Theology Thursday: When is a bishop not a bishop?

In the latest edition of Churchman, Daniel Hill, Lecturer in Philosophy at the University of Liverpool, addresses the implications of this argument. He distinguishes the position that women cannot be consecrated as bishops (the ‘nullity’ view) from the position that women can, but should not, be consecrated (the ‘irregularity’ view). Without any presumption made as to the truth or falsity of the ‘nullity’ view, this article examines the wide-ranging implications of holding that view under the Canon Law of the Church of England.

Regarding the Five Guiding Principles, Hill writes:

The upholder of the nullity view does not disagree with.. [the first two]. Although the upholder of the nullity view denies that there will be any valid consecrations of women to the episcopate, he or she does not need also to assert that the vote of Synod was invalid, or that the purported promulgation and execution of the Amending Canon was invalid. And the holder of the nullity view need not deny that the Church of England holds that ‘those whom it has duly ordained and appointed to office are the true and lawful holders of the office which they occupy and thus deserve due respect and canonical obedience.’

Hill proceeds to consider the implications of the nullity view in the "ministry" of such "bishops" (falsely so-called). He covers consecrations of other bishops, confirmations, ordinations, authorisation of services, granting of faculties, consecrations of new churches, institutions to vacant benefices, licensing of clergy and readers, visitations, votes in the House of Bishops, and clergy discipline.

Take confirmation for example. Hill observes that "If a person’s purported consecration to the episcopate is null and void then so will be any confirmations performed by that person. This will then have a knock-on effect for those things for which confirmation is itself a canonical pre-requisite." This would include taking communion, ordination, and serving as a Church Warden, PCC member or Synod member. So, "The point here, again, is that since the upholder of the nullity view will think that those that have been through a ceremony of confirmation at the hands of a female bishop will not technically have been confirmed, he or she will be in a bind if, say, asked to recommend a candidate for one of these offices."

Ultimately, Hill's conclusion is no understatement:

"For those that hold the nullity view and also wish to follow the canon law of the Church of England the implications are many and far-reaching."

The article contains much food for thought, so do get hold of this edition of Churchman to read the full text.

Hill, Daniel J. "‘Women Cannot Truly be Bishops’: The Logical and Canonical Implications of this View." Churchman 129/1 (2015):31–53.