Jonathan Petre in the Mail on Sunday reports that Archbishops risk ‘bloodbath’ over women priests by letting opponents of reform remain in the clergy.
The Archbishops of Canterbury and York are to make a dramatic intervention in the long-running row over women bishops this week by demanding that opponents of female clergy are not driven out of the Church.
Dr Rowan Williams and Dr John Sentamu are so concerned thousands of traditionalist churchgoers will quit when women become bishops that they are to risk the wrath of liberals by calling for major reforms in Church legislation.
Sources said their statement will spell out a legal formula that will give traditionalist clergy and parishes the right to reject the authority of a woman bishop…
Would any self-respecting future woman bishop WANT to go, or feel called to go, to a traditionalist enclave?
I know very little of church politics, but I think the archbishops are wrong to try and intervene.
Sheila
East Yorkshire, where the majority of our stipendiary clergy are female
If true, ’tis pity, and pity ’tis, if true. Why is no such accommodation made for the “minority” represented by TEC and ACoC (and others) in the wider communion? I*t seems that only traditionalists get to hold the trump card….
Oh how I hope this is not the case! We in TEC tried the “separate but (un)equal” route and it did not end prettily.
This approach simply allows the splitting in two of the CoE while maintaining a facade of (false) unity.
There can be no second class members of God’s kingdom.
And, if it is suitable to reject a bishop’s authority based on gender, why not on color? Or national origin? Or on whether they were at one time a convert from some other denomination or religion (only “cradle Anglicans” need apply)? I am amazed that in the same week when the Sunday lessons include Paul’s letter to the Galatians (“in Christ, there is no male and female….”) that the archbishops can try to make this stick.
At the turn of the last century, TEC debated whether or not to establish a separate Episcopate and non-geographical diocese for “colored” Episcopalians, so that white segragtionist racists would not have to deal with Episcopalians of color, lay or ordained.
Luckily, this scheme, as you Brits would call it, was quashed, and however uneasily, TEC did not segregate. Yes, there was much de facto segregation, as there was in civil society, but at least we did not enshrine ‘separate but [un]equal’ in canon law.
Don’t you do this to women.
But neither Archbishop is a lawyer. Good luck I say…
The Archbishops of Canterbury and York are risking far more than a blood bath. By supporting their ill-advised two tier second class system for women bishops by accommodating the far right and reactionary elements in The Church of England, they are risking their AUTHORITY as bishops now and quite possibly, forever. They will lose the respect of millions of Anglicans if they press for these interventions. In losing their authority they may also be ending their careers in The Church of England. All Anglicans must accept the authority of a woman bishop as equal to that of a male bishop.… Read more »
Some might say a bloodbath is better than a firing squad…
Just another way to say I and my sisters are not made of “fit matter” but men are. Rowan and John – and yes I include John – have no idea what it’s like, almost 30 years after I began thinking I was called to be a priest, just a priest, not a bishop, to have this treatment against women, these words and actions against women, still going on. Of the two, Rowan and John, John should know better. God knows he should know better. I pray for my sisters in the CofE. I pray Rowan and John do not… Read more »
Very sad that once again traditionalists seem to be the only ones who deserve consideration–as if the ministry of women was a minor piece of Christian business, and not a huge and reconciling recovery of a suppressed part of the gospel as proclaiming all–slave and free, men and women, colonial or not–as image of God. Hosting the Pope at Lambeth this autumn to speak to “all bishops” Roman and Anglican says it all to me about the current ecclesiology–was the Reformation then a mistake in attempting to limit hierarchical clericalism and protect the vocations of all people?
I know this point has been made before but I was amongst some Quakers today, looking at their literature on sexuality – principled, direct, to the point, open, precise, exact, welcoming, without fear or favour.
Apparently there are only 25,000 Quakers in the UK.
Perhaps we should just rather be helping to swell their number?
“was the Reformation then a mistake?”. Yes it was indeed a mistake…..
I’m in favour of it. Most FiF priests in the UK have shown pretty clearly that they don’t want to ‘pope’, that Rome isn’t actually where their heart is. So if they get this (and it remains a big ‘if’), there won’t on their side be this endless sort-of hankering for reunion with ‘the Holy See’, nor will there any longer be reason (as hitherto there has been) to suspect them of ‘disloyalty’ (however one puts it). This could be a historic settlement. But if a deal is done, there needs to be as much coming together as possible (consistent… Read more »
“The Archbishops of Canterbury and York are to make a dramatic intervention in the long-running row over women bishops this week by demanding that opponents of female clergy are not driven out of the Church.” – Jonathan Petre, Mail on Sunday – If this is true!! Then this must be the first hint of an upcoming ‘double entendre’ of the papal-style magisterium being imposed upon the Mother Church of England. Presumably, though, it cannot flow on to other Provinces of the Church – without the authority of the Instruments of Communion. One can only hope that the democratic processes of… Read more »
The reformation did not go nearly far enough. The Second Vatican Council tried to reform and renew many of the problems that made the Church a “museum” rather than a Body of Christ. and the Council Fathers succeeded on many levels, but John Paul II and Joe Ratzinger have gutted the reforms and tried to “restore” the Church as it was prior to Vatican II. So, we pray that a Vatican III will come sooner than expected and will succeed and finally bring the Catholic Church into the 21st Century. I believe it will have to happen because the anger… Read more »
No, Mr Wharton. While the manner in which the Reformation was implemented was in many instances more of a crime than a mistake, the Church did indeed need to be reformed.
I don’t see why this proposal is any worse than the previous Flying Bishops scheme. If the CofE could put up with that, surely they can put up with this.
The poster “John” is seeing Forward In Faith priests as having a legitimate argument in asking for their own male bishops to serve various functions while denying female bishops those same functions. Many FIF people do not recognize the value and validity of female priests as well. This is unacceptable. This will never work and the more attempts to continue these dangerous and discriminatory maneuvers and face the real issues which are: misogyny, homophobia and marginalization of women and glbt people, the healthier The Church of England and the rest of the Anglican communion will be. Yes, we need to… Read more »
“But neither Archbishop is a lawyer
Actually, one of them is!
Am I the only one gobsmacked re the difference between the *headline* “…letting opponents of reform remain in the clergy”—with which few would argue—and the actual *news story* (“a legal formula that will give traditionalist clergy and parishes the right to reject the authority of a woman bishop”). Oh, wait a minute, I get it: it will let “opponents of reform remain in the clergy”, even when they are blatantly insubordinate to/rudely dismiss their bishop-who-happens-to-be-a-woman, and treat her like sh*te (in such a way that would get them fired in ANY other hierarchical institution!). Between this, the RC pedophiles, and… Read more »
Quite apart from whether I think this is a good idea nor not, can anyone explain to me whether the Archbishops have the legal authority to overturn decisions arrived at in accordance with the principles the church is governed?
The leak seems to talk of a mere “demanding that the opponents… are not driven out of the church”. Is that anything other than a passionate plea that Synod could reject if it chose to?
TB on Monday:””But neither Archbishop is a lawyer””
Actually, one of them is!”
Oh…then it will be ever more fascinating to behold.
“Is that anything other than a passionate plea that Synod could reject if it chose to ?”
– Erika Baker, on Monday –
Well, Erika, as far as I am aware, the Archbishops of the Church of England have no official power of veto over the determination of General Synod. I imagine that both Ebor and Cantuar have 1 vote the same as any other bishop. Can our Web-masters give us any information about this, please?
After all, Cantuar was over-ruled earlier by the General Synod on a similar quest for delay.