For bishops, anyway:
My goodness, what do you suppose they, um, get up to in the Bishops’ Locker Room that women can’t be invited in???
Never mind. I think I don’t want to know.
The most baffling part of all this is that the head of the CofE is a woman. In fact, there have been several women at the top over the centuries. I count 5 from Elizabeth I. Good enough to be in charge, not good enough to run a diocese.
Odd.
The Bishops voted overwhelmingly to allow women Bishops. You may adjust your fevered locker room fantasies accordingly. It was the Laity that scuppered the move.
Maybe the Queen has an honorary penis stashed away somewhere.
It’s an absurd situation. To be fair, the majority of the CofE are in favour of women bishops. The motion was narrowly defeated by the voting rules of the General Synod, which require a two-thirds majority in the houses of bishops, clergy and laity.
Ironically it was many women in the laity who scuppered the move. They think that women should not hold positions of authority in the Church because Paul The Misogynist said so. But apparently that does not prevent these women from voting in the Synod and therefore dictating the rules.
The mace of office might qualify.
So that’s what she keeps in that little purse!
It’s true. How can you have a bishop without a bishopric?
Could that be paraphrased as “Ulf, stop bashing the bishop”?
I’ve heard this argument before. But: The head of the CoE is also not authorised to baptise, confirm, solemnise matrimony, administer communion, bury the dead… in fact, the head of the CoE is more unlike a priest than like one.
You know, a bit like how she can be a Colonel-in-Chief without needing to know which end of a rifle the bullet comes out.
OK. Surely a woman could be trained to give out crackers and pour wine, no?
But women can do all those things in the CofE, they just can’t move up in the administrative hierarchy. It’s having more administrative power that is the whole issue.
Priest: “But your Majesty, you can’t be head of the Church without a penis!”
Elizabeth I: “Such a thing can easily be acquired…” <snaps fingers>
Priest: “Why are you looking at me like…attached! It has to still be attached!!”
I’m glad and heartened to see the Church of England standing by biblical principles on this. Combined with the relative conservatism of the new Archbishop, I hope this portends a new trend for the Anglican Church.
I know you’ve heard this before, but you have to be kidding, right?
Oh, I have a feeling women have always and will continue to have power over and above those who endorse Biblical sexism.
I think he’s called Philip.
Um, Qin the Archbiship-designate, Justin Welby, is in favour of admiting women to the episcopate; he just gave a speech endorsing it a few weeks ago. It says so in the article the OP linked to. Excluding women just isn’t sustainable in the long run. While right now male priests outnumber female priest by a 2:1 margin; more women are being ordained than men.
I’m a British Atheist, and I approve this post.
(Well I could quibble with the ‘new trend’ bit. Rather say ‘I hope this continues the existing trend for the Anglican Church’).
Women can. The point is that the Queen can’t, so arguing that women could be bishops because the boss of the church is a woman is illogical.