Women Bishops - Not Yet - The Reason Why!
Shot in the Foot
Gras, Watch and the rest of them have a lot to answer for, including the defeat of their own cause.
Radical, intransigent, vocal, and "gimme-all" they have prevented the logical development of the ordination of women to the priesthood.
They need not blame the so-called "traditionalists." The latter put forward sensible arrangements which they refused. The suggestions of the archbishops were rejected with much rejoicing by the feminist lobby.
Why?
I cannot think why. I only know that they failed.
All that I realise is that if earlier suggestions, to cater for the one-third to a quarter of the membership in the pews which is uneasy about or opposed to women as bishops, had been accepted then we would have everything in place for women to be consecrated as bishops in our church.
Bluntly, GRAS, WATCH and all the rest of them have shot themselves in the foot, leaving the rest of us with the burden of finding a way through again.
The nation will take note. Unfortunately the chattering classes and the media of our nation will blame the wrong people. It was a small caucus of militants in favour of the measure who brought about its downfall. They over-stepped the mark ... and paid for it, having combined arrogance with hubris in large measure.
The phrase "see how these Christians love one another" can only be said with huge irony in the Church of England now. Maybe as aspirants to the bench of bishops, these ladies should consider why they chose not to follow the earlier advice of the archbishops under whom they serve .
Let's hope that they will realise this and get together with those whom they seem to despise so strongly and work out how we can all live and work in peace together once more. A little humble pie all round I think!
Yours ay,
Ted
Gras, Watch and the rest of them have a lot to answer for, including the defeat of their own cause.
Radical, intransigent, vocal, and "gimme-all" they have prevented the logical development of the ordination of women to the priesthood.
They need not blame the so-called "traditionalists." The latter put forward sensible arrangements which they refused. The suggestions of the archbishops were rejected with much rejoicing by the feminist lobby.
Why?
I cannot think why. I only know that they failed.
All that I realise is that if earlier suggestions, to cater for the one-third to a quarter of the membership in the pews which is uneasy about or opposed to women as bishops, had been accepted then we would have everything in place for women to be consecrated as bishops in our church.
Bluntly, GRAS, WATCH and all the rest of them have shot themselves in the foot, leaving the rest of us with the burden of finding a way through again.
The nation will take note. Unfortunately the chattering classes and the media of our nation will blame the wrong people. It was a small caucus of militants in favour of the measure who brought about its downfall. They over-stepped the mark ... and paid for it, having combined arrogance with hubris in large measure.
The phrase "see how these Christians love one another" can only be said with huge irony in the Church of England now. Maybe as aspirants to the bench of bishops, these ladies should consider why they chose not to follow the earlier advice of the archbishops under whom they serve .
Let's hope that they will realise this and get together with those whom they seem to despise so strongly and work out how we can all live and work in peace together once more. A little humble pie all round I think!
Yours ay,
Ted
Labels: Church of England, GRAS, hubris, WATCH, Women Bishops
posted by Fr Ted at 7:04 pm
3 Comments:
'Maybe as aspirants to the bench of Bishops'.....etc
If my memory serves me correctly, the ones whose vote froze the process were ( men or women?) from the Laity.
H.R.
I stand (or sit at my PC) corrected.
So far I have been unable to ascertain the details of voting in the House of Clergy n July, but assume that a fair number of women priests did vote against the Archbishops' amendment.
Alas! Alas! All that I have seen since the vote was reported suggests that the present situation seems to be hardening attitudes rather than softening them.
The question that haunts me slightly, assuming a settlement is found acceptable to those requesting a properly apostolic succession in the episcopal ministry, is "Where is a supply to be provided of such bishops in the new dispensation?"
The danger is that making such provision would lead to the formation of just another breakaway church, which is the real problem encircling the "Third Province" idea.
It might lead, however, to a "multi-cultural church" for a "multi-cultural" society, perhaps? This seems a little more practical.
However all is not "gloom and doom" it would seem. It was heartening to realise that the vote was swung, probably, by those in favour of women bishops who saw the necessity of also providing for that seemingly immoveable quarter to a third unhappy with the idea of having a woman bishop.
Thanks for the correction - most helpful as it encouraged me to have a look at the July debate again. Reading Ecclesiastes in the (Franciscan) daily office I use, that nothing really changes has seemed consoling ... but then Ecclesiastes is perhaps the OT book I most love to read!
Dear Dr Baty,
I am very pleased you have received my correction so graciously.
Having closely followed the women's ordination debate in the Church of England for over 27years I have learned how important it is to be factually accurate.
Reading your latest comment with interest, I have found it most informative, thought provoking and wise.
If Holy Scripture is anything to go by,chaos usually ensues when the people of God fail to seek His will.
This diagnosis will be far too simplistic for many, I know, but I really do believe that we need to pray together for guidance in this impossibly complex dilemma and further seek the common ground.
I wish you a speedy and thorough recovery.
Kind regards Helen Rawdon
Post a Comment
<< Home