Thoughts on the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter
The New York Times reported on the launch January 1 of the new ordinariate (like a diocese, but nation-wide in scope,) for Anglicans wishing to swim the Tiber and become Catholics. (For more about the ordinariate, go here.)
Is this good news or bad news, and for whom?
I react with dismay to the perception that these folks were finally motivated to move to Rome because of two issues–ordination of women (which strained the camel’s back,) and the Episcopal Church’s stance of openness to same-sex partnered clergy and laity, (which seems to have been the proverbial last straw.) Sure, some folks were likely wanting to rejoin Rome for some time, but the door’s always been open–it does seem to me that these two issues are the key turning point. The establishment of the ordinariate means that the new RC’s will be able to use a variant liturgy that echoes the Book of Common Prayer, and of course their clergy in this generation may remain married, though future applicants to seminary must promise celibacy like regular Roman priests.
My dismay is that once again the Catholic Church is defined by negation–”Don’t like the idea of women in ecclesial leadership? Come join us! Don’t like gay people? We’re the Church for you!” Along with the US magisterium’s attack on Obamacare because it might involve paying for contraception–”We’re Catholic! That means we’re against the Pill!”–Catholicism is seen as summed up in negative positions. The fact that Episcopal priests need only take an on-line course to qualify for ordination underscores the idea that the point here isn’t educating new clergy in the fullness of Catholic tradition (which is distinct in many ways from Anglican tradition, right??) but in welcoming in people who take the “right” position on these few issues, teach them a few things about liturgical particulars, and they’re good to go.
A point of curiosity is how the wives feel about being tolerated for a generation as an exception. Many, doubtless, believe that clergy should be celibate. Still, the implicit attack on their marriages must sting. “Sure, your husbands are welcome in our ranks, and we’ll let you stay married to them–but no future married priests will be allowed! You wives are a distraction and obstacle!”
And perhaps there’s good news, too. Good news for the Episcopalians, surely, who will continue to celebrate the vocations of women, married men, and partnered gay people with less internal opposition. The message of the Episcopal Church USA as a place of welcome for those disdained by Rome will be more clear than ever. I’m curious about the magnitude of the reverse flow of RC’s who have moved to the ECUSA–I suspect that far more are swimming the Tiber in the opposite direction than are swimming toward Rome. I know some very good people who are now Episcopal laity or clergy, and lots of Protestants, too. I’ve been in churches where half the congregation (by the pastor’s estimate,) are former RC’s.
A final point–the one-two punch of rejecting women’s ordination and excluding gays as defining why people would become Catholic should remind Catholics that those of us concerned about the role of women and concerned about attitudes toward gay people in our Church are natural allies. The issues facing the two groups are not the same, to be sure. Women are not described as “disordered,” nor are women described as a threat to society should they marry. On the other hand, women with vocations to priesthood cannot “pass” in a hostile Church the way gay men can. And there are other points of difference. But still–let’s remember and cultivate those natural alliances of all those regarded as outsiders in the Roman Church, yet remain Catholic nonetheless.
Hence I refer to this “rejecting women’s ordination and excluding gays” as the Orneryariate.
How do you say “Catholicism is getting mighty desperate these days” in Latin?
Now that we have a special ordinariate for the folks who don’t want to give up the sonorous phrases of the Book of Common Prayer and, in some cases, their wives, what are the chances of having a special ordinariate for folks who don’t want to give up the Mass in English that we had until the first Sunday of Advent?
The unity of the Church seems to demand such an ordinariate.
Thanks for this, Lisa — good points, all. As a convert myself, and one whose focus was and is on the Eucharist, I react a bit against such special carve outs for a particular group and on issues that are not central to Catholic belief. I mean, if you’re not coming for the Eucharist — the main Catholic distinctive, ISTM — then why are you coming? And I still don’t understand why you don’t convert like everyone else?
This seems to be about church politics as much as anything. The numbers coming over through the ordinariate are negligible, and hardly seem worth the effort and the precedent of establishing special exemptions for favored groups. I suspect that, like the courting of the SSPX Traditionalists, it may have more to do with pushing the center of gravity in the Catholic Church to the right by extending the pole of acceptable practice to the right.
Lisa, if you believe the Magisterium of the Catholic Church is clearly wrong on these issues, as it seems to me you do, then why don’t you leave? If you can’t trust the Church to get it right on these matters, why do you do so on the fundamentals of the faith? It really comes down to trust. I myself haven’t a problem with women being Catholic priests but I know it’s not going to happen because it can’t happen or is at least highly unlikely; not now, not unless those up top are willing to pay the big price of a major schism. At the end of the day, I have to trust that what Pope John Paul II declared and what was confirmed by Cardinal Ratzinger soon afterwards is true, that the Church has no authority to ordain women to the priesthood, and yet Christ told Peter that whatever is bound and loosed by him on Earth is bound and loosed in Heaven, so the Pope in my mind could have appealed to that to make the case that the Pope has the authority to ordain women, but he didn’t and so I don’t see how a future Pope can get out of that lest it is made clear somewhere down the road by Christ or Mary the Mother of God in an apparition that the time has come to change things. I think that very unlikely. Interestingly I do think there’s one way the Pope could overturn it in time and that is by declaring a fifth Marian Dogma, Mary as Co-Redemptrix. I was thinking about this last year as I read the alleged apparitions of Mary to Ida Peerdeman and how the declaration of the dogma would provide the tricky dogmatic ground and the necessary room for manoeuvre with a good reason (Mary serving in a priestly, if lesser, role to Christ) to permit the ordination of women. By giving her “yes”, was she not also giving her body and didn’t Christ retain some of her flesh and deify it? Just a few random thoughts. This would also lessen the chance, politically within the Church, of so called conservatives (Traditionalists) who are for the most part Marian in their spirituality, leaving the Church. That is I think the only possible route to the ordination of women. As for the issue of gay relationships and such, the best I can see is that the Church will become much more understanding of it.
