An aside on the Church of England

 Danny Kruger MP recently spoke in a House of Commons adjournment debate on the future of the Church of England. The record of his speech, two interventions from Andrew Rosindell MP and the response of Jim McMahon MP (Minister for Local Government and English Devolution) can be found in the Hansard Record: Future of the Church of England.

It is of interest to read the content of this debate alongside Pope Benedict XVI's speech in Westminster Hall during his visit to the United Kingdom in 2010, and to read Danny Kruger's own account of the position of the Church of England in the light of the more nuanced presentation of Jim McMahon in his reply to the debate.

In considering the place of the Church of England parish in the life of a local community, Danny Kruger suggests that everyone living within the territory of their local parish is a member of that parish even if they do not enter the church or believe its doctrine:

Even if you never set foot in your church from one year to the next, and even if you do not believe in its teachings, it is your church and you are its member.

The observations of Andrew Rosindell and Jim McMahon in considering the place of the parish in community life are more nuanced. 

It is not just about the church community, the members of the church; it has a wider responsibility to all people of all religions and no religion, not just Church of England members. The Church of England should cherish the importance of the parish as a part of all our communities in the constituencies we represent. 

Where Danny Kruger argues that:

Without the Christian God, in whose teaching these things [freedom, tolerance, individual dignity and human rights] have their source, these are inventions—mere non-existent aspirations.

Pope Benedict suggests that: 

The Catholic tradition maintains that the objective norms governing right action are accessible to reason, prescinding from the content of revelation. According to this understanding, the role of religion in political debate is not so much to supply these norms, as if they could not be known by non-believers – still less to propose concrete political solutions, which would lie altogether outside the competence of religion – but rather to help purify and shed light upon the application of reason to the discovery of objective moral principles.

The Church of England undoubtedly has a particular place in both the national and local life of the nation, rooted not only in its being the established Church of the nation, but also because its make up gives it a particular genius for a presence in civic life. This can be seen in play at commemorations such as Remembrance Sunday, and the way in which they are marked both nationally and locally. Though it was not always so - think of the persecution of Roman Catholics at the time of the Reformation - it has also developed that paradoxical protecting of other religious beliefs under the framework of the established religion.

 I cannot help but feel, however, that Danny Kruger's account of the place of the Church of England in the life of the nation combines what at one time would have been described as Erastianism with a presumption for ethical stances that really need a more reasoned defence. It has a tinge of ideology (in a technical sense) about it that will detract from its ability to influence.

All the Cathedrals (11): Truro

Zero and I have just returned from a visit to Cornwall, where we stayed in what is very much Daphne du Maurier country. We stayed in the village of Tywardreath, which featured in the du Maurier novel that Zero was reading (The King's General), just a 5 minute drive from Menabilly, where Daphne du Maurier lived for many years, and which recognisably features in both The King's General and in My Cousin Rachel, which I started reading during our time away.

On one of our days, we visited Truro Cathedral, which is sharply distinguished from our earlier Cathedral visits by the fact that it was built relatively recently - that is, in Victorian times. The typical story of a (Norman) monastic house dissolved by Henry VIII's commisioners to become a diocesan cathedral with chapter, subsequent despoliation by Parliamentary forces during the Civil War, and then restoration and (Victorian) repairs, is therefore absent. That having been said, the Gothic style and layout does echo the style and layout of those much older Cathedrals, as does its city centre location, something that our guide suggested was the result of a deliberate attempt to imitate that tradition of cathedral building. The history of the building of the Cathedral can be accessed from this page on the Cathedral website: History. 

One of the best features of the Cathedral is the reredos behind the high altar. The best online pictures of this I can find are at this blog post - you can enlarge the photographs there by clicking on them. The reredos is very striking, and you can see in it an idea of portraying key moments in salvation history, with Old Testament types of Christ's sacrifice in Calvary, and Eucharistic representations such as the gathering of the manna in the desert.

Another feature of note is the very extensive stained glass. An outline of the themes of the stained glass can be found on the Cathedral website: Stained Glass Windows. A much more detailed account of the planning of the windows, and pictures and exploration of each window can be found in the links from this page (though you might like to jump straight to this page to find links to accounts of the windows themselves).  In some ways, it is the last windows in the order, on the left as you face the high altar from the end of the nave, that allow the visitor to appreciate the one of the intentions of the whole. They show such figures as Queen Victoria, John Keble, Bishop Butler, Richard Hooker, and Lancelot Andrewes - that is, figures that represent the history of the Anglican Church with a specific reference to the High Church tradition in that Church. A Catholic is struck by a certain incongruity in seeing representations of the medieval saints such as Bernard and Francis, the Tudor humanists Thomas More, Dean Colet and Erasmus and key figures of the Reformation such as Wycliffe, Cranmer and Coverdale. Along with the intention to show the history of the Church in England, there is an implied assertion that the Anglican Church of today lies in a continuity with the Church of the medieval times and the times of the Fathers.

So Truro Cathedral is a very different visit than our previous visits to Cathedrals.

The Church: "catholic" or "inclusive"?

At the time of posting, gay activists within the Church of England are calling for "a way forward to greater inclusion" that will allow those parishes that wish to do so to celebrate same sex marriages in Church. It follows the reporting of Bishop Nicholas Chamberlain's long term and committed gay relationship, a relationship that is celibate; and the response of Gafcon that his appointment was a "major error".

