Ancient Richborough

National Apostasy, Keble called it, when Parliament set about abolishing some Irish bishoprics. This is how Pusey House's website explains the effect of that Assize Sermon "... the theme was crucial. Was the Church of England a department of the Hanoverian state, to be governed by the forces of secular politics, or was it an ordinance of God? Were its pastors priests of the Catholic Church (as the Prayer Book insisted) or ministers of a Calvinistic sect?" The history of the Catholic Movement in the Church of England since 1833 has been a long battle trying to ensure that the Church was not simply an arm of the State - not the Conservative Party at Prayer as some have reckoned it, nor an arm of red revolution as others believed after 'Faith in the City', but part of the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church which it proclaimed itself to be.

Now Frank Field and others in Parliament are trying to remake the Church in their own image, insisting that it must conform to the current fashionable belief that women are not just equal to men, but identical and interchangeable with them in every respect. Field begins by welcoming the Church's moves towards ordaining women as Bishops. His motion then says that should the dioceses approve (the question has been sent to them from General Synod) but Synod fail "through a technicality" to pass the measure, it "calls on Her Majesty’s Government to remove any exemptions pertaining to gender under existing equality legislation".

He knows very well that bills can fail in Parliament "through technicalities" - such as being talked out, or failing to win the approval of the Lords. Yet rather than putting his own House in order, he seems determined to interfere in the way the Church conducts its business. The "technicality" which might make a measure fail in Synod is that it does not win adequate support in all three Houses, Bishops, Clergy and Laity. The rumour is that there are now insufficient votes in the House of Laity to pass the measure for women in the episcopate, and so Field an his allies are trying to outflank the Church by removing its protection under the present equality legislation exemptions.

Will he, do you suppose, want this to be extended to Islam? A women-only list for selection as an Imam, perhaps? No. And neither, I imagine, could he succeed in trying to apply it to the Catholic Church. But the CofE is "by law established", and is ultimately under the control of Parliament. So perhaps Keble was wrong all along?

The curious element in all this is that Frank Field was a member of the Ecclesiastical Committe of Parliament in the early 90's. He persuaded that Committee that it must ensure there was proper financial and other provision for those who left the Church of England for Conscience' sake when women were ordained to the priesthood. It was a matter of justice. Surely he must do as much this time? No good saying "you've lived with women as priests; there is no difference with them as bishops". For many, and especially for many Evangelicals, it is very different indeed to have a woman in a position of Headship. Of course, it would be a very costly business indeed to pay them off - not just in cash to be paid out, but even more in the reduction of income from evangelical parishes which pay such huge quotas. It could, indeed, as others have suggested, lead to disestablishment of the Church of England. Perhaps that is what Frank Field and his friends want; but if so it would be better if they said so straight out.

Great excitement in the Wifred & Hilda bunch (the soft-centre Anglo-Catholics), and Reform (the hardline Evangelicals). Between them these two strange bedfellows can derail the consecration of women bishops; that at least is according to a press release from the Christian News Release Service UK, reported and commented on by Damian Thompson in his Telegraph blog. Here is what is claimed:


"Subject: Women Bishops in the CofE now to be BLOCKED after latest General Synod Election
MEDIA INFORMATION ON GENERAL SYNOD ELECTION
Following the Election of the new General Synod of the Church of England, Evangelical and Catholic Groups on Synod have now swapped lists of candidates.
The results show that 66 Clergy (32.10%) and 77 laity (35.46%) will vote against the current Women Bishop legislation unless it is amended to give those who for conscious/scriptural reasons, cannot accept WBs.
Only 34% is needed to block this when it returns from the dioceses. For the first time, it can and will be blocked by both fully ELECTED houses. In the clergy only a further 1.81% is needed, and that’s just ONE person. There are 21 new evangelicals on this new synod, and one out of a possible 58 undecided is a given!
The Bishop of Fulham’s departure to Rome, announced on Friday, was therefore a little too early and the Catholic Group on General Synod have distanced themselves from his position and will be staying within the CofE."


Well, we have been here before, notoriously in the General Synod on 11.xi.92. On that day we were to be saved by our clear 1/3rd in the House of Laity. And if they did not prevent the Ordination of Women as Priests, then the House of Bishops would. In fact, a couple of women (who had been elected because they were opposed to women's ordination) abstained and the Bishops, who thought they would leave it to the laity, caved in; hence women's ordination went ahead. Incidentally, one of those women who changed her mind has since been 'ordained' as a priest - and her priest husband is now a Roman Catholic.


