DON VINCENZO writes:

Since I am not a member of the Anglican Church or its “community,” I will not attempt to fathom the latest move by its Synod of Bishops to appoint their first female to carry an episcopal miter. That decision, however, was not unexpected, for the feminists, along with their male enablers within the Anglican Church, have sought to move a basically non-resistant hierarchy in that direction for decades. And why not? If the putative U.S. version of the Church of England would openly consecrate an active homosexual  to that rank, well, then, to cite the title of a song, Anything Goes. What interests – perhaps “intrigues” is a better word – me is that ARCIC is still in existence. Say again?

ARCIC, the Anglican Roman Catholic International Commission, has been in existence since the late 60s, begun under the disastrous pontificate of Paul VI. It’s purpose then – as now – was/is to seek to make ecumenical progress by identifying a broad areas of common interest which would bring the two Churches closer together. Nothing wrong in that except that there is no evidence that it has, even with Pope John Paul II’s encyclical, Et Unam Sint (We Shall All Be One). The clear fact is that there can be precious little ground for mutual agreement unless one communion defaults to the other. During my years at the US Embassy to The Holy See, I never heard of one area where an “agreement on any major issue” had been reached. In fact, during the aforementioned pontificate of Pope John Paul II, he temporarily closed down Vatican participation in these exercises in futility in 2003 after the scandalous consecration of Bishop Robinson, only to reopen Vatican participation for reasons that are beyond my understanding.  (BTW, I understand that the good Bishop is divorcing his wife – or is it husband?)

I note with interest that the leading female “candidate” for this prestigious post in Very Rev. Vivienne Faull, Dean of York. I wish her well, but if I might, may I make a comment? The likely future bishop states: I’ve experienced encounters where people have thought I’m less of a person in the sight of God. It is not confined to gender. To which I would respond that no true Christian believes that God would consider you “less of a person” because you are a woman. But Very Rev. Faull, some Christians, your humble scribe amongst them, believe that an Apostolic Succession that begins with Peter can only lead to the ordination and consecration of men, and so did your Church until very recently. On the other hand, Very Rev. Vivienne Faull is married to a man, which I shall take as a sign of progress within the Church of England, and perhaps even a future topic of discussion at ARCIC.

Daniël O. writes:

A common argument that I have heard with regard to female bishops (and clergy in general) is that women will not fall into the same errors as men do. However, if you look at the most important female Lutheran “bishops”, they show a different track record. Therefore, the argument for female “bishops” should be reframed to “women can be just as bad bishops as men, if not worse”.

I think that indicates the actual reason why the World is pushing Christians and Christian-like sects to have women in the clergy: the World knows every well that it will further undermine the Church. Not surprisingly, the English Parliament threatened the Anglicans to intervene. Once again, the World is not that into a separation of Church and State after all.

At any rate, the Anglican’s decision will not lead to more people going to their “church”, as the Protestant congregations that have a female clergy are generally also the ones that are visited least by young people. Similarly, Catholic bishops that are feminized men also have a hard time keeping their flock together, especially young families. Hence, I am curious to what Anglican congregation attendance will be in a couple of years; my guess is that it will be significantly less.

Laura writes:

Given that the Church of England was established by Parliament and Queen Elizabeth I, against the express wishes of the bishops and of virtually the entire clergy of that time, as well as the two great universities, it is not surprising that Parliament would now interfere to institute female bishops.

The Church of England was established by civil government, not by God.

— Comments —

Don Vincenzo adds:

If I may add a codicil to my earlier comments…

 I repeat: the decision by the Anglican Synod to open the door to the selection of the first female bishop or even bishops within the Church of England is a matter about which I have no vested interest. However, as an observer who has seen major rifts within that Church over time, allow me these observations.

1. The rift is not new. In 1990, while at a reception at the Vatican, my wife and I encountered an English woman whose husband wore a Roman collar. Somewhat surprised, I asked her why that was so. She – and later he – described the hundreds of petitions that Rome had received from Anglican priests who wished to leave the Anglican Church and become part of the Roman one. The then Pope, John Paul II, had actually discouraged such a massive exodus of Anglican clergy to the Roman Church for fear of being criticized for “poaching,” and offending the Archbishop of Canterbury.

2. The Anglican acceptance of female clergy accelerated that departure, and after repeated pleas by dissident Anglican diocese (not individual priests), Pope Benedict XVI established the Anglican Ordinariate within the Catholic Church in 2009. There has been an on-going defection from the Anglican Churches worldwide as well, with the far more religiously conservative African Anglicans refusing to accept women priests.

3. Currently, there are three active Personal Ordinariates: Our Lady of Walsingham – the site of a Marian shrine in England – for former Anglicans in Britain (save Ireland); Ordinariate of St. Peter, in the U.S. and Canada, and Our Lady of the Southern Cross in Australia.

My point is not to chronicle the decline of the Church of England, but to ask, perhaps rhetorically: if the Bishops of the Anglican Church know, as they must, that their “progressive” church policies have alienated untold former church members, why are they intent to marginalize the Anglican Church even further by doing something that they know will have adverse consequences for the church worldwide?

I am reminded of Ambrose Bierce’s definition of a fanatic: someone who, losing sight of his objective, redoubles his efforts.

Please follow and like us: