Cranmer on Benedict

Pope Benedict XVI has been the most searing intellect to occupy the Chair of St Peter for at least a couple of centuries, and the vacuum he leaves will be immense. It was an enormous blessing to the Church that his pontificate coincided with the archepiscopacy of Rowan Williams: together they were theological giants in a sea of prelate pygmies.

See Cranmer: Who will be the next Pope?

Pope John Paul II was a pretty searing intellect too, but a philosopher rather than a theologian. I do agree with Cranmer's observation about the coincidence of Pope Benedict's and Archbishop Williams' reigns. Seeing them together, I sensed a certain warmth that was in part informed by their both being "professional theologians" as well as holders of ecclesiastical office. The idea of the Archbishop of Canterbury being a keynote speaker at the recent Synod of (Roman Catholic) Bishops would in other circumstances have been inconceivable; and Archbishop Williams made a significant contribution at the Synod.

A criterion: reflecting on the Synod vote (and other matters)

I have not followed the debate about women bishops that has taken place at the General Synod of the Church of England meeting in London. However, I have been very struck by the terms of much of the comment that has followed the votes that have stopped progress towards the introduction of female bishops for the Church of England. The sloppiness of media coverage that chooses to describe the three votes as a (single) vote against women bishops is worth noting. The figures for the votes in the three houses of the Synod cited by the BBC report put paid to this idea. A summary of print media comment is here.

It is, however, the characterisation of the decision of the Synod in relation to its responsiveness or otherwise to modern beliefs and feelings both within and without the Church of England that is very striking. It is striking because it is, so far as I can tell, an almost universal characterisation in the media. Indeed, the BBC report already cited suggests that Archbishop Rowan Williams has led the way in this characterisation:

 "Whatever the motivations for voting yesterday, whatever the theological principle on which people acted and spoke, the fact remains that a great deal of this discussion is not intelligible to our wider society - worse than that, it seems that we are wilfully blind to some of the trends and priorities in that wider society." 

The BBC report ends by citing the Equalities minister:

Equalities minister Maria Miller said the vote outcome was "very disappointing", and showed that the Church was "behind the times", sources said.

However, Archbishop Williams did go on to say (see the full transcript here), and the BBC does not report it, that:

We have, as the result of yesterday, undoubtedly lost a measure of credibility in our society, and I make that as an observation as objectively as I can; because it’s perfectly true, as was said yesterday, that the ultimate credibility of the Church does not depend on the good will of the wider public. We would not be Christians and believers in divine revelation if we held that; but the fact is as it is.

This report, also at the BBC website, indicates the positions being adopted by politicians in response to the General Synod vote, also manifesting the criterion of popular opinion as the source of right judgement on matters of Divine revelation:

Mr Cameron - who is a supporter of woman bishops - told MPs: "I'm very sad about the way the vote went yesterday.

"I think it's important for the Church of England to be a modern church in touch with society, as it is today, and this was a key step they needed to take."...

During Prime Minister's Questions Labour MP Ben Bradshaw asked David Cameron what parliament could do to "ensure that the overwhelming will of members of the Church of England, and of this country, is respected".

Archbishop Williams' qualification is important because its omission in much of today's reporting suggests that he accepts the criterion of judgement on this question according to which it is the present day supremacy of "Equalities" as a principle that is determinative. And he does not.

It is odd, though, that those whose responsibilities are not immediately religious - the media and politicians - have been so ready to comment on the outcome of the General Synod vote. But not surprising that the comment has followed a secular agenda that has not captured the essentially religious nature of the debate.

Additional comment on the media coverage and the implications of politcal comment: Disturbing prospects after Synod vote and BBC and Sky enraged by CoE democratic vote against allowing women bishops (though, as I suggest above, the vote was more a failure to muster enough votes in favour than it was a vote against).

General Audience: Pope Benedict XVI reflects on Vatican II

The Vatican Information Services report of this Wednesday's general audience, including a full translation of the Holy Father's address can be found here: Audience: Pope's personal memories of Vatican II.

Once again Pope Benedict cited John Paul II:

Blessed John Paul II, on the threshold of the third millennium, wrote: "I feel more than ever in duty bound to point to the Council as the great grace bestowed on the Church in the twentieth century: there we find a sure compass by which to take our bearings in the century now beginning" (Apostolic Letter. NMI, 57). I think this is telling. The documents of the Second Vatican Council, to which we must return freeing them from a mass of publications that often instead of making them known, have hidden them, are, for our time, a compass that allows the ship of the Church to set sail, in midst of storms or calm and quiet waters, to navigate safely and reach port.