It would only require one or two of the laity or clergy to be indisposed when the vote happens - a funeral, a heavy cold, something compelling of that sort - and all the prognostications could once more prove wrong. But in any case, should the doctrine of the Church be determined in such a way? Far from being 'too early', the Bishop of Fulham's promise could not have come at a better time.


Some of us have spent half our lives seeing the Church of England descend into chaos. The question is not primarily one of women's ordination; it is about Authority. The Church of God is not ours to alter at will, its future depending on whether a third of the elected members of a Synod is ready to stand firm. We already have women as priests, and no doubt we shall have them as bishops before very long. Then, whatever 'safeguards' can be squeezed out of a reluctant Synod, it will not alter the fact that the Church of England can no longer claim continuity with the Church founded by Our Lord.


And what are those safeguards likely to be? Reform and SSWSH have very different requirements. For SSWSH (as the Bishop of Burnley reminded the FiF Assembly last week) "a Code of Practice Will Not Do". For Reform, it is all about Headship; and provided their parishes do not have to accept the ministry of women bishops, it will not matter greatly to them who joined in the laying on of hands when their Vicar was ordained. He is a man, that is enough. For them, a Code of Practice (even without Jurisdiction) probably will do. There may be concessions made next time round - perhaps in a Synod in 2012 - but those concessions cannot satisfy Catholics in the Church of England.


I originally ended this with some pretty harsh comments about those who remain undecided; and that resulted in a couple of helpful rebukes (see comments below); so I have deleted that, and would simply say that we must go on trying to find the right way ahead for us, for now - but don't be too easily deceived into thinking there will be a rescue package from the C of E similar to the Act of Synod. Sooner or later, women are going to be admitted to the Episcopate; and sooner or later we shall all have to decide if a church which determines doctrine by majorities in Synod can honestly claim to be part of the "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church" which we have always said it was. Meanwhile all of us should be praying for discernment, our own and others'.

Remember, "nothing restrains the LORD from saving by many or by few.” I Sam. xiv 6

[This post also appears on the Anglo-Catholic site]

Americans call this Season "The Fall". How especially appropriate that seems this year. Curiously, though as a retired bishop I have no vote, I was sent some of the addresses by would-be synodspersons. They will all be anxiously waiting on the result of the General Synod elections. For me, I fear (as someone said of Parliamentary elections) it is just "One lot of sinners out; another lot of sinners in". The sinners on Synod, though, have a very tedious time ahead.




On one hand there is the monstrous regimen, champing at the bit, wanting to see which of them will be first past the post in the Episcopessa Stakes. On the other, the far smaller group (and, I expect, much diminished even since 2005) of 'traditionalists' doing their utmost to win some concessions for those opposed to women's consecration.




Neither party will have had much cheer from the announcement of the Revision Committee on the Legislation. There are some of those eight appointed members about whom I know nothing at all - but even from those I do know it is clear that the liberal ascendancy has the majority. So that might encourage WATCH and its friends. The timetable, though, can only annoy them. "The expectation is that the House will bring a draft of the code to Synod in February 2012". The House is, of course, the House of Bishops. It is their Standing Committee which set up the working group, and that working group is expected to "conclude its report for the House (of Bishops) by next autumn, having consulted the House and the legislative Steering Committee first".









For six years I had the joy of attending (but not voting at) meetings of the House of Bishops. The Agenda was always overpacked, and discussion, even of the most serious matters, often cursory. So this new working group will have to meet, get to know one another, look at previous reports and see why they were rejected, discover their terms of reference, begin to make suggestions, go to the House of Bishops and ask them to comment, wait for the response, make a stab at a draft, get the legislative Steering Committee to look at it, redraft it in the light of what the Steering Committee said and the House of Bishops and (provided they have not been simply told "go back and do it again") produce the rabbit from the hat "by next Autumn". A busy twelve months for those three Bishops (Ed & Ips, Coventry and Whitby) two archdeacons (Christine Hardman of Lewisham and Greenwich, and Jane Sinclair of Stow and Lindsey) one parish clergyman and two unordained ladies.




