5.The amendments we intend to propose involve neither delegation nor depriving a diocesan of any part of his or her jurisdiction. Instead we seek to give effect to the idea of a ‘co-ordinate’ jurisdiction.
6. What this would mean is that:
the jurisdiction of the diocesan bishop ”“ whether male or female ”“ remains intact; he or she would remain the bishop of the whole area of the diocese and would be legally entitled to exercise any episcopal function in any parish of the diocese;
*
*
* where a parish had requested arrangements, by issuing a Letter of Request, the diocesan would in practice refrain from exercising certain of his or her functions in such a parishand would leave the nominated bishop to exercise those functions in the parish in question;
*
* the legal authority of the nominated bishop to minister in this way would derive from the Measure itself ”“ and would not, therefore, be conferred by way of delegation; but the identity of such a bishop and the scope of his functions would be defined by the scheme made by the diocesan for his or her diocese, in the light of the provisions contained in the national statutory Code of Practice drawn up by the House of Bishops and agreed by General Synod;
*
* thus both the diocesan and the nominated bishop would possess ‘ordinary jurisdiction’; the diocesan would retain the complete jurisdiction of a diocesan in law, and the nominated bishop would have jurisdiction by virtue of the Measure to the extent provided for in the diocesan scheme ”“ in effect holding jurisdiction by the decision of the Church as a whole, as expressed in the Measure;
*
* in respect of the aspects of episcopal ministry for which the diocesan scheme made provision, the diocesan and the nominated bishop would be ‘co-ordinaries’, and to that extent, their jurisdiction could be described as co-ordinate ”“ that is to say, each would have an ordinary jurisdiction in relation to those matters; and
*
* the Code of Practice would contain guidelines for effective co-ordination of episcopal functions so as to avoid duplication or conflict in the exercise of episcopal ministry.
[i]the jurisdiction of the diocesan bishop – whether male or female – remains intact; he or she would remain the bishop of the whole area of the diocese and would be legally entitled to exercise any episcopal function in any parish of the diocese . . . where a parish had requested arrangements, by issuing a Letter of Request, the diocesan would in practice refrain from exercising certain of his or her functions in such a parish and would leave the nominated bishop to exercise those functions in the parish in question[/i]
So what happens if a parish issues a Letter of Request and the diocesan chooses not to refrain? The parish presumably has no right of appeal. Someone in the mold of the Bishop of Rhode Island will do this even if such a provision is not in place; others will ignore it.
[url=http://catholicandreformed.blogspot.com]Catholic and Reformed[/url]
What interests me in all this are the parallels to the wider controversy in the AC as a whole. The two archbishops are proposing a plan very similar in spirit to what ++RW has sought to foster in the larger AC, namely to “[i]maintain the highest possible degree of communion[/i]” within the CoE (#2), exactly the same language the ABoC used to calling for the Windsor Report and has used ever since.
However, the two issues of women’s ordination and homosexuality are simply NOT comparable, as the differing stances adopted by the Lambeth Cionference in 1998 make abundantly clear. That is, those on both sides of the WO issue can both be fairly described as “loyal Anglicans” (#2), whereas those espousing a manifestly unbiblical position in favor of reversing the traditional condemnation of homosexual behavior just can’t be regarded that way at all. And that makes all the difference.
So two things stood out here for me as directly relevant to that wider dispute in the AC.
First, the archbishops clearly recognize the urgency of the situation in the case of WO, and are explicitly concerned to avoid further delays in implementing the desire of the majority of the CoE to let women serve as bishops. They admit that “[i]delay would not be wise or helpful[/i]” (#8). This stands in glaring contrast to ++RW’s perpetual attempts to delay, thrwart, obfuscate, and endlessly delay any resolution of the wider crisis in the AC, because such a resolution would favor the side that ++RW personally opposes.
Secondly, the approval given here to the idea of “co-ordinate” jurisdictions (#5) by bishops with overlapping oversight in geographical areas naturally and inevitably suggests that a similar overlapping jurisdiction ought to be possible in the other dispute as well, with FCA bishops having a recognized place overseeing orthodox congregations in England alongside the usual administrative structure. After all, “many courts and other bodies have overlapping jurisdictions” (#10), so why not in the CoE??
I don’t see how the archbishops can LOGICALLY endorse such an idea when it comes to WO and then refuse it when it comes to the even more divisive issue of homosexual behavior.
But then again, when has the CoE ever been known for being logical or consistent? Political expediency rather than theological consistency has ever been the governing principle in the CoE.
David Handy+
Actually, I think it’s pretty consistent. The ABC thought DEPO was a nice idea over here in the states — which left *the power of decision and choice* up to the diocesan bishop. This plan for the COE appears to do the same exact thing, and that’s why it won’t work.