Updated Saturday evening and Sunday afternoon
Since I last posted on this, four more dioceses (Chichester, Durham, Exeter and Leicester, all today) have voted, all in favour. 40 dioceses have now voted in favour of the draft legislation, and none against. For a diocese to be in favour, its house of clergy and laity must each vote in favour. The votes of the bishops, although recorded, are ignored.
Chichester was one of the two diocese that voted against in 2011. Today their synod voted (for/against/abstention): Bishops 1-1-1, Clergy 36-22-2, Laity 54-20-0. In 2011 the figures were Bishops 0-2-0, Clergy 30-35-0, Laity 37-41-0.
Detailed voting figures for all dioceses are here. Please send any corrections to the email address at the bottom of that table.
Update
I have corrected the Leicester figures, which were completely wrong. Somebody tweeted the 2011 figures as though they were today’s and I believed them!
I have also corrected the figures for abstentions in Exeter.
Update 2
And now I have recorrected the Exeter abstentions back to what they were in the first place.
We now have a trinity of bishops who have voted against the current legislation wending its way through the dioceses. We know that Pontefract and Burnley voted against but who is the third man? At The Chichester Diocesan Synod the three bishops voted three different ways – For Against, Abstention. We can presume that the newly consecrated Lewes voted in favour as he was appointed on the understanding that he would be someone who was indeed in favour of women being ordained into all three orders of ministry. But out of Chichester and Horsham, who voted against and who abstained?… Read more »
So the Chichester bishops are split three ways. Perhaps someone could tell me which one is the ‘focus of unity’?
Richard, surely it is clearly the one who abstained. And if this was not your diocesan, I will be very surprised.
But in any case, bishops voting at diocesan synod in this matter does not count in the analysis.
I understand from someone who was there yesterday that the Diocesan voted against, Lewes was for and it was Horsham who abstained.
I can also confirm from someone who was there, what Richard Ashby has reported that + Martin voted No + Horsham Abstained + Lewes voted Yes I can also confirm from someone who was there that it all became a little “tetchy”. So much for firm episcopal leadership. So which of the three Chichester diocesan shepherds are we to follow? + Martin is the only Diocesan to vote against this innovation and the only Diocesan to uphold the orthodox and traditional view. So now we have the identity of the third person of the episcopal trinity – Pontefract. Burnley and… Read more »
I’d be intrigued to know when being against the ordination of women became a touchstone of orthodoxy in the Church of England, which has repeatedly affirmed through its synodical structures that the ordination of women is doctrinally acceptable. I’m not sure bravery is the appropriate descriptor either – it’s not as if there are likely to be major repercussions for those Bishops involved. Bravery generally involved facing some sort of danger.
If I understand Peter Owen’s spreadsheet analysis of voting on the Feb 2014 votes on http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/archives/006465.html correctly, the Bishop of Chichester appears to have abstained on the legislation at the General Synod vote, but voted against at the Diocesan Synod.
If other traditional catholics also follow that pattern again at the July General Synod, along with the conservative evangelicals who have already made it clear they will vote against rather than abstain, the final voting will remain very close again.
There was no announcement of which Bishop voted which way at Chichester’s Diocesan Synod. However the Bishop of Lewes stated he thought that having women Bishops was a ‘terrific’ proposal, and the Bishop of Horsham explained why he intended to abstain. It seems right to assume that the three voted in the way that has been stated. I did not vote in the same way as my Diocesan Bishop, but I do not think this disqualifies him from being a ‘focus of unity’ within this Diocese. We only have a Bishop who voted for this legislation because our Diocesan Bishop… Read more »
Fr David. Bishop Martin didn’t ‘vote against this innovation’. The time for that us long past. As I remarked earlier this week the vote was about the legislatin to enable this to happen, not the principle, no matter that some people still want to argue for that lost cause. Bishop Martin voted against the proposed legislation. Why he should want to do that when he was part of the body which helped to draft the way forward following the ‘car crash’ of 2012 is anybody’s guess, especially because all the indications over the past year have been that he would… Read more »
So now we have the identity of the third person of the episcopal trinity – Pontefract. Burnley and Chichester.
