SUGGESTIONS for resolving the dispute over the women-bishops
legislation have been sent to members of General Synod in a
discussion document issued by the secretary-general, William
Fittall, on Wednesday.
Commissioned by the House of Bishops standing committee on 9
July, the last day that Synod met, the document (GS Misc 1033) sets
out seven possible options in relation to clause 5(1)(c), an
amendment made to the legislation by the House of Bishops in May.
Unhappiness over the amendment prompted the General Synod to
adjourn final approval of the whole Measure when it met in York
earlier this month.
The discussion document has been produced by the episcopal
members of the steering committee (the Bishops of Manchester and
Dover) and those who had formed the Code of Practice working group,
working in consultation with other members of the steering
committee.
At this stage in the legislative process, all but Clause 5(1)(c)
is set in stone. The clause covers how the House of Bishops will
draw up guidance in a Code of Practice, to be attached to the
Measure, on making provision for those who cannot receive the
episcopal or priestly ministry of women.
Seven options are laid out. The paper warns that the first two -
to retain the clause as it stands or remove it - risk the rejection
of the Measure in its entirety. Voting patterns in the General
Synod suggest that either option would be unlikely to procure the
required two-thirds majorities when the Synod reconvenes in
November.
The five other proposals -"not intended to be exhaustive" -
entail replacing Clause 5(1)(c) with a new version (see below,
and panel overleaf).
The Seven Options
THE paper suggests that there is a case for
retaining Clause 5(1)(c), in that it fulfils the
objectives of giving those who cannot receive the episcopal or
priestly ministry of women "some assurance that they will properly
be provided for", and of "stating expressly that, at least for
some, there were theological convictions that mean that maleness
would be "necessary but not sufficient". It also rebuts suggestions
that the clause as it stands would allow parishes to "choose their
own bishop". It warns, however, that, in the light of the large
majority who voted for an adjournment in York, "there must be a
real question" whether simply retaining the clause would enable the
legislation to attract the necessary majority at final
approval.
This is also a risk of deleting the clause, the
paper suggests. The House of Bishops would have to consider the
"adverse impact" on those that the clause was designed to reassure,
and the consequences of not addressing the "necessary but not
sufficient" issue on the face of the Measure. This, however, is the
course of action advocated by many in the wider Church.
The third option suggests that, instead of
referring to the selection of male bishops or priests who exercise
a ministry "consistent with" the theological convictions of PCCs as
to the consecration and ordination of women, as at present, the
clause refer to selection which must "respect" or "take account of"
such convictions. The authors acknowledge, however, that leaving
the phrase "theological convictions" in the clause may "prove an
unsuperable objection for some".
The fourth, "more radical", option, would be to
remove any indication of the criteria that the Code of Practice
would employ in giving guidance on the selection of male bishops
and male priests. It could, however, say something about the
process of selection, for example, a consultation with PCCs.
The paper warned that this would provide "no assurance" that the
guidance would result in the provision of ministry that parishes
would be able to receive. Its "vagueness" as to criteria might also
be "problematic".
A fifth option would be to build into the
provision a reference to the "suitability" or "appropriateness" of
the person selected for the particular context in which he was to
exercise ministry. It would also refer to the process of selection,
involving consultation with the PCC. This would address the
"necessary but not sufficient" question. However, the words
"suitable" and "appropriate" were "very broad".
A sixth option would be to define the basis for
the criteria for selection, but refer not to "theological
convictions" but to their "outworking in practice".
The exercise of ministry of selected bishops or priests would
need to "respect" or "take account of" the position of PCCs "in
relation to the celebration of the sacraments and other divine
service and the provision of pastoral care".
Finally, a seventh option would be that, rather
than simply requiring guidance to be given as to selection, the
Code would also give guidance on the procedure of selection.
Diocesan bishops are now expected to discuss the paper with
Synod members. The steering committee and the three bishops from
the Code of Practice group will meet on 30 August to discuss the
feedback, the deadline for which is 24 August. Synod members may
also send comments to Mr Fittall.
The House of Bishops will then meet on 12 September to
reconsider the clause. The responsibility for the final Measure
rests entirely with them: the General Synod will not have the power
to make amendments when it meets in November. Before then, it will
also be necessary to satisfy a sub-group - the "Group of Six" -
that any proposed amendment does not alter "the substance of the
proposals embodied in the Measure" that was approved by 42 of the
44 dioceses in 2011.
If the House of Bishops does amend the Measure (options 3 to 7),
the Convocations and the House of Laity will have the right to
debate it immediately before the November Synod, as they did in
July. In this event, the final-approval debate can go ahead only if
these bodies approve it by simple majorities.
1. Retain clause 5(1)(c).
2. Amend the draft measure by
removing clause 5(1)(c).
3. Replace "consistent
with"
"(c) the manner in which arrangements for the selection
of male bishops and male priests are to [respect] [take account of]
the theological convictions as to the consecration and ordination
of women on grounds of which parochial church councils issue
Letters of Request under section 3."
4. Focus on broad subject area
(and perhaps process)
"(c) the selection of male bishops and male priests to
exercise ministry in parishes whose parochial church councils issue
Letters of Request under section 3;"
or, if something about process were included:
"(c) the selection, after consultation with parochial church
councils who issue Letters of Request under section 3, of male
bishops and male priests to exercise ministry in the parishes of
those councils."
5. Focus on suitability or
appropriateness
"(c) the selection, following consultation with parochial
church councils who issue Letters of Request under section 3, of
male bishops and male priests, the exercise of ministry by whom
appears to the persons making the selection to be
[suitable][appropriate] for the parishes concerned."
6. Revised formulation of what
parishes need
"(c) the selection of male bishops and male priests the
exercise of ministry by whom [respects] [takes account of] the
position, in relation to the celebration of the sacraments and
other divine service and the provision of pastoral care, of the
parochial church councils who issue Letters of Request under
section 3;"
7. Option six plus some
process
"(c) the manner in which arrangements for the selection
of male bishops and male priests are to [respect] [take account of]
the position, in relation to the celebration of the sacraments and
other divine service and the provision of pastoral care, of the
Parochial Church Councils who issue Letters of Request under
section 3."