TA reported earlier that a new bishop had been elected for the (Swedish Lutheran) Diocese of Stockholm.
Some procedural objections were raised, but earlier this week the election review board decided to reject these appeals.
At its meeting on Monday the Board received six complaints about the handling of the elections last April. It was argued that the election results, in which Eva Brunne got the most votes, were not accurate because of an ambiguity in the notice of the election which was not implemented uniformly across the diocese. But the Election Review Board says in summary that “the errors committed in connection with the election on April 21, 2009 are not reasonably likely to have affected the outcome of the elections”. They thus rejected the appeals, while criticising some parts of the electoral process.
Eva Brunne will now be consecrated as a bishop in Uppsala Cathedral on 8 November.
It will be interesting to see whom the UK Anglican churches send to this consecration. I believe that the C of E does not send bishops to join in the consecration of female bishops abroad because women can not yet be bishops back at home.
However, that does not apply to all the Anglican churches in the UK. I hope that international invitations are issued by the Church of Sweden to their Porvoo friends, and I look forward to learning which diocesan bishop of my own Scottish Episcopal Church goes to join in consecrating Bishop Eva.
Yes, Kelvin, I think we can be sure that my Lord of Gibraltar (who does not ordain women priests, let alone bishops) will not be present… One really wonders what being in “full communion” means sometimes!
It would seem that ecumenical acceptance of women bishops is less obvious in Europe than in some of our ex-colonial situations. When we welcomed our new female Anglican Bishop of Christchurch in New Zealand, even the local Roman Catholic Church was represented at her installation. Is this, do you think, a sign of our emancipation from the sexism of the Mother Church of England? If so, it may also be a reason for questioning the need for a less expansive ‘Covenant’ relationship.