Assuming this is achieved, "the expectation is that the House (of Bishops) will bring a draft code to Synod in February 2012 - though the final version of the code cannot be drawn up by the House and approved by Synod until the legislation itself has received Royal Assent - which cannot in practice be before 2013".




I suppose that is because Royal Assent will only be given once the Ecclesiastical Committe of Parliament has looked at the legislation, and determined whether it is satisfied with the draft statutory code of practice. Last time round, in '92, it was not. It might not satisfy them this time, either, but for quite different reasons. Whereas last time Parliament wanted to put in safeguards for those unable to accept women's ordination, now the reverse might be true; they could well say that in view of equal opportunities legislation &c, there should be NO permission for any priest to refuse the ministrations of a woman bishop. They might then demand of the church a single clause measure, without any safeguards.




Yet many, I guess, will be hanging on in the C of E by their fingertips during all that time, desperate that something will be done which will make it possible for them to remain. For me, and I suspect many others, this is the culmination of what began with Keble's 1833 Assize Sermon. He started there the movement to free the Church from the power of the State; to enable it to become truly a part of the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Now, the battle is all but ended, with the Church rolling over and assenting to every new wind of doctrine, based not on Revelation but on Rights: the rights of women, gay and transgendered rights, the right to end one's life. What a blessing is the Ordinariate!

Wild excitement yesterday: the Beeb rang me! Then a slight deflation; they wanted me to talk about Bishop John of Fulham. Eventually sense prevailed and I realised they wanted something about a man of the moment, not an old has-been like me. So this afternoon I used my geriatric bus-pass to go into Southampton. There at Radio Solent HQ they clamped headphones on me, and sat me in a cubicle waiting for lights to go on.

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

Those of us who are consciously and happily heading towards the Ordinariate were just relieved at Synod's vote on Saturday. But what about those catholic-minded Anglicans who have hoped to stay on? Some may persuade themselves that a 'Code of Practice' in enough ... these will live to rue the day! For many, it will be possible to come round to the idea of being received into the Catholic Church, and I believe their joy will increase as time goes on. For others, there appear to be great problems in acceptingthe Holy Father's offer.

I say "appear" to be, first because Rome is both more subtle and more generous than some have suspected. Let's be honest, there are priests functioning in the C of E who are in dubious marital relationships. Certainly this might rule them out from ordination to the catholic priesthood. Some though, in the Anglican Use part of the Catholic Church in the USA, have had their cases examined by Rome, and have received a declaration of nullity. The Church of England has always dodged the isse of nullity. Bishop Eric Kemp of Chichester tried to persuade Synod that it needed such a process, but Synod preferred to bumble along without it. We on this side of the Tiber (I speak for myself) are pretty ignorant of the way nullity works in the Catholic Church - but I am sure there are some Anglican clergy who should be making enquiries about this for themselves.


Not all those who are hesitant, though, are holding back for such reasons. Many more are concerned about their wives and families. How will it be possible to support them in the Ordinariate? Can there be a replacement for the Vicarage, the Stipend, and the Pension which we enjoy as Anglicans? Again, I believe these are questions which Rome will want to help us to answer. One Catholic bishop has told me that he has empty presbyteries which he would like filled with former Anglican priests. He has also said there are churches in his diocese which are waiting to be re-opened.


Now this does not answer those whose congregations are wedded to their Anglican Parish Church; but as Synod reneges ever more on its former promises ("an honoured place", "a legitimate Anglican opinion", "equal treatment for ordination selection", "no bar to preferment") so some bishops may well feel that in conscience they cannot be dog-in-the-manger about buildings. Indeed, some dioceses might sigh with relief at losing a few churches.


As for stipends, I think this too is soluble. At present, our congregations pay through 'quota' or 'diocesan share' not only for their clergy and their pensions, but also for a phalanx of diocesan advisors. The money which once came centrally from the Church Commissioners has mostly been siphoned off to pay for See Houses (aka Bishops' Palaces) and the staff of Cathedrals. I believe our laity are immensely generous - as are many retired clergy - and will give generously for the support of our priests. Here, too, the Church of England might well be constrained, if not by conscience then by Parliament, to make financial provision for those being exiled from the church of their birth and baptism.


Now the Ordinariate is not a bolt-hole, and it did not come simply as an answer for those who cannot face the notion of women as bishops. Those of us who join it are becoming Catholics, and will hold and believe and teach all that the Catholic Church asserts in her Catechism. Yet I think there are many who are just now trembling on the brink who will, before long, realise that this is an answer to their prayers.


