The Church of England will ordain women as Bishops.

Women Bishops at the 1988 Lambeth Conference

 Women are another step closer to gaining the right to be ordained bishops. The step forward was made by the Church of England when two more of its dioceses, Peterborough and Rippon and Leeds, voted in favour of opening the Church’s doors to women bishops.

This is according to a report by the Italian Episcopal Conference’s Religious Information Service (SIR). A total of 19 dioceses have now voted in favour. Just four more “yes” votes are needed to reach a majority of 23 over 44, which will make it possible to present the piece of legislation before the general Synod next July, where the definitive vote will be held. A two thirds majority will have to be reached in all three of the Synod’s Houses, that of the Clergy, the Bishops, and the Laity, in order for the Church of England to officially accept women bishops.

It was at the Synod held on July 2010 that the Church of England decided to open the way to women bishops. It is also for this reason that dozens of clerics and hundreds of lay people decided to abandon the Anglican Church, to join the Ordinariate, a structure conceived by the Catholic and Anglican Churches, for the purpose of allowing Anglicans to move to the Roman Catholic Church, keeping the Protestant liturgy rituals.

In a convention dedicated to the ordination of women bishops, hosted by the Anglican Archbishop, Rowan Williams, at his Lamberth Palace residence, two weeks ago, the leader of Anglican Communion said that “the message this conference wishes to send bishops, is that we must prepare for a change of culture.”
(Source: Vatican Insider, 10/3/2011)

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

47 Responses to The Church of England will ordain women as Bishops.

  1. Toadspittle says:

    .

    Yes, but which one is the goalie?

    Like

  2. Gertrude says:

    I couldn’t possibly comment Toad! 😉

    Like

  3. JabbaPapa says:

    Goalies typically wear a different colour than the other players, so I’m guessing she’s the one in the centre of the front row.

    Like

  4. Toadspittle says:

    .

    Obviously fans of Athletico Madrid.

    Like

  5. Srdc says:

    Theology in the C of E is whatever you vote in now.

    Like

  6. JabbaPapa says:

    Theology in the C of E is whatever you vote in now.

    Yep.

    You should, technically, have said “Anglican Communion” ; but it has now become just as true for the C of E as in “Anglicanism” as whole (whatever “Anglicanism” as such might actually be these days, if it even exists any more as an actual religion, instead of as some vaguely ecumenical movement in English-language protestantism).

    So I won’t quibble :p

    Like

  7. Kerberos says:

    “the Ordinariate, a structure conceived by the Catholic and Anglican Churches”

    Bilge. And deeply dishonest bilge at that (not that this is unusual). It was formed behind the back of Archbishop Williams, which is abominably bad manners to say the least. And, it is obvious that BXVI was taking advantage of the woes of the C of E to fish in troubled waters and indulge in a bit of ecclesiastical imperialism – very much in the Roman manner. If Ratzinger had had a speck of Christian graciousness, courtesy or basic human decency, he would have let Abp. Williams know what was happening as soon as he knew of it. A Christian would have given the Anglicans a flea in the ear for being so devious, and a wise Pope would have dismissed their request to become Catholics with the contempt it deserves, as men who are capable of such treachery to their own Archbishop are not likely to give a Pope the much greater & far more comprehensive loyalty that he requires of them. This is going to end in tears, because its foundation is morally rotten. Nobody comes out of this with any credit, except for Archbishop Williams.

    The Pope has lost all moral authority.

    Like

  8. Kerberos says:

    Theology in the C of E is whatever you vote in now.

    And in any other Church – the CC has adopted many theologies in its lifetime. Theology = doctrines

    Like

  9. Kerberos says:

    Correction: Theology = ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////// = doctrines

    Like

  10. Srdc says:

    Kerberos,

    Some of these groups left Canterbury a long time ago, and were making requests to Rome for years.

    If a group of disaffected Roman Catholics did the same to Canterbury, I would not be happy, but would support their decision to follow their conscience.

