See also our ISB controversy posts.
This post will be updated as the meeting proceeds.
The Church of England’s General Synod is meeting this weekend. The timetable is here, the agenda is here and the papers are here.
Live Video etc
All sessions are streamed live on YouTube and remain available to view afterwards. Links have been provided in advance.
There is an official Twitter account.
Order Papers
Business Done
Official press releases
Press reports and comment
Church Times
The Guardian
Did the archbishop include or miss the bit about treating victims and survivors of abuse as siblings?
A far more meaningful gesture would have been for ++York to delegate his presidential address at this particular GS to someone else. He is in no position at present to lay out the principles of collegiality and cooperation. Better for him and ++Canterbury to sit under the wise counsel of others.
Two questions sessions have been allocated.
The first session has just concluded, covering Q.1 to 59
That leaves 178 Questions to be covered in the second session.
Is that going to work? Will the session be extended?
Okay, the second session of Questions has just finished.
To date, 101 questions (and supplemtaries) have been covered.
What happens to the other 136 questions?
Is the time allocation for Synodical scrutiny and the Q&A system fit for purpose?
The answers to all 237 questions are included in the publicly available Questions Notice Paper. There is no provision for supplementaries to the questions that were not reached.
I understand that Peter, but that seems inadequate, especially considering how vague and sometimes evasive the first answers can be. There simply wasn’t enough time allocated (or the system should be reformed).
I haven’t watched the video recording of the Presidential Address – I can’t bring myself to do it, given the hideous lack of humility and grace shown by ++York and others who are members of Archbishops’ Council, over recent weeks and the collusive silence of most Diocesan Bishops. All I see when I look at them now are people who have damaged vulnerable people and continue to do so. People who have shown no indication of acting in humility and grace to admit their mistakes, lament them, turn away from them and learn from them. So I am very conscious… Read more »
Justin was asked about the speed with which the ISB was closed down at short notice.
He answered that a big factor was time pressures if they were to get Synod papers out on time.
He also stated that he and Stephen Cottrell did not favour things happening so fast. Justin said, “Both archbishops wished to wait a bit.”
I’m not sure what to make of that, but presumably they were overruled by other parties on the Council?
That just says so much, Synod administration was more important to the majority among ABs Council rather than the safety of survivors. As if they haven’t been damaged enough they then come second to a few PDFs. And they have the brass-neck to spout this to synod and say how it breaks their hearts. Absolutely makes my vital fluids boil.
I think they claimed it was unanimous. So, no, they were not overruled.
Anyone would think they were the Archbishops…..
As ever, XXWelby does not accept responsibility – and what sort of an organisation risks harming vulnerable members to get papers out on time?
I wonder whether he believes his excuses himself?
So let’s see the minutes of the relevant meeting of the Archbishops’ Council, to see if the other members can really be blamed, or have they just been thrown under the bus? Whatever happened, the primates nonetheless signed off on it; if they really disagreed with such a specious proposal they could presumably have distanced themselves publicly at the time, or is it the case that collective responsibility is only disapplied when it is politically convenient? People in office need to be measured by their deeds and not by their words or ‘feelings’. Also this response rather reminds me of… Read more »
Susannah, my note of Justin’s answer (to a supplementary question from Peter Barrett from Oxford Diocese) was that ‘to a large extent [the decision on 21 June] was due to the need to get the Synod papers out on time.’ My understanding had been that it was a concern that the 14-days notice period to which Jasvinder and Steve were entitled under their contracts, and which they were given, should expire before the start of the General Synod meeting on 7 July. It may amount to the same thing, since the Synod papers had to be circulated to members the… Read more »
In either case, sadly, it looks like the Council putting their own administrative interests first, and the safety and well-being of the engaged survivors a very definite last. There was nothing to stop them creating an interim handover period so that there could be an orderly transfer of responsibilities if necessary, and to inform survivors decently, and to make the handing of the baton more orderly. It really does look that they were driven by the desire to avoid Jas and Steve speaking at Synod, and indeed to stop Synod asking, questioning, expressing thoughts of the wider Church. Instead they… Read more »
David, sorry, just to add the link to Ian Paul’s statement…
“A number of us in AC realised that the breakdown in relationships meant that ISB 1 was never going to deliver this; I and others have been pressing for a reset for six months or more.”
…which I forgot to include.
Cont… You may ask how dare I? No doubt that has crossed your mind, if you’ve read anything I’ve written on here. Well I dare with more than a little fear and trepidation. After all, we all know that sanctions can easily be applied capriciously and vindictively to rank and file clergy in a way they rarely touch serving Bishops. But I see vulnerable people in agony and the actions of you and your colleagues making it worse. That’s how I dare. As a far more courageous and effective advocate for reform than I will ever be once said ‘here… Read more »
I noted from the Question Paper (forgive the lack of a reference to the relevant question number – it was concerning the revised membership of a Canterbury CNC) that ++Cantuar said that there was no current or imminent vacancy in the See of Canterbury. The former is obvious, the latter less so.
Fascinating that the Guardian, which has been shamefully silent over the sacking of the ISB has picked up on ‘Our Father’….. is it too suspicious to think the XX’s address was a very successful example of the ‘dead cat’ technique of managing news ?
So Archbishop Cottrell makes a brief aside recognising a pastoral issue that most clergy have known about for years – not advocating a change in the Lord’s Prayer, just noting the issue – and the Guardian picks up on this and makes it the headline, as if it’s somehow new and shocking? Good grief!
Sadly, it is not so clear to lots of liberals outside the charmed circle of the clergy, so that and disinvestment in fossil fuels are what have grabbed the attention of MM .Is the C of E fizzling gently towards obscurity?