Archbishop of Canterbury: Church of England has 'a lot of explaining to do' after vote against woman bishops
November 26, 2012
The outgoing Archbishop of Canterbury has warned leaders of the Church of England that they have “a lot of explaining to do” after turning down a proposal to ordain women as Anglican bishops.
Dr. Rowan Williams, who will step down in December as leader of the worldwide Anglican communion, told the synod of the Church of England that the vote against women bishops would appear unreasonable to many people in light of current opinions. He said:
Whatever the motivations for voting yesterday, whatever theological principles on which people acted and spoke, the fact remains that a great deal of this discussion is not intelligible to wider society. Worse than that, it seems we are willfully blind to some of the trends and priorities of that wider society.
- Dr Williams warns: no short cut, no simple solution (Church Times)
- Bid to approve woman bishops fails in Church of England synod (CWN, 11/21)
Posted by: Adeodatus109 -
Nov. 27, 2012 10:36 PM ET USA
This news makes me miss Diogenes...
Posted by: TheJournalist64 -
Nov. 26, 2012 7:49 PM ET USA
I'm sorry, but this sounds like a bad joke from the "I Love Lucy" show, with Ricky Ricardo making the statement. The Anglicans are rapidly becoming fodder for late night comedy. Jay, are you listening?
Posted by: WBSM -
Nov. 26, 2012 6:37 PM ET USA
The "it is so because we voted so" doesn't seem to be working well then.
Posted by: spledant7672 -
Nov. 26, 2012 5:28 PM ET USA
The Church Times article also quotes Dr. Williams, "there is no simple, God-given solution to a problem which brings people's deepest convictions into conflict." Actually there is: the fulfillment of Christ's promise to lead His Church in the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.
Posted by: spledant7672 -
Nov. 26, 2012 5:18 PM ET USA
Is willfully blind the only option? Could one not have eyes wide open to theological categories prior to wider society's priorities, let alone trends? The second sentence reveals the apparent magnanimity of the first sentence to be mere subterfuge. And what does he mean, "we," when he really means, "you?" Clarity and direct statement are being avoided even in direct disagreement.
Posted by: sparch -
Nov. 26, 2012 11:49 AM ET USA
How does one explain a moral and theological code that was never fully explained to begin with? When you make "it" up from the beginning, you can do whatever you want, whenever you want. No explaination will suffice or be important. You don't need a reason to beleive what you want to beleive.