Comments on: Brava!

By: Huw

Huw — Sat, 17 May 2008 03:58:04 +0000

Siren - you are right, of course: especially on the closet issue. I have known these Bishops - including one with a partner…

In the case of the Gayz it would be “Not until we can be who we are…” which is, I think, exactly what the women are saying as well.

By: siren19

siren19 — Fri, 16 May 2008 21:30:57 +0000

It’s an interesting stance. The difference between women bishops (in England, we’re talking now) and gay bishops is that there are already gay ones– they’re just not especially honest about it. The women, some of whom might be gay also, of course, don’t have that (alluring but false) option, which is probably beneficial in the long run to their spiritual health.

By: Fr. Ernesto

Fr. Ernesto — Fri, 16 May 2008 18:04:20 +0000

They are correct on catholicity and the office of the bishop. It is an incredibly principled stand reaffirming that if the church is not truly catholic, then it is not truly church.

That stance is likely to win them more friendship from the Global South than a policy of insistent confrontation. And, as you pointed out yourself, friendship opens doors. The colloquial saying is that one catches more flies with honey than with vinegar. The Biblical way to put it is that a gentle answer turns away wrath.

I do not believe in women bishops, but I found myself thinking positive thoughts about the women who wrote those principled ideas.

By: Chris Jones

Chris Jones — Thu, 15 May 2008 13:36:30 +0000

I too salute the women who wrote this, though I read it from the other side of the divide. The whole notion of “flying bishops,” by which the Church of England has sought to accommodate those who are opposed to the ordination of women, is deeply un-Catholic and is a denial of the very basis on which Anglicans (Anglo-Catholic ones, anyway) must oppose the ordination of women.

If those who support, and those who oppose, the ordination of women share what is fundamentally the same faith, then they can and should continue in communion with one another, under the omophorion of the same bishop (male or female), shepherded by the same priest (male or female) whom that bishop has appointed. To reject the ministry of a priest because she is a woman, or to reject the ministry of the bishop because he accepts the priesthood of women, is to deny that one has the same faith as that bishop or that priest. In that case it is dishonest to continue in fellowship. It is better to separate, with sadness and love, than to pretend that there is a unity of faith which does not exist.

What these women clergy are saying, in effect, is that at a certain point it is necessary to put a stake in the ground and declare that ordination of women is part of the Church’s teaching and practice and those who would adhere to the Church must embrace that teaching and practice. Those who cannot embrace it must adhere to another Church. That stance, sad as it is, has the virtue of a bracing honesty.