House of Commons Hansard Debates for 29 Oct 1993

Column 1124

cannot be a bar to baptism, then gender cannot be a bar to ordination. The Bible is quite clear that the divine image is constitutive of humanity, irrespective of gender. I cannot have stuggled against an injustice that penalises people for something they can do nothing about, their race, and then accept with equanimity the gross injustice of penalising others for something they can do nothing about, their gender."

That says it all, and says it finely, and it is a fine and brave man who says it.

I must put a couple of other arguments before the House. First, the first Anglican woman to be ordained a priest was ordained 50 years ago, and half the Anglican Church worldwide now has women priests. That is not a new step. In Ireland--north and south--the Church of Ireland, which is the Anglican authority there, has women priests. Secondly, women were first ordained deacons--the first stage in holy orders--in 1987. That was when the General Synod and Parliament first agreed to the important extension of the ministry to women, that women could be deacons. There are now about 1,500 women deacons in England. They work in the Church of England as vicars, curates, chaplains, preachers and teachers. They baptise and take weddings and funerals. They are in charge of parishes, university chaplaincies, hospital chaplaincies and so on. They are the priests to their people in all but name.

Parishes want--the figures are clear--the deacon who works in their parish to be a priest. People do not want to continue having to import a male priest to say the one prayer in the Holy Communion that must be said by a priest. It makes nonsense of the pastoral care given by the women deacons all this time.

The Measure writes itself. We have got there. The Anglican Church has had its argument. There are women out there doing it. This is a democratic decision ; it is right in principle. But it is also right that the Church should be generous to those who are wrong. It is always right that we should try to be generous to those who disagree with us and who are, in my view, profoundly wrong.

The arrangements that have been made and carefully organised so that everyone can be cared for are fine and are to be respected. I believe, as does the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), that when the situation settles down the numbers of people who leave the Church will be small. The Church of England has conducted itself with great dignity in the argument and in the arrangements that it has made. It has come to the right decision, and those who are wrong should accept it and uphold the democratic decision of the Church.

12.37 pm

Mr. Michael Stern (Bristol, North-West) : I am grateful for the opportunity to make a few brief comments in the debate. Like the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short), I come to the debate as a non- communicant in the Church of England ; indeed, I come to the debate as a lapsed Jew.

The first question that I ask myself is one that was brought out by the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) at the beginning of the debate : what role does someone in my position have in debates on matters affecting the Church of England? That aspect of the debate has not been questioned for some time.

Let us recall a measure that caused as much controversy in the Church as has the ordination of women--the introduction of the new prayer book in 1927. I am

Column 1125

heartened by the comments that were made in that debate by Sir William Joynson-Hicks. He was approached by hon. Members who felt that there was something wrong in their taking part in a debate on Church matters when they were not part of that Church. He told them :

" ' you are sent here as Members of Parliament. You have no right in, perhaps, the most difficult and dangerous vote that this House has ever given, to disfranchise your constituents.' every Member who comes into this House has a bounden duty to consider for himself the great issues which are put before him and to decide those isues in what he believes to be the interests of right and justice."--[ Official Report, 15 December 1927 ; Vol. 211, c. 2550.]

In a House that, after many years of vilification and abuse, finally admitted Catholics, non-conformists, Jews, atheists and today, I believe, Muslims, there must surely be as valid a role for every Member of Parliament in debates on the Church of England as there is for communicants.

The next question that I have to ask myself is not what is the role of Members of the House within and without the Church in such debates, but what is the role of the House? We are considering this Measure not as members of different religions but as Members of the House of Commons. Our role is difficult to define, but I find it easy to define what it is not. It seems clear that in a

multi-faith--increasingly no-faith--House of Commons we must not attempt to take on the role of redefining or defining the doctrine of the Church of England. Doctrinal matters do not play a part in this debate. With all affection towards my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) and my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe), under that definition the major part of what they had to say--however interesting--was out of order. If the House defines matters relating to the Church of England by reason of doctrine, the House is also saying that there are first and second-class Members. No matter what our doctrine, we must decide the matter as Members of this House. It therefore seems to me that we must decide it on the basis of what is the good governance of the established Church. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone. I find it inconceivable that the House will ever concede the disestablishment of the Church, just as I find it inconceivable that a tree that is many hundreds of years old can hack away one of its major roots.