As I noted in the post below, the conversion of then Bishop Steenson was celebratedwith much fanfare here by the Bishop.
Nothing this morning yet on the Abp.s website to this.
Now that Steenson is an ordinary and can join USCCB policymakers but is not a bishop and can’t be as he’s married, what does this new status say abou the”communio epicopi.?”
The idea of the church as a communion(s) or community(ies) IMO is critical.
When we first moved to NM, there was a warmth and nice ecumenical sense that has since chilled.
I think David G. is right aboput politics, but as this one sees it we are a Church far too involved now with our “brand” anf less involved with being Church/Community that the Eucharist holds forth.
At what point do members of abused and contemned groups stop taking the abuse and the contempt?
re: pushing the center of gravity to the right. Regardless of why these men might choose to convert, if some of them are married men, wouldn’t the end result- catholic priests with wives and children- be a more progressive Church, not less?
David said: “– if you believe the Magisterium of the Catholic Church is clearly wrong on these issues, as it seems to me you do, then why don’t you leave? ”
David: legions do, have and will continue to do. Enjoy your smaller, purer almost church.
I never cease to be amazed during my search for a new church home to find the huge numbers of “formers”, both in the laity and the clergy. It seems that an inordinate number of Episcopal priests, male and female, are formers – including not a few former RC priests who are now Episcopal priests and UCC ministers. It’s almost breathtaking.
Consistency sucks, eh?
David S: there are times when consistency is the hobgoblin of a very small mind.
Regarding trusting the pope and the church.
To quote St. Ronald Reagan: Trust – but verify.
There’s also an old Persian proverb that says this: Trust in God, but tie your camel.
The pope and the magisterium are NOT God, so I learned to tie – and watch – my camel quite a long time ago.
That recent Anglican converts should be presumed guilty until proven innocent seems to be an important article of faith among a vocal segment of progressive Catholics. To maintain that stance they must uncharitably dismiss statements such as those below made by the former Episcopal Bishop Jeffrey Steenson as he describes the ‘Joy’ of being Catholic:
“my former colleagues in the Episcopal House of Bishops insisted that the Episcopal Church is first and foremost an organization of Christians democratically constituted and owes its allegiance to no one. I simply could not accept this approach as being Catholic in any sense of the word…
“The air in the Catholic Church seems denser, more real. There is a rich theological tradition to explain this, but one can also sense it. It drives Anglicans crazy when they hear it said, but the Eucharist in the Catholic Church has a different texture and depth…
“Anglicanism itself is hopelessly divided, and therefore I don’t think it has the capacity to reach an accord with those churches who understand themselves as bound to sacred Tradition…
“I am grateful for the counsel I received from many wise Catholics: Take your time. Be sure that it is the Catholic Church you are seeking and not merely a safe harbor. Be careful that it is the Holy Spirit and not anger which fills your sails…
“This is the great thing about the Catholic Church. She has her ups and downs, and there are times when one might think that death approaches and there is no chance for recovery. But this capacity to be renewed and resurrected, to come back stronger and more confident and reconnected to the apostolic foundations, this is the great thing. I’m not sure that this is possible for Anglicanism in its modern forms. Something essential has been lost, and I don’t see how it can be recovered, once the Tradition has been lost.”
http://www.headlinebistro.com/hb/en/news/church/Former_Episcopalian_bishop_describes_joy_of_being_Catholic.html
Per Lisa “ . . . –”Don’t like the idea of women in ecclesial leadership? Come join us! Don’t like gay people? We’re the Church for you!” Along with the US magisterium’s attack on Obamacare . .”
I would not say the US magisterium “attacked” the President’s health care plan. In fact regardless of how you try to make it sound, the USCCB was quite late in criticizing Obama-care. Would you instead have the US Catholic bishops approve of paying for contraception and abortions?
Regarding women priests and gay folks, those issues are much more complicated than your simple, blanket statements try to make them seem.
The priesthood is not or should not be a power-game. Probably as far back as Paul IV, Popes have considered the notion of ordaining women priests and they all have flatly rejected it, saying the church does not have authority to ordain women priests. As for gay folks, it is not that anyone “does not like” gay folks, but that homosexual actions are very unnatural; hence the term “disordered”. It is my understanding – and please correct me if I am wrong – that people with same-sex attractions are welcome in Catholicism, provided of course that they try to refrain from the various sins specifically associated with homosexuality.
Oops – I meant Pope Paul VI
These people are almost apoplectic about this:
http://www.calcatholic.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?id=0beb172f-d5df-4333-8651-e479bda8110a
‘”Catholicism is seen as summed up in negative positions.” At least as defined by the hierarchy and they have been doing it for 1700 years. Notice that the converts are not distinquished by devotion to the gospel or because they want to preach Jesus Crucified. Rather it is because they are against gays and women. At any rate, the reason Rome is doing this is political. It makes the RCC appear desirable. This is the reason the pope took so long to criticize Berlusconi. Political.
Benedict is a negative pope.
Why don’t we stop for a second and try to see the issue from the other side before we jump to some conclusions. I suspect if you speak to many of those choosing to join the ordinariate, they are likely not to see their move less as one of “negation,” but rather as an affirmative one – a choice not against x, y, or z, but an affirmative choice for various things. Afterall, isn’t every choice (even swimming the Tiber the other way as many more progressives do) at once a negation and an affirmation? Moreover, if, as many of my progressive friends are inclined to argue, we see the Church as a “Big Tent” wherein individuals have the God-given right to determine the shape of their religious practice in the light of their own consciences, what is wrong with these kinds of movements? Certainly many Catholics fed up with their perception of the Church’s narrowness and insularity choose to go elsewhere. Why shouldn’t conservatives have the same choices? Isn’t that the heart of diversity?