There is a first difficulty in the use of the word "inclusive" here. The word can have two distinct senses, and, typically for the debate about LGBT issues, the word is used in the letter to the Times in a way that does not distinguish between the two senses. The outcome of this failure to distinguish is an unjustified presumption that "inclusion", poorly defined, should become a characteristic of the life and practice of the Church.

If the object of the term "inclusive" is persons, then one can quite rightly say that the Church should have an openness to everyone, as persons, regardless of their origins or lifestyles. Pope Francis' use of the term "accompaniment" expresses something of this idea.

If the object of the term "inclusive" is the teaching of the Church on matters of marriage and sexuality, then it is quite another matter. And the meaning is quite different. It is the assimilation of this second sense to the first sense in the common sensibility of both Christians and others that is the unfortunate, and, I suspect, intended consequence of failure to distinguish between the two senses on the part of pro-gay advocates.

A first reflection, from the point of view of Christian life, arises from the moment of Baptism, the Sacrament by which a person becomes a member of the Church. The Baptismal profession of faith expresses a turning away from sin and a turning towards the person of Christ, a conversion of life. That call to a conversion of life asks those who enter the Church to live a changed life, not just at the temporal moment of Baptism but existentially in the subsequent living of the Christian life. Each individual might face that call in a different specific manner, and so the specificity of that call experienced by a person who identifies as LGBT will differ from the specificity of the call for a person who has, say, pursued a life of crime.

A second reflection arises from considering whether or not the Church should use the term "inclusive" to describe its nature. According to the Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, n.166:

The Church is catholic, that is universal, insofar as Christ is present in her: "Where there is Christ Jesus, there is the Catholic Church " (Saint Ignatius of Antioch). The Church proclaims the fullness and the totality of the faith; she bears and administers the fullness of the means of salvation; she is sent out by Christ on a mission to the whole of the human race.

This is more fully developed in the corresponding paragraphs of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, nn. 830-831:

Secondly, the Church is catholic because she has been sent out by Christ on a mission to the whole of the human race:

All men are called to belong to the new People of God. This People, therefore, while remaining one and only one, is to be spread throughout the whole world and to all ages in order that the design of God's will may be fulfilled: he made human nature one in the beginning and has decreed that all his children who were scattered should be finally gathered together as one.... the character of universality which adorns the People of God is a gift from the Lord himself whereby the Catholic Church ceaselessly and efficaciously seeks for the return of all humanity and all its goods, under Christ the Head in the unity of his Spirit.

It is clear, I think, that the Church describes herself as "catholic" or "universal", and does not use the term "inclusive" to describe her own nature.  I would suggest that, in responding to the misguided claim in favour of an "inclusive" Church, we should instead respond with an account of the catholic, or universal, nature of the Church.

Female bishops: ..even more nonsense

While Parliamentarians continue to speak what, at least in the BBC reporting, is theological nonsense as far as the debate about female bishops is concerned, but what politically speaking might lead to most unhelpful consequences:

Ms Johnson said it was vital that the Church "is led by the very best, not just those who happen to be male".

"There should be no stained-glass ceiling for women in our church," she told MPs.

"The Church of England now stands to be left behind by the society it seeks to serve, looking outdated, irrelevant, and frankly eccentric by this decision.

"A broad church is being held to ransom by a few narrow minds."

Ms Laing added: "When the decision-making body of the established church deliberately sets itself against the general principles of the society which it represents then its position as the established church must be called into question."

This was "a perfectly good point", Mr Baldry replied.

"What has happened as a consequence of the decision by general synod is the Church of England no longer looks like a national church, it simply looks like a sect like any other sect," he continued.

"If the Church of England wants to be a national church, then it has to reflect the values of the nation."

.....Aunty rather got to the point:

I do not accept the theological thinking behind the "men are meant to be leaders, women not" idea, since women can certainly lead and teach. Priesthood is different from that, and it is this precise thing, the priesthood, that has not been fully explored and grasped.

The problem is that much of what is being said at large about the Church of England in this context can all too easily be extended to public discussion with regard to any other religious body - the references to "narrow minds" and to a Church which is expected to represent society, for example. And the consequences? Cranmer flags up a most immediate one here, and summarises the situation:

Forget the need to find a solution that might be acceptable to everyone: this is now the raw politics of power.

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).

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.

A Royal Wedding

I have not followed the build up to the wedding of William and Kate very much at all.

With the result that I was rather stunned by the enthusiasm that it has generated, and that has been shown on the streets of London during the last 48 hours. I listened to the coverage on Radio 4, and found it all thoroughly gripping. The whole event was quite amazing.

I did gain the impression that the couple have taken the religious dimension of their marriage seriously, within its wider social and political contexts. Kate is reported to have been prepared for, and to have recieved, confirmation in the Church of England ahead of the "big day". The fact that the couple wrote a prayer for the day, too, suggests to me that there has been a religious preparation for the day. This is from today's order of service:

Dearly beloved, we are gathered here in the sight of God and in the face of this congregation, to join together this man and this woman in Holy Matrimony; which is an honourable estate, instituted of God himself, signifying unto us the mystical union that is betwixt Christ and his Church ...

... it was ordained for the increase of mankind according to the will of God, and that children might be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and to the praise of his holy name.

