With respect, I think the Archbishop of Canterbury may have decided to leave the ranks of orthodox Christians. His recent statement (read about it here) seems to suggest that he has finally decided to admit that he cannot read the bible properly (nor can any male bishop or priest, without the company of a female cleric). Of course, he can't really mean that, surely? But what does he mean when he says that women bishops are needed to "humanize" the Church? Men, of course, are less than human - without women. Is this what he means? Is he talking about complementarity? Is he saying that men and women need each other to be complete? Well, that's fine, but does this mean that the priesthood is not sufficiently "humanised" unless we have both men and women bishops? Should we, in fact - wouldn't it be better to test-tube create some hermaphrodites and ordain them - then we would really be on the ball.
So, here we go again with what Americans might call "cockamamie theology". Sadly - and I do respect him in so many ways - I have seldom seen such twaddle. If pro-Catholic Anglicans do not come into the Ordinariate after this, when will they come?