Monsignor Newton on The Future of Ecumenism

A video recording of Mgr Newton's address given at the Church of St Mary Magdalen in Brighton has been in circulation for some time, but it is only now that the quiet days of August allow the members of the Marylebone group to view it and to provide a few personal thoughts on it.

It can come as no surprise that we find ourselves wholeheartedly in agreement with what Mgr Newton says (and no, we are not saying that simply because he is our Ordinary).

To prove that, do please note that we have often referred (for example here and here) on this blog to our sadness that the warnings given by many, including by Cardinal Kaspar in 2006 (to the Church of England's House of Bishops) and in 2008 (to the Lambeth Conference) have not been taken into account.  His 2006 speech called for the Church of England not to erect new impediments to unity.  Cardinal Kaspar's 2008 text included the following as part of his longer address :

We would see the Anglican Communion as moving a considerable distance closer to the side of the Protestant churches of the 16th century, and to a position they adopted only during the second half of the 20th century.

The 1966 Common Declaration signed by Pope Paul VI and Archbishop Michael Ramsey called for a dialogue that would “lead to that unity in truth, for which Christ prayed”, and spoke of “a restoration of complete communion of faith and sacramental life”. It now seems that full visible communion as the aim of our dialogue has receded further, and that our dialogue will have less ultimate goals and therefore will be altered in its character. While such a dialogue could still lead to good results, it would not be sustained by the dynamism which arises from the realistic possibility of the unity Christ asks of us, or the shared partaking of the one Lord’s table, for which we so earnestly long.

The advice of those such as Cardinal Kaspar has been ignored even although senior clergy from the Orthodox Church have addressed leading Anglicans on the same point (certain kinds of Anglicans like to turn a deaf ear to Rome, fondly but vainly imagining that Constantinople or Moscow will say something rather more to their liking).  At a 2010 address to the Nicaea Club at Lambeth Palace, Metropolitan Hilarion, of the Russian Orthodox Church, after recalling the warm history of co-operation between Anglicanism and the Orthodox, and having taken several none-too-subtle swipes at the über-liberal practices of certain parts of the Anglican Communion, went on to comment that the Church of England's approach on certain issues was not conducive to Christian Unity.

We have studied the preparatory documents for the decision on female episcopate and were struck by the conviction expressed in them that even if the female episcopate were introduced, ecumenical contacts with the Roman Catholic and the Orthodox Churches would not come to an end. What made the authors of these documents so certain?

The effect of what is now happening is that the underlying raison d'être for the no doubt friendly and sincere ecumenical dialogue that carries on is fundamentally different from that envisaged by the 1966 Common Declaration.  No longer does even the most Panglossian optimist think that any kind of corporate unity is likely in the lifetime of anyone living today.  The unquestionably warm friendships and contacts at the parish and personal level continue, but the true Unity for which Christ prayed is further away than it was.  The conclusions of ARCIC I and the zenith of hope for reunion that was attained when Blessed John Paul II knelt in prayer beside Archbishop Robert Runcie in Canterbury Cathedral seem so very far distant now.

Well, that's all old ground, you might say.  Cardinal Kaspar and Monsignor Newton have said it all rather better than you, and indeed you have written of this in the past.  All true.  We'll leave it there.
 
However, what we would want to do is to pick up on something else that Monsignor Newton mentioned.  He talked of an address given by the Archbishop of Canterbury to a symposium at the Gregorian University in Rome in 2009, marking the centenary of the birth of Cardinal Willebrands, the first president of the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of Christian Unity.

Dr Williams talked of the many things upon which Catholics and Anglicans agree being first order issues (by which he meant important points), and of those upon which we did not agree being second order issues (by which he meant less significant matters that ought not to get in the way of the bigger points).  He also talked of how the way that the Anglican Communion handles differences might be a potential model for Catholic-Anglican discussions, but we shall make no comment upon that, sticking rather to his differentiation in significance of topics.

When reading of Dr Williams's talk at the time, my reaction to the first order and second order analysis was  that I wanted to apply it rather differently.  If these points really are second order (in an Anglican understanding thereof), why then (of relevance to Anglicans) does General Synod not only spend seemingly all of its time discussing them, but also (of relevance to Catholics too) place such a high value on them that they are allowed to wound shared understandings of first order issues?

Whatever we might think of any of these "second order issues", do any of them really trump the following:

Ut omnes unum sint, sicut tu Pater in me, et ego in te, ut et ipsi in nobis unum sint, ut credat mundus, quia tu me misisti.

That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

In this context, Anglicanorum coetibus can indeed be seen very clearly as a practical ecumenical gesture, as Monsignor Newton rightly said.  To Anglo-Catholics who didn't wish their response to the Gospel call to Unity to be subject to second order issues, it was indeed the perfect ecumenical gesture.

Let us conclude with two musical settings of the words of Psalm 132 (or Psalm 133, depending on which counting system you follow....).  The first version is very definitely Anglican Patrimony, it is Anglican chant sung by the choir of King's College, Cambridge.  The second is a setting that has featured previously on this blog, written by Fernando de las Infantas in 1570 to commemorate the founding the Holy League, the alliance of Catholic Nations that in 1571, under Don John of Austria, would emerge victorious from the Battle of Lepanto, as Fr Hunwicke evoked so clearly for us at St Mary's Bourne St in 2010.

