General Synod – Women Bishops legislation
Updated Thursday at 13.00 GMT to include the Archbishop of Canterbury’s contribution to the debate
After a service of Holy Communion the Synod spent the rest of Wednesday morning debating the proposed legislation to permit the ordination of women as bishops.
The draft legislation was prepared on the basis of the motion passed at Synod in July 2008. (See the end of our July item here for the text of the motion.)
There were two motions before Synod, both proposed by the Bishop of Manchester (the Rt Revd Nigel McCulloch):
That the Measure entitled “Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure” be considered for revision in committee.
This motion was carried by 281 votes to 114 with 13 recorded abstentions. A request for a vote by houses was unsuccessful as fewer than 25 members wanted this.
That the Amending Canon entitled “Amending Canon No 30” be considered for revision in committee.
This motion was also carried – by 309 votes to 79 with 14 recorded abstentions
Both votes were taken electronically and voting lists will be available later (and we will publish them).
Archbishop of Canterbury’s speech
These are the papers for the debates.
Women in the Episcopate (GS 1707)
Draft Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure (GS 1708)
Draft Amending Canon No. 30 (GS 1709)
Illustrative Code of Practice (GS 1710)
Explanatory Memorandum (GS 1708-10X)
The Bishop of Manchester addressing the Synod
Oh dear, only men in the photo, at least two of whom appear to be asleep, or at least very bored.
Please, I do not understand the implications of the two motions which passed. Does it mean that instead of moving forward, the July motion has been sent back to committee for revision? Or does the motion to go to committee for revision mean that all is well and is moving forward as planned? Sorry to be so dense.
Sorry, I understand now, I think, after following a link from Episcopal Cafe to Justin Brett blogging live on General Synod Blog. Thanks for your patience, Simon.
Lois,
You weren’t the only one – and I’m British,
John.
Yes, Lois, the photograph speaks volums for the need for this very legislation.
Where are the women ?
Is this good or bad for the women..are the trads hoping that it will go forward and at the final vote just be pipped at the post, by harnessing the conservative evangelical vote?
The trads will now try to amend the legislation so it includes some form of separate dioceses / separate bishops – at present such things are in te Code not the legislation (so have little or no legal force, according to the trads). Many of those in favour of women bishops will want the legislation left as it is, but will want to see the draft Code modified so as to remove the complemenary bishops option or else rearrange it in some way. Some of those in favour seem quite happy to have the CB option (‘let the trads have… Read more »
“Is this good or bad for the women..are the trads hoping that it will go forward and at the final vote just be pipped at the post,” Well, it is all getting very complicated. Most of that who voted against were traditionalists who believed that the measure was so bad it could not be adequately improved in revision; they were joined by others, including some bishops, who believed it was proving too divisive to proceed. Most of those in favour of women bishops and who will not accept the restrictions on WB provided for in the measure voted in favour… Read more »
And any extra delay …will eventually be in the womens favour as their number grows and grows.I feel they should introduce a separate measure for the rcognition of the episcopal acts of overseas women bishops.
Wake me when this is all over.