    And I think you should do the same.

    Let God judge what their motives may or may not be.

    Like

  11. JabbaPapa says:

    “the Ordinariate, a structure conceived by the Catholic and Anglican Churches”

    Bilge. And deeply dishonest bilge at that (not that this is unusual). It was formed behind the back of Archbishop Williams, which is abominably bad manners to say the least.

    Mgr Keith Newton wrote a very informative piece about the Ordinariates that has been posted HERE :

    https://catholicismpure.wordpress.com/2011/10/05/mgr-keith-newton-on-what-is-the-ordinariate/

    There, he explains how the story that all was done behind ++Williams’ back is a sheer fabrication, and that doctor Williams was in fact consulted and kept informed throughout the whole process.

    The exact contents of the document creating the structure for the Ordinariates may have come as a bit of a surprise for everyone, but otherwise there’s not much point in uncritically repeating these anti-Vatican journalistic inventions as if they were some kind of superior truth ™.

    Like

  12. Wall Eyed Mr Whippy says:

    For the womenhaters out there; consider the following statement of Christ in the Gospel of St Thomas:

    When you make the two one, and when you make the inside like the outside…….
    ……
    And when you make the male and the female one and the same,
    so that the male be not male nor
    the female female; ………………
    ….and likeness in place of likeness;
    then you will enter (the Kingdom).

    Like

  13. Srdc says:

    Wall,

    The Gospel of Thomas is gnostic. It also says that women cannot enter the kingdom of heaven, until they become like men.

    We need to focus on the real femininity found in our religious orders instead. It’s insulting to tell these women that their lives do not mean anything, unless they become priests.

    Focus on the beauty that comes from being a bride of Christ.

    Read up on the interesting scholarship on the new feminism.

    There have also been six Anglican women vicars that have crossed the tiber since 2003.

    http://college-ethics.blogspot.com/2011/10/anglican-woman-priest-swam-tiber.html

    Like

  14. Srdc says:

    I will also add that Anglicanism is now officially Protestant. It just looks Catholic from the outside. Even the most liberal Protestants do not accept the Mass, the sacraments, or Marian dogmas.

    I am tired of fake liberalism.

    Like

  15. Wall Eyed Mr Whippy says:

    Thanks Sr

    If it also says that women must be as men, then it’s the usual Middle East tribal superstition which still goes on today; ie half the human race is inferior to the other half. You couldn’t make it up.

    I am disappointed in all this business. Must we adopt the sick culture of 2000 years ago as well as more relevant ideas? It seems some can’t break free.

    Re Anglicans; didn’t they break away purely on political/economic grounds? Aren’t they the official state religion of England, with an equivalent church in Scotland? And I say that like it’s a bad thing. I’ve seen the national and nationalistic flags inside C of E churches and it doesn’t look good at all.

    But they are ahead in the area of women, that’s for sure.

    Like

  16. JabbaPapa says:

    Oh please, not the … what … 4th century pseudo-gospel of Thomas ?

    It preaches the inferiority of women, tends towards considering suicide as a virtue, and has clearly been tampered with by a gnostic (ie heretic) editor (at the very least).

    The reliability of that document is non-existent.

    Like

  17. JabbaPapa says:

    WEW, what joy do you get from coming in here to post your straw man arguments based on some modern revisionist readings of ancient non-Biblical documents that nobody in here accepts as valid in the first place ???

    The teachings of Jesus and the New Testament are that men and women have equal, but different voices in the Faith of our Lord.

    Must we adopt the “sick” culture of 2000 years ago

    Cripes, your bias and prejudice are deep !! Nobody either in this blog nor in the World itself has the culture of 2000 years ago ; nor was that culture a “sick” one, except perhaps as seen through the prism of your own modernist bigotry.

    It seems some can’t break free

    It seems that you do indeed have a hard time breaking free from the shackles of your own prejudice, WEW.

