THE House of Bishops preference for the provision of women
bishops, "option one" (
News, 31 May), has been severely criticised by the Catholic
Group in General Synod as a "step backwards".
In the first detailed traditionalist response, the group's
chairman, Canon Simon Killwick (above), says that they are
"saddened" by the Bishops' preference, accusing them of "closing
down debate before it has started".
He writes: "Option one will not help to achieve a consensus; it
will not create legislation capable of achieving the required
majorities. It would tear up the current settlement over women
priests, and replace it with arrangements which no one would be
obliged to follow."
The statement, issued on 3 June, gives little credence to the
Bishops' appeal to trust. "We regulate other areas of church life
in great detail by law - measures, canons and regulations - and we
see no justification for abandoning that approach in relation to
one of the most controversial areas of our church life."
The proposals involve repealing the statutory protection for
traditionalists, Resolutions A and B. The Catholic Group argues
that keeping them "would provide the essential underpinning" for
any future arrangements, which "need to be secure, and not
dependent on the discretionary decisions of individual bishops,
clergy, PCCs, patrons and parish representatives".
The statement concludes: "We will continue to reflect and pray,
and consult with others, before deciding what amendments to propose
to the Synod in July, in order to move the process forwards and
build consensus."
These criticisms match those of conservative Evangelicals
represented by Reform, who described the future under these
proposals as "really rather bleak" (News,
31 May).
The Catholic Group statement in full:
ONE STEP FORWARD ~ ONE STEP BACK
We welcome the report of the Working Party set up by the House
of Bishops (annexed to GS 1886) as a significant step forward
towards legislation for women bishops in the Church of England.
The Church of England needs a settlement which will provide both
for women bishops, and for those who are unable to receive the
ministry of women bishops, on grounds of theological conviction -
convictions which are supported by Holy Scripture, and the
consensus of the wider Church. We recognise in the five
propositions in the report, taken together, the possible basis for
a settlement - with the exception of the reference to canonical
obedience.
What is needed now is the building of a sufficiently large
consensus behind legislative proposals that they are capable of
comfortably receiving the necessary two-thirds majorities in all
three Houses of the Synod.
We are saddened by the selection of option one (the simplest
possible legislation) by the House of Bishops at this early stage.
This feels like a step backwards in the process, closing down
debate before it has started, and rendering facilitated
conversations between Synod members pointless. Option one will not
help to achieve a consensus; it will not create legislation capable
of achieving the required majorities. It would tear up the current
settlement over women priests, and replace it with arrangements
which no one would be obliged to follow. The effects would be felt
most by the laity, who would not only lose their existing legal
rights, but could also be open to legal challenge under the
Equality Act. Option one would unbalance the five propositions,
giving most weight to the first two, and less weight to the other
three.
The option preferred by the bishops relies simply on trust to
provide for those who cannot accept the ministry of women bishops
and priests. We regulate other areas of church life in great detail
by law - measures, canons and regulations - and we see no
justification for abandoning that approach in relation to one of
the most controversial areas of our church life. Were option one to
be accepted, we would be in the strange situation that who presides
at the celebration of the Eucharist would be governed by grace and
trust, while who administers Holy Communion would be determined by
regulations made under canon.
We believe that the way forward lies in holding together all of
the five propositions, without giving any of them more prominence
than the others. The retention of Resolutions A and B from the
current settlement would provide the essential underpinning for any
future arrangements to honour the last three propositions; the
arrangements need to be secure, and not dependent on the
discretionary decisions of individual bishops, clergy, PCCs,
patrons and parish representatives. Further consideration still
needs to be given to issues concerning the jurisdiction of diocesan
bishops, and oaths of canonical obedience - consideration which had
the support of majorities of the General Synod and the Revision
Committee at different times in the past.
We will continue to reflect and pray, and consult with others,
before deciding what amendments to propose to the Synod in July, in
order to move the process forwards and build consensus.
Canon Simon Killwick
(Chairman of the Catholic Group in General Synod)