponsible ignorance of a few men. But what if some error arises regarding which nothing of this sort is to be found? Then he must do his best to compare the opinions of the Fathers and inquire their meaning, provided always that, though they belonged to diverse times and places, they yet continued in the faith and communion of the one Catholic Church; and let them be teachers approved and outstanding. And whatever he shall find to have been held, approved and taught, not by one or two only but by all equally and with one consent, openly, frequently, and persistently, let him take this as to be held by him without the slightest hesitation."
St Vincent of Lerins

In fine, the judgement of the world secures the Truth- mercifully not just Europe and even more mercifully not just England and in a manner a bit more sophisticated that a majority vote in one particular age and society, both of which pass.

[Fr Mark]

Geooffrey Smith and Stephen Marsden: but whatever top-down Vatican documents have been issued, the fact remains that most of the RC faithful in Western Europe are in favour of women's ordination. Opinion polls undertaken across Western European countries consistently indicate this. The mistake is to conflate "catholic" with "anti-women's ordination", either in the C of E or the RC Church. The SSC have been busily writing off any Anglo-Catholic in favour of women's ordination as "unsound" for umpteen years now, without being in touch at all with the sensus fidelium in the RC Church, which sees things quite differently. One day, the RC Church hierarchy will represent the sensus fidelium, instead of dictating to (and being ignored by) the faithful.

[KM]

"that heretical rag, The Tablet."

Oh, moments like this make me realise why I don't spend too much time on the religious blogs.

[George Parr]

Ho! Ho! Geoffrey Smith. What a kindly, if gloating, 'deeply religious' soul you are!

Let's get this straight 'Ordinatio Sacerdotalis' was declared by someone or other to be infallible. So Mr Halsall, for all his humanity is wholly foolish to think that any decisions, once taken, will ever be reversed. Nice of you to say so.

The way to save his own soul however is to to take your advice over what he reads - for example he should immediately stop reading The Tablet, which is heretical. Keep it up, in pursuing unthinking, gleeful rigidity you are doing wonders for those who are championing the cause of rationality!

[Rick Beeman]

Ruth;
This entire scenario reminds me of a couple things Jesus Said; Mark 3 v 24 & 25 "And if a kingdom be divided against itself that kingdom cannot stand. And if a house be divided against itself..that house cannot stand".

To all that read this; When a church goes against the Word of God and gives into political correctness or agendas that are against Holy writ..they are heading for disaster and a fall. The RCC or any other church who teach false doctrines or traditions not supported by scripture are in deep trouble with the Lord.

[Geoffrey Smith]

"There are many of us in the RCC who want women priests, and any one who thinks JP2 and B16 represent the last word on the issue is probably mistaken".
- Paul Halsall, 9 July 2008 18:14:10

No, Mr Halsall, you are the one who is mistaken. "Ordinatio Sacerdotalis" was declared to be an infallible document by the Magisterium of the Church. This means that the definitive ruling by Pope John Paul II in 1994 remains in force FOR ALL TIME. Neither Pope Benedict nor any one of his successors has the power to reverse that decision, and it is very foolish of you to imagine that the Church will ever do so. I advise you to stop reading that heretical rag, The Tablet, if you have a serious intention of saving your soul.

[DEA]

"Where orthodoxy is made optional, orthodoxy is eventually proscribed."

[Gillian McKinnon]

The text of Rev John Bell's Radio 4 Thought for the Day 9 July 2008:

In the wake of the Church of England's decision to proceed with the consecration of women as bishops, there has been both pain and rejoicing. The jubilant have predictably commented that this shows how the Church is catching up with society. That may be the case, but I don't think it has yet caught up with Jesus.

Let me explain... or rather let me allude to a conference I was recently working at in Canada. I divided participants into two groups. The first was asked to name Jesus' 12 male disciples and state three things we knew about each. The other was asked to identify 12 women who followed Jesus and state three things we knew about them….all from memory. I'd never done this before so I was as surprised at the outcome as anyone else.

None of those looking at the male disciples could remember any more than eight. Names like Nathaniel, Thaddeus, Simon Zealotes were not quoted. Of those identified, most people could only remember three things about Peter, John, Andrew and Judas. Yet, with the exception of Judas, the other eleven are men after whom churches throughout the world are named.

