Knowing that the object of mission is to draw people into the saving mystery of the Catholic Church, where they can be nourished by the Apostolic Faith and sustained by the sacraments of Christ, we have never wavered in seeking the structural provision which makes that mission credible and sustainable. Whether we have come anywhere close to success will in the next years become apparent. We are living - when was it ever otherwise? - in interesting times.

The Church of England, you will remember, moved to the ordination of women to the priesthood in a curiously atheological fashion. The House of Bishops issued a paper about the scope of the proposed legislation before it produced GS 829, its slim volume of theological reflections. We had hoped things would be better this time round.

Archdeacon Judith Rose's motion asked specifically for theological reflection; the Rochester Commission deliberated long and consulted widely. It produced a report which has generally been thought, on both sides of the argument, to do full justice to the positions taken.

Forward in Faith and the Catholic Group in Synod produced weighty papers for that Commission and met with its members. We also produced Consecrated Women?, which our last Assembly received with acclaim, which went on to be a UK best seller, and which has been translated into Swedish.

Ours was a conscientious attempt to inform a debate which we then hoped would be broad and deep. I refer you to motion 2004/09 at last year's Assembly moved by Fr Robin Ellis. The hopes expressed there have sadly proved to be ill-grounded.

No sooner had the Rochester Report been presented to the Synod than moves were afoot to pre-empt the debate by the preparation of draft legislation. In two powerful speeches Bishops Geoffrey Rowell and John Hind tried to insist that the work done should be honoured by serious consideration.

They were voted down. The decision in July to proceed to legislation did not only foreclose the theological argument about women bishops; it even foreclosed the argument about whether to foreclose the argument.

The Archbishop of Canterbury assured the Synod that the two processes - debate on the principle and preparation of the legislation - could run concurrently.

But no one for a moment doubted which competitor would win the race. Since then guidance in the preparation of legislation has been undertaken by a group responsible, not to the Synod, but to the House of Bishops.

Considering the hamfistedness of the 1992 legislation (also prepared by the House of Bishops) which the Bishop of Guildford, the chairman of the new group, described as having 'a degree of ecclesiological nonsense' embedded at its heart, this might seem a high risk strategy.

The risk increases when you take into account the fact that nowhere in the process of drafting the legislation is it proposed to consult formally with the representatives of those for whom provision is to be made.

The failure to consult with us is a 'degree of ecclesiological nonsense' (to adopt the Guildford phraseology) which raises the stakes. This Assembly needs to give solemn warning that it may well lead to ecclesial disobedience, and will certainly result in unnecessary strife.

But Assembly needs also to take note of another important fact. Which is this: that twelve years on from the initial catastrophe, the first consideration - the first consideration, however ineptly it is being discharged - of those who are legislating for women in the episcopate is the nature of provision for those who are opposed. You, sisters and brothers, have achieved that.

The calculation surely was that by now the rump of those who affirm the Apostolic Ministry would be so diminished that a temporary Code of Practice would be all that was needed to assure the effortless entrance of the Church of England into the Brave New World. 'Safeguarding', as a member of the Guildford Group described it in a recent letter, 'the position of those who cannot yet accept the ordination of women'.

By your tenacity and determination you have given the lie to all that. Twelve years on we are stronger, bigger and richer than we were at the beginning.

Before Forward in Faith was even an idea in the mind of John Broadhurst, I received a letter from Bishop Richard Holloway - remember him? - later to be a founder-person of Affirming Catholicism. 'I have no doubt at all,' he wrote in 1989, 'that you and those who think like you will one day be shown to have been trying to sweep back the tide of God.'

It is your solidarity, sisters and brothers, which has punctured that arrogance. And, as the recent General Synod Elections go to show, has established beyond doubt that it is Affirming Catholicism, not Forward in Faith, which is in need of terminal care.

A part of our attempt at dialogue with those who will draft the legislation to see women ordained as bishops is, of course, the Draft Measure contained in Consecrated Women? It remains the only substantive proposal on the table. And though it is routinely referred to as a 'non-starter' by our opponents, no one has yet been able to say precisely why.

A clue comes from the meetings which have taken place between representatives of Forward in Faith and diocesan bishops, in response to a directive from the Council, pursuant to Fr Paul Plumpton's motion (2004/11). There have, in all, been some 20 such meetings. More are scheduled. They have been informative, if not exactly fruitful.

Numbers of bishops - most cogently the Bishops of Bradford and Durham - have voiced the apprehension that structural provision for us now would lead to a rash of similar requests from other disaffected groups in the future.

What they have in mind, of course, though they do not say so, is the gay agenda. 'Among other things, I support the full inclusion of lesbian and gay, bisexual and transgendered persons in all areas of the church, including the three fold ordained ministry, without conditions.

I would urge the repeal Lambeth Resolution 1.10, advocate the blessing of same-gendered- partnerships, and argue for the removal of the "celibacy" rule imposed on coupled gay and lesbian clergy', wrote the Regius Professor of Divinity in the University of Oxford in her recent election address.