My conversations with some of my classmates who are leaning towards joining the Ordinariate indicates to me that it is the manner in which the ECUSA – and the larger Anglican Communion – has gone about making the decisions with respect to female & homosexual ordination that is their real beef. In other words, they have grave misgivings about how ecclesial authority has been used in these cases. Sound familiar? Moreover, and as they themselves are quick to point out – contra the claim by some above that this is yet a further sign of the desperation and increasing narrowness of the Catholic Church, the voice of protest against these moves in the Anglican Communion is strongest in those parts of the Communion experiencing the fastest growth – the developing regions of Africa & Latin America. Surely that should give some pause to all of us Liberation Theologians.
Lisa,
Patrick Molloy’s quotes of Bishop Jeffrey Steenson really are quite interesting and call into question much of your post. It would be great if you could respond to this.
AA
Jimmy, that’s easily turned around, but I have a headache and am not feeling creative. Happy New Year!
Mr. Molloy’s quotes are interesting but what else would you expect from Fr. Steenson and his followers. Not sure that I would take these as “objective facts” but rather his opinions and biases….not exactly a balanced view point.
Jeff Landry’s qualified comments broaden the discussion and give a personal slant to what folks give voice. Without questioning motivations, intentions, etc. would suggest that both sides can exist together and Lisa gives voice to those Catholics who question this whole exercise in terms of justice and dignity and from a broader context than just the folks in the ordinariate. She could have also added concerns from folks who have for years been involved in ecumenical commissions, developed and produced joint resolutions, etc. – this exercise feels and appears as an “end run” to the Vatican II initatives. And, wonder what the Eastern Church understands by this exercise?
AA,
Sure, I can respond. First I have no doubt that Steenson is sincere in his comments on why he made his leap to Rome. But I’d ask him back–so why NOW? Remember, Steenson wasn’t some uneducated, Anglican yahoo, (if there are such.) He rose to the rank of BISHOP in the Anglican communion. Which leads me to believe that it’s not the particulars he notes, but perhaps–at best–those particulars seen in light of recent Anglican directions concerning women and gays. (And, for many, the newer prayer-book, which also seems to be a source of traditionalist dismay.)
He notes democracy in ecclesial governance. It is not new that there is an element of democratic governance in the Anglican communion. If he opposed such elements of democracy, why be BISHOP in such a church? Or is it that recent decisions made within that governance structure are offensive to him?
As to Eucharist in the Anglican tradition being less deep (whatever he means by that)–did he believe that while an Anglican bishop? Did he say so? Or did it somehow just become inferior recently? My limited understanding of Anglican eucharistic theology is that it is essentially identical to Rome’s, though there is greater latitude for alternative understandings of eucharist in that communion. Anglicans out there, please correct me. The question of eucharistic “depth” is, I suspect, connected to the question of the validity of Anglican orders. His agreeing to be re-ordained as a Catholic indicates well enough his stance on that question.
As to Anglicanism being hopelessly divided–if that’s new, OK. But is Catholicism at present not as deeply divided as the Anglican communion?
And his statement: “Something essential has been lost, and I don’t see how it can be recovered, once the Tradition has been lost,” I wonder what he means by tradition in this case, if it has nothing to do with recent changes in prayer-book, women’s ordination, and gay unions/clergy. Again, if not this, then what, of that which is recent? Just how, recently, has “Tradition been lost”?
I heartily support any person’s decision to worship as they choose, absent harm to others. I also realize that people’s views on important matters rarely flip overnight, but reflect a gradual process of evolution and discernment. I’m glad Steenson feels at home in the RC Church. I also think that the poster who noted that in any important decision like this, there’s a combination of push and pull involved. I think Steenson lists some of his attractions to the RC Church, but those he mentions are not new, or if new, found in both churches. He must have known about them before now. So why now? What tipped the balance for a man who was a bishop in the Anglican church? This isn’t “I used to go to the Methodist Church, but now I go across the street to the Presbyterians because the music’s better.” I still think it’s the negations that finally drew him in.
I still wonder about the implicit bashing of wives. How that must sting!
One can always hope and assume that converts embrace the fullness of the Catholic distinctives when they enter the church, and that’s an ongoing process for all of us, it seems to me. And it’s hard to know anyone’s heart. But whatever Bishop (now Father) Steenson is saying about the Eucharist now, it is clear that he — as most other Anglicans contemplating a turn to Rome — are doing so because they are upset with the Episcopal Church and Anglican Communion over accepting gays and women.
Fr. Steenson made that clear in his letter to his clergy here:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/6198/
And in this letter to his fellow bishops that Bob Imbelli cited in this 2007 post:
http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/?p=1290
It is what it is. There are surely a mix of motives in different combinations for each Anglican swimming the Tiber, but a rejection of a greater role for women and gays is at the heart of it for almost all the Episcopalians who cross over. Steenson is just one of these converts, and his experience is not the standard by which every other convert decides. But he seems fairly typical in that his motives are rooted in issues of culture and church polity rather than doctrines like the Eucharist.
Again, my main question is why they simply don’t convert?
BTW, Irene Baldwin — I always appreciate your sage contributions, but regarding your comment at 2:40pm, that the Catholic Church would be “more progressive” with these new married priests coming, in the words of the new Anglican rite, I must say, “Pshaw!”
Like the idea that having more women (or more laity) in positions of authority would make everything okay, I don’t think any particular type will automatically make an insitution more “progressive.” Indeed, these Anglican converts tend to be very “orthodox,” in the sense of institutionally conservative, and can be “more Catholic than the pope.” In my experience they zealously defend celibacy. And under the terms of Anglicanorum Coetibus, there can be no future married convert priests, I believe, and you can’t be ordained in the new rite and then marry. So this generation will pass away.
Other married priests are coming in through the existing pastoral provision, and will continue to do so. I think lay-run and nun-run and deacon-run parishes and liturgies, which is the present and future, will do more to change the church than anything.
One further note — the numbers of Episcopalians/Anglicans coming is negligible, but if a couple hundred clergy come in, that could be a significant infusion of much-needed clerical troops.
” — but if a couple hundred clergy come in, that could be a significant infusion of much-needed clerical troops.”
Put ‘em to work here. That’ll test their committment to Catholicism:
http://www.stripes.com/catholics-seek-to-boost-number-of-priests-serving-as-chaplains-1.164918
Let me be clear — I believe the cynics are sincere when they question Steenson’s motives. But, if I may paraphrase, I believe they are motivated by their own negations and hostilities and not zeal for the gospel.
I suppose I may be proven wrong in my belief about these critics. But how? An inquisition? Lengthy psychoanalysis? Phrenology?
David G.,
A lot of them didn’t “just convert” because RC liturgy, as usually practiced, is lame-o.
Thank you, Lisa, for this thread. I share your reactions.
And yes, David G., I’ve heard of Episcopalian priests who became very dysfunctional Catholic pastors. much disliked by their congregants for strictness and arrogance.
“I think lay-run and nun-run and deacon-run parishes and liturgies, which is the present and future, will do more to change the church than anything.” No truer words, David. Thank you, Lord, for the priest shortage, a necessary catalyst for change not possible otherwise.
My daughter converted to the Episcopal Church and has never been more at peace. My grandson is an acolyte in her church. Our loss, definitely.
It’s the Eucharist that keeps me Catholic; the rest is poof, especially the hierarchy’s myopia.
For the record, could you acknowledge that not all people opposed to church sanctioned same-sex relations “don’t like gays”? I agree with your overall argument that this makes Catholics known for what they are against, and that this is bad.
But, can you take a sentence or two to note that Catholics and maybe even some of these new Catholics might have reasons other than bigotry for their convictions?
Patrick Molloy, why would people who point out the very words of Steenson et al be cynics? Also, why are the reasons they cite for becoming Catholic so weak that they need to be explained away? Issue of ecclesial polity and viability of the Anglican Communion seem pretty compelling issues in many respects, no?
Kathy, I suspect they could find a nice Latin mass if they cared enough… :-)
But in a more serious vein, if the usual Catholic liturgy is inferior to much of Anglican celebration, why don’t you (and others) become Anglicans? Given that the celebration of liturgy is the determining factor for your faith, and the Anglicans do it better, why not go there?
I suppose anyone who feels that change is necessary also feels that anyone who does not agree with him is a wrong-headed obstructionist. Single-minded blindness.
The Ordinariate program does seem like it’s about bigotry – about belonging to a church without gay and women clergy. If that’s not the case, if those disaffected Anglcan/Episcopalian priests always felt themselves to really be Catholic, why did they become Anglican in the first place, and all the time they’ve been presiding as Anglicans have they truely believed their orders to be invalid? If they had a change of heart, why not convert to Catholicism in the normal way?
Aside from this, I think the Ordinariate prograam is the death of ecumenism – it’s predatory in nature … Robert F. Taft SJ once gave a talk about how this all went down with the Eastern Orthodox Church and Catholic Ordinariates (Unitism). Here’s a bit of what he wrote …
“[...] the phenomenon known as “Uniatism,”a pejorative neologism coined to denote a method of Church union the Orthodox see as politically rather than religiously motivated, and contrary to the “communion ecclesiology” of the Church of the first millennium. In “Uniatism,” one Church is perceived as an aggressor against a “sister Church” with which it happens at the moment to be in schism, absorbing groups of its faithful deceptively by allowing them to retain their own liturgical and canonical traditions and a certain autonomy. This type of union, considered the result of political pressure reinforced by violence, created not unity but new divisions in an already fragmented Christendom …”
Are the Catholics who have converted to the Episcopal Church presumed to be motivated by their new church’s opposition to the position of the African Bishops in the Anglican Communion? Or motivated by adherence to the Jefferts Schori faction and opposed to the Stand Firm faction within the Episcopal Church? Why did they wait for this precise moment? They could have converted at any time, their stated motives are manifestly flimsy, etc., etc. As long as we are going to apply an advanced hermeneutic of gotcha we should apply it across the board.
It seems that if you are a progressive you are presumed innocent until proven guilty – your statements are accepted at face value. If you are not an avowed progressive, however, you are presumed obviously guilty until proven innocent. At best a poor soul like you can only hope to be judged as a sincere naif ignorant of your true motives.
The standards for a legitimate conversion to Catholicism are being set so high by our progressive friends that almost all converts should be rejected. If you convert during the pontificate of B16 you must prove you are not homophobic, a misogynist, an opponent of Obamacare or else you will be judged as a hateful individual or, in the view of the more generous, merely a rank opportunist.
It is a nice touch, I must admit, that almost all anti-Steensonites concede that he is sincere. He cannot be bought by a biretta. Bue he is merely a pawn in their view — which is so condescending that most mere mortals who don’t share the progressive faith are unable to share in its lofty arrogance.
David –
Of course consistency does NOT suck. A search for consistency is a search for truth.
But to adopt consistency of *thought* when those thoughts do not match *facts* is to adopt false hood. There are two kinds of inconsistency == inconsistency between thoughts (e.g., I think it’s midnight, and I think it’s not midnight) and inconsistency between thought and thing (e.g., I think the Earth is flat — but all the evidence indicates that the Earth is round.)
