We may all wish that we were in this bar in Bruges soon. May I draw your attention to this excerpt from the NEW CODE OF PRACTICE which is out today? The toothless dragon strikes again.
53. The diocesan bishop would not be expected to act upon a petition, or a decision to
rescind a petition, unless satisfied that:
(a) before considering the resolution in question the PCC had sought views on
it from an annual or special parochial church meeting, duly convened and
held in accordance with the Church Representation Rules;
(b) (except where notice of a vacancy had been sent to the secretary of the PCC
under section 7(4) of the 1986 Measure) the secretary of the PCC had given
members of the PCC at least four weeks notice both of the time and place of
the meeting at which the motion proposing the resolution in question was to
be considered and of the terms of the motion to be proposed;
(c) the meeting had been attended by at least one half of the members of the
PCC entitled to attend and a majority of those present and voting had voted
in favour of the motion proposing the resolution; and
(d) the incumbent or priest-in-charge was in favour of the resolution in
question, whether or not he had been present and voted.
11
If the diocesan bishop was not satisfied that all these conditions were met, he or she
would nonetheless retain the discretion to act on a petition, or a decision to rescind
a petition, if, in his or her opinion, it were desirable in all the circumstances to do
so.
55. A petition made under this Code may be in one of two forms:
Petition 1 “That this parochial church council is unable, on grounds of theological conviction, to receive the priestly or episcopal ministry of women and therefore requests the diocesan bishop to make arrangements for it in accordance with the Code of Practice under section 4 of the Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure 20[--]”; or
Petition 2 “That this parochial church council is unable, on grounds of theological conviction, to accept a woman as incumbent (or priest-in-charge of the benefice or as a team vicar for the benefice) or the episcopal oversight of a woman and therefore requests the diocesan bishop to make arrangements for it in accordance with the Code of Practice under section 4 of the Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure 20[- -]”.
rescind a petition, unless satisfied that:
(a) before considering the resolution in question the PCC had sought views on
it from an annual or special parochial church meeting, duly convened and
held in accordance with the Church Representation Rules;
(b) (except where notice of a vacancy had been sent to the secretary of the PCC
under section 7(4) of the 1986 Measure) the secretary of the PCC had given
members of the PCC at least four weeks notice both of the time and place of
the meeting at which the motion proposing the resolution in question was to
be considered and of the terms of the motion to be proposed;
(c) the meeting had been attended by at least one half of the members of the
PCC entitled to attend and a majority of those present and voting had voted
in favour of the motion proposing the resolution; and
(d) the incumbent or priest-in-charge was in favour of the resolution in
question, whether or not he had been present and voted.
11
If the diocesan bishop was not satisfied that all these conditions were met, he or she
would nonetheless retain the discretion to act on a petition, or a decision to rescind
a petition, if, in his or her opinion, it were desirable in all the circumstances to do
so.
These are the petitions which the Manchester group forsees would solve all our problems and, to an extent, they do, addressing the vast majority of the issues at stake. This is not a document to dismiss without a thorough reading, it is very much in our favour and is better than many expected and better than many feared. But, but, but, if it is not enforcable by law (see above) it not only has holes, but it leaks faster than a blogger in the circle bar of the synod!
55. A petition made under this Code may be in one of two forms:
Petition 1 “That this parochial church council is unable, on grounds of theological conviction, to receive the priestly or episcopal ministry of women and therefore requests the diocesan bishop to make arrangements for it in accordance with the Code of Practice under section 4 of the Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure 20[--]”; or
Petition 2 “That this parochial church council is unable, on grounds of theological conviction, to accept a woman as incumbent (or priest-in-charge of the benefice or as a team vicar for the benefice) or the episcopal oversight of a woman and therefore requests the diocesan bishop to make arrangements for it in accordance with the Code of Practice under section 4 of the Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure 20[- -]”.
There is room to manouvre here and I get the impression reading the report that there is the feeling that there will be an awful lot of Parishes taking a Petition. Complementary Bishops though? Hmm. Sounds a bit feeble to be and indeed undermining of a Bishops true function.
_Black_s_s_s_s_s.jpg)
