For the record, I celebrated and preached at Southwark Cathedral on November 9, 2009 [sic - correct year is 2002] with the permission of the Powers-That-Be in the C.of E. in the presence of the Diocesan Bishop and fully vested including mitre. It was a public service to celebrate the 10th anniversary of the ordination of women to the priesthood in the C. of E. The only restriction place on me was that I was not to "perform an episcopal function". As I was not planning either a confirmation or an ordination this was not a big deal, though the whole process was aggravating. To my mind this makes the insult offered to the Presiding Bishop even more gratuitous. +Ann
So. Have the rules for women bishops wearing their symbols of office when preaching and presiding in the Church of England changed since
Rowan Williams has shamed the office of the Archbishop of Canterbury and made the Church of England a laughingstock. When will someone convey this news to Her Majesty.
ReplyDeletePaul (A.), when indeed?!!
ReplyDeleteI'm not altogether sure that Jesus attaches the same importance to this issue as either Lambeth Palace or the indignant blogosphere...
ReplyDeleteTim, I hope you realize that the kerfluffle is not about hats, but rather about a seeming lack of hospitality. From the Gospels, I gather that Jesus attached great significance to hospitality.
ReplyDeleteAnd it is also a blatant assertion of power on Lambeth's part, and a way of punishing KJS for being a woman and a perceived "rebel", all issues about which Jesus had rather strong words to say.
ReplyDeleteWow!
ReplyDeleteSince The lead now mentions other female Bishops who have been allowed to wear their mitre while preaching in England and since this had been reported in the Times of London, IMHO Dr. Williams owes ++ Katherine a public apology. Period.
Who's going to tell him :>)
Cathy, is Bp. Katharine seen as a rebel because she was elected Presiding Bishop and chose to serve in the office? Certainly not because of her good manners in this awkward situation.
ReplyDeleteDoug, if an apology comes from Lambeth Palace, I'll be quite surprised.
My goodness. This places a whole new twist on the matter.
ReplyDeleteOur Presiding Bishop was not only gratuitously but egregiously singled out.
Now it's personal.
Ellie, wait! There are others! Check it out at The Lead.
ReplyDeleteThe story gets curiouser and curiouser, because Bp. Katharine herself is one of the others. You can't make this stuff up.
Of course I understand what it's about - it's about Africans being offended at Americans, and Americans being offended at Africans, and bits of the Church of England chiming in on each side, and no one being wiling to be the first one not to shout back - also items on which Jesus had a great deal to say!
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile the world watches, and sees that we constantly devour each other in public, and says to itself, "Nothing there for me".
Hmm. I seem to remember more than one Bible passage about inhospitable hosts and cities. Or is my Bible different from the one the ABC uses?
ReplyDeleteThe true meaning of "Sodomy", PP.
ReplyDeleteR Gledhill just referred to KJS as Kat in a Hat,
ReplyDeleteSo she did. I missed that in my quick reading.
ReplyDeleteCathy, is Bp. Katharine seen as a rebel because she was elected Presiding Bishop and chose to serve in the office? Certainly not because of her good manners in this awkward situation.
ReplyDeleteI meant more because as far as the ABC is concerned the TEC is being very naughty and she is not trying to stop this or tell people they ought to be doing what he thinks they ought to be doing.
That is so petty. When my Bishop, Jana, was consecrated there were more foreign mitres on show than you could shake a stick at.
ReplyDeleteCathy, I can only hope that our PB doesn't turn into a scold. I don't see it happening.
ReplyDeletePetty is the word, DP. As Lapin said in a comment to another post here, the decision probably had more to do with the approaching negotiations on the question of women bishops in the Church of England.