Secondly, it was ordained in order that the natural instincts and affections, implanted by God, should be hallowed and directed aright; that those who are called of God to this holy estate, should continue therein in pureness of living.

Thirdly, it was ordained for the mutual society, help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity.

I think the response of ordinary people - and, if the Radio 4 coverage is anything to go by, it was people of all ages and backgrounds who turned out in the centre of London today - also prompts a reflection on what it is that makes up a sense of nationhood. Edith Stein reflects on how the person of a monarch (or leader of a state) expresses in their own person something of the "personhood" that might belong to the unity of the people as a whole. The way in which today's Royal Wedding brought people together manifests in some way how the monarchy does express something of the nationhood of the British people, and not just in Britain itself. The number of visitors from overseas who Radio 4 presenters met on the streets of London today shows how the monarchy also represents British nationhood overseas.

Archbishop Sentamu comments on the Ordinariate

During an appearance on Radio 2's Good Morning Sunday programme on Easter Sunday, Archbishop Sentamu, the Anglican Archbishop of York was asked about his response to the numbers leaving the Church of England to join the Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham. He was asked if this was a cause for concern. For the next six days, the programme can be heard again on the BBC's i-player: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b010g9j3. The relevant section of the programme occurs shortly after the 1:46:00 point.

At one level, Archbishop Sentamu's comment is welcome in that it did not display antagonism towards those who are leaving the Church of England for the Roman Catholic Church. Indeed, it displayed a generous appreciation of the contribution made to the Church of England by those who are now joining the Roman Catholic Church.

At a deeper level, though, his response becomes more problematical. There were two or three different strands in his reponse, each of which raises its own problem. Fundamentally, though, I felt that it indicated a real indifference as to whether or not one belonged to one Christian denomination or another. That indifferentism is problematical to those leaving the Church of England for the Roman Catholic Church - for them it really does matter to be in communion with the Holy See and so denomination does matter - and problematical for ecumenical dialogue with the Roman Catholic Church - indifference to denominational affiliation is an inadequate basis for any realistic dialogue.

One strand is reflected in Archbishop Sentamu's suggestion that those leaving the Church of England could be compared to children who have grown up and are now leaving their family, and finding a better home elsewhere. Another strand is also reflected in his observation that if those leaving were to know Jesus more and know him as their Lord and Saviour in the Roman Catholic Church then it didn't really matter: "good luck to them, and God bless them". This strand indicates a lack of any real ecclesial sense, which feeds the indifference to denominational affiliation.

Archbishop Sentamu also referred to people leaving the Catholic Church to join the Church of England, and to seek ordination in the Church of England, something that the Church of England does not publicise. "I have baptised and confirmed people coming the other way who were never baptised in their own churches. And occasionally you get people wanting to join the ordained ministry of the Church of England". The question this raises from the Catholic point of view is whether there really is an equivalence of moving "one way" to moving "the other way". For Archbishop Sentamu, it is easy to see an equivalence in the two directions of movement. But will Roman Catholics see an equivalence? There is not a symmetry of understanding. There seems to me a real difference between non-practicing Catholics joining the Church of England and very much practicing Anglicans joining the Roman Catholic Church.

At the end of his interview, Archbishop Sentamu observes in effect that the Church of England is still part of the "one, holy, catholic and apostolic church". I am not sure how comfortably this fits with his evangelical notion of closeness to Jesus Christ and indifference to denominational affiliation expressed earlier in the interview.

But the saddest points arising from my reflection on this interview are that (1) it suggests there is no real possibility of a genuine ecumenical dialogue between the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church and (2) there is a real sense that the highest authorities in the Church of England do not feel that they have anything to pause and reflect upon in terms of ecclesiastical polity as a result of the establishing of the Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham.

Why I shall stand firm ...

.. in the Anglican catholic tradition" is the heading of the Credo column in yesterday's Times newspaper. It was written (the column, that is, not necessarily the headline) by Rt Rev Geoffrey Rowell, the Anglican Bishop of Gibraltar in Europe. It is a very articulate explanation of why an Anglo-Catholic might wish to remain in the Church of England after the double impact of the prospective ordination of women as bishops in the Church of England and the establishment of the Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham in the Roman Catholic Church. It is of interest because it argues from theological principle and does not speak at the political level of "staying and continuing the fight". It is also an extremely courteous article in every respect.

I was interested to read how Bishop Rowell understands the departure of five Anglican bishops to join the Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham, and therefore how he understands the idea of the ordinariate itself. He writes of

..the ordinariate set up by Pope Benedict for Anglicans who wish to give priority to the quest for unity and reconciliation between Anglicans and Roman Catholics, which Anglicans as a whole had welcomed warmly in the days of Archbishop Michael Ramsey..

Bishop Rowell views the welcoming of Anglican patrimony in the ordinariate as an affirmation of the work of the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission and a challenge to Anglicans to identify exactly what that patrimony is and was. He goes on to suggest that the Anglican Covenant (and the Declaration of Assent required of Church of England clergy - see foot of the page linked) defines the nature of Anglicanism and that it is never a matter of an "anything goes" idea of Anglicanism. In essence, it is suggesting that the Anglican Communion is a part of the wider, universal Church of God expressed in different ecclesial bodies. It is very cogently argued, but there is a distinct feel that it is about giving a Catholic interpretation to something that would equally bear a Protestant interpretation. It is classical Anglo-Catholicism in the tradition of the Tractarian movement, with the plea that goes with that:

Ever since [the English Reformation] Anglicans have held that those ordained as bishops, priests and deacons, are ordained as bishops, priests and deacons of the Church of God. Change in that ordering of ministry is therefore a matter not just for the Church of England or the Anglican Communion but for all those Churches who claim to share that ministry. Developments in faith and order need this wider reference.

