Plan B Forum

The general synod of the Church of England has voted narrowly against the appointment of women as bishops.

The measure was passed by the synod's houses of bishops and clergy but was rejected by the house of laity.

Supporters vowed to continue their campaign but it will be five years before a similar vote can be held.

Controversy had centred on the provisions for parishes opposed to women bishops to request supervision by a stand-in male bishop.

The measure needed two-thirds majorities in each of the synod's three houses.

The votes were 44 for and three against with two abstentions in the House of Bishops, 148 for and 45 against in the House of Clergy, and 132 for and 74 against in the House of Laity.

The vote in the House of Laity, at 64%, was just short of the required majority.

Just six more "yes" votes would have tipped it over the two-thirds mark needed.

The decision came at the end of a day of debate by supporters and opponents - and a 12-year legislative process.

Twenty years after the introduction of women priests, the issue has continued to divide traditionalists - among those on the Church's evangelical and Anglo-catholic wings - from reformers.

Guinevere wrote:So women can never have positions of leadership in the church because of the mysterious "word of god" handed down millenia ago?

Um, no. Not in the real Christian church world.

See you all in hell!

Big RR wrote:I'll bring the scotch.

Sorry oldr; bad choice. I'll bring the snacks.

THE religion aspect of the Church of England is still more problematic than any gender discrimination, it has been claimed.



As the Church’s general synod voted against the ordination of female bishops, the public agreed it was sad indeed that anyone still believed in a temperamental, invisible sky-being.

Mother-of-two Emma Bradford said: “I can’t believe that in this day and age, women still find themselves wanting to be priests.

“Especially when there are other career options like working at the Natural History Museum, a place which is absolutely chock full of dinosaur bones, fossils, tools fashioned by early hominids and other stuff not mentioned in the Bible.

“Although in fairness the Bible does have a bit where some kids are attacked by bears for mocking a bald man. Which is pretty relevant today in the sense that it’s still highly entertaining.”

Meanwhile, Vatican insiders insist it is just a matter of centuries before the Catholic church accepts women bishops.

Stephen Malley, editor of The Catholic Tablet, said: “We take a more cautious view on the theologically immensely nuanced, complex subject of whether women are as good as men.

“We will be reviewing the threat of eternal damnation to those who use contraceptives in roughly the year 8765, and the celibacy of the priesthood in 13265, about the time when the continent of Africa is due to fuse again with mainland Europe.

Big RR wrote: But kidding aside, the passage Meade cites is being interpreted fairly broadly--basically all it says is that an elder cannot be part of a polygamous relationship (An elder must be the husband of but one wife). Since those relationships at the time (and even now so far as i know) always involved men with multiple wives and not the opposite, saying an elder could have only one huspband would be redundant and meaningless--women could not have more than one husband, elder or not. So, one could interpret it to also say that elders can only be unmarried men, married men with only one wife, and married or unmarried women--all married women would only have one husband. But then, putting women in authority threatens some, hence that broader interpretation.