Some of us Catholics see inconsistency between *some* of the teachings of the Church and real things. For instance, JP II and Benedict teach that homosexual marriages corrupt heterosexual marriages. However, the facts indicate that homosexual unions do not have any bad effect on heterosexual unions. In other words, what those two popes think does not match the facts of homosexual marriage. So beware of popes who believe things that are inconsistent with the facts of this world. They lead you astray.
And always remember — popes can be wrong. Their thoughts can be inconsistent with facts.
David G. –
Maybe the reason that High Church Anglican priests don’t just convert is because they would have to choose between their ministry and their wives, and that would be intolerable. Logically, I don’t see how it could be done even if they renounced one or the other. If they renounced their ministry they would have to think that their “calling” was a false call. To abandon their wives they would have to say that they made a mistake in marrying her.
With the Ordinariate they keep both committments.
Since nobody on this blog seems to be an intimate of any of the Anglicans coming over, I don’t see how any of us can possibly judge any of their motives for coming over.
An article on the subject by the Very Rev. Thomas Ferguson, Dean of Bexley Hall Seminary ….. http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/some-anglicans-apply-to-join-the-catholic-church/2011/12/30/gIQAQdHRTP_story.html
Oops – I meant to write that the article isn’tnot written by Ferguson. but quotes him.
David, some of my friends are in fact worshipping in Ordinariate churches now.
Latin Mass communities still tend to be looser than parish communities. The social/political element of parish life is missing. They can have that in the Ordinariate. They can also enjoy a rich liturgical tradition that is our patrimony, regained.
All of this is win-win.
Thanks, Lisa. I appreciate your thoughtful response.
I guess what stings many progressive Catholics (like around her) is that certainly part of the attraction to the RCC is the Church’s teachings on an all-male priesthood and homosexuality. The coming into full communion of these Episcopalians brings up again some very sore topics for many of the people around here. I don’t think anyone will disagree with that.
I think what is frustrating about the stories of many of these converts is that they don’t seem to elucidate terribly clearly how THEY have changed, how their BELIEFS have changed, in order to produce the sort of transformation that leads to conversion. An underlying thread is that the Episcopal Church/Anglican Communion has shifted away from them, and from “traditional” Christianity, and/or that Anglicanism was always faulty in some way or insufficient compared with, say the RCC.
Those provide explanations for why one feels abandoned or isolated by a community or church, but they don’t explain how one’s own beliefs have changed so that even if one had not been left behind by a particular church that believer would still have joined the Catholic Church. I mean, this isn’t the GOP nominating process, where conservatives are looking for anybody but Romney so they can punch their ticket.
So what is it about Catholicism that would be drawing these converts even if the Anglican Communion were still the church of 10 or 20 years ago?
I think we should warmly welcome the new clergy with their wives (and in some cases boyfriends) and their liturgical culture, which may help us out in our current penury. I think many Catholics will join them in worship,
“As for gay folks, it is not that anyone “does not like” gay folks, but that homosexual actions are very unnatural; hence the term “disordered”. ” No, according to Homosexualitatis Persona is it the orientation itself that is objectively disordered. Mark Jordan has a recent book on the way that Christian groups including the RCC have resorted to unconsidered junk psychology in their haste to pronounce on this.
David,
You bring up a very good point–the question of ecclesiology. If all churches and religions are equal, then of course people should simply find one that best fits them, like a spouse or a career. As you know, much of Cardinal Newman’s life was spent crusading against this sort of “liberalism” in religion (as well as crusading against a power hungry papacy and too broad a definition of infallibility.) In many ways, we are all dancing around this very issue. If all religions are the same, then really we shouldn’t care all that much who goes to what church (or not). It is all personal option. Am I really wide of the mark on this? please tell me. I am not trying to be sarcastic or petulant.
AA
One last thing. Today is the feast of St. Elizabeth Ann Seton. In a brief description of her on americancatholic.org, her attraction to the RCC was based upon:
“belief in the Real Presence, devotion to the Blessed Mother and conviction that the Catholic Church led back to the apostles and to Christ.”
Except maybe for the part about the BVM, the other two points should make us a little uneasy, no?
AA, if I am the David you are addressing( there are several!), I agree very much with what you say, or with the dilemma you are raising. I am one who thinks there are actual and important differences between churches, beyond issues of ecclesiology (which are very important in themselves) and that those should be much more important than they often are.
There are lots of miserable Catholic liturgies I’m sure, but I’d always and everywhere choose the worst Catholic mass over a grand rite elsewhere (though I’d appreciate and enjoy those very much). Esthetics is important, but not nearly as important for me as the content. Some see those two things as more integrated, perhaps, and this is my personal opinion and reaction to all of this.
I really respect Methodists who are genuine Wesleyans, and Mennonites who believe because of that great tradition, and so on. I think a real problem is that people don’t go deeply into their faith tradition. This may be more of an issue for Protestants, perhaps. Look at the church switching by ostensibly “orthodox” conservative believers like Michele Bachmann et al. Hey, good for Mitt Romney, I say.
Yes, you are the right (or left) David. And thanks for that response. Makes a lot of sense
Carolyn Disco writes, “It’s the Eucharist that keeps me Catholic; the rest is poof, especially the hierarchy’s myopia.”
David Gibson writes, “I’d always and everywhere choose the worst Catholic mass over a grand rite elsewhere (though I’d appreciate and enjoy those very much). Esthetics is important, but not nearly as important for me as the content.”
Here, at least, both David and Carolyn would seem to be more in agreement with Bishop Steenson than with Lisa, who doubts there is really much difference between what the Eucharist is for Catholics and what it is for Anglicans: “As to Eucharist in the Anglican tradition being less deep (whatever he means by that)–did he believe that while an Anglican bishop? Did he say so? Or did it somehow just become inferior recently? My limited understanding of Anglican eucharistic theology is that it is essentially identical to Rome’s, though there is greater latitude for alternative understandings of eucharist in that communion.”
