Rowan Williams in Rome
November 20, 2009, 2:57 pm
Posted by Joseph A. Komonchak
Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, yesterday gave an important speech in Rome at a symposium sponsored by the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity. It is devoted to the doctrine of the Church (ecclesiology), focuses on three main questions (authority, primacy, the relation between the universal and the local), and wonders whether disagreements with regard to them remain serious enough to undo important convergences with regard to the theological understanding of the Church. You can find the talk here. And here you can watch and listen to him give part of the speech.
Williams asks, “At what point do we have to recognise that surviving institutional and even canonical separations or incompatibilities are overtaken by the authoritative direction of genuinely theological consensus, so that they can survive only by appealing to the ghost of ecclesiological positivism?” I fear that he is too generous in his assumption that “ecclesiological positivism” is only a spectral presence in the Catholic Church. Positivism (of several stripes) is still very much “in the flesh” in much of the theology coming out of Rome.
Fr. K – thanks for the post. Thought Williams made some good and strong points by distinguishing between core dogmas and truths and more ancillary practices, cultural differences, etc.
Especially found it interesting when he discussed ordaining women as a challenge and that Rome might learn something from the Anglicans in this ongoing discussion?
Quote from his Willebrands Conference:
“Therefore the major question that remains is whether in the light of that depth of agreement the issues that still divide us have the same weight – issues about authority in the Church, about primacy (especially the unique position of the pope), and the relations between the local churches and the universal church in making decisions (about matters like the ordination of women, for instance). Are they theological questions in the same sense as the bigger issues on which there is already clear agreement? And if they are, how exactly is it that they make a difference to our basic understanding of salvation and communion? But if they are not, why do they still stand in the way of fuller visible unity? Can there, for example, be a model of unity as a communion of churches which have different attitudes to how the papal primacy is expressed?
The central question is whether and how we can properly tell the difference between ‘second order’ and ‘first order’ issues. When so very much agreement has been firmly established in first-order matters about the identity and mission of the Church, is it really justifiable to treat other issues as equally vital for its health and integrity?”
Mr. Bugyis – guessing that your comment about ecclesiology stems from this part of his address:
“One of the most fascinating aspects of the journals written during the Second Vatican Council by figures like Willebrands and Congar is the record of a struggle for what I shall call a genuinely theological doctrine of the Church. Part of what Vatican II turned away from is a way of talking about the Church as primarily an institution existing because of divine decree, governed by prescription from the Lord, faithfully administering the sacraments ordained by him for the salvation of souls – ‘an external, visible society, whose members, under a hierarchical authority headed by the pope, constitute with him one visible body, tending to the same spiritual and supernatural end, i.e., sanctification of souls and their eternal happiness’ (Pietro Palazzini, s.v. ‘Church (Society)’ in the Dictionary of Moral Theology, ed. F. Roberti and P. Palazzini, originally published in 1957). But what is missing from this account is any real explication of how the nature and character and even polity of the Church are grounded in and shaped by the nature of God and of God’s incarnation in history. A theological understanding of the Church would be one that makes this connection.”
Reminds me of the very frequent discussions around the tension between vertical-horizontal church; around People of God – Institution; both-and vs. either-or.
Bill deH, —
I agree entirely about the need for theological description of the Church. As a non=theologian who has become interested in contemporary theology, I have been struck by the prepondance of the use of metaphors to describe the Chruch (body of Christ, bark of Peter, etc.) But metaphors are partly false, and they are thereby an invitation to dispute what the Holy Spirit intends by the terms.
It seems to me that at this point in the Church’s history it is the liturgists who need the help of poets, while theology needs, as you say, theological description. The latter, of course, requires careful definitions of terms and that would present its own sort of problems. HOwever, with openness to evidence it is doable.