She was not elected: but when a successor of Dr Pusey says things like that, everyone is bound to take notice. And what is the bishops' response to this unfolding agenda? Is it to counter and seek to prevent those deviations? Far from it! They accept them as inevitable, even desirable.

The episcopal answer is to persecute those who hold to the faith which they themselves are gutless to defend. No matter that the Church is diminishing in faithfulness and shrinking in numbers; their policy is to encourage further defections! They will not stop the rot themselves; but they prepared to unchurch those who try to!

This is not an argument against the proposals in Consecrated Women?; it is condemnation of those bishops who voice it. I put it to the Assembly that we have been shabbily treated.

Frs Ellis and Ellis encouraged (and I quote) 'the wider Church and in particular the General Synod of the Church of England to use both the Rochester Working Party's Report and Forward in Faith's Report as a focus for further study and meaningful dialogue between proponents and opponents of the ordination of women to the episcopate, in order that both parties may continue to be enabled peacefully to co-exist within the body of Christ.'

Nothing which could remotely be described as 'dialogue' has ensued. Neither of those documents has been referred to Diocesan and Deanery Synods for discussion. Where meetings with diocesan bishops have taken place they have been exclusively at the initiative of Forward in Faith.

The response to those who will not listen is to shout. The response to those who will not parley is to rattle the sabre. We must do both. I regret to have to tell Frs Plumpton and Cooke that knitting needles will no longer suffice!

Delegates to the Assembly may wish to refer to composite resolution 2005/05-13, at the very end of the order paper.

It is a reasoned expansion of Fr Plumpton's motion of last year, outlining the steps which your Council recommends in order to encourage the constructive dialogue which has so far been lacking.

It you can hear, behind those measured and reasoned proposals, the distant rattle of swords, you are not far wrong. The proposals, for the most part, speak for themselves - and will in any case have far more eloquent speakers than I to speak for them.

But let me at this stage, on my own account, say this: Since 1992 the opposition to the ordination of women in our Church has been determined and often effective. But it has been divided. Divided, I would say into roughly into five (sometimes overlapping) groups. First, there have been the Bishops - and by this I mean not the PEVs but those, diocesans and suffragans, who are more firmly embedded in the structures of the C of E.

Whilst all will want to express support and affection for them, many will, I know regret their failure to consult more widely and to play a team game. We are weakened as a constituency when some of our wisest mentors stand more aloof than they need, or we would wish.

It is an understandable foible of bishops to pay more attention to the opinions of brother bishops than to anyone else. But it does not help in a crisis like the present. Then there are the Catholic Group in Synod and SSC.

Both, necessarily, have their own interests and need to maintain their own special character. The Catholic Group is, in membership at least, a creature of the electorate, and has to do what it can among those who are returned. SSC is primarily a confraternity of clergy who are not necessarily, or even desirably, like-minded on every political nuance.

We owe an enormous debt of gratitude to Fr David Houlding, who as Chairman of one and Master of the other, has enabled them to continue in their own integrity whilst drawing them more closely into the concerted effort to secure a corporate future for Catholic Anglicans.

We were inspired and uplifted by the SSC celebration in the Albert Hall - the right thing at the right time; and we are delighted that the Catholic Group has maintained, in general terms, its proportional status in the Synod.

A fourth group is less formally constituted, but no less identifiable. It is that grouping which deplores what it sees as the political machinations of Forward in Faith, and has dedicated itself to the spiritual renewal of Catholic Anglicanism.

They have a message which all need to hear: that no body of Christians, Catholic or otherwise, is real if it is not mission-centred. To be focussed on Church, and to neglect World - to use a vulgar shorthand - is merely to court death. If their aim is no more than to witness to that undeniable truth, then we are all with them.

Finally there is Forward in Faith. I don't want to crow; but you have here the brand leader. 'C' Parishes, whatever their formal affiliation, are habitually described by bishops and others as 'Forward in Faith Parishes'.

The majority of members of the Catholic Group and of SSC are members of it. It even has some longstanding and generous Episcopal members and benefactors. And it is dedicated to Mission.

The new bright glossy New Directions exercises a broad remit in preaching and teaching the faith of Catholic Anglicans. Forward in Faith publishes a weekly pewsheet which helps parishes grow in faith and knowledge of the Faith. It produces, under the guiding hand of Fr Crane - a rich and often unsung treasure - a Sunday School programme which is widely used, and not only in our own parishes.

It organises children's programmes nationally and locally; it sponsors and staffs conferences for ordinands and prospective ordinands. Many things are no doubt wrong with Forward in Faith. You are gathered here not least to point that out and to correct the deficiencies.

But of this no one can be in doubt: That if a future for Catholic Anglicanism is to be delivered in this present crisis, it will not be delivered by any other group acting alone: Forward in Faith, and the support structures we have developed are an indispensable part of the solution.

The time for internal carping about policy and strategy is over. We stand together now; or we take our separate, and oftentimes lonely ways.

http://www.forwardinfaith.com/artman/publish/article_263.shtml

END