The Archbishops of Canterbury and York are planning to force the General Synod to offer safeguards to traditionalists unhappy with women bishops. And I do mean force, since the Synod had already decided not to offer those safeguards.
Whatever. Although it’s none of my business, and if I was a supporter of women bishops I’d be outraged, I sort of hope that Dr Williams and Dr Sentamu get their way. As Fr Ed Tomlinson SSC notes on his blog, the Primates’ plan would separate worshippers who are serious about belonging to a Catholic Church as it was understood by the founders of Anglo-Catholicism ”“ none of whom would countenance any degree of communion, however remote, with women bishops ”“ from those prepared to turn a blind eye to the DIY ecclesiology of “alternative oversight”.
Fr Tomlinson, a supporter of the Ordinariate, makes a neat (if mischievous) distinction between those who want to be part of the “Catholic faith” and those who want to be part of “Catholic tradition”.
They are going to ForCE something to happen, are they?
I thought they had no power whatsoever to make anything happen…..
I believe the proposal by Canterbury and York represents Anglicanism at its best and, therefore, those who want to be part of “the Catholic faith” will want no part of the proposal.
The scheme of Canterbury and York is one of what Cranmer’s biographer Diarmaid MacCullogh considers the “glories of their tradition”: “a tradition without logic or consistency, which depends on the strong clash of opposites, and in the end which provides heroes who are examples of human frailty rather than role-models for uncomplicated courage” (MacCullough is serious). “Such heritage”, he says, “is a healthy corrective to the common relish of the religiously minded for telling other people what to do.”
Dan, that’s a great quote, especially given that today is the feast day of St. Thomas More. I suppose More would be a “role model of uncomplicated courage.” I don’t think it’s a necessarily bad thing to “tell other people what to do”, if the teller is wise. On the other hand if the teller is illogical and inconsistent then he might want to refrain from telling others what to do.
I too thought about the aptness of the quote in terms of this being the joint feast day for Catholics of SS John Fisher and Thomas More. But given the poisonous treatment of More in (alas) the best-selling and tendentious Wolf Hall I thought that I ought to point out that More and Fisher could also be said to have suffered not so much because they told others what to do, but because they refused to allow the monarch to rule their consciences. Faithfulness to tradition rather than following of the Zeitgeist. I take it that for Catholic-minded Anglicans in the Church of England, this is an analogous moment, in which tradition is pitted against the cultural tide of the day.
Fr. Tee (#5),
I heartily agree with your assessment of the nature of the crisis. The fundamental challenge of our time is precisely as you have described it, nemely, that there is an unavoidable clash between two traditions, two worldviews, two socieities and two orthdoxies in our time and none in the western world or Global North can evade making the fateful choice between the two. Today, we all face the stark choice that Thomas More faced, whether to serve Christ or the powers of this world, for a dual allegiance is no longer possible.
One is reminded of another famous English leader of that same era, that hapless Cardinal Wolsey, another Lord Chancellor of the realm. Who when he died made the forlorn, wistful lament that he wished he had served his God as faithfully as he had served his king. Needless to say, there is no feast day to commenorate ++Thomas Wolsey. Nor is there any movie to laud his noble character as [b]A Man for All Seasons.[/b]
David Handy+
The second sentence in the article is just plain wrong: the Synod did NOT “decide not to offer those safeguards”. In fact, one could argue that the Synod indicated clearly that it intended such safeguards to be offered.
The resolution passed (with only a narrow majority in the House of Laity) by General Synod in 2009 called for draft legislation to be prepared, which would make provision for female bishops in CofE (something that at present time is illegal). Whilst the resolution did not comment on safeguards (as best I recall), the speeches leading up to the resolution indicate that the offering of safeguards was a primary incentive to many synod delegates to vote for the proposal.
It is only in the last couple of months that everyone in CofE has learned (to the great surprise of most of them) that the drafting committee decided unilaterally that safeguard in the form of alternative oversight or flying bishops should not be offered.
This is poor journalism by Damian Thompson.
Don’t get me wrong – I am happy for safeguards not to be offered, because I believe the legislation should be rejected by General Synod in its entirety, come July. i.e. no female bishops in the CofE, period (and I cannot understand why Forward in Faith appears ready to accept the compromise offered by ABC and ABY – shouldn’t their first position be complete opposition to the legislation?)
But apart from personal beliefs, lets get our facts straight first.