The Second Church Estates Commissioner, Sir Tony Baldry, gave Synod a warning. He said that there was "no way that I am going to be able to explain to the [House of] Commons that when this Church had voted by 42 dioceses to two, that it was not possible for the Synod to manage to develop a Measure which commands the support of the whole Synod; and in particular commands the support of those who campaign for such a Measure."
He said that Parliamentarians were familiar with the concept of "ping-pong" when the Commons and Lords could not agree, and suggested that during an adjournment "the usual channels" should "use the space and time to resolve the outstanding differences".
I am so glad I am a Catholic. The argument is over Clause Five, an amendment stipulating this:Clause 5(1)c stipulates that a new code of practice being drawn up should include official guidance on how to ensure that "the exercise of ministry by those [alternative] bishops and priests will be consistent with the theological convictions" of the parish which has objected to a woman.
Its defenders say that this wording is merely making explicit what was already implicit in the draft legislation. But others says it is enshrining in law the very prejudices against which supporters of female bishops have battled so long. It would, they say, create a two-tier system in which not only women, but men who ordained women or who had themselves been ordained by women, would be considered second rate.
Not everyone, even fellow supporters of the cause, agrees with them; they have been accused of nit-picking at a crucial stage, and exposing the Church of England to yet more censure for its slow-moving decision-making.http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/05/church-england-vote-women-bishops
