The detailed results of the electronic voting at this month’s General Synod are now available. These include the votes of each member who took part.
Here are the details for the two controversial items.
Anglican Church in North America
This is the final version of the motion (Item 14 as amended by Items 55 and 59):
That this Synod, aware of the distress caused by recent divisions within the Anglican churches of the United States of America and Canada:
(a) recognise and affirm the desire of those who have formed the Anglican Church in North America to remain within the Anglican family;
(b) acknowledge that this aspiration, in respect both of relations with the Church of England and membership of the Anglican Communion, raises issues which the relevant authorities of each need to explore further; and
(c) invite the Archbishops to report further to the Synod in 2011.
It was carried by these votes:
In Favour Against Recorded
abstentions309 69 17
Here are the electronic voting results for this item.
Parity of pension provision for surviving civil partners
This is the motion (Item 22):
That this Synod request the Archbishops’ Council and the Church of England Pensions Board to bring forward changes to the rules governing the clergy pension scheme in order to go beyond the requirements of the Civil Partnership Act 2004 and provide for pension benefits to be paid to the surviving civil partners of deceased clergy on the same basis as they are currently paid to surviving spouses.
It was carried by the following votes after a Division by Houses.
In Favour Against Recorded
abstentionsBishops 12 2 3 Clergy 97 23 10 Laity 78 59 9
Here are the electronic voting results for the above motion.
There was an amendment (Item 64) moved to the above motion:
Leave out everything after “That this Synod” and insert:
“recognise that it will be some considerable time before surviving civil partners’ pension rights reach parity with those of spouses, and in the light of that note the helpful confirmation from the Pensions Board that surviving civil partners of deceased clergy are eligible to be considered for hardship grants if they meet the same qualifying conditions as apply to surviving spouses.”
This was lost by the following votes.
In Favour Against Recorded
abstentions110 154 15
Here are the electronic voting results for the amendment.
Other electronic votes
The other electronic votes are linked here.
Interesting to note that BOTH Primates voted for pension equality.
Also not surprising was to see my old friend Robert Patterson voting against.
I suspect that with a diocese titled Sodor and Mann – this Rt Revd prelate will do all he can to make sure people know he is NOT sympathetic.
Still, I wrote to him today congatulating him on making his mark and so brazenly opposing both Primates!
‘Twas good to note that both English Primates voted in favour of the Motion. All is not lost!
Well, Lorna Ashcroft voted in favor of it, too, and so did +Winchester and Sugden+ and a host of others. I don’t know that voting for the final motion indicated approval of it, exactly; once it was clear that this is where things were going, there may have been a desire to coalesce around the final motion.
Was +Durham not present for Synod?
Tom Wright (+Durham) was on sabbatical IIRC
Charlotte, Wright was probably somewhere in the U.S., wagging his fingers at the naughty colonials.
That seems to be how he spends an awful lot of his time.
“Wright was probably somewhere in the U.S., wagging his fingers at the naughty colonials’
– JPM, on Saturday –
What! is +Durham still jet-setting? I wonder if he pays for his contribution to Global Warming? Like certain other prelates of the Communion, he will soon become known as The Bishop IN Durham, rather than The Bishop OF Durham. Anyway, who’s looking after the princely pile while he’s away?
Ron, word on the street is that they are going to sell Auckland Castle and just rent the good bishop a motel room when he happens to pass through Durham.
I think these voting figures show that a July vote on women bishops will not pass in the house of laity by the necessary two thirds majority.
Surely, Ron, that should be “Bishop Rarely In Durham.”
Or even, Malcolm+: “The Bishop OUT OF Durham?”
Or perhaps “The Bishop who has been seen in the vicinity of Durham from time to time, but not often.”
The question now is: “Was the Bishop ‘out of’ Durham when the Civil Partneships debate was satisfactorily concluded in the House of Lords?” He may be flagellating himself if he were absent because of ACNA’s demands on his time in the US. At least, I do know where the Archbishop of York was – he was here in Down-Under New Zealand! I’m going to meet up with him next week at our Diocesan Meeting. I may yet be able to challenge him on his real attitude towards the new legal right for religious input into the Civil Partnership celebrations of… Read more »