Great to see Rowan Williams in full voice again. The theme of theological convergence is a very powerful one, which he applies in several ways. What gives it power is that it is rooted in the thought of Vatican II, Ut Unum Sint and agreed Ecumenical statements. That is, he is asking the Vatican if it takes seriously any longer the unfinished ecclesiological revolution of the Council. He boldly asks that the practical consequences of theological convergence be drawn. It does not require juridical unity — indeed such a unity would be a triumph for the ultramontanism that has devalued the Church’s communal life — but rather full recognition of the unity that already exists. Rome cannot go on forever pretending that Anglicanism is not the full shilling (forgetting its own teaching that “the Church of Christ is present and operative” in all Christian churches). Rowan Williams is calmly awakening his Roman hearers to the fact that making a song and dance about minor disagreements and failing to see the massive Christian unity of our shared Gospel, community and sacramentality, is destructive and irresponsible. His own struggles for Anglican unity give extra weight to his remarks.
Rowan Williams upholds papal primacy — the issue is how it is interpreted. Anglicans tend to like the primacy of honor as symbol of unity and touchstone of orthodoxy that prevailed in the 4th century. The pew-view may be that papal primacy as defined in an increasingly power-centered sense from Gregory VII to Pius IX is the essence of the RCC. But given that the current conception of primacy was defined only in 1870 at a divided and unfree Council and that it has been supplemented by a strong stress on episcopal collegiality in the 2nd Vatican Council, I think quarrels about it should not overshadow the fundamental experience of church that Anglicans and Catholics fully share.
Archbishop Williams has spoken clearly, frankly, and courageously. His rich presentation is what one has come to expect of one of contemporary Christianity’s leading theologians. Is an official Vatican communique expected tomorrow after Archbishop Williams’s meeting with Pope Benedict XVI?
What a mature speech. Seems to be what ecumenism is all about. A call to unity rather than division. Angelo Roncalli would have liked it. It will be instructive to see how this speech will be discussed.
I meant to add — If there is a communique, I hope it will not be so indirect as to be impenetrable. Obviously I am not expecting a reply to Archbishop Williams’s talk at the Willebrands Symposium, but at least something that acknowledges the challenges and possibilities that the archbishop has so clearly set out.
Williams has taken the high ground and it will not be taken away from him. How pathetic do our own dear leaders look by comparison!
The remarks by Williams were followed by talks from Jared Wicks, sj, an American Jesuit active in the Catholic Lutheran Dialogue, and then Cardinal Kasper. The occasion, the 100th anniversary of Jan Willebrands birth, probably dominated Kasper’s talk, but one can hope that means an even better contribution that will outshine this marvelous reflection from Williams.
Williams really di make a wonderful application of the idea of a hierarchy of truths. It is a challenge that the Vatican would do well to meet, not just in ecumenism but in other discussions of catholic identity. Too many drift off into promoting their particular issue as the requisite for being a Catholic or a Christian: “if you do not agree with this, you are not in communion with Rome.” Williams did a great job of showing how that devalues the idea of communion.
“The claim of certain Anglican provinces is that the ordination of women explicitly looks to an agreed historic theology of ordained ministry as set out in the ARCIC report and other sources. Beyond that, many Anglicans have been wary of accepting a determination of who can be ordained that might appear to compromise the some of the agreed principles about how ordination relates to the whole body of the baptised. This, by the way, would hold for at least some who believe that a decision within a divided Church about a matter affecting the universal ministry should not be taken by a single province or group of provinces. But for many Anglicans, not ordaining women has a possible unwelcome implication about the difference between baptised men and baptised women, which in their view threatens to undermine the coherence of the ecclesiology in question. ”
What is the difference “real” Catholics, (as defined by the USCCB,) discern between the baptism of a male and of a female?
The diplomatic care with which the Archbishop notes differences within his communion should be noted: “certain Anglican provinces”; “many Anglicans”; “some who believe…”; “many Anglicans”. It is likely that the negative of each of his statements would also require similar words: “certain,” “many,” “some,” “many”…
In answer to Sr. Mary Wood’s question, I would say that there is no difference “between the baptism of a male and of a female,” since, as St. Paul, said, “In Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor freeman, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal 2:28). But, of course, the issue of ministry, whether based upon charism or upon ordination, is not settled by the common baptism. The same Paul also said that there are diversities of grace, of ministries, of operations from the same Spirit, Lord, and God, a point that he elaborates and illustrates at some length in 1 Cor 12. That is why the great Lutheran NT scholar Ernst Kaesemann wrote: “Ecclesiastical egalitarianism is thus ruled out of court… There is differentiation in the divine generosity, whether in the order of creation or of redemption. Equality is not for Paul a principle of Church order” (Essays on NT Themes, 76). If this is true even in the charismatically rich community at Corinth, it is even more true of the settled Churches of the Pastoral Epistles which list qualifications for those who are to become overseers, elders and deacons. None of this settles the question of the ordination of women, but I do not think that one can legitimately argue for the latter on the basis of the equality of baptism: baptism alone is not the ground of ministries in the Church.
I am not an expert in any of this, but…
Williams is not making an argument for or against the ordination of women. He is recalling the breadth of agreement reached on ministry, and saying that “for some Anglicans” the Catholic position undercuts the agreement on ministry, quite apart from any discussion of equality.
One point lies in the unilateral action of some Anglican provinces and the similarly unilateral teaching of JP2 in asserting that women cannot be ordained. If “the Church” is contained in each local Church, as was agreed, how can such unilateral actions take place? Is presbyteral ordination something received by an individual, or is it something the whole Church receives by ordaining specific individuals? This is a pressing issue in the Anglican Church right now, where some would not respect some ordinations, but it has implications for ecumenism.
Another point. The ARCIC agreements cover the development of the sacrament of Holy Orders. This sees ordination as something that God entrusted to the Church, as well as being something instituted by Christ. The process that developed the threefold ministry of bishop priest and deacon would be impossible if it had to meet the standard JP2 sets for the ordination of women. It removes ministry from being a gift to the Church, which the Church is empowered to develop, and makes it instead an example that must be followed. In diminishing the gift to the whole church, this diminishes the gift to each baptized person, who is no longer free to develop a personal response to God’s gifts. (I hope this makes sense. much oversimplification)
My third point has to do with the honoree at this symposium. Cardinal Willebrands famously wrote that the context for judging Anglican Orders had changed with the agreements reached on ministry and Eucharist. Williams is affirming that statement, while questioning if a continued use of the prior context is appropriate. The assertions of equality in baptism that are at the heart of understanding all ministry in the dialogues are called into question by demanding that men and women be treated differently.
That is my guess of what the abp is saying. I am probably wrong to some extent, maybe completely. But he is not making an argument about gender differences. He is talking about the agreements on ministry and the Church and how these are affected by differences in handling gender.
“None of this settles the question of the ordination of women, but I do not think that one can legitimately argue for the latter on the basis of the equality of baptism: baptism alone is not the ground of ministries in the Church.”
But where is there a legitimate differentiation on the gifts of the Spirit or the receipt of the sacraments justified totally on the basis of gender?
I do not consider the pontifications by men of the restriction of ordination to men to be a legitimate differentiation in any way, shape or form — no matter how many times and in how many ways they say it!
Jimmy Mac, you raise a legitimate question, one different from an argument based upon baptism, which was the only issue I was raising.
Austen Ivereigh, on the “America” website, has this comment on the meeting today between Pope Benedict and Archbishop Williams:
“These are exciting times for the two Churches. Pope Benedict’s mission, for which he wants his pontificate remembered, has become clear: to unite the disparate Christian communions in the common task of confronting new obstacles to the Church’s witness. In Dr Williams Rome has a dialogue partner worth more than all his predecessors put together, one devoid of anti-Catholic prejudice and who very sincerely seeks tighter bonds with Rome. Pope Benedict’s gift today to Dr Williams of a pectoral cross is just as strong a sign of respect for his episcopal office as was Pope Paul VI’s gift of a ring to his predecessor, Archbishop Ramsay. (Dr Williams always wears the ring when he sees the Pope; today was no exception.)”
Pope Benedict’s gift today to Dr Williams of a pectoral cross is just as strong a sign of respect for his episcopal office as was Pope Paul VI’s gift of a ring to his predecessor, Archbishop Ramsay. (Dr Williams always wears the ring when he sees the Pope; today was no exception.)”
