Vatican concerns and errors of the media
Episcopal News Service. November 30, 2009 [113009-03]
Bishop Pierre Whalon, Bishop-in-charge of the Convocation of American Churches in Europe
The Vatican, through its Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, has just released the norms for the integration of Anglicans in Roman Catholic dioceses, with their own Anglican-style rites and non-geographic jurisdictions. Cardinal Levada, former Archbishop of San Francisco and now head of the Congregation, announced this initiative on October 20, 2009.
In light of the lack of consultation with its own bishops, including the new Archbishop of Westminster, the unexplained delay between the announcement and the publication of this "Apostolic Constitution" (currently available only in English and Italian), as well as the insult offered to the spiritual leader of Anglicans, the Archbishop of Canterbury, there are certainly reasons to worry about the Roman Catholic Church. On the eve of my consecration as Bishop in Rome, which took place on November 18, 2001 at our parish of St. Paul's-Within-the-Walls, I had the signal honor to be invited to the Holy See by Pope John Paul II, who wished to offer me a formal welcome to Europe. This unprecedented act of hospitality touched me deeply, as well as the Pontiff's brief speech, in which he affirmed that the commitment of his church to the path of ecumenism is irrevocable, and has the unswerving goal of the reunion of all Christians.
However, this new constitution does not seem congruent with that declaration of eight years ago, which was absolutely in line with the great decrees of Vatican II, Lumen gentium and Unitatis redintegratio. This new document quotes them, but seems to have forgotten their spirit. Instead of the measured, humble cadences of those great documents, a triumphalistic accent colors Anglicanorum coetibus.
According to Cardinal Walter Kasper, head of ecumenism for the Roman Church, the target in particular is groups of dissidents who separately founded small churches beginning in the '60s, which have come together under the banner of "The Traditional Anglican Communion." They are made up of people who for different reasons left the Anglican Communion: the revision of the Book of Common Prayer, the admission of women to Holy Orders in some churches of the communion; and the inclusion of gay and lesbian people. Outside this little assembly of churches, there will certainly be some individuals who, for reasons of conscience, will accept this new offer by the Vatican.
That these Christians of Anglican heritage should no longer stay on the fringe of Anglicanism, but may join another part of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church, can only be a good thing. May God bless them and keep them!
In any case, there have always been comings and goings between Roman Catholics and Anglicans, as between these two communions and the Orthodox churches. Of course, all three come from the same church, divided -- alas! -- in the eleventh century. Though certain key ideas of the Reformation influenced the 38 national churches (called "provinces") of the Anglican Communion, all three communions came from and continue to keep the catholicity inherited from the first centuries.
Strongly conscious of the evil effects of the various schisms, especially on the credibility of the Gospel that we all are responsible to proclaim, the Anglican Communion took the initiative of launching the ecumenical movement at the dawn of the last century. We had thought that in these last decades some real progress was being made. But the resurrection of the language of assimilation in the latest document can only disappoint all who seek the reconciliation of all Christians, whatever their particular denomination. The Vatican can rest assured that we Anglicans will not create "Roman-rite jurisdictions" for unhappy Roman Catholics!
I strongly applaud the serene manner of His Grace Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, in responding to the maladroitness of the announcement and language of this new Constitution. Instead of breaking with partners whose conduct is so peremptory, or expressing a perfectly justifiable anger, Archbishop Williams decided to keep a long-planned appointment with Benedict XVI. As a sign of apology for his disrespect, the Pope offered the Archbishop a golden bishop's pectoral cross.
In a remarkable speech on Nov. 19 at the Gregorian University, the heart of Roman Catholic teaching, the archbishop called our sister church back to order. In light of the progress of the past four decades and the permanent change of the theological modes of expression of the churches which have now come to hold in common the meanings of salvation andthe identity and mission of the church, how can a "second-order question" like the ordination of women harm the unity achieved on these "first-order questions"? In his address, the Archbishop said, "And the challenge to recent Roman Catholic thinking on this would have to be: in what way does the prohibition against ordaining women so 'enhance the life of communion,' reinforcing the essential character of filial and communal holiness as set out in Scripture and tradition and ecumenical agreement, that its breach would compromise the purposes of the church as so defined?"
All Christians should hope that these developments do not signal a step back from that commitment which John Paul II had so firmly declared in 2001. In light of other recent clumsy initiatives, if the Vatican continues to insist anew on dusty decrees of a bygone era, it will isolate the Roman Church from other Christians. In the context of globalization, which the Archbishop of Canterbury called to mind, this would be a tragedy for us all.
This event has been copiously covered by the media, which has made many basic errors. One could think that after more than 40 years of common discussions, decisions and actions between the Anglican Communion and the Roman Catholic Church, that no one would allow himself to repeat the false propaganda that Henry VIII of England created a church for himself so that he could obtain a divorce.
That king founded nothing and certainly never asked anyone for a divorce. Those who continue to repeat this lie do so to harm the Church of England, which began through the efforts of missionaries in the second century after Christ. The Reformation had no influence on the monarch who had been granted the title of "Defender of the Faith" for his unwavering support of the papacy -- a title that still appears on all British currency just above the portrait of the monarch. Then-Pope Clement VII would certainly have granted Henry the annulment (not divorce) of his marriage with Catherine of Aragon that he felt he needed, a favor which other loyal kings had received before, had Clement's war against Henry's wife's nephew, Charles V, not failed. The defeated pope was Charles' prisoner when Henry's men arrived with their sovereign's letters.
After the brief reign of Henry's son Edward, during which the Book of Common Prayer came to be, Mary Tudor, the daughter of Henry and Catherine, renewed close relations between the Church of England and the papacy only six years after her father's death. It fell to Elizabeth I to put the Church of England on the path of what we've called since the nineteenth century "Anglicanism". Pope Pius V, being unable to remove her, instigated a war against Elizabeth led by her cousin, Mary Queen of Scots. That war lost, he excommunicated the English queen in 1570, which had the effect of requiring those still loyal to the papacy to actively seek to dethrone her. Cast off in this brutal and cynical manner, the Church of England and her daughter churches have since then striven to hold to a "comprehensiveness," which is to say, a dynamic equilibrium between our catholic heritage and the perennial need of all churches for reform.
If the Tudor monarchs are poor examples of holiness, the popes of that era were scarcely more edifying. So, enough propaganda!