Thursday, 9 February 2012

Solution for the Wriggle Room Needed

So let's try and work this out. The Church of England has decided to pass the legislation (to be) to the bishops to amend it, as the Manchester amendment had wanted, but not according to the Manchester amendment. The bishops are looking for wriggle room but nothing can be changed "substantially".

Fantastic then. The trad Catholics are happy for now because the bishops might introduce not-substantial changes that keep a male line pure. The mad Prots are happy because a male could still be available instead of a woman when it comes to headship. Those wanting female bishops are happy because the co-jurisdiction by law seems to be dead, as the bishops cannot make substantial changes.

Everybody is happy!

Calls are being made to anyone who has any idea how to pull of a sleight of hand that has a kind of quantum existence, where on the one hand a woman bishop does not delegate to a man bishop to maintain a male pure line, as that won't be a pure male line, and then on the other hand a man bishop in a diocese only comes about from a woman bishop to maintain the unity of a single bishop of a diocese.

I have a solution. Anyone using this solution must call it the Worsfold solution. It is copyright me even if I am not C of E.

It is called diocese leasehold. A parish writes to a bishop (of any sort - male by female consecrated, female, male by male) asking if it can move diocese under a timed leasehold. The bishop of any kind is under legal obligation to allow 20% of diocesan parishes to move to a 'leasehold'. Then, entirely of their own will, the Parochial Church Council decides on its preferred bishop, and that bishop becomes the leasehold bishop for 10 years maximum or retirement of bishop or parish priest before a further application. A parish facing a return remains part of the up to 20% that can go, and thus it can find another bishop. Votes to remain/ return happen as bishops and parish priests leave and begin.

The parish is thus 'freehold' to the bishop in the geographical diocese and this is the default location, but the 'leasehold' can go elsewhere. This is only available to 20% and once first come has been first served, that's it.

No reasons would have to be given by a parish to choose a leasehold bishop. So although a traditionalist pure male line bishop might receive many a parish, he also might lose some.

There you go. What's wrong with that? (just about everything, you misogynistic lot.) Remember, you saw the solution here first.

No comments: