CofE press releases:
Living in Love and Faith at the College of Bishops Full text copied below the fold.
Programme of the College of Bishops, 31 October – 2 November 2022
Church Times report: Bishops debate next steps on sexuality
THE College of Bishops has concluded three days of debate about how the Church might solve its differences over sexuality.
Although no decision has been made about what formal proposals will be presented to the General Synod in February 2023 — these will be finalised at the next College of Bishops meeting, 12-14 December — it is understood that the bishops acknowledge that simply to restate the existing ban on same-sex blessings or marriage in church is not an option.
During the bishops’ discussions at the High Leigh Conference Centre, in Hertfordshire, largely in small groups, it is said to have been clear that many bishops recognise that a change of policy is needed — whether a national shift or some form of pastoral accommodation is not yet clear. Even those who wish to see no change in the C of E’s policy, which also bans clergy from marrying same-sex partners, accept that the case would need to be freshly argued…
Do read the full article.
Full text of press release:
The College of Bishops of the Church of England has now concluded its previously announced three day meeting (31 October to Wednesday 2 November) called to begin a process of discernment and decision-making about questions of identity, sexuality and marriage.
Under the banner ‘Living in Love and Faith’ (LLF), the Church produced a suite of resources in November 2020 about human identity, sexuality, relationships and marriage. These include a book, a video course, podcasts and videos of the lived experiences of a wide range of individuals. These have been available through a variety of channels across the Church including websites and local parishes.
Since then, the Church has been encouraging churchgoers from across the country to take part in a process of learning using the resources, listening to one another and to God. A report of the gathered responses from this churchwide engagement was published in September 2022.
During the recent three days of meetings at the College of Bishops, bishops drew on this wealth of resources and the many conversations that have been held with a wide range of stakeholders to inform their discernment.
Working in small groups, bishops shared their different views and discussed how the Church should approach questions relating to same sex marriage and civil partnerships, as well as other pastoral and theological concerns relating to human identity and sexuality in a way that honours the different deeply held convictions that exist among bishops and the wider Church.
Commenting at the end of the meeting, the Bishop of London, Dame Sarah Mullally said: “The bishops’ honest and fruitful conversations were undergirded by a deep desire to walk together and to find a way forward that will be good news to the Church and to wider society. Bishops were united in their determination to come to a clear sense of direction in time for the meeting of the Church’s General Synod in February 2023.”
The Archbishop of York, Stephen Cottrell, said: “These were three days of conversations held in an atmosphere of collegiality, mutual respect and understanding. A heartfelt thank you to everyone who participated so openly.”
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, said: “As our meeting draws to its close and as our journey moves on to the next stage in the LLF process, I pray for continued guidance from the scriptures about God’s intention for human life in all its glory and joy.”
Details of the three day programme can be found on the Living in Love and Faith Journey web page and a short video will be available shortly. [wrong link, use the one above]
The next College of Bishops will be in December where further discernment and decision-making will take place.
General Synod is not averse to declining the proposals of the Bishops. I hope they have a plan B ready if their plan A is thrown out. I hope also that they have the current make up of General Synod in mind. Finding agreement amongst themselves at the end of their deliberations will probably feel like a major achievement but they shouldn’t interpret that as having found the mind of the wider church.
General Synod did not exactly cover itself in glory in the debate over women bishops. Perhaps current Synod members, especially the laity, should call that episode to mind.
Are they running out of road down which to kick the can? Is light dawning? Nothing in the press release makes me think so. But the leaky ones are suggesting that it is so. We will see.
The phrase that keeps being used about Synod in February is ‘sense of direction’. It’s not going to be full proposals. My best guess is a statement that the status quo is no longer an option and a very lengthy (ie delaying) process of consultation and engagement to discern what change could look like.
I suspect part of this is simply Synod pragmatism – what proposals would command even a secure Synod majority amongst the current membership? The bishops can’t make Synod do anything – and there are certainly blocking minorities for anything significantly “progressive” or “conservative” which requires 2/3 in favour. So scope for action in “the real world” is rather constrained. Of course there are things that bishops, individually or collectively, can do without reference to Synod.
My understanding is that the House of Bishops could reverse the 2005 requirement for priestly celibacy without reference to Synod but please correct me if I am wrong.