Towards the end of his article, Bishop Rowell gives an account of a meeting in November last with Pope Benedict XVI.

At the end of November I was privileged to have an audience with Pope Benedict, and was able to say to him that, as an Anglican bishop, standing in the catholic Anglican tradition, I - with others - wished to continue to witness to the catholic identity of Anglicanism, and received his encouragement to do so.

It would be something quite interesting if, in a kind of mirror to the beginning of the Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham, there were to be a renewed witness to the catholic tradition within the Church of England. Clearly, in the historical context, this should be looked for at the level of charisms, the level of testimony, rather than that of the structures of the Church of England. Such a witness would be an impulse towards unity and it is this that enables us to understand why, in addition to his natural courtesy, Pope Benedict gave the encouragement to Bishop Rowell that he did.

The public sector and the C of E

"The public sector" - this is a term that generally refers to areas of work where the employer is either directly, or a little indirectly, the government. Typically it exists in three forms - central government departments, local authority services, and and organisations like schools and the National Health Service that are funded by the government.

Today's Times has several pages devoted to "The Public Sector".

Intriguing to see that these pages include a feature about the ordination of women bishops in the Church of England headlined: Are women bishops a good idea?

Is being the "established Church" really the same as being part of the "Public Sector"?

Ebbsfleet on Synod, Anglicanorum Coetibus and the Papal Visit

The Bishop of Ebbsfleet, Andrew Burnham, is one of the three Pastoral Episcopal Visitors who have care of Church of England parishes that do not accept the ministry of women clergy; colloquially he is a "flying bishop". It is interesting that he writes a monthly pastoral letter to the people in his care, though this is clearly something that suits the situation of a bishop whose pastoral oversight is geographically widespread and for specific communities among the broader spectrum of Church of England parishes. I wonder if we would not benefit from Roman Catholic bishops doing the same...

Since the July votes of the General Synod with regard to the admission of women as bishops in the Church of England, Bishop Andrew has begun a series of three pastoral letters reflecting on the situation of Anglo-Catholics within the Church of England. The August letter was the first, the September letter has just been published and the October letter is still to come.

For Roman Catholic readers, I think that the September letter provides a very informative account of, and insight in to, the position of the Catholic wing of the Church of England at the present time. Do read the whole. There are a three rather lively points tucked away in the text. The first of these is an aside, whose brackets I retain below:

(It is hard to build a Catholic ecclesiology, incidentally, on a system which allows priests and deacons to vote down the attempts of archbishops and bishops in areas of Faith and Order. Are the procedures of General Synod in any sense ‘Catholic’?)

Quite, and, one wonders whether or not this is really the core question, the question of authority with regard to the substance of belief and practice.

It is only in his last paragraph that Bishop Andrew Burnham refers to Anglicanorum Coetibus, and it is interesting to see how he understands the offer of Anglican ordinariates in the present situation of the Church of England:

Some of you will now be asking why I am picking at the carcase rather than just declaring it dead and moving on to embrace the offer of Pope Benedict XVI to Anglicans in Anglicanorum cœtibus. The Pope’s offer is not a bargain basement sale. It isn’t ‘clearance’ or ‘end of roll’ or ‘while stocks last’. Nor is it a rescue plan for shipwrecked Anglo-catholics. It is a way of pursuing the ecumenical journey to which we have been committed for a very long time and it must be considered in its own right. That I propose to do in a third Pastoral Letter in October, the third in a series of letters.

I must admit to liking the turn of phrase "clearance", "end of roll" etc, and am very comfortable with the thought of Bishop Andrew expressing thinsgs in this way; I suspect that some Roman Catholics might think it a bit off hand. I do think that Bishop Andrew is absolutely right to separate the question of an ordinariate from that of departure from the Church of England prompted by decisions with regard to the question of women bishops (or with regard to any other specific, single issue, for that matter). From the Roman Catholic side, I think it is quite wrong to be looking forward to the establishment of an ordinariate simply in response to the ordination of women in the Church of England, and therefore to the welcoming at some point in the next one or two years of an "influx" of former Anglicans into the Roman Catholic Church. Some media comment has referred to former Anglicans "joining" an ordinariate - but that, too, is not the situation. There is first of all the possibility of several ordinariates, and in the second place such ordinariates have to be set up as the former Anglican community enters the Roman Catholic Church.

The third lively point is also in the last paragraph of the letter, and it suggests a most interesting implication of the forthcoming visit of Pope Benedict XVI to Britain:

Meanwhile I think we continue to pray, reflect, and rest, and, of course, ponder and reflect during the visit of the Pope to England later in September, what we should now do, each one of us. Most of all, as the Holy Father comes among us as the leader of the Christian family, we pray for the coming of the Kingdom and the triumph of the Gospel over the forces of evil and indifference.