We have to be up with the times, Fr David, I think. Bishop Tony is no longer Pontefract, but Area Bishop of Wakefield
Ian, I am well aware that Tony Robinson has now changed his title but at the time that he voted on this proposed legislation he was still the Bishop of Pontefract as the poll took place during the very last gathering of the Wakefield Diocesan Synod. The decisive vote in favour of this innovation means that, alas, the bridge between the Church of England and the Latin Church has been further broken. At one time the hopes for unity between us looked hopeful but now I fear that the divide will soon prove to be too wide ever to be… Read more »
Fairly depressing that any diocesan should not vote in favour (or at best abstain) give the stage we are at (if this be the case). He will have to show his hand again at Final Approval in July (unless he plays the London card and does not show up). This confirms the now widely held view that there will never again be a person nominated for a diocesan bishopric who is a non-ordainer.
“+ Martin is the only Diocesan to vote against this innovation and the only Diocesan to uphold the orthodox and traditional view. So now we have the identity of the third person of the episcopal trinity – Pontefract. Burnley and Chichester. Three brave men to swim against the strong incoming tide. Posted by: Father David on Sunday, 18 May 2014 So, Father David, you would claim fellowship with those who deny the place of women in ordained ministry in the C. of e. as the exclusively ‘Orthodox’ Anglican in the Anglican Communion? This sounds very much like the propaganda of… Read more »
Oh dear, what can the matter be, Mr. Archer? Whatever happened to all those promises sincerely given but obviously with fingers crossed behind the back that there would always be an honoured and an honourable place for Traditionalists within the Church of England? Since the Reformation and the Elizabethan Settlement there has existed a fine balance within the Established Church between Catholic and Reformed; in more recent years this balance has shewn itself to be between Traditionalists and Liberals. If, as Mr. Archer suggests, there are to be no more Traditionalist Catholic Diocesan Bishops appointed in future our Church will… Read more »
“The decisive vote in favour of this innovation” I see it as a RESTORATION. The restoration of the dignity of the Imago-Dei-Made-Female that their call to the episcopacy be discerned ***on the same terms*** as that of the Imago-Dei-Made-Male. And here in the Episcopal Church (USA et al), for 26 years now, we’ve discerned God knows precisely who, male & female, She’s calling. TBTG! 🙂 “alas, the bridge between the Church of England and the Latin Church has been further broken. At one time the hopes for unity between us looked hopeful but now I fear that the divide will… Read more »
“alas, the bridge between the Church of England and the Latin Church has been further broken”
Given that many appear to want the CofE to give veto over any policy change to both the Vatican and to each and every African bishop, what decisions does the CofE unambiguously claim for itself? The choice between bourbons and custard creams?
Now come on Fr. Ron, I’m sure you don’t think I regard a traditional view of a male only priesthood and episcopacy as the exclusive test of orthodoxy, you know as well as I do that it is simply one aspect of orthodoxy among many. I’m sure that my T A antipodean pen-pal can come up with more reasoned comments than that? JCF I have no doubt that the liberating and reconciling Holy Spirit is active and at work in the Vatican. One merely has to look to the tremendous ministry of the present Pontiff to see the truth of… Read more »
In answer to Fr David @4.43 – at diocesan level the votes of the bishops are recorded, but do not count. For article 8 business to pass in a diocese, a simple majority is required in both clergy and laity.
Was it not FiF policy that in these votes people should vote in accordance with their true consciences on the principle itself (but with no intent of actually derailing the process)? If so, Warner has voted correctly and non-divisively (that aspect of his persona also being revealed in his acceptance of a woman-ordaining suffragan). That being so, I see no reason why a non-woman-ordaining ‘traditionalist’ should not be appointed as a diocesan in the future. These are the delicate compromises required of the settlement. I renew my appeal for all sides to ‘get a grip’ and recommit to making this… Read more »
The Roman Church regards all Anglican orders as absolutely null and void, and shows no sign and has never shown any sign of rescinding this anathema. In the light of this, what the Church of England chooses to do is of little relevance to prospect for organic unity with a Chuch which hardly recognises other churches as such but has taken to calling them ‘ecclesial communities’ in order not to compromise its own claim to be the only ‘true’ church. So can we at last stop looking over our shoulder at the unattainable and get on with our own Chuch… Read more »
John. If this is the case surely the effect could well be to derail the process itself whatever the motivation of the voter. As it happens the Biships’ vote doesn’t count at this stage and simple majorities are all that are required in the houses of clergy and laity. However, when it comes to the General Synod later in the year Bishops’ votes will count and two thirds majorities are required. Voting against the principle when what is required is a vote for the process could well derail the process itself yet again. If that happens the Church is in… Read more »
And although the votes of diocesan HoBs do not count when determining the outcome of an Article 8 reference, it is perhaps worth pointing out that even with Horsham’s abstention, the motion failed to gain approval in the Chichester HoB. A tie (1 for, 1 against) is not approval of a motion. Similarly the motion was not carried in the Wakefield HoB (1 for, 1 against) or the Southwell HoB (no votes recorded).