If we are to conclude the matter on the basis of what is right and proper for an established Church, we must conclude that the Measure must be passed. The Church is part of this country's constitution in every other part of which women are given an equal and full part to play. Male and female monarchs have alternated, we have had a female Prime Minister, and we now have a female Speaker. I find it difficult to imagine that we can set aside one part of the constitutional fabric that makes up the United Kingdom and say that there, and only there, women will not be permitted to play their full role. I therefore feel that the Measure must proceed on that secular basis. 12.42 pm

Mr. Peter Hardy (Wentworth) : I think that the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) and I will vote in the same Lobby. My only criticism is that he seemed to suggest that the arguments of right hon. and hon. Members should be restricted and that spiritual or theological aspects should not impinge on our debate. Hon. and right hon. Members must be free to choose their own topics. If they

Column 1126

wish to make arcane, bitter, or even extremely well-informed speeches, they must be allowed to do so. For me, the one light moment in the speech of the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) was her reference to the impossibility of a male impersonating the Virgin Mary--in boys' schools they have to, which is why I am in favour of co-education.

I shall be brief. I was a member of the Ecclesiastical Committee and I thought deeply about the subject, although I said little because most of the words were spoken--sometimes exhaustively--by people who opposed the Measure. I am not criticising some Coe principle of decent treatment for those who find that they cannot accept the decisions.

The first reason is that I believe that it would be outrageous for Parliament and the country to disregard the decision made by the Synod of the Established Church, not least because of the overwhelming number of votes cast in the Synod. In November 1992, 553 votes were cast in all three houses, of which 384 were cast for and 169 were cast against. A two-thirds rule applied--I wish it existed here as it would have meant that we would not have some of the legislation which has been passed through our establishment in the past few years. The Synod's vote was decisive. It would be catastrophic for the Church and damaging for the House if we sought to stem that tide of democracy on an issue that had been under consideration for a long time. The House would do the Church a profound disservice if it sought to stem that development. The second reason for my vote is that the position that we are seeking to change was established because in biblical times and for much of not only the first millennium, but the second, it was impossible for women to gain equality. They were little more than chattels. It would have prevented the development of Christianity if forward-looking decisions had not been made. We are not talking about forward-looking decisions now, but about more than 51 per cent. of the population. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) reminded us, gender is not a bar to baptism, and gender should not remain a bar to ordination, as an inhibition and restriction on the pastoral work of the female deacon.

I am a nonconformist who clings to and enjoys attendance in the established Church, and the third reason for my vote is that it would be entirely wrong for us to vote against the ordination of women when there is no clear biblical authority to deny that. I have not found any spiritual authority to justify a different decision.

Miss Widdecombe : Timothy?

Mr. Hardy : The hon. Lady may have a different view of the scriptures, but when the day of Pentecost came, the decision was unavoidable. By 1992, the historic limitations on the role of the female in our society were being gradually removed. It would be wrong for the House to say that the clock must remain for ever in medieval times.

We need a Church that is vigorous and attractive, and is seen as having a modern and realistic purpose. In recent years, we have seen a great deal of greed, and privilege has been given a high priority. There has been a little less concern than there should be for those who are

Column 1127

underprivileged or disadvantaged. The voice of the Church needs to ring out and to spell out not only the old message, but the modern judgment. A Church that did not allow women to echo that judgment would be failing its tradition and its future.

12.47 pm

Mr. Patrick Cormack (Staffordshire, South) : I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) who, like me, serves on the Ecclesiastical Committee. I am sorry that I shall have to cross swords with him, but he will not be surprised at that. A disappointing theme which has run through the debate and has come from those who support the Measure has been the implicit suggestion in so much of what has been said that, historically, women have not played a crucial role in the history of the Church. What about Mary Magdalene, Hilda of Whitby, Julian of Norwich, Teresa of Avila and Teresa of Calcutta? The idea that a woman has to be a priest in order to fulfil her spiritual role in the Church is a gross distortion and misconception.

