The Vatican’s new scheme to lure unhappy conservative Anglicans into the fold might have caught the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams off guard, but Catholics are not surprised by anything Rome does to shore up its market share. Conservative clergy, whose opposition to the ordination of women and LGBTQ people motivated them to split from the Anglican Communion, are now welcome to switch to Catholicism.
Let history record this theological scandal for what it is. Touted by Rome as a step forward in ecumenical relations with a cousin communion, it is in fact the joining of two camps united in their rejection of women and queer people as unworthy of religious leadership.
A forthcoming Apostolic Constitution will spell out the details: Anglicans against ordination of women and LGBTQ people (like Bishop Gene Robinson, for example) are in full communion with Rome. Why bother, then, with individual conversion requirements or superfluous paperwork? These Anglicans can even make the transition as congregations or whole dioceses if they choose. They will be Catholics, but like the Eastern Rite Catholics they will do it their way. They can bring their own smells and bells and their Book of Common Prayer; even their own priests and bishops who will head the “Personal Ordinariates” which will function like dioceses. Come as you are, welcome to discriminate to your heart’s content in the name of God.
Rome changes not one whit on the arrival of the dissident Anglicans. It keeps in place its celibate clergy while welcoming married Anglican men with gusto. I predict more than a little consternation in the Roman ranks on that score. Current policy allows Lutheran and Episcopal married priests to jump the fence with the family in tow. Yet Roman Catholic men who wish to marry, never mind Roman Catholic women who might even agree to celibacy, are prohibited from being ordained. No Roman Catholic official seems to be able to say in a straightforward way why this is the case. They mumble something about tradition and certain distinctions. But the rhetoric is increasingly thin as they defend the indefensible against their own practice. It is not pretty.
Rome maintains its liturgy and theology wholly intact. Theological education stays the same, with the addition of small formation groups for Anglican candidates for the priesthood who can appreciate their own “patrimony” while also getting a good dose of Roman thought. In no way does the Vatican engage the issues that led to the English Reformation in the sixteenth century. Rather, Rome pretends to be flexible and modern about all this, gracious and accommodating like a fox. When the property fights begin, I predict the niceties will give way to some serious struggles and we will see just how accommodating Rome can’t be.
Denominations are businesses, after all, and as such they pay as much attention to the bottom line as to their teachings. Maybe more so. In this case, the low-hanging fruit is British Anglicans who have not figured out how to reorganize themselves in light of their denomination’s changes. Early word from the US group led by the Rev. Martyn Minns of Virginia is that they are in fine shape, thank you, setting up their own structures so they will not need to convert.
One wonders how long they can resist Rome’s charms. Imagine the real estate opportunities as US Roman Catholic churches close and conservative Anglicans need buildings. Think of the brilliant solution to the priest shortage as guaranteed-to-toe-the-line Anglican priests replace the Roman boys as they die off and/or think for themselves. Conjure the sight of high mass with a raft of altar servers and incense so abundant it makes parishioners forget there ever was a Vatican II. For the more “Catholic” among the Anglican dissidents, it is a marriage made in heaven. But the more evangelical of the conservative Anglicans may well consider it their worst nightmare.
What is to prevent other denominations from following Rome’s lead? For example, what if the Anglican Communion set up a Catholic wing where those Roman Catholics who believe in the ordination of women and same-sex loving clergy could be Anglicans of the Roman Catholic Rite? The Mennonites might create a Catholic rite for those who follow them on peace issues, resulting in Catholic Mennonites. I doubt it. It is more likely that Rome might decide that one does not even have to be Christian; that discrimination against women and gays is enough of a common bond to create some Catholics of the Muslim rite, for example. The permutations are endless but the result is the same: a perversion of everything the ecumenical movement has stood for in the last hundred years. Ecumenical Christians have tried to learn about one another’s traditions and find positive places of agreement—not little pockets of shared prejudice.
I feel sorry for Rowan Williams if he did not know what he was up against when he engaged in bilateral relations with Rome, only to be subject to its treachery. Beleaguered on all sides in his own communion, he now presides over the potential exodus of some of his members who will find in the new dispensation a comfortable place to live out their outmoded ideas of humanity. I only hope Williams and company are consoled by the fact that they are in good company among ecumenical colleagues who respect one another’s traditions, understand the dynamics of internal struggles, and resist the temptation to profit from one another’s problems. Rome, on the other hand, is in a class—however low—by itself.
Tags: anglican, episcopal church, gene robinson, lgbt, lgbt rights, lgbtq, rowan williams, vatican
The beauty of the move, and also its flaw, is its almost complete shamelessness. Would that they didn't think they had to make noises about reaching out to that other communion when they are in fact poaching from it; then it would be flawless. It's really splendid that they did this reaching out without any notice whatever to the communion that they're reaching out to.
Rome again acts without shame. Those old eunuchs have no morals.
It's ironic to see the Roman old guard out-Protestant the Protestants, creating new articles of faith based in skewed readings of the Bible designed to baptize the rawest of social prejudices. Apparently misogyny and homophobia have now been promoted to the ranks of church councils and creeds as tenets of faith. What a sad day for the rank and file Catholic to see their leadership acting like fundamentalist used car salesmen.
I know it might be a shock to some here, but the world doesn't revolve around homosexuals. I know some would like to have a homosexual friendly litmus test for beauty pageants, politics, religious orders, etc. The left tries to define the RC church as "anti-gay." Sorry but not being pro-homosexual doesn't make one "anti-gay."
It is helpful to compare the two recent meetings. At General Convention of the Episcopal denomination, the lion's share of the effort was discussing how to be GLTBQ friendly. How much time was spent being "anti-gay" at the kick off event of the new Anglican Church of North America? Except for a rare reporter's question...zilch.
When in Denver, I always try to attend an AMiA church there. They rarely address this point except to say that they reaffirm the 4,000 year Judeao-Christian sexual ethic which has worked well (in contrast to acceding to culture's lowest common denominator which is causing terrible pain and havoc).
Good point!
I was always taught that as Christians what matters is not what we say, but what we do. RCC is a oldest (closeted until caught) Gay Club in history of humanity.
A lot of Catholic Priests are Gay, which mind you, is not a crime; but a lot of them are also homosexual child molesters, and are helped by their peers to cover up for their crimes.
So considering RC de facto approves of homosexuality, that is enough for me. One day they will approve of it openly.
umm. The problem here isn't what caused the rift in the Anglican Church. Its all the Roman Catholic Doctrines that Pope John Paul II and Benedict XVI said are immutable. The Pope is now saying are mutable when last year the Pope claimed they weren't.
The gay issue might have caused the rift, but the Pope is making a bigger rift by not allowing the reform he is offering the Anglicans to his own faithful.
Its kind of like the rift in the ELCA right now. Many of the people that are upset can't get up and join the Missouri Synod or the Wisconsin Synod because of other issues. If they do join either synod would have to allow admitted doctrinal disagreement or those joining have to change especially on how they see the roles of women roles the church both clergy and laity.
imo there is something deeper going on. Something that has little to do with the ordination of women(which some that don't support gays do support women) and the welcoming of gays. much deeper. I just wish I knew what it was.
Benedict XVI, who speaks for 1.1 billion Christians, teaches, as does Christendom since its inception, that homosexualism is part of the Cult of Death, the extermination of the Future, the suicide of Humanity, a hate crime against Nature. Delusional Disorder is a psychiatric diagnosis denoting a psychotic mental disorder that is characterized by holding one or more non-bizarre delusions in the absence of any other significant psychopathology. Non-bizarre delusions are fixed beliefs that are certainly and definitely false, but that could possibly be plausible. To believe that homosexualism can somehow be acceptable sexual behavior for any rational person, be they Buddhist, Jewish, Muslim, Communist, atheist, agnostic, or Christian, is, in itself, a clear indicator of Delusional Disorder.
Gee Whiz,
I hear a lot of hate in your comments.I do believe you have not kept up with recent psychological studies. Perhaps you may be the delusional one in these comments.
By the way I am an ordained Catholic Priest, and Licensed Social Worker so I think I have some credibility here even if you might not think so. Maybe you could tell us your credentials for making these kinds of statements?
I don't think you are a Priest or a Social Worker. Stating "credentials" means nothing on the web. (I'm Abraham reincarnated, so I'm an authority too). See how ridiculous that sounds? Just because you are pro-queer, does not make this guy wrong. If you really were a believer in God's word, you would not be attacking someone for pointing out that homosexuality is wrong. The word of God does not change because society wants it to do so. Some things are wrong no matter if you like it or not.