H/T Luke Coppen.

A modern Catholic dilemma?

This is the title of a thoughtful post at Stella Maris, written in response to A modern Anglican dilemma.

I have always felt uncomfortable with the idea that there are different "models of the Church", always preferring the thought that there are a number of different ways in which we talk about the Church (People of God being one among them), each of which can draw our attention to a different aspect of the one reality that is the Church. The full picture is achieved by holding in balance all these different ways of talking - or, in the context of Stella Maris' post, by including the chapter from Vatican II's Lumen Gentium on the hierarchical nature of the Church as well as that on the people of God in our living of the Catholic faith.

Miscellany - or WWND?

Recent events at the General Synod of the Church of England have provoked a range of responses, directly or indirectly, and this miscellany is made up from them.

From Stella Maris post The Church of England. How long will it last?

As long as the Anglican Church insists on women bishops there is no chance of unity with the Roman Catholic Church or with the Orthodox. The inevitable responses to this from pro-women priest Catholics is just fantasy-speak....This is compromise, pure and simple, but the cosy "Christianity-lite" of liberal Anglicanism will not survive either. What a waste of blood, sweat and tears, bricks and mortar.

The reference to pro-women priest Catholics leads me to Tigerish Waters post Ooh you've got an 'ology:

We sometimes forget that we are already one (a very broken one) through our baptism with our separated brethren. A crisis in an ecclesial community knocks at the heart of our faith and will cause ripples throughout the Christian world. There are just too many Catholics who are itching to see women in the priesthood and anyone who contradicts this hasn't been near most provincial Catholic churches with congregations with an average age over 50.

It is all reflected in the comment at Stella Maris post - ordaining women as priests and bishops is the answer to the wrong question. It answers a question about women's rights and equality. But the question for the Christian, be they Catholic or otherwise is a different question. It is what does Christ want for his Church? 


Now the rumour is that the Holy See will issue during the coming months a document which explicitly identifies the attempted ordination of women as one of the most grave offences. The spin is that doing this will liken such attempted ordinations of women to child abuse by priests and religious - which is not the case, since in the two cases the gravity of the offence arises from quite different considerations. But it will make clear just how serious an offence against the unity of the Church - and this is why it is considered such a grave offence - attempts to ordain women are. Incidentally, the illicit ordinations in the Society of St Pius X attracted the penalty of excommunication, again expressing just how seriously an offence against the unity of the Church is to be understood.


Those Catholics who, in Tigerish Waters phrase, are "itching to see women in the priesthood" are living in a world of "fantasy-speak", but they live in such a world and are considered credible as proponents of a Catholic position.  A good few Catholics could do with a much greater understanding of the implications of questions 11-17 of the Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church , which would give them the clarity of mind to resist the temptation of the feminist projection of the wrong question onto the core of Catholic belief. The fact that, as Tigerish Waters says, there are so many Catholics who appear to lack any real sense of ecclesial judgement about questions like this is worrying.


Now, William Oddie's comment on the Catholic Herald website, which seems to see in the General Synod vote a kind of starting gun for the establishing of an Anglican Ordinariate, is a bit off the real pace on this question. That the Church of England does not appear to want its traditional/Anglo-Catholic members, and so those members might move to an Ordinariate in the Roman Catholic Church ... such a sociological (so very Anglican) notion of an Ordinariate is indeed to completely misunderstand what an Ordinariate might be. Indeed, I think the Bishop of Richborough recognised quite early on that an Ordinariate could not simply be a destination for those unhappy with the ordination of women bishops in the Church of England; it has to represent something much more than this. The Bishop of Ebbsfleet offers a better, and more cautious, analysis in his August pastoral letter, and one can usefully re-read his February pastoral letter.


But, in the year of his beatification, I end by asking: WWND? What would Newman do? I expect he would still take the road of individual conversion. Would the establishment of a new religious order, made up of former members of the Anglican Societas Sanctae Crucis, be a contemporary equivalent to Newman's founding of the Oratory in England?


And WWND about all those Catholics who think women priests and bishops are a good idea? If his chapter on "Christianity and Scientific Investigation" in The Idea of a University is anything to go by, he might well just let error have enough rope to hang itself. But the same chapter also expresses a great anxiety that the weak in faith should not be scandalised. So whilst he might, in the realm of ideas, leave the notion of women priests and bishops to fall by the wayside of ecclesial life of its own accord, I think he would speak out against those campaigning in the media and in parishes in favour of such "innovation".

Anglican contrasts

This weekend has seen the vote in the Church of England Synod that may prove decisive for many in that church's Catholic wing. Narrowly, a compromise provision that would have allowed some sort of place for those opposed to the ordination of women as bishops was defeated.

Within the last ten days I have, by accident of circumstances and not by any deliberate intention, encountered directly the contrast between the liberal and the Catholic aspects of the Church of England. That both encounters took place at locations within a mile of each other just makes the contrast more poignant.

The first encounter was at an Anglican celebration of baptism, confirmation and holy communion. I had been invited by a neighbour who was being confirmed. In his homily, the celebrant (Rt Rev Keith Newton, Bishop of Richborough) spoke strongly, and with a conviction that would have done a Roman Catholic priest proud, about the real presence of Jesus in the eucharistic species. His prompt was the occasions when he saw notices in Church of England parishes during the swine flu scare that "the wine would not be given". After the words of consecration, it is no longer bread and wine, but the body and blood of Jesus Christ! My exclamation marks here are an attempt to reflect the emphasis communicated by the celebrant's body language as he emphasized this point. And then emphasized it again.

