The final three diocesan synod votes on the legislation to allow women to be bishops in the Church of England took place this week: Chester and Rochester yesterday and Manchester tonight. All three voted in favour.
Apart from Europe, which was unable to arrange a synod meeting before the deadline of midnight on Thursday 22 May 2014, all the dioceses have voted in favour of the draft legislation, which will return to General Synod in July for the debate and vote on final approval.
Detailed voting figures for all dioceses are here.
My complete analysis of this year’s votes are here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Danbarnesdavies/Women_in_the_episcopate_2014 and the Excel workbook I used in 2011 and 2014 is available here: http://dan.barnesdavies.co.uk/wite/wite.xlsx
UT UNUM SINT
Can the process go ahead if one of the dioceses hasn’t voted, or does only the total number in favour matter?
Thank you very much for this information. It has been a gripping build-up and an impressive result. We’ll pray hard for the July General Synod and follow-up.
Erika, the only requirement is that a majority of the diocesan synods approve the motion; and ‘approve’ in this context means that both the house of clergy and the house of laity of the diocesan synod have each voted in favour by a simple majority.
There is no requirement for every diocesan synod to vote.
One might reasonably imagine that the house of laity at General Synod must now give 66.7% approval, I wish I could be sure that it will, unrepresentative as it is of the “views in the pews”, and bearing in mind how many of its members feel unconstrained by Diocesan Synod Article 8 voting results.
I think the result in the House of Laity in GS will depend on the traditional Anglo-Catholics. The male headship block looks like it is going to vote against, judging by votes so far. If the ACs join them, the package will most likely fail; if they abstain, it will go through.
A technical question from abroad, since abstention is not allowed in the US Episcopal Church’s General Convention: is the 2/3 majority of those “present and voting” or of “votes cast” (thus not counting abstentions) or of those “present” (thus counting the total number and rendering abstention the equivalent of a “No”)? From Simon Taylor’s comment it appears the former is the case, but I’d welcome the clarification.
For this purpose, abstentions don’t count. The number of ‘ayes’ must be at least twice the number of ‘noes’. In each of the three Houses.
“UT UNUM SINT” -that was one of the best examples of Orwellian new speak that I have come across in recent years!
Thank you, Simon.
‘Ut unum sint’. Personally, intellectually and theologically, I like (and myself deploy) irony. I also deeply believe that ‘we’ (liberal, ‘thinking Anglicans’) can ‘do business’ with fellow-Anglicans (sometimes ‘traditionalists’) who so deploy it. I greatly believe that ‘they’ (who are also ‘we’) reciprocate this sentiment.
“Ut Unum Sint”: meaning what, exactly? (Besides the Biblical text of John 17:21 in Latin) It seems to me this is a phrase upon which one* can project what one wishes (* including the “sainted” Karol Wojtyla).
At any rate, good on ya, dioceses of the CofE. From a Yank Episcopalian POV: the BLESSING of the Imago-Dei-Made-Female in the episcopacy awaits!
(* including the “sainted” Karol Wojtyla).
The Pope, as chief bishop of the Catholic Church, entered Blessed John Paul II Into the canon of saints of the catholic church. As, clearly, we are not one as Jesus prayed for us to be, others, including Yank Episcopalians, are not obliged to accept it. Even so, the inverted commas are a bit tacky!
It looks from the Dioceses that the laity are more in favour of this legislation than the clergy … will General Synod reflect this view?
“Even so, the inverted commas are a bit tacky!”
From the church whose members never cease to write (‘inverted commas’) “marriage” of those lawfully-joined couples who happen to be of the same sex?
Nevertheless, point taken. I happen to be a universalist, and accept ALL the deceased as saints (on some level: MADE holy by God, w/o need of action on their own). I should have said “Karol Wojtyla (aka Pope John Paul II), recently ‘canonized’ by Rome”, and left it at that.
I’m uncertain what to hope for in July. On the one hand, were I a woman priest in the CofE, I would have a strong sense of urgency, and would probably think, let’s just get this done. On the other hand, I question the provision being made for opponents. It is storing up trouble for the first women who have to serve as bishops. Furthermore, Synod’s vote against women bishops was greeted with a degree of public scrutiny and scorn that was salutary. The CofE has been reminded of its national role–and what a national role requires, in the way… Read more »
The Church, Roman and otherwise, doesn’t make saints, it recognizes them. The Vatican has an established procedure for doing so that tries to distinguish between mere popularity and holiness. In the case of Wojtyla (as with Mother Teresa), the process was overridden. The mandatory five-year waiting period was waived. The public image that Wojtyla cultivated swept aside questions about his relation to banking scandals and sexual abuse cases. He championed the Legion of Christ organization for its many ordinands and financial contributions, ignoring the documented corruption of its founder and leader, Marcial Marciel. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_John_Paul_II#Opposition_to_his_beatification And now Wikipedia informs me that… Read more »