Speech for General Synod Debate

The proposals before us today, by necessity, are constrained by the decisions of last July’s synod.  So, for all the hard work of the Manchester Group, its proposals manifestly fail to achieve the task for which they were intended; that is providing for the admission of women to the episcopate while at the same time genuinely seeking to make it possible for those opposed in conscience to such a move honourably  to remain within the Church of England

The proposals before us today cannot solve the central issue of jurisdiction.  Jurisdiction for Catholics is not just part of some power struggle.  It is fundamental to what we believe about the nature of a bishop in relationship to his priests.  Priests operate on the authority of their bishop.  They are interchangeable both with him and with one another in presiding at the Eucharist.  That is why delegated transfer as outlined in the Manchester Report cannot suffice.  No so-called complementary bishop and no priest, holding such a theology, could in good conscience function under the authority of a bishop, however cleverly delegated, while not regarding that diocesan bishop as his true Father in God.   Those who are genuine in seeking to keep within the Church of England those of us who hold such a theology must grasp this nettle.  It was good to read within the Manchester Group’s report some hints that it recognised the problem all too well but felt constrained by last July’s Synod from addressing it.  To proceed without resolving this issue must make all the promises about genuinely wanting to accommodate those of my theological viewpoint little more than window dressing, no matter how beautifully the latter might have been carried out.

The other core problem that still remains for many Catholics is the determination to proceed by code of practice.  It has been said that other parts of the Anglican Communion make no provision by measure for opponents. That is only part of the story.  In North America, in particular, in the early days of ordaining women to the priesthood all kinds of guarantees were built in for opponents. One by one they were whittled away until, by the time those provinces proceeded to ordain women to the episcopate all safeguards were taken away.  Dissidents were left at the mercy of the local diocesan sometimes for better and sometimes for worse.  We are asked to trust each other, often by the very people who when they are not campaigning for a code of practice are busy trying to rescind the Act of Synod.  Yes, so far we have managed to maintain some protection for the present minority.  Does anyone really doubt that, as soon as the Act of Synod has been repealed as the legislation before us proposes, there will then come along a group determined piece by piece to reduce the provision of a code of practice?

There is no parity for Anglicans who are told that both views on the ordination of women are equally valid, when one group is protected by law and the other by a code; always presupposing, of course, that the minority can afford the dubious protection of going for a judicial review every time it feels unjustly dealt with by the local diocesan or archdeacon.

There is much that is potentially good within the proposals that are brought before this Synod today.   There are also things that frankly miss the very issues they seek to address.  But, for as long as there is no convincing offer to those who think like me in the matter of jurisdiction and in the need for legislation by measure rather than by statutory code of practice, there is no choice but to vote against these proposals.  I invite those who think differently but still genuinely want to retain my tradition within our Church to join with me in that vote.  Then we might still find the way forward that enables us all to travel forward together.   

Home Page | Welcome | Resources | Parishes | News | Links | Contact