Women bishops in Wales

[scottycelt]

Contrary to Nature. . . .

The available evidence might tend to lend support to your admirably succinct and exemplarily concise verdict , Mr Grew.

According to Wiki:

<The Church of Ireland has permitted the ordination of women as bishops since 1990 but none have yet occurred.^[79] The Scottish Episcopal Church also permits the ordination of women as bishops since 2003, but none have yet been consecrated.>

The bitter experience of their Sister Celts must surely be a salutary warning to those throngs of Welsh Wimmin patiently waiting in the wings to be immediately summoned to serve at the very pinnacle of an Anglican See.

However as I earnestly endeavour to remain logical and consistent at all times, and not being a member of the Church of Wales, it's really none of my business.

[ahinton]

I earnestly endeavour to remain logical and consistent at all times, and not being a member of the Church of Wales, it's really none of my business.

Then why mention anything other than that, scotty?

[ahinton]

(deleted)

[Mr Pee]

(deleted)

????

Bizarre.

[scottycelt]

Then why mention anything other than that, scotty?

One might wish to term it as an 'opinionated generosity', ahinton ...

[jean]

Then why mention anything other than that, scotty?

Be fair. You're not a member of the Church in Wales either, and you've had plenty to say.

Scotty wants you to consider that as no women bishops have yet been appointed in the jurisdictions that allow it, we can only conclude that women are not fit to be bishops, or that they don't really want to be after all. Or that God isn't going to let it happen.

(It is the Church in Wales, btw. Yr Eglwys yng Nghymru.)

[ahinton]

Be fair. You're not a member of the Church in Wales either, and you've had plenty to say.

Scotty wants you to consider that as no women bishops have yet been appointed in the jurisdictions that allow it, we can only conclude that women are not fit to be bishops, or that they don't really want to be after all. Or that God isn't going to let it happen.

(It is the Church in Wales, btw. Yr Eglwys yng Nghymru.)

I'm not a member of any Church, although I do not hold Mr Pee's convenient "the Church is largely irrelevant anyway so it matters not a jot" get out of jail card. The only reason that I've said anything at all about this is that the move strikes me as a welcome one in the more general acceptance of women in whatever rôles they want to fulfil that they're capable of fulfilling. I'm not a woman, either, but that fact does not bestow upon me the right to consider that such matters are "none of my business", especially since the oppression of women has invariably been at the hands of men.

[scottycelt]

(It is the Church in Wales, btw. Yr Eglwys yng Nghymru.)

Point most willingly accepted, Jean! Apologies are now due and humbly offered.

We must always strive to be assiduously accurate as well as logical and consistent in our forum postings.

[ahinton]

Point most willingly accepted, Jean! Apologies are now due and humbly offered.

We must always strive to be assiduously accurate as well as logical and consistent in our forum postings.

But what do you think these days about the entitlement of women to be appointed as bishops, archbishops etc. in the Christian Church (not just the Protestant one in Wales, that is)? I'm as sure that plenty of women would not wish for such appointments as I am that there are those whose calling and abilities determine that they would.

[zoomy]

All the churches should be brought within sex discrimination and equality legislation and simply accept women or gay people or anyone else in any job within the church. The current situation is outrageous and an affront to the democratic will of the people and natural justice.

[amateur51]

Let's not forget that Amateur also originally posted this thread in the main forum, when it is clearly, as FF said, related to current affairs. Again, as with the "splendid" remark, I think he was being deliberately provocative in so doing, as he was when he started the thread abour post traumatic stress in the military, where in his opening post he was clearly trying to steer things in the direction of one of his favourite hobby-horses.

As I mentioned at the time of posting I was confused. What you see as a plot was what we call a mistake in my country.

As to the second point you raise you've been shown to be wrong, so an apology is in order.

[Mr Pee]

As I mentioned at the time of posting I was confused. What you see as a plot was what we call a mistake in my country.

As to the second point you raise you've been shown to be wrong, so an apology is in order.

Confused? About whether a breaking news story was a current affairs subject? Yeah, right. I can just imagine the opprobrium that you would have heaped on Scotty had the decision on women Bishops gone the other way and he had started a thread on the main board.

Second point:- No apology necessary. It's just that the thread didn't head off in the direction in which you tried to steer it.

[ahinton]

Let's not forget that Amateur also originally posted this thread in the main forum, when it is clearly, as FF said, related to current affairs. Again, as with the "splendid" remark, I think he was being deliberately provocative in so doing, as he was when he started the thread abour post traumatic stress in the military, where in his opening post he was clearly trying to steer things in the direction of one of his favourite hobby-horses.

I do not see what's "provocative" - at least in general terms - about either of these; what on earth, for example, is "provocative" about references to PTSD in the military? That subject has been widely discussed by those qualified to do so for some years and bona fide research into it and its effects continues.

[ahinton]

Confused? About whether a breaking news story was a current affairs subject? Yeah, right. I can just imagine the opprobrium that you would have heaped on Scotty had the decision on women Bishops gone the other way and he had started a thread on the main board.

Second point:- No apology necessary. It's just that the thread didn't head off in the direction in which you tried to steer it.

I wouldn't mind the address of the charm school that you attended, just out of interest. Hobby-horses, refusal to apologise or to countenence views in opposition to your own, accusing a member of provocative behaviour solely by virtue of his referring to PTSD in the military, using what you perceive to be the vanishingly small minority of the population that give a toss about the Church in an attempt to undermine the importance of the thread topic which is in any case of interest to many who, like myself, are not members of any Church (and, for that matter, the diminishing membership of the British armed forces is substantially smaller than the diminishing membership of the Christian Church in Britain); the list doubtless goes on. Your remarks are gratuitous. I would nevertheless ask you the same question as I asked scotty; what is your view about the professional rôle of women in the Church and elsewhere?

[An_Inspector_Calls]

Scotty wants you to consider that as no women bishops have yet been appointed in the jurisdictions that allow it, we can only conclude that women are not fit to be bishops, or that they don't really want to be after all. Or that God isn't going to let it happen.

Since precision is the order of your day, which one of those 'only' alternatives do you want to put in Scotty's mouth and then demolish?