Welsh women bishops plan comes under attack: CEN 8.17.07 p 4. August 18, 2007
Posted by geoconger in Church in Wales, Church of England Newspaper, Women Priests.trackback
Wales’ “flying bishop” has criticized that Church’s Bill to Enable Women to Be Ordained as Bishops, saying the proposed legislation is driven by a “post-1960s feminism” rather than sound doctrine.
The Provincial Assistant Bishop of Wales, the Rt. Rev. David Thomas said the legislation “rules out any possibility of a special episcopal jurisdiction being created for the sake of those who in conscience cannot agree to the ordination of women as bishops,” and was “completely unsatisfactory.”
The proposed bill, which will be open to amendment until Oct 27, when a Select Committee will then consider any changes put forward by Governing Body members. The Select Committee will give its recommendations to the Standing Committee of the Governing Body of the Church in Wales in February and the final bill will come up for vote at the April 2-3, 2008 meeting of the Church’s Governing Body at Lampeter.
The legislation states that “men and women may be ordained as Bishops,” and that the “Bench of Bishops will provide pastoral care and support for those who in conscience object to the ordination of women as Bishops.”
Those who refuse the ministrations of women bishops are offered the protection of the third clause which states, “No Bishop shall be obliged to bring proceedings before the Disciplinary Tribunal in respect of a cleric or other member of the Church in Wales who dissents in conscience” to women bishops.
If passed by the Governing Body, the legislation would come into force “on such day as the Bench of Bishops shall appoint.” The Church in Wales’ six diocesan bishops have already expressed their support for the measure.
“Those who framed the Bill do not really understand the position of those who dissent from the proposed change to the ordained ministry,” Bishop Thomas said, as “there would be huge difficulties associated with these distinctive aspects of a bishop’s ministry if women were to be ordained to the episcopate.”
There was a difference between the ministry of a priest and the ministry of a bishop, he noted. “Bishops ordain others and receive declarations of canonical obedience from clergy and other office holders,” he noted.
The safeguards for those opposed to women priests were unclear. “While we could no doubt expect sincere expressions of goodwill, sympathy, etc. at the time of the Bill being passed, nothing would be spelt out about provision for us until a woman was actually on the point of being consecrated,” he said.
Supporters of the consecration of women priests had been led astray by the “Christian feminist slogan, ‘If you won’t ordain us, don’t baptize us’.”
“There is no necessary progression from baptism to priestly/episcopal ordination,” Bishop Thomas said. “If such a progression did of necessity exist, the Christian life would presumably be a sort of religious ‘career path’. Such a concept can hardly be said to sit comfortably besides the Lord’s warning that those who follow him must deny themselves and take up their cross daily,” he argued.
Comments
Sorry comments are closed for this entry
I was a member of the G.B when the legislation for the Ordination of women was accepted. For some years and especially during the period immediately preceding the First Reading of the Bill, we were asked to pray and how hard we did pray, publicly and privately! Initially when the very vague idea of women’s ordination was in the air and in the serious litererature on the issue, I was very much opposed to the whole idea. But as I read and listened, as I prayed and conferred, I was won over to a position of acceptance.
Parish and diocesan life have convinced me more than ever that the positive position was right and good since my general view of ordained women is a very high one. In two very long interregna in my home parish we were served by visiting women for the services
I discerned in them intelligence, scholarship, a deep care for people and above all a sure and certain spirituality.
At the third reading of the Bill , now so many years ago, we engaged in silent prayer and we waited for an expression of God’s will.
The vote was taken. In favour were all the bishops. an almost unanimously favourable vote by the lay members and well over the necessary two thirds of the clergy ( in the face of a highly organized caucus of negative votes)
If God answers prayer, then we received our answer, very clearly and very unambiguously. God spoke, the Church listened , we obeyed.
That should have ended the matter. But it didn’t. The Bishops appointed a flying bishop to offer pastoral care to the tiny minority who were deaf to God and His Church.
( As a brief digression , I have only deep respect for the present Flying Bishop. He is a good and worthy bishop. I accept his ministry and sacred vocation without question. I have only admiration for his wok.)
But the Bench of bishops of the day shoukd have faced up to the will of the Church and told those who could not accept what is clearly God’s will (in answer to our prayers) and the decision of the Church to relinquish their Orders and to find work elsewhere. It is not right that some clergy are so adamant in their refusal to accept the wish of the Church that they are hostile to our bishops and reject their canonical vow of obedience to their own diocesan.
We now have the ridiculous postion of hopeful ordinands who reject the Ordination of women to the priesthood. Why were no questions asked of them at the preliminary Selection Boards (diocesan and provincial)? What could their sponsoring bishop be thinking of? We should not be admitting them to ordination as ‘ aliens in a strange land’ who one day may be such mavericks that they defy their own bishops? By this time, now so many years since women were ordained for the first time, most of the opponents should have retired or gone to heaven
All the above is written in fear that the Bishops and members of the G.B. will repeat the same mistake Coupled to any Bills should be a caveat that those who after due process of prayer, debate and guidance of the Holy Spirit , reject the decision ,will need to find other work.
Of course we know that in the end there will be temporizing . If that caveat will not apply in the case of existing clergy, surely no one should be considered for Holy Orders after the vote has been taken (assuming that the issue will be resolved positively) if they are deaf to the Church and in the end to God?