No-one, be they traditionalist or liberal, should be in any doubt Pope Benedict's commitment in favour of the teaching of the Second Vatican Council. The added italics in the citation above are mine, and the words emphasised are in my view a rather diplomatic way of saying that not everything that claims to speak for the Council actually does so! And the analogy of the ship quite clearly sees the documents of the Council, not just as a point of departure that can now be disregarded as some would have us believe, but as the guide to which we must still refer in order that the Church can reach her destination.

Pope Benedict also cites Pope Paul VI's homily at the final session of the Council. Pope Paul

 .. affirmed that in order to properly asses this event, and I quote, "it is necessary to remember the time in which it was realized. In fact, the Pope says, it took place at a time in which, everyone admits man is orientated toward the conquest of the kingdom of earth rather than of that of heaven; a time in which forgetfulness of God has become habitual, and seems, quite wrongly, to be prompted by the progress of science; a time in which the fundamental act of the human person, more conscious now of himself and of his liberty, tends to pronounce in favor of his own absolute autonomy, in emancipation from every transcendent law; a time in which secularism seems the legitimate consequence of modern thought and the highest wisdom in the temporal ordering of society;... it was at such a time as this that our council was held to the honor of God, in the name of Christ and under the impulse of the Spirit". Thus said Paul VI. He concluded by indicating in the question of God the central focus of the Council, that God, I quote again, that " He is real, He lives, a personal, provident God, infinitely good; and not only good in Himself, but also immeasurably good to us. He will be recognized as Our Creator, our truth, our happiness; so much so that the effort to look on Him, and to center our heart in Him which we call contemplation, is the highest, the most perfect act of the spirit, the act which even today can and must be at the apex of all human activity".

This last sentence gives a clear indication of the theme of Archbishop Rowan Williams address to the Synod of Bishops, an address that is very well worth reading and I think will become one of the Synod highlights.

The Synod of Bishops

Today sees the first working day of the Synod of Bishops, on the theme of the New Evangelisation.

One of the recent innovations in the working of the Synod has been the publication of a regular (in the case of the present Synod it is due to be twice daily, or at necessity) bulletin. This enables the faithful who are so inclined to follow the events in the Synod as they happen.

The bulletin covering the morning session today is here.

An innovation particular to Pope Benedict's pontificate has been the period for "free interventions" by the Synod Fathers at the end of each working day. Summaries of these, and of the other interventions are due to appear in the Bulletin.

Interesting to note two of the outside speakers who will address the Synod Fathers. Archbishop Rowan Williams will give an Anglican view of the theme of the New Evangelisation; and the president of the Pontifical Academy of Science will address the Synod Fathers on the theme of science and faith.

The scene has been set today by the "REPORT BEFORE THE DISCUSSION BY THE GENERAL RELATOR, H. EM. CARD. DONALD WILLIAM WUERL, ARCHBISHOP OF WASHINGTON (USA)" - you will need scroll a good way down today's Bulletin to find it  -  from which I quote just a small section of a lengthy intervention:

The New Evangelization is not a program. It is a mode of thinking, seeing and acting. It is a lens through which we see the opportunities to proclaim the Gospel anew. It is also a recognition that the Holy Spirit continues actively to work in the Church.  

At its heart the New Evangelization is the reproposing of the encounter with the Risen Lord, his Gospel and his Church to those who no longer find the Church’s message engaging. I believe there are three distinct, but interrelated stages: 

a) the renewal or deepening of our faith both intellectually and affectively; (cf Instrumentum laboris n. 24, nn. 37-40, nn. 118-119, nn. 147-158)
b) a new confidence in the truth of our faith; (cf Instrumentum laboris n. 31, n. 41, n. 46, n. 49, n.120) and
c) a willingness to share it with others. (cf Instrumentum laboris n. 33-34, n. 81)

Ecumenical dialogue abandoned?

This is a bit of an "in passing" comment rather than a detailed analysis, (well perahaps a bit more detailed than originally intended) ....

This morning, I caught alongside my cereal a package on BBC Radio 4's Today programme in relation to the meeting of the Crown Nominations Committee that has just begun to decide on the successor to Archbishop Rowan Williams as Archbishop of Canterbury. A BBC report of the meeting, and of the possible candidates for the said See, can be found here: New Archbishop of Canterbury to be chosen.

It is intriguing to me that the video clip on the BBC website ends with a reference to the idea that a Bishop is a sign of unity and that, as far as the position of the Archbishop of Canterbury is concerned, that involves reaching out to Christians of other Churches. I think that one of the key features of the way in which Archbishop Williams approached his role was precisely one in which he saw himself as a minister to the unity of the Church of England itself. He therefore tried to promote compromises, compromises with a certain solidity, to maintain that unity. With hindsight, the extent of his success would appear to have been limited, something evidenced by the failure to achieve unity within the Church of England over matters of sexuality and Church order, and the coming of the Roman Catholic Ordinariates. I have felt for some time that, despite this failure in what one might call human terms, the fact that Archbishop Williams viewed his office in this way and thereby indicated that the Church of England had need of an office in favour of a universal unity, was something rich in ecclesial and ecumenical signficance.

One of the speakers in the discussion on the Today programme this morning was Christina Rees, a prominent member of the Synod of the Church of England who is, if I understand rightly, on the "liberal wing" of the Church of England. The discussion made reference to Archbishop Williams attempts to maintain the unity of the Church of England, but it was Christina Rees' particular contribution that she felt that it was now time to be making decisions in regards to matters like same sex relationships and women bishops, even if that did cause division, since it is not going to be possible to get everyone to agree about them.

On the Today programme this might present as being just a discussion of a politcal nature, albeit the politics being Church politics rather than the politics of secular government. But it does have a tremendous ecclesial import. In effect, Christina Rees was arguing that the next Archbishop of Canterbury should be someone who does not hold to the idea that unity, oneness, is a characteristic essential to the nature of the Christian Church. Whatever one might feel about the merits or effectiveness of Archbishop Williams particular attempts to maintain such a unity, he clearly did offer a clear witness to the idea that unity does matter for the Church of England and therefore for Christian Churches in general, and the ecclesial significance of that witness should perhaps be valued more by Roman Catholics than it has been. [Subject, of course, to the intrinsic difficulty presented by the idea of what "unity" means in an Anglican context.] The loss of such a witness in the Church of England would be very sad indeed.

As far as ecumenical dialogue is concerned, the Roman Catholic Church has always faced the problem that, in talking to the Church of England, she is talking to a range of different sections, and that it is not possible for any one section to speak for the whole. This is why I believe Roman Catholic-Anglican covenants at parish or diocesan level make such little sense, representing at face value a relation to an Anglican whole that does not really exist. The position advocated by Christina Rees on Radio 4 this morning is one that, though it was articulated internally to the Church of England, in effect abandons completely any last semblance of seriousness about ecumencial dialogue with other Christian denominations (because of its abandonment of any idea that unity is of the nature of Christianity), and it needs to be recognised as such.

Extra-judicial execution

President Obama says of the death of Osama bin Laden: "Justice has been done". Much comment refers to the death of Osama bin Laden as being justice achieved on behalf of those who died in the attacks on America on 11th September 2001, and in other terrorist attacks inspired by Al Quaeda.

The Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, is reported as having a "very uncomfortable feeling":

Dr Williams, asked about the death during a press briefing on Thursday, said: "I think the killing of an unarmed man is always going to leave a very uncomfortable feeling because it doesn't look as if justice is seen to be done.

"In those circumstances I think it's also true that the different versions of events that have emerged in recent days have not done a great deal to help.

"I don't know the full details any more than anyone else does. But I do believe that in such circumstances when we are faced with someone who was manifestly a war criminal in terms of the atrocities inflicted it is important that justice is seen to be served."

One might be very dissimulating and try to distinguish between the process leading to Osama bin Laden's death and the outcome, and suggest that the descriptor "justice" applies primarily to the outcome and that the process is of no significance. I really don't think that wears at all. Compare it to the following two rights contained in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

6. Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

10. Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

It is difficult to see the death of Osama bin Laden as it can be understood from news reports as being anything other than an execution.

It is difficult to see the processes leading up to the death of Osama bin Laden as involving a judicial process of any description at all.

Which makes it an extra-judicial execution. Whatever one's view of the evil perpetrated by the man and by those under his leadership, and whatever one might want to make of the outcome as being in itself "justice".

To use the form of words of the Archbishop of Canterbury, justice is something that needs to be seen as being done as well as being done.

According to the BBC news report cited above:

A spokesman for Archbishop Vincent Nichols, the head of the Catholic Church in England and Wales, said the Church would not be commenting on Bin Laden's death.

Protect the Pope reports on other relevant reaction that suggests that Christians have a duty of prayer for the souls of Osama bin Laden and of all of his victims. 

The Times 1st January 2011 (1)

On page 3, there is coverage of the reception of former Anglican bishops and religious into full communion with the Catholic Church, which has taken place today at Westminster Cathedral. In an "Analysis", Ruth Gledhill includes the observation:

It is almost as if the Catholic hierarchy is embarrassed by the prospect of mass defections. It is possible that they do not want to upset the established Church of England and particularly its Primate, the Archbishop of Canterbury, whom they esteem only slightly less than the Pope.