I do not oppose the Measure on grounds of equality or ability. I yield to no one in my admiration for women and in welcoming the fact that they now play such a full and vibrant part in the life of our community in all spheres and at all levels. I am delighted that our Speaker is a woman. Over 14 years, we had the interesting experience of a woman Prime Minister. I viewed that with delight on some occasions and with less ecstasy on others, but nobody could deny that she was a great Prime Minister.

For me, this is not a question of equality, still less a question of ability. Nobody suggests that women do not have the ability to answer the highest calling and to fulfil all manner of roles. The issue is not that, and anyone who suggests that it is, as did the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short), is doing the cause of women a disservice.

I have been an Anglican all my life and sang, perhaps not altogether well, in a choir as a boy. I have rung the bells, served at the altar, and have been a sidesman and a church warden. I also think that I have served longer than any other hon. Member on the Ecclesiastical Committee. Throughout, I have been proud, and remain proud, of my membership of the Anglican church.

It is on this that, to some extent, I cross swords with my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) and my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe), both of whom I deeply respect and greatly admire. My hon. Friend has left the Church of England, and I inferred from my right hon. Friend's speech that a decision in his case is imminent about whether the Church of England can any longer contain him if we take this step. I respect their views, because I have wrestled with the matter and continue to do so.

But there is another way. I hope that the Church of England can continue to provide a home for people like me who are distressed by the Measure. At stake is the survival of a broadly based national Church. There are many virtues in having an established Church, but I shall not expand on that because it has been well dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison), who introduced

Column 1128

the Measure, and by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), who dealt with it hilariously and who supports the Measure. Suffice it to say that I wish to see this broadly based national Church remain established. But it can only be broadly based and national if it is characterised by tolerance and can say to those of us who have not changed, "You are still welcome." It should also say to priests and those who have the vocation to be priests that the highest offices of the Church are still open to them.

This is a difficult issue over which many people have agonised for a long time. I do not pretend that the majority of the thousands of letters that I have received on the issue were not in favour of the measure. There was a small majority in favour, but many hundreds of people were not. I shall not bore the House by quoting at length, but I should like to quote brief extracts from two letters, one from a layman and the other from a group of clergy. The layman said : "People like me, who have just continued to believe the traditional teachings of the Church of England as set out in the 39 Articles of Religion and the Ordinal of the Book of Common Prayer, find ourselves marginalised and discounted by the vociferous campaign of those in favour."

A group of clergy in the dioccese of Exeter wrote :

"The division will be felt not only in the relationship of the Church of England to the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, but also locally within the Church of England, and within every diocese, wherever bishops choose to embark on this course of action Those of the clergy and laity who understand the Church of England in the light of Scripture, the Creeds, the Fathers and the early Councils, cannot put aside their deeply held, conscientious convictions They seek the peace and unity of the Church on Apostolic and Catholic foundations. They desire that the offices of bishops, priests and deacons, as they have existed since the Apostles' time, be continued, and reverently used and esteemed." No one can pretend-- and I hope that no one who has studied the subject would pretend--that there are not deep feelings among some of the most profound believers.

Although it is true that 70 million people belong to the Church within the Anglican communion, we must accept that many more millions belong to the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches. However, the overwhelming view of those of Catholic and Apostolic belief is that it is not possible for a woman to be a priest. In using the word "possible", I ask those hon. Members of the female sex to accept that it is a question not of equality, but of difference. I do not believe that a woman can be a priest any more than she can be a father. To me, it is as simple as that-- [Interruption.] My hon. Friends may mutter in disagreement, but that is a view which is held by the vast majority of practising Christians in the Church. If we want to be tolerant of people's beliefs, we must recognise that fact.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock) : It is not true.

Mr. Cormack : It is true. Whatever the hon. Gentleman does with his head--and he can gyrate it backwards, forwards or sideways--it is a fact. He may regret that it is a fact and he may profoundly disagree with that view, as he is entitled to do. A number of Churches have ministers, not priests, who are women. There is a difference between the minister's role and the priestly function.

