Kasper and Wright on Anglican-Catholic Relations
October 25, 2009, 3:47 pm
Posted by Cathleen Kaveny
In the midst of the comment thread on “PR Masterstroke?” Bob Imbelli invoked Cardinal Kaspers’s “somber words ” about the impact that ordaining women as bishops would have on Anglican-Catholic relations. In response, Crystal Watson pointed to Anglican Bishop Wright’ somewhat pointed rejoinder to Kasper. Both are, IMHO,well worth reading, so I’m bumping them up here.
If we can use our senses I give the nod to Wright and Stancliffe who make better citations in history and scripture whereas Kasper cites tradition nebulously. Wright shifts the weight by pointing out that we have some problems with some of the things Rome has done as you have with our posiitions. I don’t have time now to go into details. But right now score one for the Separated Brethren.
Wright is impressive where Kasper is predictable.
The reply by Wright and Stancliffe was impressive, indeed! (It was precisely because of my familiarity with Rome’s “predictable” line that I skipped Kasper’s remarks.)
I’m reminded of a short quote by Joseph Ratzinger in his HIGHLIGHTS OF VATICAN II (Paulist Press/Deus Books, 1968, p. 17): “[F]acts, as history teaches, carry greater weight than pure doctrine.”
I think folks can get so caught up in “pure doctrine,” developed over the course of centuries, that they ignore the basic/foundational understandings found in sacred scripture and the beliefs and practices of the primitive Christian communities.
In the interest of ecumenism, we need to prune the “accretions” to rediscover our ecclesial “roots.”
Oops — book was published in 1966.
(HT – Joseph Komonchak for telling us about this book a year or so ago)
This is a patient, friendly, intelligent exchange. A long process of such exchanges produces growth on both sides and a mutual rapprochement at a level deeper than surface discord. That is why is it appalling that such intelligent voices were bypassed in the recent Vatican initiative.
if I understand the writers correctly, Kasper’s view of the bishops’ authority is totally collegial, that is, each bishop’s authority is constituted by his place as part of the hierarchy. In other words, he does not speak for the Church apart from the other bishops. Wright, on the other hand, has a more Protestant view, viz., each bishop does have the authority as bishop to disagree with the others.
I don’t see how these views can be reconciled. As a purely practical matter, if each bishop may, indeed should, go his own way the principle of unity is bound to fail, and the faithful will be unable to tell where the best thinking of the Church probably lies. (Yes, istm that Tradition, being history, is bound to always be a matter of probability.)
I wonder what Rowan Williams view on this issue is.
“if each bishop may, indeed should, go his own way the principle of unity is bound to fail, and the faithful will be unable to tell where the best thinking of the Church probably lies.”
What I like about the Anglican Communion is that it gives credit to the faithful’s ability to discern and make thoughtful choices. You can listen to voices from guys as dispareate as Keith Ward, Anglican priest and former Regius Professor of Divinity at Oxford who believes in universalism and the ok-ness of gayness, and NT Wright, who does not, without your head (or your soul) exploding :) I wish our own church had such confidence in us.
It seems today that most bishops are afraid to speak their minds on contentious issues in the church: How many bishops really believe they lack authority to ordain women to the presbyterate? How many bishops really believe that artificial contraception is intrinsically wrong? How many bishops really believe that homosexuality is intrinsically disordered? How many bishops would like to advocate for optional celibacy?
It seems that the collegiality of Vatican II is missing today. Bishops come across as nothing more than mere lackeys/functionaries/local ambassadors of the pope. They kowtow to a Vatican curia. Bishops are appointed by the pope after a secretive screening/vetting process overseen by a papal nuncio. They are held accountable to the pope, not to their people.
The Church of Rome uses processes guaranteed to promote institutional “group think.” Yet, everybody justifies this stuff as necessary to preserving “church unity.”
No wonder the Catholic Church is dysfunctional. And it will stay dysfunctional as long as people continue to be apathetic, submissive, indifferent.
This is sick tradition.
As detailed in an article by Massimo Faggioli, one of the reasons that collegiality has disappeared is that a long string of Vatican documents has systematically undercut the authority of episcopal conferences in recent decades. Add to that the politique of Roman appointment of bishops and the tameness of the Synods.
Theologians –
Please correct me where I’m wrong. As I understand the teaching/witnessing of the Church the Pope’s magisterial statements are supposed to reflect the thinking of the bishops as a group, while the bishops as a group are supposed to reflect the thinking of the Church generally. Further, bishops, including the popes, are supposed to make it clear when their statements are spoken *as bishops* versus their statements of personal theological opinion. The latter happened most clearly recently when B16 published his book on Jesus under the name Ratzinger.
The problems arise, I think, when a bishop disagrees with the majority about an issue that has not really become settled theology (“doctrine”).
Ann, it would make absolute sense for popes to listen to the world’s bishops and for the latter to listen to their respective priests, religious, and laity. (By listening, I mean using one’s heart to discern the feelings of others. Doctrinal matters include not just teaching per se but also the emotional responses of the targeted audience. Simply using one’s ears to hear feedback is insufficient.)
We know, of course, that JPII was an autocratic pope, i.e., somewhat akin to the benevolent dictator: Do as I say and I’ll at least leave you alone. Cross me and I’ll make you rue the day. B16 has been described by Vatican insiders as rather remote in his dealings with curial officials and staff. Neither behavior impresses me as one conducive to listening.
As for a bishop disagreeing with his fellow bishops on doctrinal matters, settled or otherwise, I think it helps everybody to reflect on the fact that doctrine is always under development since change is a fundamental part of the life of the church. No change = no life + dead church.
Having now read both essays that Cathleen has called attention to, I find it difficult to criticize Cardinal Kasper’s comments. I take it that in this matter everything hangs on what the content of Tradition is. I am not competent to address that matter, but, from what I can tell from these two documents, Cardinal Kasper’s position is very strong.
I do appreciate that the role of women in the Church is a troubling issue. I hope that further reflection on Tradition will bring clarity and agreement about their role. For my part, I can pray but I cannot offer any relevant arguments.