Forward in Faith, the traditionalist catholic organisation has made a statement about what it expects in a future C of E where there are female bishops. You can read it here. There is a commitment within the new legislation that there will be provision for those who do not recognise the ministry of women priests and bishops.
However, it gets complicated...
Once we have women who are bishops, they will be authorised to officiate at services in roles currently not open to women. They will ordain people - men and women. However, if your beliefs are that a woman cannot be a bishop, then those ordinations are not valid. That means that gender will no longer be a visible signifier of whether an ordination to the priesthood is valid in the eyes of a traditionalist.
It gets messier..
If women bishops preside at or even share in the ordination (or consecration) of a male bishop then that would create problems for traditionalists for that male bishop's future ministry. The FiF statement implies that even male bishops involved in such an ordination would be problematic if they were then involved in the ordination of a bishop intended to be acceptable to traditionalists.
What I don't know is how someone confirmed by a woman would be viewed by FiF. Presumably the confirmation wouldn't be seen as valid either, although they could presumably receive communion in a FiF as people desirous of being confirmed.
I'm not even clear on my own 'status' as a priest in the eyes of purists. I was ordained deacon and priest before 1994, but I was involved in the first ordinations of women as priests in 1994. Priests join with the bishop in laying on hands and praying at the point of ordination, and I was privileged to be invited to do so on two occasions. That doesn't seem to have been a problem to colleagues in the past, but it may be for some.
What all this points to is that the future is going to be complicated. Will future generations of those who wish to minister to traditionalists need a kind of family tree, in order to demonstrate that their ordination is acceptable? It'll be messy, that's for sure. This is the Church of England, after all.
Showing posts with label bishop. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bishop. Show all posts
Saturday, June 21, 2014
Sunday, May 15, 2011
Masonic Bishops
There has been a bit of a fuss over the last few days about the announcement of a new Bishop who was known to be an "active and senior [free]mason". The Bishop in question is Rev Jonathan Baker, named as the new Bishop of Ebbsfleet. This is one of the posts for traditionalist Bishops who are available to parishes who seek oversight from a Bishop of that tradition.
There have long been concerns about the compatibility of Christianity and freemasonry. The Roman Catholic Church has strong prohibitions. However, only a few decades ago, many Anglican clergy and bishops would have been members. In the Church of England, a debate followed the publication of GS 784A in 1987, which endorsed the report and expressed a number of concerns. Among these were questions about the religious (and some would even suggest occult) nature of some of the language and rituals, the secrecy of the organisation and the oaths which demand primary loyalty. (A further criticism of freemasonry has been the male-only nature of lodges, but the Church has hardly got a clean record on gender equality!)
In this context, it was rather surprising that a known senior mason would be approved for appointment as a bishop. Since the fuss hit the press, Rev Baker has said that he will resign from his masonic commitments. Perhaps what is more surprising is that a clergyman, who is very committed to a traditionalist catholic position within Anglicanism, should be a member of an organisation that Catholicism prohibits. Presumably he doesn't see it as big an obstacle for eventual unity as ordaining a woman as priest.
There have long been concerns about the compatibility of Christianity and freemasonry. The Roman Catholic Church has strong prohibitions. However, only a few decades ago, many Anglican clergy and bishops would have been members. In the Church of England, a debate followed the publication of GS 784A in 1987, which endorsed the report and expressed a number of concerns. Among these were questions about the religious (and some would even suggest occult) nature of some of the language and rituals, the secrecy of the organisation and the oaths which demand primary loyalty. (A further criticism of freemasonry has been the male-only nature of lodges, but the Church has hardly got a clean record on gender equality!)
In this context, it was rather surprising that a known senior mason would be approved for appointment as a bishop. Since the fuss hit the press, Rev Baker has said that he will resign from his masonic commitments. Perhaps what is more surprising is that a clergyman, who is very committed to a traditionalist catholic position within Anglicanism, should be a member of an organisation that Catholicism prohibits. Presumably he doesn't see it as big an obstacle for eventual unity as ordaining a woman as priest.