I think Lisa misunderstands the intended meaning of Steenson’s remarks, which were partly about why he decided to become Catholic and partly about what he discovered in the Catholic Church once he was there. When Steenson says that “the air in the Catholic Church seems denser, more real…. The Eucharist in the Catholic Church has a different texture and depth,” he is making a comparison that only someone who has experience as a member of both communities could make — which is to say, he is making an observation he could not have made until he was already a Catholic. That observation could not, then, be what led him to become Catholic.
As for what did lead Steenson to become Catholic, I suspect Lisa is largely right: the sore points were the ordination of women as bishops and a departure from traditional Christian teaching on homosexuality. But I very much doubt that Steenson would describe his own motivation as essentially negative — except in the sense, already mentioned by another commenter, that to affirm one thing is to negate another. Of course, a person’s description of his own motivations is rarely the end of the story, but it is usually a good place to begin, perhaps the best. What Steenson and like-minded former Anglicans say they object to in women’s episcopal ordination and the blessing of gay unions is that they are both a radical departure from tradition, a departure that undermines the Anglican’s Church’s claim to apostolic catholicity. Put another way, many Anglicans considered themselves catholic long before they became Catholic. Developments in the Anglican Communion made it harder for them to justify that self-understanding. So, if these former Anglicans are to be believed about what lay behind their own decisions, it wasn’t only a question of changing moral norms and gender roles; it was also a question of ecclesiology.
They have not escaped the question by becoming Catholic. No Christian community is immune to change, including change that might have horrified earlier members of the community. For Catholic Christians, as for Anglicans, the problem is one of discernment: how to distinguish between changes warranted by the Gospel itself and those that simply make life easier for Christians in whatever time and place they happen to find themselves.
I think Rick Malloy doth protest too much!
My own posts here were not to denigrate Bishop or now ordinary Fr. Steenson, but to show tre creation and masnagement of this process was both here and in Rome, to borrow the word, political.
It’s not a matter of the good intentions of his or his followers -so can we end that straw man?
Issues about how good this is for(another phrase we frequently toss out) “the mission of the Church” in terms of effectivness and for its impact on how others both inside and out or the way out view us are IMO important.
I tried to note (since his conversion was in my neck of the woods) that formal Church relations seem pleasant, but the whole interrelational scene at the local level seems very different and cold.
To emphasize another importantand frequent word, our more “distinctive” approach seems muct to be involved here (as in the Fr. Steenson’s emphasis on keeping the “Tradition.”)
Much of that emphasis seems to be around divisive issues, if one is frank. and the ongoing problem of modernity and how one frames that.
The problem is that before our “distinctive” brand became so very important, the breach between how folks view that both inside and out semed far more irenic than what we look at today.
I keep thinking of the early Church growing despite all its problems because people saw “see how these christians love another’
If our notion of ecumenism is that its value is to make it possible someday for a Catholic to be a Catholic while simultaneously doing things that are doctrinally impossible in the Catholic Church – e.g. that ecumenism is a means to the end of permitting women to be ordained to the priesthood, or for homosexuals to marry, or for divorced to remarry without having their previous marriages annulled – then I suggest that we are doomed to a lifetime of ecumenical disappointment.
Ecumenism is not, and never has been, an instrument to rewrite doctrine. Its aim is to create genuine unity where there is currently division.
It seems to me that if we support ecumenism and ecclesial reunification, then as a statement of simple logic, the signal negative developments in our lifetimes have been the decisions within the Anglican Communion to ordain women and permit homosexuals to marry. Nothing that Rome has done or said has had negative repercussions on the order of those decisions. I would characterize those developments as deal-breakers. I don’t see that there is any possibility for complete communion while those developments are clung to.
The Ordinariate is what is possible within the orbit of ecumenism.
Lisa – thought you might enjoy this link to another female who raises justice issues:
http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/should-church-take-episcopalians-who-believe-injustice
It’s still unclear to me how the ordinariate system does not represent either a new uniatism or the so-called “ecumenism of return.”
It does seem like a new unitism, especially in the way that neither the head of the Anglican church, Rowan Williams, nor the Episcopal presiding bishop here, were given any heads up from our church about the inception of the Ordinariate programs.
Jim Pauwels, I think I just recently read that although the UK has granted the right of civil unions to same sex couples, both the Roman Catholic Church and the Anglican Church will not be performing such services.
My impression about Holy Communion being deeper and the air being more dense in the RCC is that such is based on the enthusiasm and emotional high of the moment. I have had such in the past, but always come back down to earth eventually.
Rita,
A major difference between Orthodox-Catholic relations and Anglican-Catholic relations, from a Catholic perspective, is the validity of sacraments. It’s only charitable to want all Christians to have all the means of salvation, including communion with the Pope, but the urgency is even more acute in the case of Anglicans, so that they may enjoy the sacramental life, as Catholics and Orthodox do.
Kathy,
How does this respond to what I said?
Rita, as I understand it, “uniatism” refers to a kind of Orthodox-Catholic interaction. But Anglicans, in the Catholic view, are not like the Orthodox, and in very significant ways regarding the availability of the means of salvation. Therefore I don’t think the parallel holds.
To put this another way, the Second Vatican Council teaches that “the aim and object of apostolic works is that all who are made sons of God by faith and baptism should come together to praise God in the midst of His Church, to take part in the sacrifice, and to eat the Lord’s supper.”
Regarding members of Orthodox Churches, this “aim and object” is already fulfilled. Regarding members of the Anglican ecclesial communities, it has not. The Catholic Church has an urgent “apostolic” reason for missionary activity, accommodation, etc.
