tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post6901373885862794313..comments2024-03-29T08:14:29.603+01:00Comments on The Ugley Vicar: "What do women want?" I'm not sure. "When do they want it?" Now! (Maybe.)Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03590979027426082714noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-69326286087324432752008-05-16T09:59:00.000+02:002008-05-16T09:59:00.000+02:00Peter, the questions you raise are largely address...Peter, the questions you raise are largely addressed by the Manchester Report itself.<BR/><BR/>The reality is that the courts will in effect make any code of practice mandatory. Manchester explains why and gives examples where this is already affecting CofE practice.<BR/><BR/>Thus the posited 'voluntary' Code will quickly become effectively a legislated Code, which is one reason why Manchester went straight for that option and did not consider the 'purely voluntary' option any further.<BR/><BR/>The 700 letter is really asking for Manchester Option 2a without legislation. Manchester makes it clear that the 'with legislation' version of 2a is a safer bet in terms of clarity and legal status.<BR/><BR/>What is important is that the 700 letter does not, as most people seem to assume, demand Manchester Option 1. On the contrary, what it proposes clearly excludes that Option, although as I've said, I wonder how many people, including signatories, realize that.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03590979027426082714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-13986464637874652402008-05-16T00:11:00.000+02:002008-05-16T00:11:00.000+02:00(Chelmsford)Thanks for this interesting discussion...(Chelmsford)<BR/><BR/>Thanks for this interesting discussion. I now see another reason to support the women's proposal: the principle that I hold to that the church should not be tied unnecessarily to the state. Any other church, indeed any other non-governmental body, can make its own rules (not just voluntary codes, but rules enforceable with disciplinary measures) on its leadership and authority structures, without the need for legislation. Why can't the Church of England? Most such bodies stick to their own rules, and ordinary members trust the leaders to uphold them. Why not in the C of E? And where such rules are broken there is always the possibility of appealing to secular courts, although hopefully given the church's own strong legal system that would very rarely be necessary.<BR/><BR/>So why the instinct of trying to get rules enshrined in parliamentary legislation? Is it that some people are trying to hold on as tight as they can to any vestiges of establishment? I would expect and hope that Parliament would refuse to enact any such measure, beyond the bare minimum to make women bishops legal, and tell the church to decide and enforce its own rules on exactly how this change is put into practice. I suspect this would also make the WATCH women happy. Who would object to it, and how would they plan to get their alternatives through Parliament?Peter Kirkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13395635409427347613noreply@blogger.com