Now I quote Nicholas in the Tablet for 14 November.
“[N]ot only has the judgement of [Leo XIII in] Apostolicae Curae, in 1896 (that Anglican orders were “absolutely null and utterly void”) never been revoked, but, as recently as 1998, then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger listed it among the definitive and irreversible teachings, failure to gave assent to which excludes someone from “full communion with the Catholic Church”.”
I put it to you that there is some confusion here and it is not on the part of Bishop Williams.
The familiarity was unintentional. The “Nicholas” in question is Nicholas Lash.
Thank you, Joseph Gannon.
Below is the official statement that was issued after this morning’s meeting by the Press Office of the Holy See. As the Italians say, Boh! Am I being too critical in finding it a bit bland given recent events?
It is interesting that the Italian comes first, and then the English translation. I should have thought in this instance it would have been the other way round, This, I believe, is part of a new policy of re-affirming Italian as the ordinary language of the Holy See.
http://212.77.1.245/news_services/bulletin/news/24708.php?index=24708&lang=en
I was happy to see from the Archbishop’s presentation at the Gregorian that at least on the Anglican side Ut Unum Sint hasn’t been forgotten.
Unfortunately, what Joseph Gannon reminds us of is all too true. Beware that this is the same Ratzinger who made sure the great Assissi united prayer of 1996 was not repeated in 2002 where he insisted there is no “praying with.” And he is the author or Dominus Jesus, restoring the Tridentine Mass with its condemnation of the Jews. Etc. What a contrast between him and Williams!
Benedict XVI has a gargantual credibility gap. To say the least.
It seems to me that Benedict is far being as coherent and consistent a thinker as he is credited with being. He gives Rowan Williams a pectoral cross and at the same time considers his episcopal consecration null and void.
Baptismal equality cannot be the SOLE basis for arguing women’s ordination but it could be quite an important basis all the same.
Dr Williams has his inconsistences too, of course.
I suppose inconsistency goes with the jobs.
The giving of the signs of episcopacy to someone whose episcopacy one denies seems to me rather like presenting tokens of marriage to a couple whose marriage one insists is null and void.
What a graceful and patient dialogue partner Rowan Williams has been, even in trying circumstances. In so many ways he shows us what a Christian Bishop can be.
Of course he has the advantage of speaking from a tradition that doesn’t expect him to be right all the time, allows him to admit the limits of his knowledge, to be open to possibilities that might have seemed closed off by past decisions.
Nevertheless, he provides us Roman Catholics with a hopeful model of episcopal leadership, gracious, thoughtful, learned, fair-minded.
On the subject of leadership, I was impressed by this from Williams (quoted in a recent profile in the Financial Times): “We have a dangerous blurring of the leader and the celebrity in our global culture – people don’t always think leadership is being exercised unless noise is being made. And I think they’re wrong. I just live with the perception [of weakness] because it is the kind of culture we live in.”
We’ve just been reading 2 Corinthians with our Parish scripture group. Remember when Paul told the Corinthians about the “thorn in the flesh” the Lord had sent him? He complained about it three times, but said the Lord told him : “My grace is sufficent for you, for power is made perfect in weakness.” And over and over in his letter, Paul makes it clear that he is happy to admit his “weakness” ” in order that the power of Christ” might be made manifest in him. That was Paul’s idea of how a Christian minister should go about his mission. And it looks as if it is Wiliams’s as well.
Interesting that Abp. Rowan Williams was much influenced by Archbishop of Canterbury Michael Ramsey who was a very strong ecumenist. Ramsey was the brother of philosopher Frank Ramsey who was articulate about his own atheism. But the brothers apparently never lost their respect and affection for each other. The sister Christian Churches can learn from them.
The Telegraph added:
Sources in Rome said that Dr Williams’s standing had risen over the course of the visit.
“He hasn’t flinched from bringing up difficult subjects, and has been respectful without being deferential,” the source said.