    But they are ahead in the area of women, that’s for sure.

    You appear to confusedly believe that religion is a variant of politics.

    This is a Marxist myth, instead of being something that’s true.

    Like

  18. Wall Eyed Mr Whippy says:

    Well JP III, pontificating again? Unless you’re in your imagined role as Torquemada. I note from a post to Toad that you use the words ‘you admit’. I can just see you smacking the rubber hose with relish, believing that you have extracted some kind of confession.

    You accuse others of ‘snide’ comments, yet you offer the most snide unChristian views. Please keep your sinister and malevolent ideas to yourself.

    You chose your ‘Jabba’ name well. Scorpion poison isn’t it? Fits the tone of your posts so well. And I’ve told you about the Pappa bit. Could it mean the ‘Poisoned Pope’?

    I heartily recommend you take some time out – go on a long retreat and get someone to sort your character. Tho’ you may find yourself booted out of the cloister PDQ.

    Like

  19. JabbaPapa says:

    What a load of absolute rubbish, WEW.

    Like

  20. kathleen says:

    Wow Mr Whippy, you certainly do have a forked tongue towards anyone who disagrees even a teeny weeny bit with you, my goodness! (Quite a different kettle of fish to our old teaser, Toad.) That JabbaPapa gave a very good argument to all your utter nonsense was just too much for you to bear, wasn’t it?

    Now, what venom are you going to spew in my direction I wonder…….. ?

    Like

  21. Wall Eyed Mr Whippy says:

    Dear K

    I responded very mildly to JP s repeated venom. When you say “a teeny bit” I don’t think you are being honest. And I recognise JP for what he is even if you don’t . Don’t try to provoke, please. It wouldn’t be the first time from you.

    There! no venom – that’s JP s forte!

    Like

  22. kathleen says:

    But Mr Whippy, when I say “even a teeny weeny bit”, I’m referring to all the past ad hominem attacks you aim towards anyone who doesn’t totally agree with you……… which adds up to practically everyone (with the exception of Toad) who comments on CP&S, though some are understandably too scared of your tongue to provoke you.

    And I apologize if you see this as a provocation ;-).

    Like

  23. Gertrude says:

    It appears that the Anglican clergy are not all in favour of women bishops, but the Laity appear to be more amenable (perhaps they have a majority of women eligable to vote). The following is from the Diocesan Synod:
    13/10/11

    The London Diocesan Synod met tonight to debate the draft Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure, which was referred to the dioceses by the General Synod last September.

    Following a constructive debate which saw a number of contributors speaking from differing viewpoints, the Synod voted against the legislation.

    The next stage is that, if a majority of diocesan synods approve the draft legislation, it returns to the General Synod for the debate on the final approval of the Measure. The results of the voting in the Diocesan Synods from around the country are reported to General Synod at this stage.

    The Measure will require a 2/3 majority in all three Houses (Bishops, Clergy and Laity) of General Synod at the final approval stage.

    If approved, the legislation would then go to Parliament for consideration by the Ecclesiastical Committee and each House of Parliament.

    The voting figures in the Diocesan Synod debate were:

    Votes for Votes against Abstentions
    House of Bishops 2 1 0
    House of Clergy 39 41 0
    House of Laity 45 37 0

    The approval of the Diocesan Synod depends upon the motion being carried in the Houses of Clergy and Laity.

    Like

  24. JabbaPapa says:

    And I recognise JP for what he is even if you don’t .

    Don’t you ever give it a rest ?

    You have posted a string of pointless and baseless calumnies (against either myself, or more frequently against the Catholic Christian Religion) as a deliberately organised method of response to my posts.

    Like

  25. Srdc says:

    Wall,

    The church’s reason for not ordaining women are not cultural, but theological. I think we have been over this before 🙂

    I would disagree that we are behind the Church of England.

    Our younger theologians are simply awesome, when it comes to dealing with women’s issues from a Catholic perspective.

