What is in Kelvin's Head?

Coupled Together

18/12/2023

Perhaps one of the most unexpected things that could have happened this year in religious terms is that in the last days of the year, both the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church have moved to similar positions on same-sex couples.

Now, precisely what those positions are is complex, almost falling into the realm of holy mystery. However, it is clear that some form of prayer is going to be allowed in each of those churches for which the context of those prayers is a public recognition of such a couple. Both churches seem to want to have their wedding cake and eat it however and seem to be saying that whilst such love is the context for such a blessing, it is not the fact of that love or the union, partnership or marriage which is being blessed. It is a position that isn’t easy to understand, not least because it is nonsense. However, that’s where each church seems to be.

In the Church of England this comes after an enormously long and expensive process which has resulted in the bishops of the Church of England publishing a set of prayers and commending them to that Church. These can be used during already existing services but not as yet in stand-alone services. This is a curious position as it seems to stand a good chance of annoying just about everyone. Generally speaking, my view has been that the best answer to people who don’t approve of same-sex marriages/partnerships/blessings/hand-fastings/broom-leapings or whatever is that they simply shouldn’t enter into them and they don’t have to go to them. However the Church of England bishops by insisting that their pseudo-blessings have to take place during pre-existing kinds of services are basically insisting that those who go to church regularly and who don’t approve of such ceremonies are going to have their noses rubbed in them. Cue maximum offence all around. The pseudo-blessings are not really what the vast majority of what people who want same-sex couples to be treated with dignity and respect want to happen and they are going to be force-fed to at least some of those who don’t approve of them at all. The texts of the prayers themselves don’t seem particularly innovative either – they seem pretty much to be texts of the kinds of prayers that C of E clergy have been able to do all along.

Meanwhile, in the Roman Catholic Church there’s also been a process of introspective reflection going on for the last few years. The Synodal process is far less like a decision making process that Anglicans are familiar with but there is more than a whiff of change in the air. Today’s announcement from the Pope that in some circumstances those in same-sex coupledom may be blessed by priests is a wonderful Christmas surprise for those in that church who find a blessing in the Pope’s emphasis on mercy and pastoral care. Again, it is not the coupledom that is being blessed but the people in the couple being blessed. But again, the very fact of the coupledom of the couple is the only context that gives rise to such blessings. Once again, much like with the Church of England, it is difficult to make much sense of this without an extensive knowledge of the church as a political animal with leaders trying to bring about change whilst also being buffetted by forces that are not within their control, forces whose own leaders have a completely different vision for the future. Again, the suggestion is being made that what the Pope is saying can happen is no different from what Roman Catholic priests have been able to do in the past. All he seems to be doing is making that position a matter of public record.

I am reminded of the Roman Catholic priest that I know who claims that on the day that the Roman Catholic Church first ordains women as priests, the liturgy will begin with the words, “As the Roman Catholic Church has always taught…”

All of this seems a world away from the position of the Scottish Episcopal Church in which same-sex couples can just get married in exactly the same way as opposite-sex couples. Indeed, we’ve largely stopped talking about this and moved on since it simply became a matter of conscience after our General Synod in 2023. It isn’t a controversy any more and it is difficult to think that the position that we’ve come to is not the one that others will come around to in the end. Respecting everyone’s consciences is the only place that the Church of England can logically end up on this issue but respecting conscience isn’t to be underestimated within Roman Catholic thinking either.

A curious and unexpected thing is how closely the positions of the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church are at the moment. At least in the UK, they are both quite a long way behind public opinion. They are also significantly behind the position of those who claim to be their members. People are often surprised that the Roman Catholic Church has been shown in a number of social attitudes surveys to have a membership that is more strongly behind same-sex marriages than the other churches in this country.

These two churches seem unexpectedly coupled together in offering blessings that fall a long way away from what those they want to bless seem to want. However, the most curious thing of all is that despite moving to the same position, it feels as though the Church of England is moving backwards whilst the Roman Catholic Church is moving forwards.

Neither has ended up with a stable position that will stand the test of time. I wouldn’t like to place a bet on which one moves to a more inclusive position first.

10 responses to “The Church of England and its Bishops”

Joan H Craig

20/11/2012

You put it well, and I agree with all that you say. In one sense it is a very sad day for priests who are women. In another, parity is crucial 🙁

Reply
Patrick Smith

20/11/2012

I am not a regular C of E communicant now but have been so in my life and I unequivocally support the proper human rights entitlement of women to serve equally as Bishops.I think that the women priests appear to have been too inclined, cap in hand, to compromise that would still have deemed women bishops, as second class.This Vote, according to some of their spokespersons was as far as the talented women priests could get, amongst the conservative antis, in the C of E.

Surely,that in our enlightened world men do not hold a monopoly on either the aspiration to achieve good in their work or to eclipse human goodness in prayer,mission and faith in the ranks of the C of E? The Bishops and Clergy have seen that women are now do one third of active work in the C of E but do not have parity at the top table.

Why is it the case that women are ordained in the US and NZ and have served their communities equally, as men, over 20 years? Whereas, in the C of E at home, the vision of the Laity Synod threatens to derrogate the status of women, as if the clock had been turned back into Victorian times and before the Suffragettes had started their quest for universal suffrage and equality in work for women.