I agree. It is going to be an agonisingly slow, drawn-out, messy u turn. A ‘sense of direction’ isn’t actually a change, it is an *idea* that we might be heading in a rather different direction at some unspecified time in the future. There is still lots of room for obfuscation, blocking by GS, and, of course, that blessed thing, ‘discernment’.
The bishop of Oxford today publishes a proposal based on differentiation through, if it is agreed, a separate province.
That separation will work.
The Titanic is gliding into the iceberg with steering gear failure and the officers are rearranging the deckchairs on the upper deck.
.. while those on the lower decks keep he ship afloat, or using a different metaphor, the unshepherded find new pastures and fresh grass!
That is optimistic but if the steering is bust there is damn all the stokers can do to avoid the crash!!
Only the Church of England is still on a steamship in the 21st Century!
I find it completely unacceptable that the Church of England currently has two categories of priest: those who are forced to be celibate and those who are free to express their love in a sexual way.
Our sister churches in Wales and Ireland continue to maintain the traditional teaching about Christian Marriage without this unjust and cruel requirement that was only introduced in 2005.
Those who are ‘forced to be celibate’ still all chose to be priests, nobody forced them, and they all knew the deal on marriage/celibacy when they signed up, even if they hoped the church would change. All single CofE clergy are also ‘forced to be celibate’. This is not a surprise to any of them, it’s always been clear. Every priest willingly entered into the vocation knowing the rules, and I assume worked out that they could live with those rules even if they didn’t change during their time in active ministry.
I can only assume that David is not a priest?
I was single when started training for ordination, and I knew that, if I didn’t end up getting married, that would mean celibacy for life.
I am not sure that we chose be be priests so much as found that we were chosen, like it or not and then grew into accepting the vocation.
Sounds a bit pious but as young man 54 years ago I felt a sense of vocation and believed I should be obedient to that although I had had other ideas of my future life’s work.
Before 2005 nobody was forced to give a formal undertaking before their bishop to remain celibate and that remains the case in Wales and Ireland even though both provinces maintain the traditional teaching about Christian marriage. In 2005 the flexibility that had previously existed was removed. From 2005 the Church of England has had two categories of priest and I find that utterly abhorrent. Of course the rules theoretically apply to all unmarried clergy but since gay priests are forbidden to marry, the effect is discriminatory. You say “they all knew the deal on marriage/celibacy”. Do I take it then… Read more »
If someone in ordained ministry is called to marriage by the Lord then they need to be able to answer that call. If the Lord doesn’t care that someone is gay but calls them to marriage anyway, why should the church put itself ahead of the Lord’s call?
There is no such division. No priest is “free to express their love in a sexual way”.
I do…
Here is a draft motion. “For over 450 years ever since its foundation, the Church of England has been opposed to the compulsory celibacy of its clergy. This doctrine is very well expressed in the 39 Articles. “32. Of the Marriage of Priests. Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, are not commanded by God’s Law, either to vow the estate of single life, or to abstain from marriage: therefore it is lawful for them, as for all other Christian men, to marry at their own discretion, as they shall judge the same to serve better to godliness.” But since 2005 Lesbian and… Read more »
My preferred motion would be: “This house believes it is wrong to tell gay and lesbian Christians in the Church of England that they should refrain from sex for the rest of their lives.” A simple motion. If 51% votes in favour of the motion, the bishops should go to Parliament and ask MPs there to respect democratic will (which also happens to be in line with the law and the UK public) and rescind the quadruple lock. Of course, there would be canonical hurdles to overcome, but it would at least make clear in public that the majority view… Read more »
That seems skewed, for at least five reasons. The first is that it implicitly prevents one side of the discussion from expanding on its views, since it would make it wrong to express a certain opinion. That’s always dangerous. The second is that it, incorrectly, assumes that those described as gay and lesbian Christians are solely, and throughout the whole of their lives, attracted to the same sex (and says nothing about those attracted to both sexes). The third is that it actually says nothing about marriage, which is presumably the point at issue. The fourth is that GS can… Read more »
I grant you your first point in particular is good, because it is not my intention to silence the views of socially conservative Christians. So I stand corrected. Thank you for that.
Back to the drawing board with the whole motion I proposed!
I have emailed my diocesan and his suffragan to ask him to publically support + Stephen. I await response with bated breath!