The group looking at the female disciples had no difficulty in identifying twelve women and were able to remember three things about the majority of them….and that not because they were 'fallen.'

Most surprising of all, we discovered that the woman whom Jesus met at a well, is the only person in the four Gospels to whom a whole chapter is devoted: she's the first evangelist. Andrew brings his brother, a young boy and some Greeks to Jesus, for which he is made patron saint of Scotland. The woman at the well brings a whole village to Jesus, but no nation has so honoured her.

If you look further you see that it's women who give Jesus his declared models of faith, love and generosity. It's women who regularly provide food and lodgings for him and his male companions. It's the women, who followed him, who accompany his body to the grave, and a woman who first sees him after the resurrection.

Is there another male figure in world history who has so clearly engaged with, depended on, and encouraged women without the familiar accompaniments of seduction or exploitation?

Has there been a major Western politician who has been so explicitly trusting? A captain of British industry who has been so reliant? A top ranking male academic who has been so collegial with women?

I suggest that the consecrating of female bishops is not the major issue. For both liberals and traditionalists the bigger issue is the feminisation of communities of faith until they are as representative and nurturing of the giftedness of women as Jesus was.

Now if churches became like that they wouldn't be catching up with society, they would be leading it.

[Stephen Marsden]

Paul Halsall writes: 'There are many of us in the RCC who want women priests, and anyone who thinks JP2 and B16 represent the last word on the issue is probably mistaken.'

JP2 wrote:

'Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful.

Invoking an abundance of divine assistance upon you, venerable brothers, and upon all the faithful, I impart my apostolic blessing.

From the Vatican, on May 22, the Solemnity of Pentecost, in the year 1994, the sixteenth of my Pontificate.'

I trust that Mr Halsall will availing himself of the sacrament of penance at some early opportunity?

[Richard]

I was there at the synod debate and the claim by the likes of Christina Rees and others that they showed absolute respect for those who hold fast to scripture and tradition is a complete lie! God was no where to be seen at synod - he probably thought it would be better to stay away! I will not be forced out by the evil and wicked - I will stay and all I can do is pray for a fair solution for us catholic anglicans. What that will be - who knows? It depends whether those who assent to the ordination of women show christian charity to us and give us something that will work.

[Stephen Marsden]

Brother Augustine Thomas SSF asks where he should go now.

I think that he may find this quotation apposite: 'In my profession you have to mystify the enemy . . . ' (Viscount Montgomery Of Alamein)

It really isn't that difficult to mystify them, Augustine, as they are not very bright . . . so just keep on saying your office, going to Mass, and preparing yourself for the work to which the Lord has called you. Your enemy, prowling about as a roaring lion, really won't know where you are or what you are doing - and, in the end, truth will out.

[Keith]

Doctrine is everything. Once the ordination of women was decided,the resistance to women bishops was pure sentimentalism.

I deeply regret the passing of the Anglican Church. What is going to happen now is that some will leave for Rome, most will stay. There will be a short period - perhaps a few years - where the remaining clergy talk it up; successes will be claimed; there will be talk of renewal and rebirth and so on. Then - further crises, further splintering, until finally doctrinal exhaustion takes its inevitable toll and the keys are handed over to the National Trust. I regret this and only hope against hope that something good will come of it.

[Paul Halsall]

Ruth,

Your blog is as far as I can see by far the best source for grasping current events in Anglicanism.

I long ago was rec'd into the RC Church (1979), but as a "liberal" Catholic I can only wonder at those in the CoE who see the RCC as a "last refuge." There are many of us in the RCC who want women priests, and anyone who thinks JP2 and B16 represent the last word on the issue is probably mistaken.

Sometime soon it will occur to a pope to hold Vatican III. I really really doubt that it will reverse the impact of John XXIII, Paul VI, and Vatican II on the church.

Quite apart from anything else, Catholic missions to the "third world" were not carried out by 19th-century "Evangelicals". The "Catholic South" is very different from the "Anglican South."

Meanwhile, why not a story about gay Anglo-Catholics? Surely you have been to St. Albans in Holborn on its saint's day celebrations, or been on an Anglican pilgrimage to Walsingham, or covered the Anglo-Catholic Society at Oxford (same membership as the Piers Gaveston society, except you need to be beautiful to be in the latter)?