The second encounter was part of a session on care for patients of different faiths in a hospital context. At one point an Anglican priest was talking about the distinction between Sunni and Shia traditions in Islam, and the hostility that exists between them. This he could not understand; but he drew a comparison to the persecutions that existed between different Christian denominations at the time of the Reformation. For him it was a nonsense that Christians should have killed each other over the question of whether or not it was the body and blood of Christ or just bread and wine. One might want to agree that killing each other over questions of doctrine is now, with the benefit of hindsight, a matter of some regret. But the suggestion implied here that the question of belief or not in the real presence of Jesus Christ as the Eucharist doesn't matter ... that is doctrinal indifferentism of the highest order. For those on the Roman Catholic side who died rather than renounce their faith in the doctrine of the Eucharist and in the unity of the Church, the difference really did matter.

The challenge being posed by the ordination of women as bishops in the Church of England is not unrelated to this question about the real presence; the same challenge was posed by the ordination of women as priests, though that challenge could be averted for traditionalists in some degree by the provision of alternative episcopal oversight for those Anglican parishes that did not accept the ministry of women priests. Both questions have their roots in how priesthood, and therefore the Church, is understood.

Whether the events at the General Synod bring nearer the creation of an Ordinariate under the provisions of Anglicanorum Coetibus has yet to be seen. They do perhaps call on us to renew the commitment of prayer on behalf of those who now have to discern their way forward in this situation.

PS. A wake up call can be found here.

Attempts for unity in the Church of England?

There is one aspect of Archbishop Rowan Williams ministry as Archbishop of Canterbury that I have found interesting over the last few years. I believe that he considers his ministry as being one for unity, for the achievement of unity within the Anglican Communion. He is, of course, doing it in a very Anglican way. But I still find interesting the implicit recognition that the Anglican Communion needs in some way a minstry of unity, albeit one that is not accepted by everyone, rather than one of presiding over ever increasing difference.

Stella Maris post The Arcbhishops' Offer, in response to the attempt by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York to resolve a problem over the ordination of bishops in the Church of England, does bring to light the fundamental inadequacy of this very Anglican exercise.

(Anglican) Catholics or (Catholic) Anglicans?

The blog of the Oxford University Newman Society reports a visit to speak by the Anglican Bishop of Ebbsfleet, one of the "flying bishops" responsible for the care of Anglican parishes that do not accept the ministry of women priests. This does make interesting reading. One wonders whether such an event would have taken place before Anglicanorum Coetibus, and can recognise that the said Apostolic Constitution has made possible a greater openness in the relationship between Catholic minded Anglicans and the Roman Catholic Church. Bishop Burnham, for example, appears to have spoken about an "Anglo-Papalist" position that had as its intent working within the Church of England to work towards the unification of the Church of England with the Holy See.

But the post on the Newman Society blog appears to recognise some of the difficulties with the idea of establishing an Anglican Ordinariate in England. The first is whether or not there is a sufficiently single identity among Anglo-Catholics to represent a corporate body that could be the basis of an Ordinariate. Bishop Burnham has seen it as part of his task to promote this unity in his work with parishes under his care; and the blog post's use of the word "idiosyncratic" (I assume taken from the discussion at their meeting - corrections in the comment box if I have misunderstood this) indicates something of the challenge of this. The second, and not unconnected difficulty, is that of identifying an Anglican patrimony that would be distinctive to the Ordinariate. As Bishop Burnham appears to have pointed out, many of the parishes under his care are already using the 1970 Roman Missal (and a pastoral letter on the Ebbsfleet website makes reference to "new texts" appearing, presumably a reference to the new English translations). The third difficulty emerges implicitly in Bishop Burnham's remarks. He observes that it would be typical of the parishes under his care for someone, if they could not attend their usual service on a Sunday, to not go to Church at all. The understanding of ecclesial communion that this reflects is not necessarily that which would be intended in establishing an Anglican Ordinariate. It is, so far as I can see, a question of whether the Ordinariate is seen by its potential members as a Catholic version of the "flying bishops" model, to be taken up if the Church of England does not make an acceptable provision to cope with women bishops; or whether it is seen as a genuine communion with the Holy See and with those other dioceses in communion with the Holy See.  This is a question going back to the intentions of what Bishop Burnham called the "Anglo-Papalist" position in the Church of England. The idea of an Ordinariate creates a possibility of a partial fulfilment of this intention through elements of corporate reunion, but it would be quite wrong to see such a partial fulfilment as an establishing of an "Anglo-Papalist" Ordinariate that can, in some way, keep its Anglican idea of ecclesial communion, what one might call a Catholic Anglicanism.

Whilst it is certainly appropriate to be welcoming towards those like Bishop Burnham who are considering their positions within the Church of England, and the invitation to speak to the Oxford University Newman Society is a good example of this in practice, I think it is important to recognise that an Anglican Ordinariate is about (Anglican) Catholicism and not (Catholic) Anglicanism.

