'Radical feminists riding roughshod'

I LOVE women. We frequently have women to preach at my church here in the City of London.

But I simply don't think it is right for the Church of England - which is but one small part of the worldwide Catholic and Apostolic Church - to go it alone and consecrate women bishops.

The change is so momentous that surely the mind of the whole Church should agree on it before any decision is made.

Let me make this very plain. The question is not of whether a woman can actually say the Holy Communion Service, solemnise weddings and ordain priests. Anyone can say Mass. You could teach a parrot to do it. The issue is whether the Church of England - one branch of the worldwide church - should unilaterally make this profound innovation. It is not a question of theological objections to women as priests or bishops. It is a question of Church order - bluntly of whether the C of E is within its rights to make these changes. I do not believe it is.

I repeat: it is not a matter of women's competence.

Those who favour the ordination of women and the consecration of women bishops generally cite the example of the other professions.

They say: "We have women doctors, women judges, women astronauts - why not women priests and bishops?" The question simply misses the point by substituting secular standards of judgement for legitimate Church order.

I am an old-fashioned liberal.

By this I mean that I do not expect everyone to do as I say, but I do believe strongly that allowances must be made for people who beg to differ on any big issue of policy.

Such allowances were made for those who, 16 years ago, could not conscientiously accept women as priests. The same sort of provision should be made now for the significant minority who cannot accept women bishops.

But what broke out in last Monday's Synod debate in York was sheer nastiness and spiteful intolerance when the feminist supporters of women bishops voted against any legal safeguards to cater for those who voted against. Particularly shocking was the fact that this vicious refusal flew in the face of the expressed wishes of The Archbishops of Canterbury and York, Tom Wright, Bishop of Durham and many other senior churchmen. More than a few fair-minded Synod members were in tears at the end of this monstrous act of uncharitableness and one bishop went so far as to say that he was "ashamed"

of the Church of England.

The radical feminists who pushed through the motion call themselves "liberal" and "inclusive".

But their liberality and inclusiveness extends only as far as those who agree with them. This is not liberalism at all. Those bigots are like Trotskyists who work within an institution to subvert it and to turn it into its opposite. They are the Church Militant Tendency.

So what will happen now? Many priests and laypeople will leave the C of E in disgust and despair and head for Rome - or just stop attending Church altogether. Others will seek independence from what they now see as a corrupt Church. They may seek alternative Episcopal oversight - that is to live and work under the authority of a bishop who, like them, will not countenance women bishops.

The Church will be the poorer for their departure.

The C of E was always an easy-going collection of parties: High, Low and Broad. People tolerated those with whom they disagreed.

That polite arrangement has been shattered by the way the radical feminists have ridden roughshod over a whole section of Church opinion.

I am not exactly privy to the secret counsels of the archbishops and the leaders of the Synod, but as a priest with nearly 40 years' service and, like most clergy of my age and experience, I have a pretty good idea of who's in the frame when it comes to which women are going to be among the first to be made bishops. And one thing is clear: they will not be traditionalists. By the very nature of the case they will be chosen from among those who were most strident in favour of the innovation.

There is a female ascendancy in the Church and it has a certain character. It is broadly feminist, left-wing in politics and obsessed with environmental issues. Let me give a couple of examples.

On Ascension Day last year a sermon was preached in the City of London by a woman priest very widely tipped to be one of the first of the new bishops. She said the original Apostles of Jesus thought the world was about to end.

They were wrong, she said. But we today know the world is coming to an end - because of global warming.

I was speaking with another likely candidate on Lord Mayor's Day in Guildhall. She was standing alone, so I went up to make conversation. I asked her how she was finding life in the City. She complained: "Oh it's all so white, upper class and male!" I felt like answering "This is the City on one of its days of traditional high ceremonial.

What did you expect - the lumpen proletariat, black section, with bongo drums?"

I don't object to the presence of lefties, feminists, excitable environmentalists and gay-libbers in the Church's senior ranks, but when a great many members of this particular political clique rise to positions of high authority, the longstanding and warmly tolerated tradition that the Church should be a home to wide variations in character and opinion among bishops and clergy will be eroded.

It is still possible that the women bishops policy will be defeated. The Church has to draft an actual bill in precise detail and this must receive two-thirds majorities in all three houses of the Synod. We are talking about three years before this vote and perhaps another three years of technical amendments after that before the first woman bishop is consecrated. A lot could happen to derail the policy in those six years.

But if, as seems likely, there will be women bishops in due course, then the Church will become a harsh and disagreeable place, over-feminised, out of balance, angry and inhospitable to anyone who will not toe the party line.