Reactions to the Pope’s outreach to Anglicans: a synthesis
Upon hearing the news that Pope Benedict would be allowing disaffected churches in the Anglican Communion to return to Rome while retaining their traditional liturgies and disciplines, I thought briefly about doing a post on the subject. Thankfully, I didn’t have to, because so many mainstream media pundits have done such a great job of very intelligently expressing their own highly original and clearly very carefully thought-out opinions. So, here is a compendium of these opinions, with a special thanks to Maureen Dowd:
Bigot…intolerant…Vatican II…Inquisition…poaching…Catholic Church declining…get with the times…WHAT ABOUT ECUMENISM???…wanted their collection plates……Inquisition…homophobe…the modern world…sexist…Vatican II…altar boys…condoms…Dark Ages…Pope…Nazi…genocide in Africa…God’s Rottweiler…Hitler Youth…Vatican II…WHORE OF BABYLON!!!!!!
Comments are closed.
Well said, Mickey. And to think, those are just the dissident Catholics saying such tolerant things! Have a look at the posts and commenters over on the National Catholic Register Web site, and to a lesser extent, the Commonweal Web site.
Many on the Catholic Progressive side greatly and wrongly fear traditional liturgy, and many high church Anglicans who will undoubtedly convert at this invitation from the Holy Father certainly represent traditional liturgy and orthopraxis, in general. I’ve read from some of the strongest dissidents on those sites that this charitable ecumenical outreach by the Holy Father is akin to inviting Holocaust-denying Nazi supporters into the Church. Reductio ad Hitlerum and some such nonsense, I suppose.
We may not understand the Holy Fathers’ (both Benedict XVI and JP II before him) strong ecumenical efforts in toto, but we can be thankful to God that the Holy Spirit is guiding Peter as he makes them!
FWIW, Michael Sean Winters, who writes for America magazine and blogs for NCR, took many of his own dissenting readers to task for their stunning cynicism and lack of charity in reaction to this effort by Papa Bene.
By the by, Mickey, I want to commend you as a young university-aged man for your fidelity to the truths of Christ and our faith. I’ve taught college for 12 years in both secular and Catholic universities, and it’s rare to find young adults like you who take their faith seriously and work personally to stand up for it and defend it. I know many of your fellow bloggers and commenters here on Vox Nova are not in agreement with you on many issues on which you may be “less progressive” than they would like you to be (e.g., your absolute Catholic stance on eliminating abortion funding, euthanasia, and including conscience protections in health care reform bills, even if it means defeating any bills that don’t fit these criteria), but it is fully defensible and indeed the only option completely in keeping with Christ’s teachings, social doctrine of the Church, and all teachings of the Magisterium. Bravo!
I think it’s important to hear the criticisms of these so-called “dissidents” rather than simply praise Pope Benedict for the supposed ecumenical strides he is making. (Not saying you are necessarily doing the latter, Mickey, but many are.)
Is the pope’s offer to Anglicans a matter of faith and/or morals to which Catholics must assent? It doesn’t seem so to me. Of course, Maureen Dowd and a number of others were not so much disagreeing but ranting.
What I still find to be the most interesting question is why, if the disaffected Anglicans want to be Catholics, they don’t just become Catholics. If you make a decision that the Catholic Church is the “one, true Church,” it seems to me you act on that decision as fast as you can, without waiting for a “generous” offer to become Catholic. The question of Anglican orders seems to be somewhat more complicated than I previously thought, but if the disaffected Anglican priests waiting to be Catholic take what the Church says seriously, they must at least wonder, at the moment, whether they are priests at all. If a Catholic priest for some reason suspected he had not been validly ordained, one can only imagine he would do something about it immediately.
Over on dotCommonweal, those most in favor of the pope’s offer to the Anglicans called it “generous.” I am wondering if that is the correct term, since it doesn’t seem to me that the pope has anything he may give away.
Kevin’s remarks about not understanding popes but being thankful they are being guided by the Holy Spirit seem to me to imply a theory of intervention by the Holy Spirit that goes much father than then Cardinal Ratzinger articulated in his very interesting remarks about papal elections. (See the last two paragraphs.) It seems to me a pope’s actions, even under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, should be perfectly comprehensible. And as for infallibility, how many infallible papal statements have there been? Two? Which is not to say Catholics do not owe deference to the pope or others are not too quick to react with prejudice and hostility.
One little detail that seems to go missing in the opinion pieces is that these disaffected Anglicans ASKED to be admitted. THEY took the initiative. The Holy See thought about it for two years. Meanwhile, what the TAC and FiF people found so generous was the suggestion that the new Anglican-Catholics could have (or keep) their own rite and their own leadership while bieng in communion with Rome.
Why people are using the conversation between people who have asked to be admitted, en masse, to communion with Rome, and the Vatican as a stick to beat Benedict XVI with is beyond me. Unless they are, of course, bored with beating him over the conversations between Rome and the SSPX.
Every time Benedict does anything noteworthy, there are shrieks of dismay. It gets tired.