    Pope Benedict appointed Prof. Helen Alvare, to his advisory board for lay Catholic issues.

    I heard her talk at world youth day, and have been fascinated ever since.

    She was also invited to the secular Princeton conference on feminism. It’s building a new alliance of secular feminists and pro-life Catholics.

    We don’t need to imitate someone else, but take what we have and get creative with it.

    Like

  26. Srdc says:

    I would also add that nobody in their right mind wants to be a priest. It’s not an easy life at all. I would be interested in knowing why these women want to be priests in the first place.

    Like

  27. Jerry says:

    Nobody either in this blog nor in the World itself has the culture of 2000 years ago ; nor was that culture a “sick” one, except perhaps as seen through the prism of your own modernist bigotry

    Well Jabba, slavery was central to the culture of 2000 years ago. I regard slavery as a sickness in the body social. — And according to you that is only modernist bigotry? Incredible

    Like

  28. toadspittle says:

    .

    “I would also add that nobody in their right mind wants to be a priest.” Says Srdc

    Unsurprisingly, Toad agrees – all priests are off their rockers, nuts, wacko, delusional.

    Now, Srdc, how about Catholics?

    She then go on to muse..” I would be interested in knowing why these women want to be priests in the first place.”
    Well, Srdc, you could try asking one of them.
    Or, failing that, maybe ask your own priest why he put his name down for such a loony job.
    If you can stop him gibbering long enough to give you a lucid answer.

    Like

  29. JabbaPapa says:

    Well Jabba, slavery was central to the culture of 2000 years ago. I regard slavery as a sickness in the body social. — And according to you that is only modernist bigotry? Incredible

    Well, we belong to a period in History that has killed millions in death camps, dropped nuclear weapons on two cities, uses privately owned prison camps as sources of free labour, massacred millions of people for simple political dissidence, and et cetera ; and you think that the culture of 2000 years ago was somehow worse than our own ?

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/560855/posts

    Yeah, “modernist bigotry” just about sums it up…

    Like

  30. The Raven says:

    Whippy

    What Anglicans do is up to Anglicans (obviously), it really has little
    bearing on what we, as Catholics, believe.

    Their view if women does not really differ from the of the Church: alike in wit and dignity, but still men and still women.

    Our Church’s view on the ordination of women does not relate to the cultural mores of the first century (most of the pagan cults of antiquity included gals in the priesthood), it rather relates back to the transgressive figure of our Founder, who, despite breaking every rule in the book, did not call the women with whom He was close to be His apostles; He called those ladies so that they should be served, not to serve.

    I note that you have decided to elevate your opinion to the status of objective truth (i.e. that the Anglicans have it right on the ordination of women) without proffering any arguments to support that view.

    Like

  31. JabbaPapa says:

    toad says : bla bla bla

    Thank you for your delightful efforts towards continuing to insult the Catholic Faith on a daily basis.

    No matter how predictably and repetitively !!

    Like

  32. Srdc says:

    Toad,

    My reasons for calling people crazy are different from yours. They are crazy for God. You have to be madly in love to embrace self-sacrifice and service for the rest of your days.

    This comes easier to women, but men did it the most.

    Like

  33. Srdc says:

    I meant men need it the most.

    Like

  34. Wall Eyed Mr Whippy says:

    Actually, JP, all that you said above to me I would apply to you. You have waged a vicious campaign, to which I unwisely responded, for it is pointless. You throw around many insulting words in a horrible way, and you dishonestly reverse the order of events, for it is you who has initiated unpleasant personal abuse (not only to me), and to which I have given reply when I should have left you alone; that part is surely my fault. I was wrong there.

    Yet you continue to insult others even on this thread.

    I have for a while avoided comment on your posts, knowing what you are, in an effort to keep you quiet, but you chose to make a blitzkrieg on mine. You long for a suffocating vice-like grip on the throat of expression, which is fatal to discussion. As far as CP&S is concerned, I’d say that the dissidents, the faithful and the enquirers will ensure its health, but you will cause its death.

