Tom Sutcliffe has written a balanced and helpful article for Anglican Ink which explains things well. See: A "liberal" member of Synod explains his "no" vote on women bishops. (H/T The Deacon's Bench) Essentially he and others considered that the proposal was misguided in its approach to those who opposed women bishops, and would over-ride assurances given in 1992 to those who opposed women priests. They viewed this lack of care as something that would damage the Church of England and accelerate its decline.
The measure was considered overly clerical in not allowing the laity in a parish to decide whether or not they wished to have a woman priest. The assurances given over and over again, that provision would be made for those who could not accept women bishops was not only not trusted, it was seen as dishonest. Sutcliffe speaks of the determination of some to purge the Church of England of those who do not accept the ordination of women.
For Catholics the third and most important lesson is to understand that those who may become Catholics as a result of pondering the implications of the present furore, may be exhausted and traumatised by the bitterness of the opposition which they have faced: in some cases for many years, compounded in some cases by the betrayal of their bishops who have given assurances and then cynically reneged on them. To seek communion with the See of Rome now will be an act of great humility. It will not be helpful for us to go around blithely saying "Why didn't they come across years ago?" A little sensitivity and kindness would befit us better.
The assurances given to those in the minority of a traditionalist view were worthless because the Code of Practice, even when it had been set up, would have been open to constant revision and would have been a target for further adjustment when the campaigners from GRAS and Affirming Catholicism had managed to squeeze out of the Church all those people with whom they disagree on this matter and whom they do not think belong within the reformed liberal Anglicanism that they seek. This element of passionately committed supporters of the ordination of women made no secret of their determination to insist that the Church of England in their view should drive out anybody who did not accept women's ordination.From outside the Church of England it is of interest to understand this vote and the process which led to it. First we should be under no illusion about the ferociousness of the debate. At least some of the supporters of women bishops wish to reduce their opponents to submission or drive them out of the Church. Secondly it highlights the impossible state of a Church which tries to encompass those who have two completely incompatible ways of understanding the priesthood.
For Catholics the third and most important lesson is to understand that those who may become Catholics as a result of pondering the implications of the present furore, may be exhausted and traumatised by the bitterness of the opposition which they have faced: in some cases for many years, compounded in some cases by the betrayal of their bishops who have given assurances and then cynically reneged on them. To seek communion with the See of Rome now will be an act of great humility. It will not be helpful for us to go around blithely saying "Why didn't they come across years ago?" A little sensitivity and kindness would befit us better.
12 comments:
The controversy over the Anglican Covenant is particularly illuminating as an insight into the internal divisions within the Anglican communion.
Well said, Father.
After the events of this week, I have never been so glad that I crossed the Tiber as a member of the Ordinariate two years ago. All my fellow Catholics, clergy and laity alike, have been kindness itself.
This blog played a part - some considerable time before I did the deed - in moving me in that direction.
Father,
I want to thank you, especially for the last paragraph - you show true pastoral kindness.
Your brother in Christ,
An Anglican priest (SSC)
Quite right and as I pointed out the other day, it requires a great deal of sacrifice, especially if the clergyman is married with family responsibilities and perhaps children in school.
The first thing that happens is he loses his home and income, then the family are relocated to a different area which will probably not be his final destination. The conversion process entails physical upheaval alongside the emotional and spiritual.
One practical way in which Catholics can help in this process is by supporting the St Barnabas Society who do so much to support converts, including our family. Your readers may remember the One Timothy Four and De Cura Animoram bloggers. All of these former ministers are in the formation process at seminary and all of us have at least 4 -6 children. Leaving a home with young children, a pregnant wife and no guarantee of a future takes real conviction and trust in The Lord. Thank God for St Barnabas who has made this possible nd thanks to whom the Catholic Church will benefit from at least 3 fine very orthodox priests.
I am still amazed and upset by blog comments and elsewhere expressing dislike of the Ordinariate and the idea that they are are introducing traditionalists "who would reverse the reforms of V2"
I look forward to more joining the ordinariate as those who have come over have made excellent priests. As for the reforms of V2 I am a bit puzzled. I remember one landing uncomfortably close to my first school.
Afraid a lot of Catholics (at least in my parish) think women priests a good idea, don't understand or want to know why it can't happen and very much resent the ordinariate of 'people who dislike women priests'. it is all to them a matter of equality and 'rights'.
We are currently awaiting a new bishop (and have been for some time, since the pool of good, orthodox senior clergy is a little shallow): God grant that we get an orthodox pastor who will start to catechise his flock adequately.
Thank you, Fr Tim. At present, I remain an Anglican, but I think the swim across the Tiber is looming.
The naked Erastianism of politicians of all parties is disturbing. Cameron and Field are united in seeing the C of E as a department of state which must "get with the programme" and reflect the view of "the nation".
I admire Tom Sutcliffe for his decency, but it is so little evident among proponents of the innovation that at first, on hearing that the measure had been defeated, I feared that this may have happened because proponents had thrown all their toys out of the pram necause any minor concessions were made to traditionalists.
The RC church must indeed show pastoral kindness. The Ordinariate are fully committed to Vatican II as is Pope Benedict whose theology- Patristic, scriptual and liturgical- is attractive to Anglo Catholics as it is to orthodox Roman Catholics. The move to women bishops is indeed the worst kind of cleicalism: it os about power. Note the call is for " a womwn's place is in the House of bishops" not a desire to serve and to teach orthodoxy.
You only have to look at anglican diocesan websites -Peterborough, for example- to see how bishops are responding by saying those who voted against are "mistaken."
The divisions give the RC church an opportunuty to show it is a church for all and RC priests can be pastors to all and not just to a gathered congregation. We can pray that the Ordinariate will witness to this.
In the Catholic Church we also for some time experienced the ferocious nature of `feminism` and the drive for women priests. There is no doubt that many bishops were totally gullible and encouraged these ladies. Soon however they became awareof their new-age views, the `age of the Goddess`, their attack on the nture of God and the Church. They went so far as to interpret a part of scripute as meaning Jesus was against failies. And what inolerance. To their credit it seems the Bishops woke up and pulled out of the alliance. God bless them for that.
An Anglican Bishop (Bp Broadbent) was contributing to a discussion on the BBC radio programme "Sunday" about the failure of the Synod to pass the legislation allowing the consecration of women Bishops. As there are two basic objections in the Cof E, sacramental/theologica on the one hand and problems with the concept of male headship on the other he responded that Sacramental assurance and matters of headship had never been important to the CofE. Glad I crossed the Tiber in the Ordinariate "life boat" 2 years ago.
Post a Comment