As is easy to do, Mickey collects a bunch of strident statements from the internet and presents it as the responsible counterpoint to the Pope’s action. Kevin applauds him ponders first why many “on the Catholic Progressive side greatly and wrongly fear traditional liturgy” but then connects it with Republican politics.
David, thankfully, brings in the comments from Commonweal, a responsible progressive Catholic source. The Holy Father’s action is generous, and I am happy he has been generous. It is not in the interest of the faith to have these small groups of Traditional Anglicans unhitched to any broader Christian community and nursing their wounds on the issues that led to their separation from the Anglican Communion. The Holy Father’s generosity may pastorally serve a community of the conservatively inclined. Progressives like me take comfort that the church has affirmed one of the key issues we have long pushes — that she should be more pastoral and less bound to canonical requirements. Receiving these Anglicans corporately, accepting the legitimacy of those they have called as pastoral leaders without being bound by Latin canonical restrictions, affirming the principle of liturgical pluralism within the Latin Church, are all positive actions by the Church.
Kevin does ask “What I still find to be the most interesting question is why, if the disaffected Anglicans want to be Catholics, they don’t just become Catholics.”
The answer is for a mix of reasons, both spiritual and profane. The Catholic Church is affirming that in Anglicanism there is grace, even though separated from the Church of Rome. That the Holy Spirit works and is present outside the visible full communion of the Church. That this is more than just how a branch severed from a tree lives for a certain time before it withers and dies, but an on-going presence of the Spirit. Post reformation Anglican spirituality developed with God’s grace.
And while all of that is true, there are worldly issues as well. One is a sensitive topic that even those less pleased about this initiative have held off from bringing up.
There is a matter of social class. The desire to maintain Anglican spirituality comes in part to the fact that these Anglicans are simply not going to be easily integrated into a typical parish in Liverpool or Dorchester.
I am a far cry from a church scholar and/or theologian, I am just clinical psychologist with over 20 years of experience and more importantly a “traditionalist” Roman Catholic. Over the many years that I have struggled with what I see an ever increasing “protestantization” of the liturgy and traditions. I could never bring my self, nonetheless to break with mother church and join with the SPXX’rs or similar groups. However, I recently discovered the beauty, reverence and ethereal nature of the “high mass” at Our Lady of Atonement”, San Antonio, TX. This, my parish, is an Anglican-use Roman Catholic church. It has been a very successful ‘pilot study’ and more parishes like it across the nation will not only offer traditional Anglicans an option, but eventually many thousands of traditional Catholics that yearn for the more ancient expressions of our faith. The Mass at Our Lady is essentually a Tridentine mass spoken in classical english and now the vast majority of our parishioners are “cradle Catholics”. Bless his holiness for this outreach to our brothers and sisters and maybe unwittingly this wonderful option for cradle Catholics like me all across America.
David, you raise some legitimate questions, and by no means do I wish to proclaim that this move is akin to an infallible dogma pronounced ex cathedra, which of course it is not. However, as you also point out at the end of your post, it is most charitable for the faithful to avoid reacting in critical ways until we know all of the facts and details, something which won’t happen unti the apostolic exhortation is published and released by the Vatican. Until then, almost everything people complain about is purely speculative–e.g., that it’s an “anti-gay” move; that it’s like poaching believers from a separated denomination; that the married Anglican priests will be a watershed moment in changing the long-standing Latin rite practice of priestly celibacy, etc. The Pope is wisely taking time to formulate a clear apostolic plan and no doubt there is much to consider carefully about the very real issues that you and Kurt allude to in your posts.
As to your question, David, about Anglican priests converting to Catholicism and questioning their priesthood, I certainly can’t speak for them, but I can deduce from logic the following:
1) traditional-leaning Anglicans made this request to the Vatican intentionally a number of years ago; if they did so, then perhaps they understand that there is no longer apostolic succession in the Anglican denomination, and therefore they are not priests in the sacramental, Holy Orders sense, but at this point are members of the priesthood of the faithful to which all of us are called upon being baptized
2) many such Anglican priests may wish to become ordained as priests, or perhaps as deacons, once they do become Roman Catholics; others may not and may take this opportunity to undertake a change in careers, esp. if they have families to support
3) regardless of the decisions they make in #2 above, I assume they will assent to the will of the Holy Father and the ordinaries of their rite, once that is established juridically; i.e., it’s possible that some of these priests may not be found by the Church to have a vocation to the sacramental priesthood in the RC Church.
My main concern, and I assume that which Mickey intends, as well, is that it is a shame that the wider world so unfamiliar with the “inner workings” of the RC Church, and especially of this and other recent ecumenical moves by Pope Benedict, can find their only mainstream media reports of it in the form of dissenting ranters like Maureen Dowd. Abp. Dolan’s clear, concise, pastoral and charitable op-ed piece recently sent to and rejected by the NY Times, would be a much more faithful explanation, in part, than anything that shrill, mostly secular, partisans like Dowd could write.