I recall in the reference on the proposed Anglican Covenant that our (Ely) HoL vote was tied, and thus approval was withheld.
Richard and Simon, My maths are lousy, but wasn’t it the case that Warner abstained at Synod? I do agree that another failure at Synod would be very bad and would also put recent rapprochements under great strain. I also agree (Richard) that constant appeals to the Pope across the water are not the way to go, unless of course one wants to go that way. But on that note, a recent ceremony in our church was attended by two lots of Italians. They all said how lovely the service was, to which I replied that it was basically Catholic,… Read more »
The decisive vote in favour of this innovation means that, alas, the bridge between the Church of England and the Latin Church has been further broken.
posted by Fr.David.
Too true, father. perhaps it is time to take the plunge and ‘cross the Tiber’ I did, and have never regretted it for a minute.
‘Perhaps it is time to take the plunge and cross the Tiber…’ But why now? why not when the CofE resolved that there were no theological objections to the ordination of women, or when the first ordinations took place, or when the ‘ordinariate’ was established, or when the principle of the consecration of women bishops was accepted, or the various recent rounds of voting on the subject. Or perhaps there will be a final exit when the first women are consecrated. Since the trajectory has been clear for more than twenty years surely those who stay have to accept that… Read more »
But why now?
Good question. I went 13 years ago.
In any case, it’s never too late.
The invitation “to take the plunge and cross the Tiber” suggests to me that there is now no bridge on which to cross and that the only way to get to Rome is by swimming and getting a soaking. As Richard Ashby suggests we have burnt our bridges long ago but aren’t we as followers of Christ meant to be bridge builders rather than bridge burners? Alas, Richard may quite possibly be correct as the weight of the obstacles placed upon the bridge over the years has proved to be too much for the ancient pont to bear and has… Read more »
“[Like Abraham leaving Ur, or the Israelites leaving bondage in Egypt, or the disciples leaving Palestine to carry the Gospel to all the Earth] we seem to be sailing away in our little Anglican boat ***TO*** all of that great working of the Holy Spirit”: fixed it there for you, Fr David (you’re welcome! ;-p) But SRSLY: ecumenical reunion ala The Church @ Pentecost will come in and THROUGH our Anglican traditions (Scripture, Tradition and REASON, not subordination to a Roman “Magisterium” as currently constituted), not by abandoning them (as the Ordinariate emphatically does). Anyone is free to leave one… Read more »
If Christian unity requires us all to discriminate against women, then the price of Christian unity is too high.
Fr David. Reading the comments on the blog of an RC priest the other day I came across someone who said that twelve years ago he asked the advice from his (RC) priest and been told that it was not permitted to take an active part in a Church of England funeral service. It worth remembering that it us not much longer ago than that that the RC church forbade even saying the Lord’s Prayer with other Christians. No. The various encounters between a Popes and Archbishops, the ARCIC reports etc have all been of value in promoting a better… Read more »
“If Christian unity requires us all to discriminate against women, then the price of Christian unity is too high.” Ditto discrimination against LGBT people. If “Christian unity” means turning one’s back on Jesus, and doing injustice to God’s children, then it may be “unity,” but I wonder how Christian it would be? Does anyone find in Jesus discrimination against women and LGBT people? I see Jesus breaking taboos to include people. It is good to have a rainbow, an array, of diverse religions where in a free society people can choose. But a “unity” based on injustice? I think not.… Read more »
The age old fear of “otherness” seems to dominate this blog.
“The age old fear of “otherness” seems to dominate this blog.”
Indeed. That is what the misogyny and homophobia are all about, fear of the other. It has driven cultures for centuries, always an “other,” the Jews, the slaves, etc.
We are finally arriving at the conclusion that the “other” is actually another brother or sister in Christ, created in the Image of God. Alas, we are not all arriving at the same time.
So, let us hope that fear of the other does not dominate tomorrow’s elections. For, as far as I can see the entire UKIP campaign has been based on promoting fear of the other, based on grossly exaggerated Faragian propaganda.
With Anglo Catholics and Cons Evangs. saying they will continue to vote against there is a real risk of it failing in the House of Laity at General Synod!