"The word of God does not change because society wants it to do so. Some things are wrong no matter if you like it or not."
Funny. I always thought only God decides what is right or wrong.
Yes, exactly! Homosexualism promotes behavior that cannot result in procreation, thus it is obviously a part of the cult of death, trying to kill off humanity and leave us with no future. Just like celibacy. Any organization that doesn't just allow but actively promotes such behavior in its leaders is obviously an anti-human death cult! Because, of course, if there's anything we're short of in this world, it's humans. Anyone who refuses to try to procreate risks causing the extinction of the species.
Anyone who thinks that the continuation of the human species is the purpose for being may be correct, but it doesn't fit very well into Christian theology.
In Genesis, God wipes out humanity in a flood, except for a few good apples. Jesus never had children, then gave himself to be executed before sewing his seeds. St. Paul says that it's better to marry than burn, but encouraged his followers to remain celibate. God could take or leave more babies, really.
Not only that, but doesn't that mean that celibate Priests are also part of this supposed cult since they don't have babies (usually)?
dear patrianews, you certainly seem to be something of an expert on delusional disorder ... from all sides of the question. To suggest that anyone who doesn't agree with your fixed point of view must by definition be deluded is itself quite obviously delusional, I'm afraid.
Your logic is quite flawed and you ignore other points that science has conclusively proven for us regarding homosexuality. Delusions, in the clinical definition (not yours), must be held regardless of the facts that lead to a different conclusion in order to qualify as a delusional disorder diagnosis. Your application of it here is inappropriate and reveals your own bigotry, not clinical insight. Are you not aware of the numerous, repetitive studies following the scientific method that have proven - over 50 years - that there is no psychiatric disorder in being homosexual? Are you unaware of the numerous studies, again done by the scientific method, that shown homosexual behavior is common throughout nature? Are you not aware that all of this, just like the issue of contraception and Humanae Vitae, shows that the Catholic Church is clinging to thinking that is based in ancient prejudices, bigotry and ignorance? Your attempt to hide behind psychiatric diagnosis - updated as you have done after homosexuality was removed 35 years ago as a mental disorder in the DSM - is a clear demonstration of homophobia with an intellectual veneer. And it is a definitely un-Christian position to hold, seeing as how Jesus, at no point in the Gospels, said one word against homosexuality, but did repeatedly stress charity and love of one another. I encourage you, and others who have blogged support for what you have said, to pray about the lack of charity and love you are showing, as this is the real sin in practice here.
The decision to strike homosexuality from the DSM was a purely political one. The "scientific studies" used to justify the political decision were junk such as the thoroughly discredited Kinsey data.
"...homosexual behavior is common throughout nature?" I really like this line of argument. People find a pheromone crazed fruitfly that mounts another male and there you have it! Justification of homosexuality. The homosexual penguins? Oh, introduce a female in the pen and the homosexual penguins become heterosexual. Oh, but I thought homosexuality was indelibly, genetically determined? And besides, polygamy, eating one's young, eating one's mate, etc., are found in nature. Are we advocating these behaviors?
Robroy, your "science" is most selective, so that the "science" you refer to fits your own distorted conclusions. The research I was referring to was not Kinsey's, and for you to cite that as what I was basing my statements on is the product of hate. As for the 'nature' issue, if it's even worth mentioning to you since it seems you are really not interested in learning anything objective, homosexual behavior is found in every single species on the planet. Likewise, your penguin reference conveniently left out the fact that not all the penguins "switch." as you directly imply. Those with same-sex partners stay loyal to one another. For life. This is so ingenuous of you, to argue a summary comment as if it were a laboratory investigation. It's not scientific integrity you are after here: it is to attack that which you do not really understand. So let me close with this. This is a matter, to many of us, of pure Christian charity and doing the best we can in following the life of Jesus. It precludes speaking untruths and partial truths (which you have done here)and in discovering Christ in every single person. That is the bottom line, isn't it robroy? To love your neighbor as Jesus loves us. Without exception. Even those who are different from the rest of us.
God as a Scientist
Fact.
The detected material mass of the matter in the Universe is
very small (the average density of all substance in the Universe
is approximately p=10^-30 g/sm^3) .
It means that the masses in the Universe are very few.
The distances between stars are very far
About 99% of the matter in the Universe is unseen
Nobody knows what it is
But God using his 99% Hidden mass of the Universe
take control over the 1% Visible mass of the Universe.
He is a smart physicist and mathematician .
He smiles and laughs when others say as H. Hertz has said :
‘ The formulas are cleverer than men ‘
Israel Sadovnik Socratus
========== .
#
I want to know how God created this world
I am not interested in this or that phenomenon,
in the spectrum of this or that element
I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details
/ Einstein /
========= .
But the details are the only thing God shows us.
So what's the problem. There are already 23 Catholic Churches, including the Ukraine Catholic Church, the Armenian Catholic Church, the Coptic Catholic Church, the Latin/Roman Catholic Church, the Maronite Catholic Church, the Malabar Catholic Church, etc. So now we'll have an Anglican Use Catholic Chruch or Anglican Catholic Church(for those parishes that already practice the Anglican Use liturgies and for newcomers). Is that so problematic? The more Catholic Churches the better for diversity.
What to do... Here's a thought for all you women, gay and lesbian people out there:
LEAVE! Just LEAVE! There is no God here, certainly no redemption, no sacred presence. Don't stay where you are loathed. We've been doing enough of that for generations. Let them have their institution. Go where God is -- out where there is life, life in abundance, life open, life vibrant, diverse, ALIVE!
You know, out in the real world where Jesus is.
Brava, Margaret S. Well and beautifully said.
If you can't muster submission to the magisterium and obedience to the See of Peter, then by all means, you should leave. It would be the morally and intellectually honest thing to do, at least.
How unwelcoming and unchristian. Leave! Well I guess that's directed at the Holy Spirit moving in the sensus fidelium since the majority of heterosexual Catholics use artificial birth control. The majority believe in equal rights for gays. But self-righteous bigots would try to steal the church that we love from us because we dare voice the message of Christ, love for all! Many of us are deeply in love with the Eucharist and the People of God. This is our home and we will not leave. Thank you for the kind invitation though.
I suggest that rather than reading the RCC's scandalous actions with the Anglican Church (and the ongoing attempts to have women and LGBTQ secede from Christianity) as shameless, it is more accurate to understand their behavior as steeped in shame. They demonstrate repeated attempts to defend against their own toxic shame by scapegoating and deflecting again and again and again ....
There is another very sad aspect of this move and that is that it gives an option for Anglicans who do not wish to pursue openness toward women and queer folk to hold that position without having to align themselves with Anglicans of color from Africa. In all the hue and cry over sexuality this bit maybe is worthy of note. Again a brilliant, if not particularly Christ-like, marketing ploy on the part of the RCC.
If you examine African Anglicanism, you see that for the most part the evangelical wing of the Anglican tradition holds sway there. Catholic-minded Anglicans who believe in the Real Presence in the Eucharist, Apostolic Succession, and veneration of the saints will not find allies in Africa.
You are trying to make this about one issue. It's not. There is a whole complex of factors that have caused this situation, and it is impossible to understand without understanding first the history of the Anglican Church. The Elizabethan Settlement is in shambles, and that has more to do with this than any presenting symptom might indicate. The ordination of women and the toleration of sexual immorality are just the casus belli.
The problem with people emotionally engaged in an issue is that they have little understanding of what is really going on. Follow the MONEY!! In religionese that means members. In this case FUTURE MEMBERS. The Catholic church is fighting for survival in the 21st century. Their vision is not towards an older fading lower birthrate in Europe and America, rather it is towards Africa. Despite all of its current political problems, the Vatican is betting on a future emerging Africa, whose populations will continue to expand along with its accumulation of personal wealth in the coming decades of the 21st century.
Further, ancient African tribal tradition is in complete accord with the Catholic church's position regarding the rejection of any form of homosexuality and female priests. This is why the most intransigent block of Anglican "conservatives" are the Bishops from the African Communion. Archbishop Williams is far from being an astute international politican, and most likely will pause over a cup of tea and reassure himself that eventually the folks over there in Africa will eventually settle down and accept "change" as a necessary price to pay for living in our new modern age. Sorry Archbishop, it ain't gonna happen..