Newman and Anglicanorum Coetibus

The Newman Cause website has posted what is, in essence, a response to the Tablet's recent editorial  about the Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum coetibus. Those who have seen my earlier posts (here, here, here and here) on this subject will realise that I have reservations about the provisions of the Apostolic Constitution. To an extent, these reservations are about the substance of the provisions themselves; but I feel they are more fundamentally about how the provisions might work themselves out in the reality of how Anglican groupings respond to them.

The Newman Cause post takes issue with the Tablet's view that Anglicans should feel, and perhaps be made to feel, a sense of "conversion" in being received into the Roman Catholic Church, a sense of rejection of their past. Rather, the post suggests, the Anglican experience is more like that of Newman himself, who had no sense of leaving behind anything from his Anglican life. Instead, what happens is an experience of completion and fulfilment of that Anglican life.

‘Anglo-Catholicism’ is essentially interrogative. Can Anglicanism’s entanglement in the distortions of the Reformation be overcome, so as to vindicate its ‘Catholic credentials’? One remains an ‘Anglo-Catholic’ for as long as one believes that this question can be given an affirmative answer.

The Anglican communities addressed by the Apostolic Constitution have concluded that an affirmative answer is impossible. The Tablet’s desire to impose upon them a model of conversion as ‘transformation’ is irrelevant to their experience. It is Newman’s description of his conversion – ‘it was like coming into port after a rough sea’ – which will better capture these communities’ embrace of Roman Catholicism. For ‘Anglo-Catholics’ typically have the Catholic Faith; what they lack, until they become Roman Catholics, is the Church in which that Faith is truly at home. The Tablet’s own position inverts this progression, and this is why it misunderstands ‘Anglo-Catholicism’ and fears the Apostolic Constitution. The Tablet has the Catholic Church; what it is all too clearly unsure about is whether it wants the Catholic Faith.

As far as individual Anglican's is concerned, they may well find themselves in a position absolutely analagous to that in which Newman found himself, in which case the point being made by the Newman Cause post is quite correct. I do, however, have a couple of reasons for wondering whether, at the corporate level (parish or grouping such as Forward in Faith, Traditional Anglican Communion) the Anglo-Catholic of today really is in the same sort of position as was Newman.
 
Firstly, a lot of non-Catholic water has passed under the bridge of the Church of England during the years since Newman was alive. The longer the Anglo-Catholic groupings have accepted, or at least tolerated, the non-Catholic practices of women priests etc through participation in the rather artificial mechanisms of "guidance and oversight" from Catholic minded bishops who remain in some sort of essentially sociological communion with bishops who reject their Catholic beliefs; the more they have then come to live an inadequate idea of ecclesial communion that is not Catholic because it lacks reference to unity in belief and moral life. I happen to feel that a conversion (in the sense of move towards fulfilment) may be needed now that was not needed in Newman's time - a conversion in the sense of the ecclesial communion that will be lived in the Catholic Church from that which is lived in Anglicanism. It is not just a question of finding the Church in which the Anglo-Catholic beliefs are really at home; it is now also about having a proper sense of the idea of communion within that Church. The provisions of the Apostolic Constitution could, I think, address this issue more clearly.
 
And secondly, but not unrelated, is the response of some, notably in Forward in Faith, which suggests that they see the Apostolic Constitution as providing in the Roman Catholic Church exactly the kind of positioning that they have been seeking in the Anglican Church, but which it now looks as if they will not be given there. This seems to me to be a manifestation of an idea of ecclesial communion without reference to unity of belief, and so an inadequate manifestation of such a communion. The position of those in good standing with Anglo-Catholic groupings but whose life situations are at odds with Catholic moral teaching (I'm trying to be diplomatic here) suggests an inadequate living of ecclesial communion from the point of view of unity in moral life. 
 
I think the proof of the pudding will be in the eating of it - as the Bishop of Fulham observed, many Anglo-Catholics may now find that their bluff has been called.

And, as a PS and recognising that I may well not find the time to do it, I think there is a dialogue to be had with the Newman Cause's observations with regard to the nature of dialogue!

Anglicanorum coetibus: "Annexation", "theatricals" and "unintended consequences"

The Apostolic Constitution making provision for Personal Ordinariates for Anglicans who wish to enter full communion with the Catholic Church has been published. The English text, along with a press release, Complementary Norms and a commentary from the Rector of the Gregorian University in Rome can be found here, at the Vatican website.

The title of this blog coverage hasn't quite got the idea: Released: Apostolic Constitution addressing annexing Anglicans into the Catholic Church. It does give rise to a quiet chuckle, though.

Article 11(3) and 11(4) of the Complementary Norms seem to go in the opposite direction, with a suggestion of "high church theatricals":

§3. A former Anglican Bishop who belongs to the Ordinariate may be invited to participate in the meetings of the Bishops’ Conference of the respective territory, with the equivalent status of a retired bishop.

§4. A former Anglican Bishop who belongs to the Ordinariate and who has not been ordained as a bishop in the Catholic Church, may request permission from the Holy See to use the insignia of the episcopal office.