For some, the Synod is York has sounded the end to the catholic experiment in the Church of England. For others, it is the culmination of that experiment, the 'happy issue out of all our afflictions'. What Keble began with the Assize Sermon in 1833 is finding fulfilment in our generation. May more and more of us, laity and clergy, find our home in the fulness of the Catholic Faith for which we have long yearned.

We have been played with for too long. Many of us are heartily sick of Synod and its tricks. The latest (the Archbishops' ruse for trying to keep catholics within the C of E) deserves to be given very short shrift, for if it is passed it will simply extend the agony.

If we feel like this, we should recognise there are many on 'the other side' who also despair of the Synod's tricks. The Revd Lindsay Southern has written an open letter to the Archbishops (you can find it on the WATCH website http://womenandthechurch.org/) which will help us feel their pain. The truth is, none of us wants to be mucked about any longer.

The difficulty is that the Anglican Communion is divided. Some have gone along with women's ordination, and very quickly have taken on board much of the rest of the liberal agenda; so there are bishops in the USA several times divorced, bishops who have been known to frequent the seediest of sex-parlors, bishops in open same-sex relationships. Not only are such things permitted, they are glorified as being divinely instituted.

Others have been appalled at all this, yet because of corruption and bribery have often been incapable of casting stones.

Here in the C of E we are sliding down the slope, but not everyone is yet persuaded. So to keep us within inside the tent (for we know the danger of having critics outside it) we are offered sops to conscience. To enable women's consecration to proceed, the Archbishops have proposed a cunning plan; I have written about it previously, and most recently on the Anglo-Catholic blog http://www.theanglocatholic.com/2010/07/mirrors-smoke-and-archbishops/.

It would be better for us all if there were simply a once-clause measure. I fear that will not happen - because of money. First, it would drive out many who are at present hoodwinked by the Archbishops' proposals into thinking they can still have a safe catholic place within the Church of England. More than that, though, it might well stir up the Ecclesiastical Committee of Parliament. After the vote in November '92 it was this Committee which made it clear that the Measure for ordaining women as priests would not be approved by Parliament unless and until there was proper financial provision for those being drive out of the church. A one-clause measure would leave Parliament with no option but to ask for at least similar provision now; and the CofE plc is all but bankrupt already.

Of course, even a measure with the Archbishops' safeguards might still be perceived by parliamentarians as driving catholics out of the Church of England - for that is exactly what it will do. My, what interesting times we live in. Meanwhile, the Holy Father visits us this autumn, and soon after that the chocks will be away on the Ordinariate. Oh, may it be soon!

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


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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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

The Archbishops have come up with a cunning plan to try to save their embarrassment, caused by the Synod's determination to make it impossible for many good Anglicans to remain in the Church of England. It comes in the form of Amendments which they mean to put down at the York Synod next month.

First, I think the plan will be rejected; possibly some bits of it will make it through the system, but even if the entire thing were accepted by Synod, it is not acceptable to many catholic Anglicans; for it relies on Code of Practice. Come on now, what did we say? A code of practice will not do. And why not? Because it can be ignored and got around, as the Bishops' Code of Practice accompanying the Act of Synod was ignored, in spirit if not in letter, in so many dioceses.

The great plan is that diocesan bishops male and female, shall have jurisdiction. The replacements for the PEVs (if any mug can be found to take the job on) are said to have "ordinary jurisdiction" too; but in reality, jurisdiction is only given them 'by virtue of the measure to the extent provided for in the diocesan scheme'. So in each diocese there would be a scheme, and that scheme could be amended by the diocesan bishop at any time after consulting, not with the pseudo-PEV, nor with the Archbishop, but with his or her own diocesan synod.

It will not do. It really will not do. It is just empty promises dressed up to appeal to a few 'catholic minded' Anglicans who want any excuse not to do what they clearly ought to do, which is to accept the Pope's offer.

It is cunning, this plan, but not cunning enough. I hope everyone will see through it. It ought to fail in the Synod. It leaves no possibility of anyone saying in future "The Church of England is part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church' Rather it is a congregationalist protestant sect from the moment women are consecrated. I've written at greater length, if you can bear it, in the Anglo Catholic blog (see the link to it on the right) about all this. Oh hurry up, Synod, get on with your miserable work, and let us say our farewells with honour.