Women Bishops

On October 9, 2009 / By maggi dawn / Reply

(or more correctly, Women in the Episcopate.  "Women Bishops is gramatically clumsy. And I don't like the phrase "female Bishops" unless we are going to to demand that Bishops who are not female be called "male Bishops".  It would sound ridiculous if we demanded that people always specified "male teachers" and "female teachers" or "Male MPs" and "female MPs"… you get my drift.  I hope (though I doubt) that once women are made bishops we'll simply to call them all Bishops. )

anyway, grammatical ramblings aside, here's the link to the latest press release on the Revisions Committee.

Mad Priest's comments cut straight to the chase:

can anybody tell me what was the point in us shelling out all that
money for all those people to attend synod if on those rare occasions
when they actually come to a decision and vote for it, they are just
ignored by the centrally appointed quangos almost before the synod
members get off the train at their home station?

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • FriendFeed
  • Live
  • MySpace
  • Reddit
  • Twitter

No Responses to “Women Bishops”

Comments

  1. Martin

    Interesting, and very funny (and also it seems more problematically, rather intelligent) review of Eagleton here:
    http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/05/the_eagleton_delusion.php

Reply