If, in future, the Church of England is to contain both those who believe in the ordination of women and those who cannot accept that, there must be a realistic accommodation. Most of the debate in the Ecclesiastical Committee centred on the issue of safeguards for those of

Column 1129

traditional orthodox persuasions and what could be done to encourage them to remain within the Church of England. When we first began our deliberations, it was with just the Measure before us and in the immediate aftermath of the first meeting at Manchester and the statement that has become known as "Manchester 1". In Manchester at the beginning of the year, there was already a recognition among bishops that the traditional orthodox believers were far more deeply distressed than the bishops ever thought they would be. I speak of not only the clergy but the laity. Ia am glad that the hon. Member for Wentworth agrees.

When the Committee met, we inevitably fastened on to that. As an Ecclesiastical Committee, we decided that while we would recognise the theological differences, we would not become bogged down in them, but would concentrate on the safeguards issue. We did precisely that. It is partly, if not largely, a result of cross-examination in that Committee that we had the promise of an Act of Synod. That was incorporated in the second Manchester statement, which came to be known as "Bonds of Peace".

While many of us on that Committee, which voted fairly consistently, welcomed the Act of Synod, 11 of us did not feel that it went far enough-- lacking as it does the full force of a Measure and, therefore, not affording the same legislative protection. We begged the archbishops to think again. The 11 of us who voted against the Measure wrote to the archbishops in the summer :

"We hold to the orthodox Christian doctrine on these matters and we hold to the view that if there is to be a movement in this direction it should be on the basis of a decision taken on behalf of the whole of the Catholic and Apostolic Church. Nevertheless, our main concern now is for the continuation of the Church of England as a broadly based and national Church, and one in which there is indeed not only a present but a continuing and welcome place for those who think and believe as we do."

We begged the archbishops even at that late stage to contemplate another Measure--not to delay this one, but to promise that another would follow.

Even at this stage, I beg the archbishops to think of that. I do not doubt their integrity or good faith, but they will not be in office for ever. If we are to preserve the Church of England's continuity and the possibility of a continuing role for traditional, orthodox believers, two things must happen. First, such believers must be made to feel welcome. That is difficult to achieve by legislation. Secondly, there must be positive steps and movements. Last week, three suffragan bishops were appointed who hold to traditional and orthodox beliefs, but one of the most eminent theologians in the Church of England, the Warden of Keble, has gone to Basingstoke. That is a wonderful place, but I shall not believe that we are on the way until one has gone to Durham when the Bishop of Durham retires this year.

Durham has a tradition of lively, off-centre and perhaps rather eccentric bishops, so perhaps that would be the place for a real advocate of what I acknowledge to be a minority point of view. Nevertheless, let us have one or two senior diocesan bishops, and then we shall really believe that there is continuity, that we have a welcome place and that there is a future for the Church of England as a broadly based national Church.

My second appeal is not to the archbishops but to all those in the House and outside it who are worried, questioning and concerned believers who hold the Church of England dear, as I do, and who have a deep and abiding affection for it. Let us at least give the archbishops a little time to deliver. Let us test their resolve and good faith and

Column 1130

not leave unless we really feel forced out. But if Basingstoke is succeeded by Basildon, Basildon by Barnsley, and if Durham and Winchester and the other high points within the Church of England go to those who are prepared to contemplate only one view--the ordination of women--we shall believe that we are excluded.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster) : The Bishop of Winchester does not support the ordination of women.

Mr. Cormack : That may be so, but, sadly, Winchester will become vacant soon, as will Chichester. Those are some of the key bishoprics that must give the continuity that we seek. If we have that, I believe that there is a future for a broadly based Church of England. If not, I am sad to say that within a year or two I will feel as my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal and my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone feel now. I hope that, from the outside, they will look in and that their prayers will sustain us as we struggle to maintain a Church of England that is a true national Church.

Several hon. Members rose --

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris) : Order. Before I call the next hon. Member I must tell the House that 11 hon. Members are trying to catch my eye to speak. In this debate of all debates, it is important that I try to call as many hon. Members as possible. I therefore make a plea for succinct speeches.

1.5 pm

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock) : It was not my intention to attend this morning, not because I consider this matter to be unimportant, but because I deeply resent the fact that parliamentary time and energy are being spent on one Church of the country. I also resent the fact that a Question Time is devoted to Church of England matters, which also takes up the energy and resources of Parliament. It is time that people paused and thought how ridiculous it is that Parliament is considering matters which should be the exclusive concern of the Church of England.

Reference has been made to the national Church. We should remember that we are the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It is, therefore, important to remember that the Church of Wales and the Church of Ireland are disestablished. The legislation of the Church of Scotland is not dealt with in this place and we do not have a Question Time devoted to it. It is, therefore, wrong for us to discriminate in favour of the Church of England. Why should we spend the time and energy of this place on a supposed national Church when it is the Church of England exclusively? I turned up today because the overwhelming consideration in this matter is justice. My women constituents have written to me because they feel strongly about this issue. I do not believe that there is any theological impediment to prevent women from becoming priests. On this occasion, I will support the Measures, but I hope that this will be the last time that other hon. Members and I are distracted from the more important issues of social justice, unemployment and constraints on the national health service. Those are the issues which should be the business of this place, rather than legislation governing the Church of England.

Column 1131

When we discuss such matters, we cannot help but trespass into matters of theology and doctrine. Hon. Member after hon. Member has done just that and there is a danger that I, too, have fallen into that trap, because I said that I do not believe there is any theological impediment against the ordination women priests. When we debate such Measures, we will always end up discussing theology, but is it not crazy that the legislature of a modern-day parliamentary democracy should be discussing this issue when so many other matters should be pre-occupying our time?

Mr. Gummer : I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that, for many of us, there is no subject more important than eternal truth. The day that this Parliament considers any of the subjects that he has mentioned to be more important than that is the day that this Parliament has denied its entire history. The hon. Gentleman does not understand that this Parliament is what it is because of its Christian background ; without that, it would be of very much less value.

Mr. Mackinlay : I object to the whole thrust of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks. The matter of seeking truth is one with which we are all charged, but it is a matter of individual conscience and not a matter for a national legislature. It is ridiculous that the matter is raised here. If it is correct for Church of England matters to be raised in the House, why is not it correct for every other denomination?

Mr. Roger Evans : Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it was an appropriate course for the House to intervene and to pass legislation twice in this century that enabled different creeds of the Methodist Church to unite, and to allow the Baptists and the Congregationalists to become the United Reform Church? Were not those interventions proper parliamentary activities?

Mr. Mackinlay rose --

Rev. Ian Paisley (Antrim, North) : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it correct that the Baptists and Congregationalists did not unite? Was not it the Presbyterians and the Congregationalists who united?

Mr. Mackinlay : It is obvious that the House passes legislation on a whole range of issues. There are private Bills and public Bills and there are occasions when it is necessary for legislation to be passed. On exceptional occasions, there are Acts that relate to the Church of Scotland. If it is necessary that legislation be facilitated at the request of certain churches, because there is no other way, I would welcome that.

The matter today is one where the Church of England is trespassing on important parliamentary time and energies at some cost in resources. That is an irritant to me, and others believe it to be archaic. If it continues, and there is no attempt to repatriate the business of the Church from this place to the Synod, it will become an impertinence. I want hon. Members and anyone who reads our debates subsequently to pause and reflect that surely the next Measure to come before the House should be a request from the Synod to repatriate or to devolve these parliamentary duties from here to that Synod. I would support that.

Column 1132

Before speaking today, I spoke informally to one of my hon. Friends, who told me that I was talking about disestablishment. With respect, I am not. I am agnostic on the question of disestablishment. It is not a corollary of the House removing its jurisdiction and responsibility for Church of England matters. The Church of Scotland is a national Church which has some constitutional relationship with the monarch and with the head of state. However, we do not discuss Church of Scotland matters in the House.

I am angry that the matter is before the House. It is a constitutional anachronism, but I did not want the debate to pass without registering a protest. The Measure is before us and, as an hon. Member, I feel obligated to attend and vote on it because of the interest of my constituents. I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) who pointed out that once a Measure is before the House, every hon. Member is obliged to address themselves to it.