Apart from the unfriendly use of the word "defections", which gives an edge to these events that I do not believe any of the different stakeholders really share, this curious paragraph can be read at four different levels. It might be the outcome of the hazards of sub-editing. It might be the outcome of Ruth Gledhill's own interpretation of events, which interpretation might well be at variance with the actualite, as one might say. This second appears the most likely to me.

It might be trying to say that the Catholic bishops of England and Wales give an esteem to the office (in the sense of official position, status) of the Church of England's Archbishop of Canterbury only slightly less than they give to the office of the Papacy. If this is what it is trying to say, then it does of course need to be expressed with a very careful qualification. The nature of an esteem that would be given to the See of Canterbury by a Catholic bishop is not the same as the nature of the esteem that would be given to the See of Rome, though it might be in the same quantity; it's a bit like an apple and a pear having the same mass (sorry, I am a science teacher) but being still essentially different as the one is an apple and the other a pear.

Or it might be trying to say something about the esteem given to the incumbents of the two positions concerned, that is, the esteem given to their persons rather than to the offices that they hold. At this level, I for one am quite happy to give a good level of esteem to the Archbishop of Canterbury. As Ruth Gledhill also observes, perhaps with greater accuracy than in the observation quoted above, I think Rowan Williams has understood the position of the Archbishop of Canterbury as being a ministry of unity in the Anglican communion, and has acted in accord with that understanding at the cost of misunderstanding. I think this has an importance for ecumenical dialogue, lived out in the ordinary practice of the Church of England and therefore forming part of a "dialogue of life". I also appreciated how he stood by Pope Benedict XVI in the remarks he made welcoming Pope Benedict to Lambeth Palace, when, in the light of the media criticism of Pope Benedict, it would have been very easy to keep a certain distance. In addition, one of the books that has been in my possession from the earlier days of my building up a personal library is a collection of essays about the theology of Hans Urs von Balthasar. It contains an essay by one Rowan Williams, who was then Professor of Theology at the University of Oxford.

Arcbhishop Rowan Williams: context, context, context ....

Church in Ireland "has lost all its credibility"

This is a front page headline in the Times today, reporting remarks made by Rowan Williams, the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury. The headline refers to a BBC radio interview due to be broadcast on Monday, and the Church concerned is the Catholic Church in Ireland.

In the text of the report to which this is the headline, we read Archbishop Williams being quoted as follows (I have just heard the same quotation on BBC Radio 2, in an advance trail of Monday's interview during a news bulletin):

And in an institution so deeply bound into the life of a society suddenly becoming, suddenly losing all credibility - that's not just problem for the Church, it is a problem for everybody in Ireland.

Even this very limited context makes Archbishop Williams remarks sound rather different, and rather less of an attack on the Church, than the headline suggests.

According to another quotation of Archbishop Williams in the Times report, an Irish friend has told him that it is difficult in some parts of Ireland  to go down the street wearing a clerical collar. If this is a result of the media coverage .... On which note, read here: Why this is really happening.

Rowan and Benedict

Stella Maris has posted what I think is both a realistic and a charitable comment on the remarks of Archbishop Rowan Williams at a conference in Rome: The Desperate Archbishop. I found it interesting to re-read my post on dialogue of yesterday after reading Stella Maris' post. The Times report of Archbishop Williams remarks, made at a conference on ecumenism at the Pontifical Gregorian University, is here.

The characterisation by the Times report of the proposal for Anglican Ordinariates as being a proposal for a "Church within a Church" betrays a particular line on this question. Ruth Gledhill's commentary in the Times of Thursday urges Archbishop Williams to show some backbone in facing up to Pope Benedict (I don't think I am misrepresenting her in saying this, but do check the original here). I did chuckle away to myself for quite a few minutes the first time I read this paragraph:

If Benedict XVI has displayed something of his rottweiler tendencies, cloaked in the most decorative of chasubles, Dr Williams now needs to unleash his inner bulldog.

The model that Ruth Gledhill thinks Dr Williams should follow? Thomas Cromwell, Henry VIII's "Reformation enforcer" (Ruth's words).

Holding his hands up in helpless resignation while Rome walks off with his traditionalists is not going to earn the Church of England the respect that it deserves and that was hard won by the likes of Cromwell.

Assuming the Times is reporting him accurately, though, I think Dr Williams is correct to say that Anglicanorum coetibus does not offer anything new from an ecclesiological point of view - Ordinariates already exist within the Catholic Church to cater for a specific pastoral situation (pastoral care of military personnel), and there is no recognition of Anglican orders or independent decision making on doctrinal belief and practice.