It’s a pretty interesting article anyway.
I don’t think it’s going to lead to any change in Latin Rite celibacy; for one thing, these married clergy may be grandfathered in with no provision for married clergy in the future. Remember, Anglican clergy marry only because this was required by Henry VIII as a sign that they were no longer loyal to Rome. The Church in England did not have a married clergy before Henry VIII. (On the other hand, in the East, married clergy and celibate bishops have a long history.)
In fact, many Anglo Catholic priests in the 19th century opted for celibacy as they grew closer to Rome. So I think it is not as wonderful as this author makes it sound. And then there’s the problem with divorced and remarried Anglican clergy...
In any case, I didn’t understand the final observation about Rowan Williams.
The atheist group National Secular Society says: “Rowan Williams has failed dismally in his ambitions to avoid schism. His refusal to take a principled moral stand against bigotry has left his Church in tatters.”
They are referring to Williams’ confused attempts to find some middle ground on homosexuality. As if he could have held his church together by being even more pro-homosexual.
The archbishop is a surrender monkey; what’s to understand? The Romans have been doing quite well tactically, but the the surrender monkey status of the Anglican leader is just a happy coincidence, not a result of any nefarious plot. It’s an observation that he’s a simian of French tendencies, not a conclusion.