Ruthie Gledhill is all abuzz (my bolds!):

Read on to learn about the London Anglican traditionalist priest who believes it would be better to ordain a shoplifter than a woman as a bishop.

For that and this headline I am indebted to Jane Kramer's interview with Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, in the latest New Yorker. Cathy Grossman has blogged it at USA Today.

The Archbishop of Canterbury told Kramer he wasn’t 'losing sleep' over the Anglican Ordinariate. 'I didn’t see it as an act of aggression,' he said, 'but I think it could have been handled in a better way.'…'How do you eat an elephant?' he said, when Kramer asked how he hoped to hold his church together.

He thought that with time, patience, and enough discussion within the Church you could temper the opposition to female bishops, despite the fact that three synods since 1994 have tried to address the issue, and the opposition remains intractable, she writes, adding that his friends call this 'Rowan’s Obama syndrome,' the persistence of a commendable but not very realistic belief in the power of reason to turn your enemies into allies.

'I’m eager to see women ordained [bishop],' he said, 'and at the same time very reluctant to see a decision made that will cost us some very, very valuable people. . . . There is something in that Catholic tradition, which is where I come from, which would be much poorer if we lost [them].'

She also interviewed Father Geoffrey Kirk, describing him as an 'unabashedly misogynist London vicar who is the national secretary of Forward in Faith.' Father Kirk told Kramer that for him, the tipping point was TEC's’ election of Katharine Jefferts Schori as their presiding bishop. He called it 'a fundamental scandal' and added, 'I think Mrs Jefferts Schori is a layperson. It’s not my doing. They decided.' He said that a shoplifter was 'more qualified, per se,' to be a bishop than a woman was, so long as the shoplifter didn’t say that shoplifting was good, or that he was a Marxist spreading the wealth around.

Heh heh heh.  Kudos to Fr. Kirk!  My kind of misogynist.   Obviously he has a sense of  humor, but feminists lack the ability to detect it.

There's more if you follow the link to the New Yorker article. Here's more Fr. Kirk:

“We claim to be part of the universal Catholic Church, and if you make that claim you cannot change what you inherit,” he told me. “If you change the nature of orders in one part of the Church, you deny the universality of orders.” Kirk will undoubtedly convert, and will work with his parishioners to convert with him. He discussed the subject of pastoral conversions with the Vatican two years ago, in conversations with the conservative Austrian cardinal Christoph Schoenborn. He was encouraged, he says, but not ready to concede the fight at home.

With this in mind, Kirk and the other Forward in Faith priests hedged their bets with the Vatican by making a marriage of convenience, or, in his words, “co-belligerency,” with their most conservative evangelical counterparts in the Church of England, including the charismatics—the British say “happy-clappies”—who prophesy and speak in tongues and otherwise bewilder their more traditional brethren. The understanding was that the evangelicals, as Biblical fundamentalists who consider homosexuality an abomination, would lead the fight against gay bishops, while the conservative Anglo-Catholics, as the fundamentalists of tradition, would do the same with women. They thought that together they could control the Synod. They were wrong.

* * *
Be sure to follow our Moderator at Eccentric Bliss, his personal blog!