Friday, July 9, 2010

Women-bishops amendments before Synod run to 37 pages


From The Church Times-

WHETHER the General Synod throws a lifeline to traditionalists this weekend or not, a 37-page notice paper will be the members’ lifeline as they tackle the clause-by-clause revision of the draft women-bishops legislation.

In the face of numerous amend ments, including those from the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, the Synod Office has taken steps to prevent order from turning into chaos, by setting out the amendments that make the most changes to the draft legislation (as revised by the revision committee) in separate appendices.

Thus Appendix I sets out the amendments from Canon Simon Killwick of the Catholic Group and the Revd Simon Tillotson, which provide for additional dioceses for traditionalists. These rid the Meas ure of the existing Clauses 2 (Duty of diocesan bishop to make ar rangements) and 3 (Parish re quests). The new dioceses would include the sees of Ebbsfleet, Rich borough, and Beverley. Parish res olu­tions would enable PCCs to vote themselves into or out of the new dioceses.

Appendix II contains amend ments from Canon Killwick and the Revd Rod Thomas which provide for “complementary episcopal ar range ments”, for which parishes could petition by resolution. This is a less structural option, but provides for statutory transfer of episcopal functions.

If these amendments are not carried, and the Synod votes for delegated oversight, Appendix III contains an amendment from Tom Sutcliffe. This would set up a four-member Review Commission (in clud ing two opponents of women bishops, and one supporter) to look at any such scheme, and “to make and publish any comments on the scheme which appear to be ap propriate”.

The Archbishops’ amendments for “co-ordinate jurisdiction” are brief. The main change is in Clause 2, where, instead of delegation, they speak of episcopal ministry “exer cisable by virtue of this section and [which] shall not divest the bishop of the diocese of any of his or her functions”.


More here-

http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/content.asp?id=97359

No comments: