The House of Bishops is to discuss the report of the Legislative Drafting Group considering proposals to allow for women bishops at its next meeting in May. The report of the group, chaired by the Rt Revd Nigel McCulloch, Bishop of Manchester, has been published today and will be debated by General Synod in July (the report can be read in full at: http://www.cofe.anglican.org/info/papers/womenbishopsreport

“The Drafting Group has worked together well and produced a significant piece of analysis. The report includes illustrative drafts of possible legislation and sets out the choices that the Church now has to make. We have not offered a preferred answer,” said Bishop Nigel McCulloch.

“The central issue for the Church of England, as our report points out, is the extent to which the Church wishes to accommodate the breadth of theological views that it currently encompasses in relation to women priests and bishops. Against that background, we have set out the three broad approaches which the Church of England could take if it wishes to move towards ordaining women bishops.”

The three approaches set out by the Legislative Drafting Group are:

The simplest national statutory approach with no binding national arrangements;

Legislation that would provide some basis for special arrangements for those unable to receive the ministry of women bishops, such arrangements to be made within the present structures of the Church of England;

Legislation that would create new structures within the Church of England for those unable to receive the ministry of women bishops.

The Group does not offer a recommendation of its own but analyses the pros and cons of each approach, identifying, where relevant, various sub options.

In the central part of the analysis the report looks first at the simplest legislative approach (which could be supplemented by a non-statutory code of practice issued by the House of Bishops) and what the consequences might be. The Group received evidence that many people now had significant doubts whether it was desirable and/or feasible to build on the settlement reached in the early 1990s before the first women priests were ordained. The Group has concluded that there are weighty arguments for proceeding without any special statutory arrangements and that this option needs, therefore, to be considered carefully. At the same time it notes that ‘proceeding with legislation that removed the earlier safeguards would trigger a period of uncertainty and turbulence within the Church of England’ and ‘would represent an abrupt change of direction’.

The report then explores various possible structural approaches, including a new province, new dioceses, new religious societies and the revival of peculiar jurisdictions. It examines the pros and cons of each of these and concludes that, if the Synod decides that a structural solution is needed, the approach most meriting further development would be the creation of a number of special, geographically non-contiguous dioceses.

The report then looks at four possible ways of pursuing the second approach, that is, legislation to establish special arrangements within existing structures. The four variations are:

Variation one- minimal legislation but including an obligation on the House of Bishops to make provision in a statutory code of practice, approved by the Synod, for the oversight by complementary bishops of parishes and clergy unable to receive the ministry of women bishops or priests, of male priests ordained by women bishops or of male bishops participating in the ordination of women to the priesthood or the episcopate. Bishops would be statutorily required to “have regard” to such a code of practice. The complementary bishops would exercise powers delegated by the diocesan bishop. Part two of the 1993 Measure, which gives parishes the statutory right to pass ‘Resolutions ‘A’ and ‘B’ would be repealed;

Variation two - as variation one, except that part two of the 1993 Measure would continue in full force. Thus, while the new provisions in relation to episcopal ministry would be governed by a statutory code of practice, parishes would retain their current statutory rights to decline the ministry of women priests;

Variation three - as variation two, except that the legislation itself would require the diocesan bishop to delegate the prescribed functions to a complementary bishop rather than requiring him to have regard to a statutory code of practice. Failure to give effect to this mandatory delegation would render a bishop vulnerable to legal proceedings;

Variation four - legislation that would itself transfer from the diocesan bishop to a complementary bishop specified responsibilities for the oversight of parishes and priests. This variation, like variation three, involves mandatory arrangements rather than ones dependent on individual bishops having regard to a statutory code of practice. It differs from the three previous variations in that it would involve a transfer of functions rather than delegation.

The Group does not express a view as between these four variations. What it does do is propose that, if any of these four variations is adopted, the Synod should adopt a new Canon A4 – concerning the recognition of orders - and make new provision in relation to taking oaths of canonical obedience.

Any of the four variations would involve the clergy of petitioning parishes having the duty of Canonical obedience to two bishops exercising different functions. The report argues, therefore, for duties and oaths to reflect this dual allegiance.

Canon A4 has symbolic significance both to those in favour of women’s ordination and to those opposed but does not, in law, mean what many people think that it means. The report, therefore, concludes that retaining a misunderstood provision is more likely to impede than to facilitate a solution.