The Ordinariate is not a reaction to the Episcopal church’s stance on women’s ordination and same-sex partnerships. If you have been laboring under the impression that it is, I invite you to study this issue further. Anglicans have been concerned over those issues for years and have created alternative ecclesial communities which reject the Episcopal church’s position (e.g., the Anglican Church in North America – part of the worldwide Anglican Communion – does not approve or bless same-sex partnerships and has only male bishops; in addition, there are many “continuing Anglican” communities which have fled the Anglican Communion altoger over these issues. Very few of the members of these various alternative Anglican communities are seeking membership in the Ordinariate, because Anglicans concerned only over these two issues do not need the Ordinariate.
The Anglicans seeking membership in the Ordinariate are impelled by ecumenical and ecclesiological motivations. They have come to believe that unity with the Bishop of Rome is necessary for Christians. At the same time, they believe that their Anglican tradition is a valuable patrimony that they do not wish to lose.
This is from Pope Benedict’s inaugural homily. After exegeting two images of the papacy, the shepherd, symbolized by the pallium, and the fisherman, symbolized by the ring, he said:
“Here I want to add something: both the image of the shepherd and that of the fisherman issue an explicit call to unity. “I have other sheep that are not of this fold; I must lead them too, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd” (Jn 10:16); these are the words of Jesus at the end of his discourse on the Good Shepherd. And the account of the 153 large fish ends with the joyful statement: “although there were so many, the net was not torn” (Jn 21:11). Alas, beloved Lord, with sorrow we must now acknowledge that it has been torn! But no – we must not be sad! Let us rejoice because of your promise, which does not disappoint, and let us do all we can to pursue the path towards the unity you have promised. Let us remember it in our prayer to the Lord, as we plead with him: yes, Lord, remember your promise. Grant that we may be one flock and one shepherd! Do not allow your net to be torn, help us to be servants of unity!”
These people are becoming Catholics because they agree with what the Catholic Church teaches. Their joining the Church should be a cause for rejoicing.
Kathy,
Uniatism is a particular historical phenomenon. It is a technical term. It is not identical with work toward unity with the Eastern non-Catholic Churches, but is rather a failed strategy which proceeded by means of erecting autonomous communities in union with Rome. Whatever its initial impulse, it ended by causing a great deal of pain and strife. The term is no longer used of the Eastern Catholic Churches because of its derogatory connotations.
For some background on uniatism see: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/ch_orthodox_docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_19930624_lebanon_en.html
Uniatism is specifically renounced in this document.
Here are a few of the salient points, especially #8 and #9:
7. In the course of the centuries various attempts were made to re-establish unity. They sought to achieve this end through different ways, at times conciliar, according to the political, historical, theological and spiritual situation of each period. Unfortunately, none of these efforts succeeded in re-establishing full communion between the Church of the West and the Church of the East, and at times even made oppositions more acute.
8. In the course of the last four centuries, in various parts of the East, initiatives were taken within certain Churches and impelled by outside elements, to restore communion between the Church of the East and the Church of the West. These initiatives led to the union of certain communities with the See of Rome and brought with them, as a consequence, the breaking of communion with their Mother Churches of the East. This took place not without the interference of extraecclesial interests. In this way Oriental Catholic Churches came into being. And so a situation was created which has become a source of conflicts and of suffering in the first instance for the Orthodox but also for Catholics.
9. Whatever may have been the intention and the authenticity of the desire to be faithful to the commandment of Christ: “that all may be one” expressed in these partial unions with the See of Rome, it must be recognized that the reestablishment of unity between the Church of the East and the Church of the West was not achieved and that the division remains, embittered by these attempts.
10. The situation thus created resulted in fact in tensions and oppositions.
Progressively, in the decades which followed these unions, missionary activity tended to include among its priorities the effort to convert other Christians, individually or in groups, so as “to bring them back” to one’s own Church. In order to legitimize this tendency, a source of proselytism, the Catholic Church developed the theological vision according to which she presented herself as the only one to whom salvation was entrusted. As a reaction, the Orthodox Church, in turn, came to accept the same vision according to which only in her could salvation be found. To assure the salvation of “the separated brethren” it even happened that Christians were rebaptized and that certain requirements of the religious freedom of persons and of their act of faith were forgotten. This perspective was one to which that period showed little sensitivity.
—
Naturally, Kathy, your point about the integrity of the Orthodox as sister churches is a valid observation. Yet, mutatis mutandis, it seems we are going down the road toward a parallel strategy with the Anglicans as was once pursued among the Orthodox — with disastrous effects.
Somehow, I don’t think that Byzantine Catholics and Ukrainian Catholics would agree that the creation of their Churches was “disastrous.” Indeed, I have always admired the tenacity of their Faith in the face of persecution.
Speaking as a (former) Anglo-Catholic, I want to add that the missing dimension in these responses is just how pervasively homosexual the culture of Anglo-Catholicism in the US, the UK, and Canada has been since, perhaps, its inception. My home parish in Milwaukee (once the center of the Biretta Belt) was at least 60 percent gay, as was its rector, who left for Rome in 1986. I honestly think it is simple misogyny (and the misogyny that masks itself under the “pro-life” principle) that has led these parishes to Rome. Further, if you want to be really freaked out, check out the blog The Anglo-Catholic, the main blog for Americans joining the Ordinariate. It links proudly to SSPX, something I’ve protested to the blog owner several times, but he displays the usual Roman respect for free expression by not allowing comments. Meanwhile, I continue to pray for +Rowan Williams, a true Catholic–whom Ratzinger didn’t even consult when springing this Ordinariate on him.
Rita,
Thank you for explaining. I still think the parallel is lacking. We are not in an age of kings and forced conversions. No one is being persecuted for failing to convert. Indeed, I would imagine that parish conversions usually have a negative financial impact, at least initially. I think the process is above-board. This is big-tent Catholicism, not conversion by duress.