And lastly, I am not one of those who subscribes to either political party’s take on all issues, but rather I look to the Church’s guidance on moral issues and try to discern through prayer the moral precepts and ways they should affect my votes, both in terms of candidates and issues, in elections. Those Catholics who constantly view issues first and foremost through the lens of their political ideologies are doing themselves, the Church, and the greater world a grave disservice. This goes for conservative and liberal Catholics alike. Christ’s Kingdom far surpasses any Earthly political parties or issues in terms of its glory and its possession and definition of the Truth, and we should look to the Truth of Christ and teh Church before we look to any partisan politicians when it comes to our participation in the political processes of our country and the world. I hope nobody here would disagree with me about that objective!
Regarding Michael’s post that we should consider the complaints of dissenting voices: I agree in principle, but there is something larger to consider first–i.e., what constitutes valid criticisms made in good faith vs. ideologically-oriented rants made principally like sticks with which to beat one’s ideological opponents over the head?
In my opinion, humble though it may not be, if someone has genuine questions and criticisms made in good faith and presented without ideologically loaded words or refraining from secular political point-scoring, then absolutely one must be intellectually honest and consider those questions or criticisms, for this is how the Church advances in human terms wrt theological and philosophical explanations for its beliefs and practices. However, it’s also fair to raise the objection that it’s a waste of time to try to debate critics who are intellectually dishonest or not honestly seeking to search for hints of objective truths in what the Church says and does. If someone is a hardcore dissenter, on any end of the spectrum, then there is very little point in wasting breath or typing time in trying to be intellectually honest in addressing their critiques. I have close Catholic friends who are progressives and others who are reactionaries, and I have seen myself time and again that they are nto interested in objective discussion. They prefer to complain to the choir and hear their points/complaints repeated back to them as if they were in an echo chamber of their own creation. Why waste time debating such people? I prefer to pray for the Holy Spirit to reach them and open their hearts and minds first; if they then show openness to honest dialogue, then I’m all for it. Otherwise, nothing I say as a human being will change someone’s mind if they are an ideological opponent of a certain Church teaching or issue.
There is a matter of social class. The desire to maintain Anglican spirituality comes in part to the fact that these Anglicans are simply not going to be easily integrated into a typical parish in Liverpool or Dorchester.
This is an interesting point. Can you say more?
Q. If the disaffected Anglicans want to be Catholics, why don’t they just become Catholics? A. Well, I know that Jennifer Love Hewitt is the right girl for me, and I know we’ll end up together, but it would be a relief if she’d walk up to me and ask me out.
Kevin in Texas — I don’t think there are clear criteria for figuring that out, although sometimes it’s fairly obvious. Welcome to the Catholic church. I doubt, though, that if you’re throwing around terms like “hardcore dissenter” that you’re likely to give any critic of papal policies the benefit of the doubt, even if that “dissenter” is someone like Cardinal Kasper.
This is an interesting point. Can you say more?
I think we need to be honest. This is not the only thing at work here and I don’t even think the primary thing. But an aspect of the strong desire of the desire for certain Anglicans to maintain a distinct community within the Catholic Church is the matter of social class differences between Catholic and those leaving the Episcopal Church/Church of England.
I can’t see our new brethren very comfortable in a Catholic parish in Liverpool, England or the Dorchester section of Boston, the way the well-off Kennedy’s were at Ted’s funeral Mass or how Queen’s Counsel Blair is when she visits Liverpool.
And one of my aunts, a strongly conservative Catholic without a high school degree, would think she was in outer space at an Anglican Mass.
Many of us get all hot and bothered about this or that liturgical form but raerly acknowledge that different people feel different levels of accesibility to differnent form.
You know, it is not difficult (for those seeking it) to find a “high”/traditional/formal Roman liturgy at a progressive parish. Start in upper class neighborhoods like Park Avenue’s St. Ignatius Loyola Church.
After the extremist SSPX, extremist Anglicans. Enjoy. One wonders if those Anglicans ready to swim across the Tiber are of one mind with “traditionalist” Anglican bishop Isaac Orama, who
“…has condemned the activities of homosexuals and lesbians, and described those engaged in them as “insane people”. “It is scaring that any one should be involved in a thing like that and I want to say that they will not escape the wrath of God,” he said.
“Homosexuality and lesbianism are inhuman. Those who practice them are insane, satanic and are not fit to live because they are rebels to God’s purpose for man,” the Bishop said.
—-
It’s a coalition of ressentiment.
TAC are not extremist Anglicans — they withdrew from the Anglican Communion a while back. Benedict’s response to their request is extended to all Anglicans. Bishop Akinola and the other extremist Anglicans of that type praised the Pope for agreeing with them about gays, but did not react warmly to his church-poaching overture. Forward in Faith, representing the Anglo-Catholic tradition within Anglicanism, seek to milk the papal overture for whatever leverage it gives them as they continue their struggle within the Church of England — they have no real interest in crossing the Tiber — rather they fear their numbers will be diminished by this papal lure. The exclusion of Cardinal Kasper and Archbishop R Williams from this move (consigned to the boorish CDF instead) speaks volumes. No one is pleased, except the TAC — and they will probably get cold feet when asked to put their money where their mouth it. The profound motivation of all this is the hatred of self-hating closeted gays for open gays and for women!!
# Kevin in Texas:
October 29, 2009 at 9:03 pm
I think you mean the National Catholic Reporter, not the NCRegister.