The Measure should not be before the House. For that reason, I hope that this will be the last occasion on which the time and energy of the House are taken up. I wish the Church of England well. I am not an Anglican, and the fact that I am voting on the Measure makes it even more barmy. I hope that the Church will decide that such matters are exclusively for the Church. The Synod, and then the Church as a whole, should come knocking on the door of Parliament, asking us to devolve to the Synod in future all matters that relate to the Church. Then, we could move on to other, more pressing and important national business.

1.13 pm

Miss Emma Nicholson (Torridge and Devon, West) : I should like to thank the Whip who is on duty and to mention to him the remarkable speeches that we have had on a one-line Whip on a matter that affects us all most profoundly. Generally, such matters tend to be concerned with life and death, and I would put this great spiritual debate in that context. There have been some remarkable speeches, several of which I profoundly disagree with. I would not wish that disagreement to denigrate the quality of the speeches. I am referring to the speeches made by hon. Members who are opposed to the Measure. Let me sound a less comfortable note for a moment. Although the quality of speeches has been high, the point of order that preceded the debate left a sour taste in my mouth. My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden), who raised the point of order, claimed that hon. Members who did not belong to the Church of England should not have the right to debate this issue. He referred to the great religions and to those who did not belong to any religion at all, be they atheists or agnostics. He defined the Christian denominations, and said that only communicant members of the Church of England should participate, or words to that effect. The argument that the matter should not be before the House at all has been exhaustively and effectively explored by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) and others.

But my hon. Friend the Member for Kemptown--in a way that I found unsatisfactory, unattractive and denigratory of many hon. Members and millions of people outside the House--added feminism to his list of the religions whose members should not participate in the debate. I found that profoundly shocking, not just for the obvious reason that feminism is clearly not a religion--neither a faith nor a belief in God--but because my hon.

Column 1133

Friend, perhaps without realising it, sought to debar from the debate on this important subject, and presumably also on other matters, men and women who would argue today that women can be doctors, lawyers, sailors, bus drivers, Members of Parliament, peers, Prime Ministers, queen, Cabinet Ministers, stockbrokers and teachers.

Miss Widdecombe : Will my hon. Friend give way?

Miss Nicholson : My hon. Friend has had her turn and I know that time is short, so I shall not give way for the moment.

I suggest that, although the question of the authority of this House to debate such matters has been explored, the proposition that all of us should debate it with honour and propriety has not been properly explored. One of the greatest women to live in the last century wrote :

"I would have given the Church my head, my hand, my heart. She would not have them. She did not know what to with them. She told me to go back and do crochet in my mother's drawing-room ; or if I were tired of that, to marry and look well at the head of my husband's table. You may go to Sunday School if you like it', she said. But she gave me no training even for that. She gave me neither work to do for her, nor education for it."

That was a letter from Florence Nightingale dated 1852. Women of Florence Nightingale's quality have been debarred by the Church of England from participating in the life of a priest and in 1852 would have been debarred from debating in this Chamber. Such a woman would not have been allowed to put her name down to speak this morning. Indeed, she would presumably have been classified as a feminist and therefore not allowed to speak on those grounds alone. Those who believe, as I do, that women should be ordained as full priests in the Church of England have conducted a high-ground debate. But the level of debate among those who oppose the ordination of women-- apart from those who have spoken this morning--has in many cases been abominable. The word "priestess"--with the implied pagan connotations that that term carries--has consistently been used in Church of England newspapers. It is implied that there is a connection with human sacrifice, or with something squalid, or with the Roman religion, by which, of course, I mean the religion of Julius Caesar.

I suggest that the basis of those people's argument is fear. What is it that people are so worried about in the concept of women standing at the altar saying the prayer of consecration? The reasons are complex and, in my view, frequently beyond the realm of human understanding and debate. It has a lot to do with fear of women and power.

One of my constituents heard an opponent of the Measure describe his nightmare scene of a monstrous regiment of Thatcheresque women. That merely shows that the curious and conflicting views of people in opposition to this Measure are in some way connected with fright. The trouble is that when part of the debate is based on fright rather than reason, people's views become so deeply entrenched that they cannot think rationally.

