That's just great. Bishop Williams rejects healthy, hetrosexual women as priests, but apparently is OK with an alcoholic, divorced, fornicating, homosexual male bishop.
Well, it's the Panel of Reference actually -- and they've not responded to other calls (yet).
No, Suzy... Bishop Williams neither rejects heterosexual women as priests, nor accepts alcoholic, divorced, homosexual bishops. Despite his previously held opinions (from before taking his current office), he has overseen the demand for repentance of the ECUSA for electing Bishop Vicky Gene Robinson; and he has merely affirmed the right of dioceses and parishes to dissent from his position that women should be ordained priests. He has not yet done anything about the ECUSA's defiance over Robinson, precisely because he is being consistent with his stance that each bishop has distinct apostolic authority. (Essentially, he has told ECUSA never to "do that again," but can't force them to rescind or annull Robinson's anointment.)
There's a branch of Anglicanism that strongly believes itself to be part of the apostolic, universal Church (the other "branches" of which are Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy). Neither of those other two accept, have ever accepted, or will ever accept women priests, so for someone to say that theologically one *must* accept them now is in essence saying Anglicanism is no longer part of apostolic Christianity.
To not admit even the theological possibility that the "conservatives" are right on this, is to say that the Church was wrong for 2000 years, which of course is nonsense. For Anglicanism to at all claim it has apostolic ties, it *has* to recognize the legitimacy of the position against women priests. Otherwise it become just another make-your-own-rules denomination.
I wonder how much this decision stemmed from the archbishop's recent meeting with Benedict XVI.
If I recall correctly, Mary Magdalen was first to witness the resurrected Christ.