Manchester's Proposals....

Well, as the Church in England observed St Thomas Becket the Manchester Group's Proposals were published. When all in stillness lay this was issued and yet what a row there already is if the blogosphere is anything to go by.

I have printed off the papers, as reading on the screen takes ages. Even from the cursory glance I have had it is very clear that the Manchester Group have had a good stab at an impossible task. Neither side will be happy with this and I can envisage months of wrangling and even fulminating from Ms Rees, who basically won't be happy until she gets her own way by trampling on those who disagree with her - rather like Violet Elizabeth Bott!

The language of inclusion is there in the proposals for traditionalists with talk of no one being denied ordination and preferment - but can that be delivered? Will traditionalist Diocesans, Deans and Archdeacons still be appointed?

The proposed Code of Practice cannot square the circle even despite the best attempts, as we traditionalists have always pointed out. It is very difficult to see how a "Complementary Bishop" (a dreadful title if ever there was one!) can act on behalf of a female bishop with any Theological, Sacramental and Ecclesial integrity.

There are some interesting developments for such "Complementary Bishops" with regard to fostering vocations and presentations to Livings - though whether such proposals would see the light of day remains to be seen.

I note that hidden away and not really commented on much (so far) is a proposal that the Petitions 1 and 2 would not be acted upon by the Diocesan Bishop if the PCC had not consulted the Annual Parochial Church Meeting. As the PCC is the legal body in making decisions about what resolutions to pass it should surely be up to it to decide who or what it wished to consult. This proposal seems to me to be about divide and rule and, if memory serves me correctly, was proposed to be a decision of the APCM in the TEA proposals rather than a consultation exercise; that is of course until the Canon Lawyers pointed out that the PCC is the body that makes legal decisions. But, like the ownership of Vicarages, certain parties are not going to let go of an idea to take all things to themselves.

Also interesting are the proposals to allow clergy in non-petitioning parishes to have Sacramental and Pastoral Care of a "Complementary Bishop". Though by "interesting" you shouldn't assume I am thus converted to this Proposed Code. The talk of a Diocesan Bishop having to have "cogent reasons" for refusing to act in accord with the Code of Practice on one level seems encouraging until you read the stuff backing up this proposal from the House of Lord's judgement on Code's of Practices which still ends up stating that a Code of Practice is not legally binding.

There certainly does seem to be some stronger language than the current Code of Practice, AKA the Act of Synod - which, it should be noted, has been flouted in some places quite flagrantly. Stories of the bullying of parishes, candidates for ordination being grilled about "the issue", and preferment being denied to Anglo-Catholics and Conservative Evanglicals (the latter as confirmed by the "Pilling Report") abound. This in some ways is understandable, from a human behavioural point of view. After all, if you only have to have regard to something it doesn't mean you have to do it, and very few people, it seems, are courageous enough to allow someone with whom they disagree or who is more talented themselves to be part of their team. It has long been argued that the weakness in Episcopal appointments is that Diocesans get to choose their Suffragans. Naturally, few wish to appoint those with whom they disagree or who are stronger than themselves, and this system perpetuates itself as suffragans become diocesans and get to choose their suffragans. Whether this is a fair assessment is, of course, open to argument, but it is often remarked upon.

How then are we going to cope with women "bishops" whom significant numbers of clergy and lay people will not believe to be bishops, nor believe that those men ordained by them are priests? It's all very well talking about having to accept that all have to recognise and agree that they are legally entitled to their Office, but this is about Theology, Sacramental Assurance and Ecclesiology not Law. It thus seems to me that it is OK for one party to have recourse to legal protection for their status, meaning that all have to recognise the legal validity of women bishops and priests Offices, but why are traditionalists then denied a legally binding structure which would allow us to flourish?