Monday, November 22, 2010
Episcopal Foot in it
My previous experience of Pete Broadbent, the Bishop of Willesden, was pretty positive. I heard him at Spring Harvest about 10 years ago. He was engaging, challenging and also clearly had a passion for social justice.
So it was with some surprise that I read of his offensive comments made in an exchange on facebook relating to the forthcoming royal wedding. The press were quick to report it, and the wrath of the Daily Mail descended. They soon came up with "loony Pete". It's worth noting that in the midst of a royal photo-fest, the very same Daily Mail described the Royal family as "one of the most famous – and notoriously dysfunctional – families in the world". [just search for "dysf"; it's there]
Thanks to the Church Mouse, those of us who don't have access to Bp Pete's facebook profile can now see the actual text from the exchanges he made. They were obviously made in a more off-guard moment, and Mouse gives us a very balanced analysis of what went wrong and the difference between comments that he was fully entitled to make and ones which were out of order. He also clarifies what was said and the context, so it's worth reading.
I have no problem with +Pete being a republican - to me it's always been hard to see how heredity can be justified as a means of choosing a head of state. As someone whose political tendencies have always been left of centre, I don't have problem with that either. Furthermore, when Charles and Diana got married I went walking in county Durham to avoid having to watch endless coverage of it, so I also quite liked the idea of a party in France to keep out of the way this time around. There are also legitimate questions about cost, although the VAT take on associated memorabilia will probably cover that nicely. It would even have been fair to signal concern about the pressure the future marriage will be under.
However "I managed to avoid the last disaster in slow motion between Big Ears and the Porcelain Doll, and hope to avoid this one too." was just plain nasty. And no clergyperson, should be making negative predictions about a forthcoming marriage, let alone one under such scrutiny between people he admits he doesn't know. It's a very bad error of judgement and fundamentally undermined the perfectly fair questions he sought to raise.
I'm very pleased and relieved to see that the Bishop has apologised unreservedly on the Diocese of London website. It was the right thing to do, and hopefully that will bring things to a close.
I suspect the media will be less forthcoming with an apology for any of its actions. In the meantime, I recommend you read what Church Mouse says and the very considered first comment from Bishop Alan Wilson.
So it was with some surprise that I read of his offensive comments made in an exchange on facebook relating to the forthcoming royal wedding. The press were quick to report it, and the wrath of the Daily Mail descended. They soon came up with "loony Pete". It's worth noting that in the midst of a royal photo-fest, the very same Daily Mail described the Royal family as "one of the most famous – and notoriously dysfunctional – families in the world". [just search for "dysf"; it's there]
Thanks to the Church Mouse, those of us who don't have access to Bp Pete's facebook profile can now see the actual text from the exchanges he made. They were obviously made in a more off-guard moment, and Mouse gives us a very balanced analysis of what went wrong and the difference between comments that he was fully entitled to make and ones which were out of order. He also clarifies what was said and the context, so it's worth reading.
I have no problem with +Pete being a republican - to me it's always been hard to see how heredity can be justified as a means of choosing a head of state. As someone whose political tendencies have always been left of centre, I don't have problem with that either. Furthermore, when Charles and Diana got married I went walking in county Durham to avoid having to watch endless coverage of it, so I also quite liked the idea of a party in France to keep out of the way this time around. There are also legitimate questions about cost, although the VAT take on associated memorabilia will probably cover that nicely. It would even have been fair to signal concern about the pressure the future marriage will be under.
However "I managed to avoid the last disaster in slow motion between Big Ears and the Porcelain Doll, and hope to avoid this one too." was just plain nasty. And no clergyperson, should be making negative predictions about a forthcoming marriage, let alone one under such scrutiny between people he admits he doesn't know. It's a very bad error of judgement and fundamentally undermined the perfectly fair questions he sought to raise.
I'm very pleased and relieved to see that the Bishop has apologised unreservedly on the Diocese of London website. It was the right thing to do, and hopefully that will bring things to a close.
I suspect the media will be less forthcoming with an apology for any of its actions. In the meantime, I recommend you read what Church Mouse says and the very considered first comment from Bishop Alan Wilson.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)