    I have no problem with your opposition to what I say, but as I have told you, your tone is brutal and malicious; that I don’t accept. Like everyone here, all I say is easily, rightly, open to opposition; I learn (have learned) from measured disagreement, much more than I will say here. Is your disagreement measured?

    Your hubris is your problem. I’m convinced that in your life, this has been said to you already.

    Already another contributor has tried to pacify you (to no avail), and I will now do the same. Let it go, don’t provoke in the way you do. Please.

    May I suggest a book for you to read? It is A. Koestler’s ‘Darkness at Noon’; think about the interrogator of Rubashov. Does it remind you of anyone?

    Thanks JP – go in peace.
    Like many, you must make peace with the world.

    Like

  35. Wall Eyed Mr Whippy says:

    Thanks Sr

    You often offer an informed and helpful view which adds to my awareness of events and context.

    It’s a tonic!

    Like

  36. Wall Eyed Mr Whippy says:

    Thanks Raven

    That’s the kind of response which is skilfull!

    I don’t actually “elevate my response to the status of truth, but I like the way you slipped that in at the end, just when I thought you were with me!

    Raven 1, Wally 0!

    Like

  37. Wall Eyed Mr Whippy says:

    K,

    I’m sorry I can’t quote your post here; if I misquote you I apologise, for I’m tired of going up and down the scroll thing to see your post.

    Much of it I don’t agree with i.e. ad hominem attacks; bu I feel that you have done this. But no matter, we can live with that disagreement?

    As for anyone worrying about ‘my tongue’, I burst out laughing! I could, but won’t, list a number of people who couldn’t give a toss for what I say and are happy to work me over. I don’t mind – it’s OK. It’s good to talk. And you are not shy in giving me a good kicking.

    What I have learned from your criticism is that perhaps I come across as heavier than I intend and will try to remember that in future. I do remember some while back that you said I whipped and whipped etc. If you are right then I will try to sweeten my words because I’m giving the wrong impression. I hope I can stick to that! I am not the cloven footed beast you may think I am.

    Like

  38. The Raven says:

    I detect a left-handed compliment, Whippy. Of course I’m on your side. I just disagree with you 😉

    Like

  39. Wall Eyed Mr Whippy says:

    Of course!

    Like

  40. JabbaPapa says:

    WEW seems to think that the sort of organised critique of his/her views might constitute personal insults. As if saying that this or that view is bigoted, or derived from Marxism, or that a certain post made on the basis of the Gospel of Thomas was a strawman argument concerning actual Catholicism were to constitute calling WEW a bigot, a Marxist, or whatever “insult” might be implied by calling something written by WEW a strawman argument.

    WEW claims that his/her posts are “open to opposition” ; but it seems that WEW does not enjoy it at all, when actual opposition is given.

    WEW complains about my tone being “brutal and malicious” — and otherwise writes : Well JP III, pontificating again? Unless you’re in your imagined role as Torquemada. I note from a post to Toad that you use the words ‘you admit’. I can just see you smacking the rubber hose with relish, believing that you have extracted some kind of confession. — is this the sort of brutal malice that WEW refers to ?

    Your hubris is your problem. I’m convinced that in your life, this has been said to you already.

    You would be mistaken.

    You long for a suffocating vice-like grip on the throat of expression

    No, of course I don’t.

    I do OTOH strongly object to sheer fabrications and falsehoods being posted as if they were facts ; irrespective of whether the person posting them is their inventor, or is merely repeating them from elsewhere.

    I’m also not very impressed with the litany of atheistic cliché that some people relish to spread about in religion discussions, simply by virtue of having grown extremely tired of hearing it all over again for the millionth time… my reactions against it are undoubtedly coloured by these feelings of simultaneous frustration and boredom with these views, which is certainly wrong on my part, but the distaste with which I view such internet postings is a profound one.