Article 6 (1) of the Complementary Norms:

In consideration of Anglican ecclesial tradition and practice, the Ordinary may present to the Holy Father a request for the admission of married men to the presbyterate in the Ordinariate, after a process of discernment based on objective criteria and the needs of the Ordinariate. These objective criteria are determined by the Ordinary in consultation with the local Episcopal Conference and must be approved by the Holy See.

seems to weaken article VI (2) of the Apostolic Constitution itself:

§2. The Ordinary, in full observance of the discipline of celibate clergy in the Latin Church, as a rule (pro regula) will admit only celibate men to the order of presbyter. He may also petition the Roman Pontiff, as a derogation from can. 277, §1, for the admission of married men to the order of presbyter on a case by case basis, according to objective criteria approved by the Holy See.

It does this by recognising the Anglican tradition as being the factor underlying its provision for married clergy. I have already posted on my concern about the witness to celibacy ( and here) of the move towards Personal Ordinariates, and the denial of a change of discipline in this regard in the press release accompanying the Apostolic Constitution does nothing to counter the provisions of the Complementary Norms.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church is identified as the authoritative expression of faith professed by the members of an Ordinariate (I (5) of the Apostolic Constitution). If the Catechism is the norm of faith for those joining the Catholic Church from the C of E, can't it also be held up as the norm of faith for those who dissent from within the Catholic Church? And, though some paragraphs express teaching of the extraordinary magisterium of the Church, it is, in itself, and exercise of the ordinary magisterium. Ecclesial implications of this might reach beyond the Ordinariates.

The provision that clergy might in case of necessity undertake paid secular employment in addition to their priestly duties (article 7 (3) of the Complementary Norms) is also interesting. This might provide an interesting model for "worker priests" - whoops, sorry, the modern term should be "industrial chaplaincy". Now, I do think there are interesting possibilities here that could extend beyond the Ordinariates.

So we have "annexation", "theatricals" and some "unintended consequences".

PS: I wonder whether there will be the same debate over what constitutes a "coetibus" in this context as there was in the context of Summorum Pontificum?

PPS: The post at Catholic Analysis is a useful complement to my remarks above. Catholic Analysis has a different take on the celibacy question than I have:

Two points strike me as important: 1.) the embrace of legitimate liturgical diversity in the Roman Rite, as opposed to neo-Tridentine uniformity; and 2.) married clergy among the new Catholics, which we can term "clerical diversity." Both points emphasize that the "Benedictine" model of this Pope does not match that of the supertraditionalists.

PPPS: Further comment at Valle Adurni, which focusses in part on the question of celibacy. I had thought, too, to comment on the intention that the Ordinariates come under the supervision of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. This makes sense if one views the Ordinariates as being akin to the situations of groups that formerly came under the remit of the Ecclesia Dei commission that has now been taken over by (sorry, subsumed into) the same Congregation. The provisions do, however, refer to the other dicasteries of the Curia having a role according to their competence.

Further to my earlier posts ....

ZENIT have carried two reports about the response from Anglicans to the announcement of the forthcoming Apostolic Constitution. The response of the primate of the Traditional Anglican Communion is perhaps of most significance, indicating I think a much deeper consideration of what is intended by the idea of an Anglican ordinariate than responses from members of organisations like Forward in Faith. In particular, its references to a petition of two years ago, and to the reaction of the Archbishop of Canterbury, suggest to me (correction, if necessary, in the comment box please) that this is more the intended direction of the Vatican's generosity than any other.

The Anglican tradosphere - and the question of celibacy

I am sometimes inclined to describe to those Catholic blogs that to a greater or lesser extent promote the extraordinary form of the Liturgy as being the "tradosphere". I have just stumbled across what might loosely be considered its equivalent for the Church of England.

This is where I began: Musings of a City Priest. The references in this post to "continued reception" of the news of the Apostolic Constitution set me to pondering the use of the same phrase with regard to matters of doctrine and not just of discipline. Is there any real sense of accepting an idea of a Magisterium with an authority to teach?

From where I went to Richborough: Ancient Richborough. I link to this particular post - because, despite its claim to Anglo-Catholic credentials, it is totally and utterly Anglican. It is also quite inadequate in its omission of separation from the See of Rome as being part of the historical origins of the C of E. And it is to totally misunderstand the implications of the new movements in the Roman Catholic Church for a renewed witness to the life of the evangelical counsels. The post And pigs might ... is equally thorough in its Anglicanism. One could be forgiven for taking it as reading the provisions of the forthcoming Apostolic Constitution as being a mere version in the Roman Catholic Church of what they rather hope they could have within the C of E; and that they will avail of it if the C of E don't play ball.

Fr Hunwicke is, I believe, notorious in the Anglican tradosphere. If this is anything to go by, I am not at all sure that he has really got what an Anglican ordinariate is likely to be about:

I regard as significantly positive the willingness of Rome to allow married Anglican bishops to continue to exercise episkope in the guise of prebyteral Ordinaries. The Holy Father, as in the matter of Summorum Pontificum, has not just given the minimum.

St Peter's London Docks interested me because this particular post seemed to be struggling to identify a specifically Anglican patrimony that could be taken over into an ordinariate. The Church building might well be a patrimony of a sort, but it can hardly be the essence of such a patrimony; and the prayer and devotion can surely be transferred to a new building.

The point I particularly notice: married clergy being seen as part of the Anglican patrimony that will be accomodated in an ordinariate. I think my concerns already expressed about the witness to celibacy which, though a discipline of the Church rather than a doctrinal requirement, is nevertheless part of the nature of the Church's witness to Christ, appear quite justified.