We considered the issue of canonical obedience to the Ordinary in August when looking at the first Guiding Principle. Paragraph 7 raises the specific issue of the Oath of Canonical Obedience.

The footnote points out that the Oath does not create a duty of obedience to the Ordinary, but merely acknowledges an existing duty.

It also explains that canonical obedience does not require a priest or deacon to obey a direction that the law does not authorize a bishop to give. For example, a bishop cannot require a priest to receive communion from him or her, or to attend a celebration of the Eucharist at which the bishop presides.

In paragraph 9, we are asked to co-operate with those with whom we differ, and share as much as we can in mission and ministry within our dioceses. This will require continued engagement – or re-engagement – with the structures of the deanery and diocese.

By calling for co-operation ‘to the maximum possible extent’, the Declaration recognizes that there will be limits to the extent of such co-operation (for example, with regard to the celebration of the sacraments).

We are asked to recognize that theological arguments are advanced in favour of ordaining women as priests and bishops. (However much women’s ordination owes to secular liberalism, that is not its only source.) Equally, the Declaration recognizes our position as one of ‘theological conviction’ (not backward conservatism or misogyny).

Paragraph 10 calls for sensitivity to our feelings of vulnerability. It also calls on us to be sensitive to those whose ministry we cannot receive. In doing so, the Declaration again recognizes and accepts that, for theological reasons, not everyone will receive the ministry of women as priests and bishops.

In paragraph 11 the House of Bishops says that there ‘should’ be a diocesan or suffragan bishop who ordains women to the priesthood in every diocese. The House appears not to have noticed the irony involved in calling for this in a section headed ‘reciprocity’ which includes no call for a diocesan or suffragan in each diocese who does not ordain women.

Paragraph 12 allows diocesan vacancy in see committees to request a bishop who will ordain women. The previous ban on their doing so has not prevented the appointment of bishops who ordain women to all but two diocesan sees, so its removal is no great loss.

The paragraph also states that it will be possible for men who do not ordain women to be appointed as diocesan bishops, and also for dioceses to request that. Whether such appointments will occur often – or even at all – seems doubtful (though we can never be sure what the future holds). None the less, it is significant that, twenty years after the first women were ordained to the priesthood, the House of Bishops has affirmed, with the agreement of the General Synod, that unwillingness to ordain women is not a bar to appointment as a diocesan bishop.

The call for a bishop to support female clergy in a diocese whose diocesan does not ordain women priests is the counterpart to the role of our bishops in ministering to our clergy in the overwhelming majority of dioceses where the diocesan bishop does not share our view.

Paragraph 13 makes another important statement: ‘It is important that senior leadership roles within dioceses continue to be filled by people from across the range of traditions’. We might quibble with the word ‘continue’, since in the great majority of dioceses there is no traditional catholic in any leadership position, and some are effectively one-party states.

What is important is that the Declaration now calls for diversity. If bishops cannot show that they are doing all in their power to achieve such diversity within the leadership of their dioceses, this statement in the Declaration will enable us to raise that as a concern with the Independent Reviewer. Under the Act of Synod there was effectively nothing that we could do.

There are encouraging signs that those responsible, on behalf of the House of Bishops, for policy concerning senior appointments, and the development of clergy who might be suitable for them, are now beginning to consider how they can work towards making such diversity a reality.

Here the Declaration again stresses the Church of England’s ‘commitment to sustaining diversity’. Forward in Faith will be monitoring how successful dioceses are in fulfilling this commitment.

Paragraph 14 stresses that we should play our full part in the structures of the Church of England. That is crucially important. It is only by being involved that we will gain respect for our views and have the opportunity for the conversations that will enable us to win people over to our position. And clergy who have shown no interest in the wider Church of England are unlikely to be appointed to roles that involve responsibility for the wider Church.

The commitment in paragraph 15 to equal treatment in relation to resource issues is important too. Our parishes must be treated fairly where the allocation of financial resources and clergy are concerned.

Paragraph 15 also says that there must be no discrimination against traditional catholic ordinands.

The Act of Synod similarly outlawed discrimination against candidates for ordination, but it made no specific provision with regard to the ordination of traditional catholic candidates.

By contrast, the Declaration says that ordination services must be arranged in accordance with the five principles. Ordinations are conducted under the authority of the diocesan bishop, and the archdeacon – male or female – has the right to present the candidates (Principle 1). But ordinands cannot flourish (Principle 4), and sacramental provision cannot be made (Principle 5), if the arrangements (for example, concerning presidency and the laying on of hands) violate the consciences of those who are to be ordained. Again, if these commitments are broken we can now raise concerns with the Independent Reviewer.

Where an alternative bishop is going to provide pastoral and sacramental ministry to a parish, paragraph 26 of the Declaration says that he must be a member of the House of Bishops of a diocesan synod. That means that he cannot be a retired bishop (though retired bishops can of course assist on occasion, as they do now). That in turn means that there must be serving bishops who are not ordained by women and do not ordain women.

Paragraph 30 of the Declaration therefore lays a duty upon the Archbishops to ensure that there is a continuing supply of non-retired bishops who will be able to minister to our parishes sacramentally and pastorally under the Declaration. The arrangements for parishes that are set out in the Declaration assure us that our parishes will have access to that supply of bishops. Without these provisions, we would not have been able to say that our future in the Church of England is assured.

Unlike the Act of Synod, the Declaration makes specific reference to the continuance of the Sees of Beverley, Ebbsfleet and Richborough. As previously noted, the most recent report of the House of Bishops (GS 1932) explains in paragraph 23 that the Provincial Episcopal Visitors are here to stay, and that they will still be Provincial Episcopal Visitors. ND