Women bishops in Wales

[Guest]

I'm at a loss as to where to post about the splendid news that women bishops will be allowed in the Church in Wales following a landmark 'yes' vote today, so I'll post here until I get other advice.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-24064398

[Padraig]

I'm at a loss as to where to post about the splendid news that women bishops will be allowed in the Church in Wales following a landmark 'yes' vote today, so I'll post here until I get other advice.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-24064398

amateur, in view of the current rethink about sensitive topics, would you agree that leaving out the word 'splendid' would encourage more participation of the kind desired? I am not in the slightest trying to be provocative.

[amateur51]

amateur, in view of the current rethink about sensitive topics, would you agree that leaving out the word 'splendid' would encourage more participation of the kind desired? I am not in the slightest trying to be provocative.

You'll understand that the 'splendid' refers in part at least to the lead that the Church in Wales has taken over the Church of England :winkeye:

And of course it also refers in part to the mention on this thread of the absence of serious discussion about issues that affect women.

[french frank]

If I understood, the vote in England had to be passed by all three houses. It was voted for by the houses of bishops and clergy but not by the laity.

[Padraig]

You'll understand that the 'splendid' refers in part at least to the lead that the Church in Wales has taken over the Church of England :winkeye:

And of course it also refers in part to the mention on this thread of the absence of serious discussion about issues that affect women.

I take it that's a ''No".
Fair enough.

[Beef Oven!]

amateur, in view of the current rethink about sensitive topics, would you agree that leaving out the word 'splendid' would encourage more participation of the kind desired? I am not in the slightest trying to be provocative.

I was thinking the same. It struck me as the type of passive-aggressive post that set things off on the wrong foot.

[agingjb]

If I understood, the vote in England had to be passed by all three houses. It was voted for by the houses of bishops and clergy but not by the laity.

Actually it had to be passed by a two thirds majority in each house. The laity approved it by 132 to 74 - six votes short of two thirds. (Bishops 44 to 3; Clergy 148 to 45.)

[MrGongGong]

I was thinking the same. It struck me as the type of passive-aggressive post that set things off on the wrong foot.

:Ha ha ha ha: and so on

Some of this reminds me of my daughter when she was a teenager
"i don't mean to be rude, BUT" being the prelude to being rude

[french frank]

Actually it had to be passed by a two thirds majority in each house. The laity approved it by 132 to 74 - six votes short of two thirds. (Bishops 44 to 3; Clergy 148 to 45.)

Thanks for that!

[Sydney Grew]

Contrary to Nature. . . .

[ahinton]

Contrary to Nature. . . .

Er - what is deemed to be "contrary" to what "nature" here? Not Wales, surely?...

[MrGongGong]

Contrary to Nature. . . .

Like cars ? or Serialism ?

[ahinton]

Like cars ? or Serialism ?

Maybe he's trying to draw some kind of abstrusely esoteric connection between Opus Dei and Opus Contra Naturam. Or not.

Anyway, moving on - or rather back (to the topic) - whilst this news may be cause for celebration (at least for those within the Church concerned), it ought also to act as a reminder to us all of the shameful indignity of a Christian Church having for so long vehemently and determinedly barred women from office purely on the grounds of them being women; whilst this has indeed been just one more part of a far more generalised sidelining of women in society, it is surely of particular significance that the Church has participated in it as it has done for centuries. Wilde famously described the British at the hunt as "the unspeakable in pursuit of the uneatable"; this sorry history might as easily be described as illogicality compounded by inhumanity.

The current position now leaves the Protestant Church in England visibly out on a limb; it had better buck up its ideas and follow suit sooner rather than later. If what is widely regarded by some as a staid and antediluvian institution - namely the British monarchy - had as its head a woman almost five centuries ago, a second one assumed the same position in the early 18th century, the so far longest reigning British monarch occupied it for more than six decades from the mid-19th century into the 20th and the current incumbent has done the same a century or so later and remains in office, it's a wonder that universal suffage and women MPs emerged for the first time less than 100 years ago and the establishment of women in senior positions in professions had to wait even longer - but oh how convenient it was for women to be pressed into all manner of challenging duties 70-odd years ago just because "there was a war on"! The possibility of a female Archbishop of Canterbury still seems somewhat remote...

[amateur51]

I was thinking the same. It struck me as the type of passive-aggressive post that set things off on the wrong foot.

There's nothing passive-aggressive about it. There has been discussion on a thread somewhere (I'm confused now) about the lack of discussion about issues affecting women, non?

[amateur51]

I take it that's a ''No".
Fair enough.

I provided an explanation so it's not no, Padraig.