    May I suggest a book for you to read? It is A. Koestler’s ‘Darkness at Noon’; think about the interrogator of Rubashov. Does it remind you of anyone?

    Torquemada and other such torturers and interrogators — wow, I cannot seem to remember comparing you to any kinds of characters like that. Haven’t you forgotten to compare me to Rasputin ? Hitler ? Saruman the White ? Emperor Palpatine ? Satan ? Blofeld ? The Daleks ? Or are you saving these for later ?

    ——-

    As for who initiates what … thank you WEW for your delightfully uncalled-for ad hominem attack on the Rarbit’s blog in the past days, responding to nothing whatsoever, but simply attempting to spread out your malice into yet another forum.

    ——-

    In reality, all of my points are just as open to opposition and debate as anyone else’s.

    Instead of attempting to do so however, you prefer to compare me to Torquemada, and then complain about how I am personally insulting you.

    Like

  41. Wall Eyed Mr Whippy says:

    Thank you Jabba. A passionately presented comment.

    Like

  42. Jerry says:

    Jabba, thanks for drawing my attention to the twentieth century. I’ve spent my adult life in cave in the Atlas mountains drinking moonshine and reading Proust, so, understandably perhaps, I was unaware of the violent events you allude to. The last newspaper I saw was wrapped around some goats meat that was given to me by a friendly Berber tribesman, apparently some Arch-Duke or what not has been shot in the Balkans. I’m sure nothing will come of it.

    Like

  43. Jerry says:

    I’ve been trying to untangle what WEW and Jabba are arguing about. But the knot is too tricky for me. I was a boy scout, but never got the hang of knots. But it appears the both very angry. — Doubtless rightly so.

    WEW said:

    You chose your ‘Jabba’ name well. Scorpion poison isn’t it? Fits the tone of your posts so well. And I’ve told you about the Pappa bit. Could it mean the ‘Poisoned Pope’?

    A word to the wise.. that does sound a wee bit unhinged Whippy 😉

    Like

  44. JabbaPapa says:

    Jabba, thanks for drawing my attention to the twentieth century. I’ve spent my adult life in cave in the Atlas mountains drinking moonshine and reading Proust, so, understandably perhaps, I was unaware of the violent events you allude to. The last newspaper I saw was wrapped around some goats meat that was given to me by a friendly Berber tribesman, apparently some Arch-Duke or what not has been shot in the Balkans. I’m sure nothing will come of it.

    It’s so gratifying to hear that ALL of one’s efforts have not been in vain.

    I do rather hope however that Le temps retrouvé wasn’t too confusing for you, set as it is in a period of modern History not covered by your extensive research (ie, after the shooting of that ill-starred aristocrat).

    Like

  45. kathleen says:

    Jerry says: “I’ve been trying to untangle what WEW and Jabba are arguing about.”

    Not so difficult I think. Seems WEW got very peeved to be shown up when Jabba tried to set him right on a few basic facts, so WEW laid into him tooth and nail. Fortunately the waters have calmed again since ;-).

    JabbaPapa, with your clear thinking and knowledge of the Catholic Church (as your explanations and discussions on the many threads and subjects have shown) you are a real asset to this blog. Hope you will continue to comment on CP&S for a long time.

    Like

  46. JabbaPapa says:

    Thank you K, though my understanding of many aspects of our Faith is sorely lacking. I cannot say much about the work of Charity, nor the Charism of Prayer, and many other such topics where I am in need of learning from all others in here 🙂

    It is a peculiarity of both Anglican and Gallican Catholicism that some semi-abstract questions of doctrine seem to grab so much attention, to the detriment of a more cordial and warmly generous religiosity.

    Ah well ; one often gets whichever Charisms that the Lord provides for His own purpose, rather than those that might be easier to live with… 🙂

    Like

  47. toadspittle says:

    .

    Jabba was fortunate to find a friendly Berber tribesman.
    Most of them are nasty.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s