POSSIBLE PROGRESS OF THE LEGISLATION
February 2009 First Consideration
February and July 2010 Revision in Full Synod
July 2010 to December 2011 Reference to Diocesan Synods
February 2013 to December 2013 Parliamentary Approval and Royal Assent
February 2012 Final Drafting Stage
February 2009 to February 2010 Revision Committee
July 2012 Article 7 References to House of Bishops, Convocations and House of Laity
February 2013 Final Approval:Two-thirds majority required in each house
February 2014 Canon promulged and Approval of Codeof Practice
SOME QUESTIONS ANSWERED
Who can submit revisions?
Any member of General Synod. (Although the Revision Committee may give leave to consider
revisions by those who are not members of Synod.)
Who’ll be on the Steering Committee?
The Right Revd Nigel McCulloch (Bishop of
The Very Revd Vivienne Faull (Deans)
Dr Paula Gooder (
The Ven Alistair Magowan (
The Revd Canon Anne Stevens (Southwark)
Margaret Swinson (
Geoffrey Tattersall (
The Right Revd Trevor Willmott (Bishop of
And the Revision Committee?
The Venerable Clive Mansell (Archdeacon of Tonbridge) [Chairman]
~ plus the Appointed Members of the Revision Committee (who will be appointed in the
coming weeks and who will represent a wide range of views).
Can the Code of Practice be revised at this stage?
The Revision Committee will consider the draft Code of Practice and may suggest amendments
to it. However, the Code cannot actually be made until after the legislation has become law.
The House of Bishops will then make the Code of Practice and seek Synod’s approval to it. At
that stage Synod members will be able to propose amendments to the Code.
Why doesn’t the draft Measure include Financial Provision?
Because Synod has not yet asked for this to be included. This can be proposed as an amendment
at the Revision Stage.
What happens to my parish if we don’t have A, B & C in place now?
Resolutions A, B and C provide the only guarantee that your parish’s next incumbent will be
in conscience opposed to the ordination of women.
Reminder: The next National Assembly will be on 23/24 October 2009
• Lobbying your Synod members
• Meeting your diocesan bishop
• Meeting local women clergy
• Getting local media coverage - letters to newspapers, sending in reports of gatherings etc
• Identifying where MPs (and prospective candidates) stand on the question of proper provision for a significant minority in the Church of England – whatever their views on women bishops)
A PLAN OF ACTION FOR THE GRASSROOTS
• 2010 General Synod Elections - help to ensure that there are orthodox candidates and that orthodox voters vote for them!
• Supporting clergy and laity who have significant responsibilities in Synod or with FiF nationally and might need time to enable them to fulfill those responsibilities properly. Can you help them?
• Keep in touch with events as they unfold!
www.forwardinfaith.com
www.churchtimes.co.uk
Resolution 2009/01
This Assembly affi rms that the recent Statement published by the Bishop of Beverley is an accurate refl ection of its own position, following the February 2009 sessions of the General Synod of the Church of England; it commends the Statement to the members of Forward in Faith for study and guidance and calls on the Council to work out the practical implications thereof.
a) If, as the Lambeth Conference has recognised, our view is as equally valid within
Anglicanism as that of our opponents, provision for us should have equal weight to that
of the other viewpoint. We are not looking for special favours by which we might be
tolerated but for a provision that recognises us as being as authentically Anglican and
Church of England as our opponents.
b) A code of practice does not provide the above. Such a code lacks legal force. Much
of the code only calls on those applying its contents to give them due regard. It is pointed
out that such decisions would have to be defended in the law courts if someone were to
apply for judicial review, questioning whether or not the bishop applying the code could
be judged to have acted reasonably given the Church’s commitment to the code. Just
imagine the costs to both the Church of England and to the petitioners of such a way of
testing apparently unfair decisions.
c) One of the marks of the Catholic revival in the Church of England was its protest at
doctrinal matters within the Church of England being decided by the Privy Council. The
notorious Gorham Judgement caused great consternation to many not just because of
its outcome but also because of where and how the decision had been made. The present
situation is not an exact parallel but nonetheless I doubt many of us would want to live
exposed to that kind of system.
d) Despite all the assurances given at its inception, the Act of Synod has come under
continual attack with constant calls for its repeal. Many of those who call for a code of
practice are the same people who have been consistently campaigning for the rescinding
of the Act of Synod. Does anyone seriously think that within a very short time there would
not be a determined group seeking to whittle away, piece by piece, any code of practice
and determined that eventually it should be abolished? Only provision by measure and
not by a code of practice will do.
e) There is no provision for transfer of jurisdiction to bishops who are supposed to be
appointed to minister to those of our viewpoint. This is not a power game. A bishop and
his priests are integrally linked in one interchangeable college. A presbyter receives his
authority from and is an extension of the ministry of his bishop. How can such a theology
be safeguarded by a so-called complementary bishop exercising authority only on behalf
of a bishop over whose sacramental reality both the complementary bishop and those to
whom he is set aside to minister have considerable doubt?
f) Jurisdiction has implications for the mission of the Church. I have to say that after
excess of eight years as a provincial episcopal visitor the lack of control over the placing
of priests and of pastoral reorganisation, together with other matters, even, sometimes,
the arranging of confi rmations, has made it clear to me how constricted is my ability in
seeking to lead the Church in mission.
Proposed by the Chairman of Forward in Faith
As amended by the Revd Scott Anderson
No comments:
Post a Comment