In fact I am referring to the vote of 1992 in favour of women priests. Back then, those who opposed women priests lost by just two votes.
But of course that was a great triumph of democracy and there was no need for the Prime Minister to say in the House of Commons how sad he was, or for a team of lawyers to start investigating ways of getting round the vote, or for all right-thinking MPs to witter on for over half an hour's parliamentary time saying how dreadful it is, and that something should be done.
9 comments:
It'll be interesting to see what the fallout from this is. Will the CofE do as it's told, & show the world what a good little Erastian Church it is? If not, will Parliament go with more than a sharp prod? In the debate today,
http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/hansard/commons/todays-commons-debates/read/unknown/193/
it was mentioned by Sir Tony Baldry that if they amend the equality legislation then it will affect all faith groups not just the CofE (can't see them taking on Islam, so doubt that's the route they'll take!).
The point about government intervention is well made. I take the point that the government now feels it is competent to attempt to apply secular norms to a church but surely since Anglican orders are absolutely null and totally void it really makes little difference whether their bishops are men, women or unicorns.
The Church of England IS the established church. It is part of the government of this country however loosely.
I agree that there was a lot of wittering, but some of the comments are quite worrying (I wish that the ruururuururuurrrrr noise the MPs make was included in the transcript) so we could gauge how the House viewed the discussion in general.
Perhaps I am a bit naive but I was shocked by the 30 mins of unanimous braying in the House (with one exception). Were they just letting off steam or are they accurate when they said that they represent the nation? Tim Baldry seemed to imply that the Bishops had voted overwhelmingly in favour because they were afraid of losing their seats in the Lords. Shame to us all.
It seems to me that there is a positive side to women 'bishops' in the C of E: there will be less and less danger of mistaking this 'Church' for the true Church that Our Lord founded, or a branch thereof.
@Neil:
Catholics may well consider Anglican orders to be null & void, but it should come as no surprise to you that Anglicans do not feel the same way; hence the controversy.
It's funny how the 1992 result was hailed as the work of the Holy Spirit, but He seems to have been left out of the equasion this time, in spite of the greater vote margin this time round! It just goes to show how anachronistic and out of touch with reality politicians are. I can't remember the 1992 vote, because I was a baby; MPs and media luvvies can't remember it because they chose not to, as reality inconveniences their own opinions. Or they are just plain stupid.
@Fr. Levi, Indeed that is true although many of those in favour of female bishops have a different understanding of ordination to the Catholic one.
I sympathise to some extent with those anglo-catholics opposed to this move, but my point was that their home is with the True Church and Rome not in fighting a battle they will surely lose in an increasingly irrelevent sect.
Abp Runcie did give serious consideration to the effect that women's ordination would have on the CofE's relations with the rest of Christendom; Abp Williams (also on the 'catholic' wing) doesn't seem concerned. Perhaps in their heart of hearts Anglicans have dropped their pretensions and accepted their status as an 'ecclesial community'.
Post a Comment