Reply
Duncan MacLaren

20/11/2012

Nigel McCulloch said in the debate, “If you wait for the perfect piece of legislation, you’ll be waiting for ever.”
I can understand the principled position that you don’t want to pass flawed and discriminatory legislation: but I can’t help thinking this would be better than acquiescing for another 5 years in an even more discriminatory status quo.
Had women bishops been voted in, they would have had five years to demonstrate practically to their opponents that they were competent, valuable, indispensable, talented and undeniably called leaders in the church. Instead, we now have the task of creating legislation the opponents will like even less (because it won’t make space for their position), and then trying to get it voted through. And five years of practical experience – perhaps the best argument – wasted.
If there were six lay liberals (the margin of votes) who voted ‘no’ on principle this evening, I wonder how long before they will rue the day? Principle is all very well, but possession is nine-tenths of the law. Had women been granted this possession, we could have spent the next five years chasing down the discriminatory clauses: as it is, we are back to square one. Barren theological argument now prevails over the witness and example of flesh and blood women.

Reply
1. kelvin
  
  20/11/2012
  
  I understand that view, Duncan. I’d agree with it if there was any evidence in the last 20 years of anyone either trying or succeeding to eliminate the flying bishops that were created last time around. It is much, much easier to create good legislation than to repeal, tinker and undo bad legislation.
  
  Reply
2. Augur Pearce
  
  21/11/2012
  
  As I see it part of the problem was the large number of Synod members who wanted to see women bishops but thought that unity was more important than principle, and were therefore prepared to compromise. The ideal scenario would not have been rejection of the Measure, but an amendment to get rid of the discriminatory clauses. That wasn’t possible because the ‘unity party’ (for want of a better name) would have allied with the fundamentalists to defeat it. I hope that those who made up this ‘unity party’ will now realise the time for compromise is past and support legislation which, as you say, the opponents will like even less because it wonâ€™t make space for their position. I believe such legislation would pass, but would lead the fundamentalists to dissent from the C of E and form their own conventicles (as many have done before them, for better reasons). There would then be some hope of the General Synod addressing other equality issues, such as marriage…
  
  Reply
Tim

20/11/2012

Could it be said that it spent too long cooking?

The impression I get is that the SEC was quite decisive in dealing with the Covenant earlier.
What I’ve seen with the CoE looks like internalized via-media meeting a half-open door – and no wonder some people use the word “irrelevant”. As such, I’m wondering if it shouldn’t have simply been “women bishops, yes or no?” a while ago and then there wouldn’t have been such clumsy inaccuracy of reporting, at least…

Reply
Ritualist Robert

21/11/2012

I have to say, regretfully, that I am relieved it didn’t pass because, imho, it allowed for far too many ‘provisions’ for so-called traditionalists. Their arguments seem to be based on one of the most vile theological concepts ever invented – ‘taint’ – though, of course, nobody admits to it. I understand the Evangelicals’ objections (though I disagree with them), but I am flummoxed by things like the ‘traditionalist’ catholics’ demand for ‘flying bishops’ (a concept which fails any test for catholicity) and attacks the very basis of Anglican Church structure and order – that of a bishop acting as the Ordinary in his/her diocese. Choosing one’s bishop based on whether one likes their theological outlook is quite a novelty, but it’s one that the so-called traditionalists insist on being allowed. Moreover, to claim to be catholic surely means to support the Church. When the Church of England ordained women for the first time surely it was up to those catholics who disagreed to either (a) conform their minds to the mind of the Church – surely the duty of anyone who calls themselves catholic – or (b) to have enough integrity to part with the Church and find another spiritual home.

Instead we have so-called traditionalists promoting what are essentially congregationalist novelties whilst claiming – falsely, I believe – to be catholics, all the while arguing for a distinctly non-catholic version of the Church.

Reply
Justin Reynolds

22/11/2012

If politics is ‘the art of the possible’ then surely all liberals should have backed the measure, whatever its flaws. The notion that one day we will all be marching hand in hand towards the sunlit progressive uplands is somewhat fantastic, I think.

Everyone who joins the C of E, or indeed the SEC, knows what kind of church it is: essentially progressive (as witnessed by the Synod vote) but with significant minorities opposed to change. And it isn’t like a political party where arguments are conducted in the field of political philosophy and politics with a realistic hope that the mind of the party might change decisively over time in one direction or other. In the case of the church disputes are necessarily more intransigent, concerned with the interpretation of revelation and long standing traditions. These disagreements take decades, indeed centuries, to resolve, in so far as they can be resolved at all.

Perhaps those who can’t live with compromise, be they conservative or liberal, should consider whether they are actually in the right denomination at all, rather than hoping that one day – sooner rather than later – everyone will agree with them. It’s often noted that conservatives can go Orthodox or Roman Catholic, as indeed some have. It’s less often suggested that liberals might consider Unitarianism or Quakerism. I say that as a liberal who has at various times wavered between those two – and others – and Episcopalianism. I’ve ended up as an Episcopalian, but I did so knowing full well the intractable nature of the disagreements besetting the denomination, and that I had to live with them or simply go elsewhere. It seems to me that Christians are far too sentimental and attached to particular denominations.

Also, with respect Rowan Williams’ tenure can hardly be seen as an ‘abject failure’. Everyone knew he believed in conciliation and compromise when he was selected. His liberalism on a number of issues only formed a component of his theology. And his intellectual contribution over the past decade to British national life has been significant, particularly in regard to political and economic issues. His archepiscopate has gone some way towards restoring Anglicanism’s intellectual credibility: witness the tributes from secular as well as religious quarters on news of his retirement.

Reply
Seph

22/11/2012

Apparently Diana Johnson MP (Lab., Hull North) is planning to bring a ten-minute rule bill in the new year which will include a clause calling for women bishops. Parliament could succeed here where General Synod failed.

Reply
Rosie Bates

02/12/2012

Check out Bristol Diocese action re Vote of No Confidence in Synod! How lovely on the mountains are the feet of Him who brings Good News! Hope the rest take note and follow a fine example. Hope in this Advent message. Bishop Mike was an Area Bishop in Oxford Diocese and likely to be very clued up to certain of their Synod Reps games which cannot be stopped before July without reform or, at the very least, tough love.

Reply