We cannot escape from the theological debate at the core of the argument, and we should not do so ; I agree with the hon. Member for Thurrock on that. If we are to debate religion, we must talk about theology. Theology means "the Word of God," and it is the purpose of religion to explore and to dissiminate the word of God and, if we happen to be Christians, to live the life of Christ.

Alas, the debate also has to be related to gender, but not, in my view, to feminism, which is something different. I agree that feminism is a secular matter. It is about equal

Column 1134

rights and opportunity for all people--men, women, children, young, old, black, white or any other colour. Feminism is a strand of the human rights debate, but not a strand of the theological debate. I wish to put the theological points, which are of necessity concerned with gender because we are talking about the gender of Christian priests. I do not subscribe to the argument that if priests represent Jesus Christ, they must of necessity be male as Christ himself. If Christ is to be the salvation of men and women, it is not as easy as that. Christ was born to represent humanity, not just one gender. Surely the critical aspect of Jesus Christ as the leader of the Christian faith is not that he was male or had a certain hair colour or was unmarried or was a Jew or had a certain facial colour or was a certain height or was a certain size or had a certain eating habit. As Christians, the point must be made that he embodied God ; he was God made man. The English language is sometimes sparse. Since it is the common, leading language of the world, many words are less complex than the words they translate. In Greek, there is a distinction between "anthropos" and "homos", as in Latin between "homos" and "vir".

God was made man not as a male but as the human being representing humanity. Who can say that one group of human beings can uniquely claim to represent he who represented the Word made flesh, not the Word made gender- identified man? The Word made flesh is not somebody who is defined by the physical mechanism of procreation. It is nothing to do with human fertility ; it has to do with relationships between us and God. If one believes that only one particular group of human beings can represent Christ, those people must not only be male, but to be Jewish, unmarried, have a certain hair colour, be the same age as Christ when he died, and be the only son of God. In addition, all priests would have to be perfect and flawless, which clearly they are not.

It is a heresy to say that the priest representing Christ has to be a man physically akin to Christ, and of the same background. That was the heresy to which the Archbishop of Canterbury referred on which he was misquoted in Reader's Digest. I suggest that transubstantiation is the key. It is, for an Anglican, proper to choose to believe that the body and blood of Chirst, when consecrated, become Christ in actual essence but not that the priest carrying out the consecration is also transubstantiated. We are indeed pagans, if that is the view that we hold.

The other function that a full priest can carry out that a partial priest, as many women are today, cannot is to give the blessing. Yet over many decades, the wording of the blessing has been fractionally altered so that women can and do deliver it. Who in this Chamber withe full blessing? Is that the way in which we deliver the logos and honour the Word of God?

1.25 pm

Ms Jean Corston (Bristol, East) : I agree absolutely with the point that was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). It is inappropriate that the House should be discussing the matter at all. The Church has agonised over the issue for most of my lifetime and has now reached a clear decision, which we should all respect.

Column 1135

I should want to identify myself with the comments of the hon. Member for Medway (Dame P. Fenner). If Christ were to come to earth now it is inconceivable that he would not choose women as his apostles. The Bible shows that the treatment Christ accorded to women must have been remarkable, given the time and place. He treated them with an equality that was found lacking in this country until probably only 100 years ago.

I base my support for the Measure on my experience of growing up in the Church of England. As a child, I was required to go to church three times on a Sunday. By the time I had become a young woman, I felt that the Church had nothing to say to me at all. I felt excluded. In fact, I concluded that the Church would rather I arranged the flowers and sang nicely, because there seemed to be no other way of my influencing it.

When my children were growing up, I encouraged them to go to Sunday school and my daughter eventually took the same view as me. I believe that the Church has lost a great deal in making so many women feel the same. One of the most liberating aspects of the Church's decision was that for the first time in my lifetime I felt that the Church to which I was supposed to belong, but with which I have had little to do in my adult life, included me for the first time. It is all very well for some Conservative Members to say that they feel excluded. I have felt excluded for most of my life, but the Measure will exclude no one because, for the first time, the Church of England will be inclusive.

