From Mrs April Alexander
Sir, - Canon Judith Maltby was surely
right to take the Chichester Interim Report as a prompt to look at
the draft women-bishops Measure in a wider context (
Letters 21 September). In particular, she mentions the
importance of accountability.
It is one of the footnotes (no. 4)
that is very specific on this point: " . . there is a question over
to whom a suffragan or area bishop is responsible" (not my
italics). The footnote continues by differentiating its arguments
from those around the Clergy Discipline Measure, and examines the
position in Canon Law. It concludes: "We believe there is, indeed,
room for confusion and that this ought to be addressed
nationally."
If there is this confusion about
authority, accountability, and responsibility which requires
attention at the national level, then one could be forgiven for
suggesting that this may not be the right time to pass primary
legislation that enshrines a regime involving a new layer of
delegatee bishops about whom there is likely to be similar
confusion.
It might make one particularly nervous
if one reflected that those same bishops had doubts about the
validity of the orders of the diocesan bishops who delegated some
aspects of episcopal ministry to them. The fact that Lambeth Palace
has found it impossible even to suspend the bishop in question in
Chichester (Letters, 21 September) adds to the problem, which can
clearly only be resolved if the national Church does, indeed, bend
its will to sorting out these matters.
Meanwhile, we are not in a position to
delay a vote on the women-bishops Measure. Those charged with
voting on it will need to bear these risks in mind as they do
so.
APRIL ALEXANDER
Southwark General Synod member, 59 High Street, Bletchingley
Redhill Surrey RH1 4PB
From Canon Wealands Bell
Sir, - Canon Judith Maltby's
opportunistic attempt to use recent events in Chichester as a
sinew-stiffener for the Synod as it looks again at legislation
concerning women bishops is regrettable and irrelevant.
It is clear in the Bishops' amendments
that delegation of certain functions by a diocesan bishop would
neither compromise her authority nor unburden her of any of her
responsibilities.
To inject a note of party politics
into this most unhappy story is, at best, unhelpful.
WEALANDS BELL
23 The Close, Lichfield WS13 7LD
From Mr Stephen Barney
Sir, - I applaud and welcome the Revd
Janet Appleby's amendment to Clause 5(1)c (
News, 21 September), as a solution to achieve what the Church
of England wants and has expressed its will, via diocesan-synod
voting, to achieve, i.e. women able to become bishops, and the
provision of an honoured place r those who can not accept the
ordained ministry of women.
Given the voting in diocesan synods on
this matter, it would be a PR disaster and could cause irreparable
damage to the Church if the Measure were to fail to gain the
two-thirds majority required in all three synodical Houses in
November.
I can understand why some will feel
unable to vote for the Measure, and therefore abstain, but voting
against is very difficult to understand, given all that has gone
before, and what is at stake.
STEPHEN BARNEY (Lay Canon)
Leicester General Synod member
The Dower House, 77 Brook Street, Wymeswold LE12 6TT