I didn't say I wasn't interested in the process, just that I didn't care about the activities of the successful candidate as long as they don't impinge on my rights or harm others. I claim the right to post about any subject I choose.
There was an interesting prog earlier this year about how the Ab of C was a key mover behind the scenes in engineering the abdication of Q E;s uncle, back in the 30s. But cos we have no written constitution he had no direct power in the matter - but thought he should have because he would place the crown on the monarch's head. So he briefed behind the scenes and eventually told the ed of the Times that is was about time he broke the story, and which "spin" should be put on it. The public were largely behind the king.
Not an RC so not qualified to discuss Papal infallibility. The Archbishop isn't head of the world-wide Anglican Church. I think Canterbury has seniority as the oldest Archbishopric, not supremacy. It's a domestic appointment. And if it's of no interest, why raise it?
Past looking at domination of the seats of power by white males? I wish..... The Anglican church is supposed to be world-wide, so where are the representatives of other countries?
We have only had our Bishop here in Co. Durham for a year seems a pity if he moves on -he needs to win his spurs a bit more. I always thought that the path to Canterbury was Durham then York. I rather like the York man-not being a churchgoer I shouldn't have an opinion but he seems to say his mind and not pussyfoot around. Surely we are past looking at sex and colour of committees in the 21st century?
I don't really care what religious leaders do within their own domain - I just keep a wary eye on what they are up to in case they try to involve their own beliefs in legislation, although I do hate the influence of religion on the lives of vulnerable people.
Greatnan the committee which selects two names to put forward for the Archbishop is the same one that deals with Bishops. The only difference is that the two Archbishops would normally be on the committee but in this case, a lay chairperson is elected instead. Membership is restricted to people who are members of the CoE or 'closely associated' with it but that seems to me a reasonable form of discrimination. www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9591600/The-16-people-selecting-the-next-Archbishop-of-Canterbury.html
The list of possibles that I have seen still has John Sentamu, Archbishop of York, and born in Uganda as a front runner - that was just over a week ago though - has it changed since then?
Just to demonstrate how even-handed I am in my interest in religion! 15 bishops will meet to decide whose name goes forward to be rubber-stamped by the queen. There is , of course, no woman and no black person amongst them - in fact, the only 'foreigner' is from Wales. Should the world-wide Anglican communion not be better repesented in the process to choose the new leader?