The Bible tells us that Christ was not a misogynist, but many people who purport to spread his doctrine certainly are. I give as an example the fact that, when my first child was born more than 30 years ago I was asked whether I was going to be "churched"--cleansed because of what had happened to me. I was outraged and am pleased that the Church has now cast aside its pagan attitude to women, but the attitude still survives. There has been talk about who should succeed the Bishop of Durham, and whether he takes a particular view on the ordination of women. I should like his successor to be succeeded by a woman.

I was pleased as a young woman to see on television a woman called Una Kroll speaking about the ordination of women. That is when I realised what was wrong and why I felt so alienated from the Church. I am pleased to be here to support and congratulate the people who have argued so patiently and persuasively for such a long time for the body of the Church to be universal.

My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) referred to comments made by Archbishop Tutu. He said that if race was not a bar to the priesthood, gender should not be either. That must be right.

I am informed by the Bishop of Bristol that there is a large majority in favour of the Measure in the city. In a letter to me, he wrote :

"You will already appreciate the importance of this legislation to the Church and, indeed, its wider significance. In the Diocese of Bristol in which your constituency lies there was a 92 per cent. vote in favour of the legislation at our Diocesan Synod. There are thirty-seven women deacons awaiting to be priested as soon as the legislation is passed."

It is not within the gift or power of any Member of Parliament to deny those 37 women--and many others in the same position--the right to fulfil what, for them, is a

Column 1136

vocation. If it is about anything, the Church should be about the true fellowship of humankind. I am proud to support the Measure. 1.30 pm

Rev. Ian Paisley (Antrim, North) : In 1927 and 1928, two historic debates were held in the House of Commons on the revised prayer book. In one sense, today's debate reflects those debates ; in another sense, it flows from them. It may interest hon. Members to learn that I read three Roman Catholic newspapers every week and that I follow carefully statements made by the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church.

During the controversy, Cardinal Hume made it clear in a statement that, although he did not like the controversy, it could be a way of securing his aim--the return of England to Rome, and the ending of the Church of England as a separate church. In 1928 a Scottish Member, Mr. Rosslyn Mitchell, reminded the House of the aim of the Church of Rome in this country, in the words of one Cardinal Manning. Cardinal Manning said :

"It is good for us to be here in England. It is yours, right reverend fathers, to subjugate and subdue the mind and break the will of an imperial race, a will which, as the will of Rome of old, rules over nations and peoples, invincible and inflexible. It is the head of Protestantism, the centre of its movements and the stronghold of its power. Weakened in England, Protestantism is paralysed everywhere. Conquered in England, it is conquered throughout the world. Once overthrown here it is but a war of detail."--[ Official Report, 13 June 1928 ; Vol. 218, c. 1126.]

I find an echo of that in the words of Cardinal Hume.

In the same debate, a man with a strange name in that context--a Mr. Bridgeman--said that people viewed the Church of England as far too narrow for the religious life of the present generation. That view has been widely echoed in today's debate.

At the opening of the debate, the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) lodged a strong objection : he told the House that those who were not members of the Church of England should not dare to speak. Everyone knows that I am not a member of the Church of England ; in fact, I belong to one of the "sects" referred to by the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) in loving, gracious and tender tones. It occurred to me that the right hon. Gentleman would make a very good Pope : he would be able to excommunicate all the other religious bodies, telling them that they were only sects. I wonder what the Church of Scotland thinks about having been relegated to that minor spiritual level. However, I happen to believe that it is the relationship of the human soul personally to Jesus Christ that settles eternal things, not the relationship of a human soul to any Church body, no matter what its claims may be.

The hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) quoted partially what was said in that debate. Sir William Joynson-Hicks stressed the great importance of the House of Commons. He said : "As long as the Church is established, the final right lies with Parliament. To-day, the final right lies with the Commons of England. In another place, there was a Division which disposed of the matter there, but the final appeal which the Protestants, the old-fashioned believers in the Church of England, make to- day is to this House of Commons. I am told that some hon. Members do not wish to vote in this matter because they are not members of the Church of England. I say to those Members : You are not sent here as Nonconformists, you are sent here as Members of Parliament. You have no right in, perhaps, the most difficult and dangerous vote that this House has ever given, to disfranchise

Next Section

Home Page