Supporters of the move argue it is illogical that women can become Church of England priests but not bishops.
Of course it's illogical. Likewise, the Times paraphrased the fellow who styles himself the Archbishop of York, who got it right about the consistency of women "bishops" with the faith of their "church":
Dr Sentamu called for the Synod to "welcome and affirm" the view of the majority of the House of Bishops that admitting women to the episcopate was consistent with the faith of the church
When one's faith was founded upon political expediency, it's totally consistent.
I've always stood prepared to say, to those close to me who are members of the Episcopalian sect, that I believe every woman ordained a priest or bishop is just as much a priest or bishop as they would be if they were men. Which is true (as I think I've said before), neither are so in any way.
What remains to be seen (again, as I said just a couple of weeks ago) is what the Catholic Bishops of England and Wales will do in response to this synod; i.e., will they send their carefully-worded congratulations, via the farcical ARCIC to Rowan Williams on his communion's latest small step towards apostacy, or will they sieze the opportunity to invite the few traditional Christians among the Anglican sect back into Holy Mother Church?
BTW, A friend pointed me to my fellow Evil Trad, Athanasius, who has the latest scuttlebutt that he's picked up about new FSSP Superior, Rev. John Berg. Athanasius, I apologize for having not picked you up on my blogroll sooner.