According to the Telegraph, a Church of England bishop, Andrew Burnham of Ebbsfleet, is planning to leave the church and convert to Catholicism over the decision of the Synod to approve in principle a move to enthroning women bishops. I'm deeply unsympathetic to the "traditionalist" position, I admit, and I'm an outright atheist, so some may feel I'm incapable of understanding what's at stake here. But I find the language the traditionalists use - they talk of the church "excluding" them - frankly offensive. They are the ones who will, if they get their way, continue to exclude women from the episcopacy; in contrast if they're defeated, they'll be welcome in the church, able unlike women today to contribute as both as priests and bishops, after the change as they were before.
But I want to make a much narrower point here. I doubt I can be alone in thinking that this vote is a very silly reason indeed to flounce out, take away your crook and decide to turn to Rome. Has Bishop Burnham never been troubled by the doctrinal differences between his church and Rome, say on communion? Unless he's always secretly believed the Roman Catholic idea of transsubstantiation - in which case he can hardly accuse liberals of any kind of doctrinal perversion - then he clearly sees those differences as unimportant. And has he never been troubled by the C of E's refusal to accept Papal authority? How come he's rejected that for years, but now wants Pope Benedict as his boss? What did Bishop Burnham think he was doing when he got married? Which church does he think is right on priests' right to marry, and doesn't he think that matters?
To an outsider, this determination to elevate the question of women's position in the church to an absolute deal-breaker, more important than anything else about the church, seems silly; and beyond that, it makes me suspect that a desire for doctrinal purity is a less important motivation than traditionalists like Burnham claim it is.
Have your say - join the discussion