Accordingly, the draft report offers an illustrative new Canon A4 which is designed to include the following elements:

A clear statement by the Church of England that, in admitting women into the episcopate, it is now fully committed to opening all orders of ministry to men and women;

An acceptance on the part of those who, theologically, cannot accept the ministry of women priests and bishops or those ordained by them that the Church of England has decided to admit men and women equally into Holy Orders and that those whom the Church has duly ordained and appointed to office are the lawful holders of the office which they occupy and deserve due respect and lawful obedience;

An acknowledgement by those in favour of women’s ordination that the theological convictions of those unable to receive the ordained ministry of women are within the spectrum of Anglican teaching and tradition and that those who hold them should, therefore, be permitted to receive pastoral and sacramental care in a way that is consistent with their convictions.

The final section of the report summarizes the choices that now need to be made, and describes the process that would follow thereafter. The set process laid down in the Synod’s constitution and standing orders for legislation of this kind means that it is now very difficult to see that, even assuming that each stage of the complex legislative process were taken as expeditiously as possible, it would be legally possible for women to be consecrated bishops in the Church of England much before 2014.

The Manchester Report is available on the web at:

http://www.cofe.anglican.org/info/papers/womenbishopsreport

Ends

Notes to Editors

The debate on the ordination of women in the Church of England has run for many years.

In 1975, a General Synod motion that “there are no fundamental objections to ordination of women to priesthood” was carried.

In 1984, a motion to ordain women deacons was carried.

In 1992, the Draft Priests (Ordination of Women) Measure gained Final Approval. Following - in 1993 - affirmative resolutions in both Houses of Parliament, Royal Assent and the passing of the Act of Synod to ensure no bias against those opposed to women priests, the first women priests were ordained in March 1994.

The current process began in July 2000 when the General Synod passed a motion by the Archdeacon of Tonbridge, Judith Rose, responding to a concern that the increasingly called for debate about women bishops should be a properly informed one: “That this Synod ask the House of Bishops to initiate further theological study on the episcopate, focusing on the issues that need to be addressed in preparation for the debate on women in the episcopate in the Church of England, and to make a progress report on this study to Synod in the next two years.”

A Working Party chaired by the Bishop of Rochester was set up to do this work, producing a progress report to General Synod in July 2002. Its final report, Women bishops in the Church of England?, was published in November 2004 and debated by the Synod in February 2005.

In January 2005, the House of Bishops set up a further working party, chaired by the Bishop of Guildford, to look further at the options for facilitating the consecration of women as bishops in the Church of England.

In July 2005, the General Synod passed a motion to ‘set in train the process for removing the legal obstacles to the ordination of women to the episcopate’ and ‘invited the House of Bishops, in consultation with the Archbishops’ Council, to complete by January 2006, and report to Synod, the assessment’ being made by the Guildford working group.

In July 2006, the General Synod passed two motions. The first motion affirmed the view that admitting women to the episcopate ‘would be consonant with the faith of the Church as the Church of England has received it and would be a proper development in proclaiming afresh in this generation the grace and truth of Christ.’ With the second motion, the Synod voted to establish a legislative drafting group. That group, chaired by the Bishop of Manchester, the Rt Revd Nigel McCulloch, has now published its report for consideration by the House of Bishops in May and by the General Synod in July.

Synod will need to take decisions on options arising from the report before any draft legislation can be introduced. Whatever the shape of any future legislation, it will have to go through the various Synodical stages, including, before final approval, a formal reference to all 44 diocesan synods. Even if key policy issues are resolved this July, it will be some years before women bishops could be consecrated in the Church of England.

General Synod – July 2006 Motions

‘That this Synod, endorsing Resolution 111.2 of the Lambeth Conference 1998 “that those who dissent from, as well as those who assent to the ordination of women to the priesthood and episcopate are both loyal Anglicans” and believing that the implications of admitting women to the episcopate will best be discerned by continuing to explore in detail the practical and legislative arrangements:

invite dioceses, deaneries and parishes to continue serious debate and reflection on the theological, practical, ecumenical and missiological aspects of the issue;

b)      invite the Archbishops’ Council, in consultation with the Standing Committee of the House of Bishops and the Appointments Committee, to secure the early appointment of a legislative drafting group, which will aim to include a significant representation of women in the spirit of Resolution 13/31 of the Anglican Consultative Council passed in July 2005, charged with:

i)      preparing the draft measure and amending canon necessary to remove the legal obstacles to the consecration of women to the office of bishop;

ii)     preparing a draft of possible additional legal provision consistent with Canon A4 to establish arrangements that would seek to maintain the highest possible degree of communion with those conscientiously unable to receive the ministry of women bishops;

iii)    submitting the results of its work to the House of Bishops for consideration and submission to Synod; and

c)      instruct the Business Committee to make time available, before first consideration of the draft legislation, for the Synod to consider, in the light of any views expressed by the House of Bishops, the arrangements proposed in the drafting group’s report.’