Church of England to allow women bishops


(CNN) – Church of England leaders have voted to allow women to become bishops, the church announced Monday.

The measure required a two-thirds majority in all three voting bodies of the church – the House of Bishops, the House of Clergy and the House of Laity.

The legislation was passed at the Church’s General Synod, being held in the city of York. The first female bishop could be appointed by the end of the year, the church said.


Sed libera nos a malo


Of course…a natural progression in the order of female ordination.


Also this about the Church of England.

Fresh allegations of child sex abuse against the Church of England (CofE) are likely to surface, the Archbishop of Canterbury has warned.


Right. If they are going to have women ordained as priests, it is somewhat nonsensical and arbitrary to not allow them to be bishops. I’m surprised it took them this long.


Yes the ECUSA beat them to it years ago.

How will this set with the anglican communions in africa and around the world?


Me too, especially when the Queen of England is the titular head of the Anglican Church.


It would indeed be nonsensical and arbitrary if “the Church of England” were an individual person who believed that women are capable of receiving Holy Orders to the priesthood but not the episcopate. But the Church of England is NOT an individual person. It is a collection of thousands and millions of people, some of whom believe that women can’t be ordained to Holy Orders at all, and other of whom believe that women can be ordained to every level of Holy Orders. And it’s perfectly logical that, in order to keep the peace between these two groups, the conservative faction would agree to let the liberal faction have their female clergy in their own parishes, as long as there are no female bishops to loom over conservative parishes.

The sex of the monarch is completely irrelevant to the question of female ordination. Her Majesty is the Supreme Governor of the Church, yes, but she is a laywoman.


Beg to differ. One can’t deny her influence after all these years as an English monarch, even if she were not the titular head.


It seems to me that we should work to end sexism in all its forms, not argue that God wants us to continue sexism. Discrimination against women is vile.


Maybe charles is already exerting his influence in some way. I heard he and his mum the queen are sharing duties.

I don’t know if there is a priest shortage in the anglican communion or episcopal church but I guess Welby has decided to distance his communion farther from the RCC.


God created man and woman to be complimentary, each sex endowed with particular gifts that allow the ‘two flesh to become one’ when joined. Women discriminate against their own sex and God when they reject the gifts they were given and abandon themselves to pursue becoming ‘more like men’. The same is true for men.

It is not complimentary to have both sexes trying to employ the same “set of gifts” while leaving the other gifts to lay dormant. It is neither discriminatory nor sexist to be able to distinguish the difference between sexes.


Of course women were not allowed to be a part of the ultimate decision about the division of those gifts. Is it just a coincidence that ultimate authority was left to men?


Jesus set the president, not the Church that followed. It would have been very, very easy for Jesus to give women the gift of holy orders, especially given the superb quality of women available. Why, for example, make Peter the first Pope instead of Mary? Clearly it wasn’t an issue of faithfulness, holiness or even leadership (she is, after all, the Queen of Heaven).

As far as this development goes, I gather it was expected. Good! Perhaps we’ll see a few more Anglicans join the Ordinate.


That has little to do with the ingenuity of God’s plan. Neither men not women have the God-given right to arbitrate His blessings regarding their complimentary nature. Obedience and humility are the first causalities of rebellion.


Discrimination against women/different colour race/ is horrid, but what the discussion is about women priests, not about discrimination, God’s word must reign, not ours, now if anyone has a gripe with what HE has says I say take it up with HIM when you meet the Lord.

This is not a case of she who must be obeyed. But rather as a Catholic we go with what the Church teaches, called the magisterium, we don’t interpret the Bible for ourselves, Protestant Christians do this, but Catholic Christians do not, as we have the Pope to guide us…


The BBC also had an article and video on this:


Your first clause shows you are not serious.

The problem is that the interpretation of Jesus’ actions was taken entirely by men, but before reaching the conclusion that men are the proper ones to interpret, there had to be a meta-analysis of who properly interprets, but women were excluded from even the meta-analysis.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit