Independent: Opt-out for parishioners opposed to women bishops

Posted by Kendall Harmon

The Church of England last night tried to avoid a split by watering down its plans for the consecration of women bishops, granting an opt-out to parishioners who refuse to accept the spiritual authority of female clergy.

Under the church's proposals, parishes could bypass women bishops and women priests by taking their leadership from specially consecrated male "complementary" bishops.

Parents could elect to have their children confirmed and baptised by male clergy while congregations could seek to have sacraments and other divine service removed from the responsibility of a female bishop.

Read it all.

Filed under: * Anglican - Episcopal • Anglican Provinces • Church of England (CoE) • CoE Bishops

6 Comments
Posted December 30, 2008 at 7:39 am [Printer Friendly] [Print w/ comments]



1. Intercessor wrote:

This plan seems fraught with complexities that will fail. As an Anglo-Catholic there can be no negotiation of one’s soul. The Women have already exposed their politics of “priesthood” via compromise thirty or so years ago by the weak and the blinded. We should not trust the untrustworthy.
Intercessor

December 30, 11:57 am | [comment link]
2. Fr. Dale wrote:

“The Bishop of Manchester’s report also places a requirement on theological opponents to female bishops to accept that their ordination in the Church of England is legally binding.”
This is what I would call consent under duress.  This is nothing more than a transitional policy that will eventually force CofE parishioners and male priests to accept female bishops.

December 30, 12:41 pm | [comment link]
3. austin wrote:

“There will always be an honored place among us for those that do not accept the ordination of women” ranks up there with “I will not invade Poland” as one of the great lies of the 20th Century. 

In the 21st, the so-called “period of reception” has evidently ended.  Forward in Faith laid out with painstaking clarity what would be adequate for its needs.  That was simply refused by Synod.  Now, feeling rather shamefaced, the CoE is trying to fudge something inadequate together that will please nobody.

Still, better than the US, Canadian, Australian, and NZ example of “Shut up. pay up, and do as you are told.

December 30, 4:44 pm | [comment link]
4. Ad Orientem wrote:

I am here reminded of the Orthodox axiom that you are who you are in communion with.  If you are in communion with heretics…

Under the mercy,
John

An Orthodox Christian

December 30, 5:40 pm | [comment link]
5. Id rather not say wrote:

Actually, I regard such waffling by the Manchester group as a hopeful sign.  Perhaps the whole sorry thing will unravel and we’ll be back where we started before the Synod ran roughshod over those objecting to the new gender agenda.

December 31, 12:07 am | [comment link]
6. nwlayman wrote:

Now everyone knows that this has been done before and everything just turned out *fine*.  At the 1976 General Convention provisions were carefully drawn up to safeguard the convictions of those who couldn’t assent to women’s ordination.  The Conscience Clause protected all the conservatives,  didn’t it?

December 31, 2:25 am | [comment link]
Registered members must log in to comment.



Next entry (above): Dominic Lawson: By attacking Labour, the Bishops show moral cowardice

Previous entry (below): Washington Post: Israel Rejects Truce, Presses on With Gaza Strikes

Return to blog homepage

Return to Mobile view (headlines)