As demonstrated across the centuries, Rome is no stranger to intrigue and treachery, and the Vatican will do whatever in order to preserve the strength of the Papacy. The strength of the Anglican church is fading as the last remaining vestige of the once powerful British Empire. Unfortunately like any great institution rapidly falling into decay, confusion abounds and any coherent policy lies about tattered in shreds. So it is with the Anglicans.
Will the Vatican get a solid African defection to the Vatican's offer? I personally think it will happen, and I for one will not be suprised.
This is an important point you make, parvenu. Whatever else it is, the Catholic Church is an institution, and has all of the institutional features of others, such as banks, schools, corporations, etc. One defining characteristic of an institution is that it must continually obtain new members/customers/faithful in order to survive and grow. Therefore, the Church has to (in its past andcurrent thinking) repress homosexuals since they do not, usually, produce children who will then be new members. Likewise, contraception is not allowed in part because it interferes with a family producing lots of new customers. The betrayal of the "theology" of anti-homosexuality is highly selective, since the Bible - just a few verses after the abomination sentence - also condemns women being in any position of authority over men in any way, shape or form; that women should never enter the temple (church) without their head covered (or else they should have their heads shaven and be cast out of the temple); or that shrimp is never to be consumed, and so on and so on, which are certainly not followed by the Catholic Church. This is all about increasing the fold and not about living out the example of Christ Jesus Himself.
Absolutely agree with you, but, to follow this logic, I wonder what prevents RCC from allowing their priests to marry? That would increase the size of the fold.
The celibacy issue is another can of worms for the Church. It's original purpose was to avoid families of priests claiming rights to Church property and wasn't official dogma until the 1139 Second Lateran Council. In recent times the "spiritual defense" of continuing celibacy is that "tradition" demands it, that Jesus was celibate (ignoring the fact that his Apostles were mostly married), and that it is a gift from God as part of the calling to the priestly vocation. So if any Pope was to change it, he would be saying that all the previous popes and councils that addressed it were wrong. You don't think that Benedict is about to do that, do you?
While I certainly remain suspicious of Rome's motives, I wonder if the problems facing the Anglican communion are more complex than the news pieces indicate. The larger institutional developments do circle around a struggle over certain theological issues such as women's ordination and homosexuality, but the organizational battlefield is only part of the picture.
Being raised as an Episcopalian, I attended a church that frequently had women priests present in the services and quite a large number of openly gay members (as early as the mid-1980s). While I am no longer a member of the American Episcopal Church, I do maintain relationships with many other who still affiliate and others who have left.
My merely anecdotal knowledge of the reasons people have chosen to join the breakaway Anglican churches suggests that the situation is more nuanced that plain (or vieled) bigotry against various marginalized groups. For instance, a liberal-minded couple I am close with has, after decades in the church, left not because of the church policies but rather because the issues have become politicized and have consumed the church's resources. Their experience was one that left them feeling ostracized when they chose not to weigh in on these issues, as their passions guided them towards more tangible social issues as homelessness, the AIDS epidemic, and care of sick children. Simply, the emerging culture of the Episcopal church has placed these issues on the "back burner" and for Anglican Christians seek an institution devoted to such causes, the North American Anglican Church provides a welcome home. Whether or now I agree with my friends' choice to opt out of their tradtional community is beside point. Instead, I just want to point out that what is at stake remains much more varied when we consider the individual believer's voice. If we focus too much on the public debate here, we lose our ability to discern the other less obvious consequences of this contentious issue.
There is no one faster, smarter or better on the machinations of Rome than Mary E Hunt.She is instructive and passionately committed to justice, and her pieces elicit revealing comments, even those with which one profoundly disagrees.
I have a paper bag for my head with the words "Ashamed again to be Catholic", which is being dragged out more and more these days.
Leave, and leave it those guys?
Well said on both points and I have the same bag on my head. Mary was gracious in only implying the rampant clericalism and spiritual violence of the hierarchy. Don't leave Rosemary, we need you.
What about killing?
This is what I'm waiting to see what they do for the Anglicans. I was told that you had to believe in transubstantiation in order to be catholic. There are many Anglicans that don't believe in transubstantiation, and yet they are entering in full communion. If they don't require it -- which I think they wont -- then how many other traditions are unnecessary?
I think if they keep moving in this direction they are going to make their situation worse and invite schism.
Comments closed
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.