Charlemagne and the Pope
Pope Benedict announced yesterday that the Vatican is establishing a way for disaffected Anglicans to become Catholics.
By means of a decree known as an apostolic convention, the Pope has created a new structure allowing Anglicans to join the Catholic Church while maintaining their own liturgy – in particular the historic Book of Common Prayer – and in some cases having their own bishops.
Reaction has been, to my mind, confused and wishywashy, but several points seem obvious and need to be made. (And I write this with some reluctance: after the publication of my book in 2006 about Bishop Gene Robinson and church politics, especially with regard to homosexuality, I felt very weary of the entire subject, and have largely stayed on the sidelines of the ongoing debate. However...)
1) This is a calculated economic and strategic move. Pope Benedict may be retrograde, but he is also shrewd. As Catholic parishes dwindle, and his insistence on "holding the line" against progressive movements that would bring Catholicism into the 21st century fails to result in Catholics "returning to the fold", the Vatican is looking elsewhere to fill its pews, clergy lists, and coffers. Many of the disaffected Anglican parishes are both conservative and wealthy. A drop in the bucket, in international terms, perhaps, but every bit helps. I'm quite sure the Vatican looked around and said, "If these parishes are leaving and aligning with African Anglican bishops, why shouldn't we try to get them to come over to us?"
2) Contrary to sentimental Anglican notions, the Vatican doesn't care about closer ties. Throughout the history of the Anglican Church, a portion of Anglicans have sought to reunite with what they see as "the one true church." These Anglo-Catholics have sought closer ties with Rome but have been repeatedly rebuffed; instead they have formed parishes which have, in many cases, refused to use the revised Book of Common Prayer (revised especially to use inclusive language) and steadfastly opposed the ordination of women. Even so, the Vatican has not made any offers until now - when it sees these parishes leaving the Anglican Communion anyway because of the ordination of gay bishops and priests. This isn't about closer ties that might ultimately lead to a rapprochement with Rome, which would, in fact, require ideological movement by both churches toward one another: it's an acknowledgment of irreconcilable differences and an indication that no movement by the Catholic Church is forthcoming whatsoever.
3) Therefore, the Vatican is essentially saying "welcome" to homophobic, anti-female, anti-progressive Anglicans: you're just the kind of Catholics we want -- rather than seeing what's happening in the Anglican Communion as an indication that fundamental change is required within Catholicism. It may also be a silent tit-for-tat reaction to Catholic defection by progressives and gay people to the Episcopal and Anglican churches.
4) Racism. Anglican and Episcopal leaders have reacted vaguely, but generally positively. I find that extremely disturbing, for the following reason. Besides the AngloCatholics, the other group outraged by gay ordination have been the evangelicals, led by bishops of the so-called Global South, particularly African bishops from provinces such as Uganda and Nigeria. When these Anglican bishops wooed American bishops, held illegal ordinations for new bishops, and circumvented Anglican rules of behavior, it was rightly called "poaching." Now we have Anglican spokespersons making statements like "there's no reason to see the Vatican's move negatively," (Canon Eric Beresford of Canada) or as "a comment on problems within Anglicanism" (Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams).
The black African bishops spoke openly about the end of the colonial legacy, and triumphally about the success of evangelical Anglicanism in the developing world, where the numbers are greatest and the church is actually growing. That attitude didn't go down well in North America and Europe, but a white European pope, wearing the same outfit and saying the same mass and preaching in the same restrained way? Well, this is something familiar; he is, for all intents and purposes, one of us - we northerners are all, so to speak, cut out of the same ecclesiastical cloth, and so we'll extend professional courtesy to one another. In my opinion, that's racist.
5) why should anyone care? A good question, and on that has been brought up in the comments in every article I've read about this development. The answer is that there are still people who find comfort and faith in the liturgical tradition maintained by Catholicism and Anglicanism, and - as Canon Eric Beresford so rightly pointed out, "people need to find a home." Here in Quebec, where the Catholic church has been so discredited, and deserted by the French Canadians who once filled every parish pew and balcony, we have an example of what the future looks like if churches refuse to acknowledge the past and look toward a future that keeps pace with the world. In our Anglican parish, the largest group of newcomers are gay former Roman Catholics who have found a home where they are welcome as full participants in the mass, and in the life of the parish. I've writtten already about the enormous damage done to gay men and women who were refused communion and rejected by priests and, in some cases, their own Catholic families as unredeemable sinners. Their personal stories are well known to me now, as is the pain that they've endured and their relief at finding a place with a different message, but the same basic liturgy of the mass. I understand why simply rejecting the church and leaving for good was not an option for many of them (and I also see why this is hard for people to understand who weren't raised in a Catholic tradition.)
Finally, what disturbs me the most is the Anglican leadership's equivocation when they act as if these two divides are somehow equal, natural and right. All that says is "what we care about is not truth, not the existence of moral principles and justice, but the preservation of the institution by whatever means are necessary." Breaking into multiple divisions rather than struggling together is the easier way out, but even if that happens, why should we sidestep what it really means and what we are saying when we support it? Are women and gay people to be endlessly excluded from full participation, or do we actually stand for something? If we do, then it should be said courageously, with no mincing of words, and lived out as fact. Without this, is it any wonder people who can detest hypocrisy are deserting the church in droves?
Sigh. It's a long, long way from the heady optimism of Liberation Theology's heyday in Latin America, isn't it. I guess it speaks volumes to me that I didn't even read past the headline when I read about Benedict extending a hand to disgruntled Anglicans -- I just really feel like they deserve each other, which is small-minded and petty. I know a lot of people are sort of in agony about it now, but I am, for better or worse, no longer one of them.
Posted by: Pica | October 21, 2009 at 12:50 PM
Thanks, Pica. I'm not in agony either; I feel pretty detached, but still wanted to comment.
Posted by: Beth | October 21, 2009 at 01:01 PM
Beth,
A couple of reflections from Nouwen that I have recieved coincidentally the last few days! It is hard to bear the big picture in mind always All these tactical political moves are perhaps just a steps of a greater divine dance that is happening that will be gradually revealed to us in "the fullness of time".
Believing in the Church
The Church is an object of faith. In the Apostles' Creed we pray: "I believe in God, the Father, ... in Jesus Christ, his only Son º in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body and the life everlasting." We must believe in the Church! The Apostles' Creed does not say that the Church is an organization that helps us to believe in God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. No, we are called to believe in the Church with the same faith we believe in God.
Often it seems harder to believe in the Church than to believe in God. But whenever we separate our belief in God from our belief in the Church, we become unbelievers. God has given us the Church as the place where God becomes God-with-us.
________________________________________
The Church, Spotless and Tainted
The Church is holy and sinful, spotless and tainted. The Church is the bride of Christ, who washed her in cleansing water and took her to himself "with no speck or wrinkle or anything like that, but holy and faultless" (Ephesians 5:26-27). The Church too is a group of sinful, confused, anguished people constantly tempted by the powers of lust and greed and always entangled in rivalry and competition.
When we say that the Church is a body, we refer not only to the holy and faultless body made Christ-like through baptism and Eucharist but also to the broken bodies of all the people who are its members. Only when we keep both these ways of thinking and speaking together can we live in the Church as true followers of Jesus.
Posted by: confusedK | October 21, 2009 at 01:29 PM
As a Methodist in the American Southwest, the subtleties of this situation are lost on me. In fact, my first thought was regarding Henry VIII and what he might think of the Catholic Church extending any sort of olive branch to Anglicans, rather than any sort of contemporary issue. My husband's family are lapsed Irish Catholics, but his mother's break with the Church involved the size of her family and methods for keeping it small, something that obviously pre-dated his existence. I do understand something of the draw of the Church, though. Even after all of these years after breaking with the Church, she is still concerned with papal decrees and other Church pronouncements. A few years back, she called me to say that she'd like to be cremated, now that the Catholic Church no longer prohibits that. What a powerful hold the Catholic tradition retains on her 72 year-old heart.
Posted by: Kim | October 21, 2009 at 02:58 PM
A friend commented by email:
"Beth, these observations are very apposite. A practicing Roman Catholic told me today that Benedict XVI is simply destroying the RCC. Apparently the strategy is to force the liberal Catholics to leave and go elsewhere."
Posted by: Beth | October 21, 2009 at 09:02 PM
A friend ... who is both Italian and Catholic...phoned me this morning. "Did you hear that the Pope is accepting Anglican priests? Just wait till they hear that they need to learn Italian!"
Posted by: Vivian | October 21, 2009 at 09:15 PM
My first thought was how upset progressive Roman Catholics must be.
I think you are right that this is mostly about the fatal tendency in institutions for the preservation of the institution to become the overriding aim.
Posted by: Jean | October 22, 2009 at 07:20 AM
As Sarah Silverman says "sell the Vatican and feed the hungry"
Posted by: zuleme | October 22, 2009 at 07:23 AM
As a liturgical Lutheran who's looking forward to Reformation Sunday this week-end, I enjoyed your post, especially the ideas in #5. It's been an interesting summer for Lutherans, although our struggles with the sexuality issue seem to attract less press. For folks who need a different message than that offered by conservative Catholics and Anglicans but a mass-like liturgy (Luther was a Catholic monk before he nailed his theses on the Wittenberg door, so he learned liturgy from the experts of his time), I'd suggest the ELCA, where we are now accepting everyone, regardless of sexual orientation and ordaining gays and lesbians in lifelong committed relationships. Of course, we'll continue to disagree about these decisions--at various Synod assemblies, we even formally agreed to disagree while respecting divergent views.
Posted by: Kristin Berkey-Abbott | October 22, 2009 at 03:51 PM
A bit after I read this yesterday, I saw on a Sunday night British church programme - a popular old chestnut we occasionally look at to see the church interiors or if we might like the music, which we generally don't so we turn it off - that the Pope is thinking of canonising Cardinal Newman. I suppose I might normally just have thought 'Oh, that's nice, though I'm not quite sure how they'll be able to claim he worked any miracles...' then I remembered about this, and it fell into place that this is probably a bit of cynical politicking.
Just by the way.
Posted by: Lucy | October 26, 2009 at 10:34 AM