[...] Complete Article HERE! [...]
Jim A.,
Thank you for making these very important observations. Your account of your experience of a close relationship between certain Anglo-Catholic communities, SSPX, and a gay culture within traditionalism gives further credence to David Berger’s account that has been so widely read in Germany. Berger names the component of homophobia, too. It would be naive of us to think that, when it comes to the Anglican Ordinariate, the protestations of rejection of openly gay clergy or bishops (one of the presumed motives of the move to Rome) are a simple matter to be taken at face value.
For more on Berger’s account:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,730520,00.html
and see also this:
http://www.praytellblog.com/index.php/2010/12/11/the-perfumed-traditionalists/
Jim A. –
Enlighten me. Is Berger saying that his gay colleagues are misogynist *because* they’re gay, and that is why the closeted gay Vatican bishops are anti-women? I’ve never heard that one before and would be surprised if it were true.
I like the part where men must be gay if they like beautiful vestments.
None of this is serious.
Deep breath everybody! Remember this started with the flight of “traditionalist” Episcopalians into the RC Church, perhaps finally pushed over the line by ordination of women and consecration of gay bishops. Not sure how the asserted gay culture of “traditional” RC worship would prove a draw for them.
And if the point is that if it’s homophobia that motivates them, they’re going from the frying pan into the fire in terms of gay culture by entering the RC Church, well, that doesn’t work either. The problem isn’t gay people–closeted gay men have been prominent in the RC leadership for a long, long time, as far as I can see.
First, I don’t think the fleeing Episcopalians are joining the “traditonalist” RC’s are they? Just the new rite, where they keep their prayerbook language and their married but male priests, and get the pope and the magisterium too. If they didn’t like fancy “traditionalist” Episcopal worship, there’s no real sign that they’re leaving that–and I imagine that unmarried but male Episcopal priests, some of whom are likely gay, are crossing over, too.
Second, though, is what really bothers me about the apparent homophobia and sexism that motivates them is this–it’s not having gay leaders that drove them to Rome, but being in a Church that recognizes the ministerial and leadership gifts of OUT gay people, often partnered. It’s the normalization of homosexual people and open, responsible, loving same-sex relationships that they cannot tolerate. Mutatis mutandis for women in leadership.
I’m staying out of the question about the relationship of fancy vestments, french cuffs, high living, exclusion of women from their company, etc., to homosexuality or suppressed homosexuality that here has been asserted here. Certainly that’s not always the case, and that’s enough. It’s a red herring, besides, unless someone can show otherwise.
Allow me to speak from experience. The exodus of Episcoplians and Episcopal clergy from ECUSA is tied to two things. First the ordination of women and second, the ordination of homosexuals. These people are profoundly conservative — often too conservative for the Catholic Church. Case in point: Years ago as a member of a liberal Catholic church in Atlanta we “got” one of the ex-ECUSA priests as an assisting priest and his wife who had left ECUSA after the ordination of women. As a liberal church I think it was felt we would be more welcoming to a married priest and his wife. We were. But he was so conservative — no altar or females allowed near the altar for any reason — so out of step with his theology for this crowd — carrying on about the evils of birth control — which no one – not even our celibate priest – was remotely interested in. They gave him the 8 am Sunday mass — thinking that the old folks who generally went to this mass would be okay with him. They were not. The oldest members of the congregation were having abosolutely none of it.
And there was the rub. The more conservative Catholic church in town – who were more sympathetic to his approach to catholicism didn’t want him. The liberal church which he disagreed with opened their arms to him and his wife. The diocese yanked him out of the blue and when he left, our liberal priest gave a great homily on the fact that he deserved to be treated with greater respect and compassion than the diocese treated him when they yanked him without any warning or discussion from our church. We were instructed to pray for him and his family during their time of upheaval. Now that’s a priest!
@Ann: I meant nothing homophobic in my observation; I’m talking about the late 1970′s (after the 1976 ordination of women), and I can attest at that time that many of the closeted gay Anglo-Catholics I knew were in fact misogynistic. I think things have changed, although perhaps not in the RC circles Berger refers to.
I agree with your last paragraph, Lisa, though it amazes me that it had to be said. It’s amazing that people who wouldn’t dream of stereotyping homosexual persons in any other way have no hesitation at all about labelling men who like beautiful vestments.
This morning I was admiring the last creche I’m likely to see this season. The angel had the most delicate decoration on its cape. I’ve seen similarlarly delicate decorations on the basic fixtures (columns, etc.) of parishes in Europe. And why not? The symbolism, as I take it, says something important about how the world is affected by contact with things of heaven. The divine invasion infuses ordinary things with supernatural pleasures.
If people want beauty, even dramatic beauty, to show in the liturgy, that isn’t a sign of repressed, frustrated, denied homosexual urges (puh-leeze) but of awareness of what is really going on at the Mass.
About the aesthete-gay-effeminate priests –
Not all gays are effeminate. Not all aesthetes are gay. But I say thank God for all the aesthetes with good taste!! We should cherish any and all, gay or not, who try to make the liturgy more beautiful. There might or might not be some connection between being an effeminate man and being appreciative of beauty. But who cares whether there is or isn’t.
The problem is misogyny, whether gay or straight. Bad taste is a different issue. If there is an intrinsic connection between misogyny and bad taste, then try to explain it. True, the *reason(s)* some gay men are misogynists might be different from the reason(s) many straight men are. So maybe we need two sorts of enquiries. Then again, maybe not. There is just too much misinformation and unproven hypotheses running around. We need more facts.
… [Trackback] …
[...] Read More Infos here: commonwealmagazine.org/blog/?p=16557 [...] …