“Should the Church of England vote against the equality of women they should no longer be the established church!”
Or if that was not clear enough:
"If you don’t vote for women bishops we’ll make you have women bishops anyway.”
Perhaps therein lies the problem. An established church has no power to resist parliamentary influence. Sweden found out but too late. Even disestablishment does not cure the ills once the church has become merely an agency of the state.
Unless it were not unEnglish, disestablishment might hold off the further encroachment of secular liberalism. But, alas, it is so,well, unEnglish. The whole identity of the C of E is inseparably intertwined with the monarchy and the government. If the C of E were not the established church, would it be anything at all?
Oh, well... it is all academic, anyhow... the C of E will do what it must do... to survive. Even if that means being unfaithful to the catholic tradition....
Update: PM Cameron said he was “very sad” about the result. “On a personal basis I’m a strong supporter of women bishops. I’m very sad about the way the vote went yesterday …. I think it’s important for the Church of England to be a modern church in touch with society as it is today and this was a key step it needed to take.” WWCS.... What Would Chesterton Say?
3 comments:
At least there is the bright spot of the South Carolina Episcopal churches leaving. They are more Anglican than the Anglicans in England, I suppose?
Well, the South Carolina diocese's last two bishops have purported to ordain women, so their "conservatism" seems to amount to little more than yesterday's liberalism.
I meant, in my last comment, the two immediate predecessors as diocesan bishop to the present bishop -- they were both keen advocates of the purported ordination of women. I don't know anything about the present bishop's stance on the issue.
Post a Comment