Wednesday, February 8, 2012

ODDS AND ENDS FROM THE PRESS ON THE WOMEN BISHOPS DEBATE IN THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND


From 'When is a bishop not a bishop?' by Nelson Jones in the New Statesman:
The big decision won't be taken until July: this week, the Synod has been debating proposals aimed to protect male clergy who oppose women's ordination from finding themselves under the authority of a female bishop. Rowan Williams, introducing this quintessentially half-baked compromise, spoke today of seeking to respect the "theological integrity" and ensure the "pastoral continuity" of opponents. But his proposal hasn't gone down well with many in the church, who argue that it would make women bishops inferior to their male counterparts; and in any case it doesn't go far enough to satisfy diehard opponents.
So. Defenseless male clergy in the Church of England need protection from the invasion of women bishops into the heretofore all-male, pure line of bishops who watch over them, and Rowan wants the clergy protected.

From 'Fratricidal tensions at the Church of England Synod' by Michael White in the Guardian:
If you think David Cameron frets about his uppity Lib Dem coalition partners and loses sleep over eurosceptic Tory hooligans at Westminster, trot across Parliament Square to Church House this week and weep for a leader with serious problems and conflicting thinktank advice that goes back 2,000 years.
....

In fairness to the Synodistas, both sides were studiously civil and constantly invoked the importance of mutual tolerance and their cherished Anglican heritage, which is strong on inclusivity and diversity. Wishy-washy C of E, as the more authoritarian papal model might put it. The Vatican would have handed this lot over to the Inquisition via rendition the moment it heard a bishop saying "bishops do not dissent lightly from the views of their archbishops".
In her article in the Guardian, titled 'Church of England reaches compromise on women bishops', Riazat Butt summarizes the proceedings at General Synod and makes the most sense for me, although I'm still not entirely clear on the substance of the agreement reached today.
The archbishops of Canterbury and York has avoided humiliation in the Church of England's law-making body, the General Synod, by putting off a split over the ordination of women bishops.

The synod voted against measures that would have given traditionalists the legal right to ignore the leadership of women bishops. The proposal by the Manchester diocesan synod would have accepted that parishes opposed to female diocesan bishops could be ministered by male bishops.

But the synod also rejected an attempt by the Southwark diocese in London to ensure bishops press on with legislation to introduce women bishops.
H/T to Peter Owen at Thinking Anglicans for the links to the press reports.

7 comments:

  1. And we want to be in relationship with the ABC - why? Tell me again.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Ann, I don't. I fear he'd drive me mad. Poor Jane.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Rowan wants the clergy protected

    Try condoms.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Paul (A.), I fear your suggestion is far too simple for Rowan.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Who is going to protect the clergy and the rest of us from him?
    nij

    ReplyDelete
  6. Those of us here in the US will choose our own protection.

    The clergy and laity in the Church of England are standing up to the two archbishops in ways to which the men are not accustomed. Yay!

    ReplyDelete
  7. This line, quoted by R Butt:

    A spokesman for the traditionalist group Forward in Faith told the Guardian: "It's up to the bishops now. They can sort this out, but do they have the balls to?"

    It's all about the necessity of bishops having TESTICLES for FiF (et al), isn't it?

    Those w/ testicles must keep those w/o them in their place, doncha know...

    ReplyDelete

Anonymous commenters, please sign a name, any name, to distinguish one anonymous commenter from another. Thank you.