Ecce quam bonum et quam iucundum, habitare fratres in unum.  Sicut unguentum in capite, quod descendit in barbam, barbam Aaron.  Quod descendit in oram vestimenti eius, sicut ros Hermon, qui descendit in montem Sion.  Quoniam illic mandavit Dominus benedictionem, et vitam usque in saeculum.

Behold how good and joyful a thing it is, brethren, to dwell together in unity.  It is like the precious ointment upon the head, that ran down unto the beard, even unto Aaron's beard.  And went down to the skirts of his clothing, like as the dew of Hermon, which fell upon the hill of Sion.  For there the Lord promised his blessing and life for evermore.

Clarifying the Clarifications

First of all, before moving to topic of this post, a word of congratulations to all the new deacons ordained for the Ordinariate this morning at Westminster Cathedral.  A photo of the new deacons, taken from the Ordinariate's Facebook page, is included below.  Oh yes, and it is indeed new Deacon John Hunwicke that you can see alongside his fellow new deacons in this photo.

Our post on the statement issued by the Church of England's House of Bishops earlier this week attracted a lot of readers, and some very interesting, informed and courteously made comments.  Do have a look if you haven't already done so, you can find it all here.

As a short postcript, we draw our readers' attention to a statement issued last night by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Archbishop of York.  You can find the full text here, but we set out below a few extracts and comments.

In summary, the clarificatory statement confirms the way we had understood the statement from the House of Bishops.   You see, there's proof for all you doubters about whether Anglican Patrimony exists, we are still capable of deciphering the dense language that emerges from Lambeth Palace and Church House.
 
In the comments on our article Missing the Point, we said that the clarification about what delegation meant and where the replacement bishop's episcopal status came from did not change anything, it was merely a statement of fact.  A helpful one, but still a clarification only, bringing about no change.  York and Canterbury said :

To take the simpler ...[amendment]...first: we decided to make no change to the provision in the Draft Measure by virtue of which the arrangements made by diocesan bishops under diocesan schemes for the exercise of ministry by a male bishop take effect, as a matter of law, by way of 'delegation. But we believed that it would help to spell out what is and isn't meant by the 'delegation' of the power to perform acts of episcopal ministry. Bishops are bishops because they are ordained in the name of the whole Church; but they are enabled to act as bishops in this or that particular area in virtue of various legal provisions. For those who are not diocesan bishops, this means that a diocesan gives them the legal authority to act as bishops - as pastors and teachers and people responsible for other ordained ministers.
'Delegation' describes the giving of that authority. It does not take anything away from the diocesan bishop who delegates; it just allows another bishop to minister legally in the diocesan's area of oversight. The amendment simply declares what the law and practice of the Church already is, and what we mean by delegation in other contexts.

So, the clarification of the clarification of the first proposed amendment is clear: nothing has changed (no disrespect intended, but isn't that a classic example of the typical Anglican model of governance).  There is no additional comfort provided to Anglo-Catholics, and there should be no implication of "taint" assumed by proponents of the ordination of women to the Anglican episcopate.
 
The clarification of second proposed amendment is also pretty clear.  A replacement bishop supplied by a diocesan bishop must be male and must share the views of the parish on the issue of the ordination of women.  There is no right for a parish to choose who the replacement bishop will be.  Therefore, despite the ongoing role (even if no longer in PEV status) of Ebbsfleet, Richborough and Beverly, a diocesan bishop need not call them in, but can call in a more establishment or mainstream figure, such as a nearby suffragan or retired anglican bishop (I don't mean to be rude there, it is no insult to anyone I hope, but I think what I mean is clear).

The earlier draft of the Measure already allowed parishes to request the diocesan to provide a male bishop to minister to them if their theological convictions were such as to make it impossible in conscience to receive a woman's ministry in this role. For this to operate effectively, a diocesan would obviously have to do what could be done to find a bishop who could work constructively with such a parish.

The amendment requires the Code of Practice which the bishops will draw up to offer guidance as to how this might be achieved. This was already something the bishops and the Synod would have been able to include in the Code. The change is that they will now have to include such guidance. It does not give parishes the right to 'choose their own bishop' or insist that their bishop has a particular set of beliefs. It allows them to ask for episcopal ministry, as spelled out in Clause 2 of the Measure, only on the grounds of theological conviction about women's ordained ministry. The precise wording in the Code remains something for the Bishops and Synod to determine but it attempts to take seriously the fact that, as has been clear all along, simply providing any male bishop would not do justice to the theological convictions lying behind requests from some parishes.

One can understand why Canterbury and York issued this clarification.  There had been a lot of comment, some of it very excited indeed.  I'm sure we have all read of the sadly infamous article commented upon at Let Nothing You Dismay.

As our comments on the Missing the Point blogpost suggested, we think that if for whatever reason, the legislation is not passed in the summer (without commenting on whether, from a personal perspective, any of us would wish that it should or should not be), then the negative fall out could be significant.  This will most especially be the case if the "pro" camp doesn't vote the legislation through.  The "pro" camp, the media and politicians will thereafter exert massive pressure on the new Archbishop of Canterbury to ensure the swiftest and clearest possible solution to what they will simplistically and erroneously - but successfully and convincingly - describe as a sacrifice by supporters of the ordination of women, made necessary by the bishops being too nice to meanie traditionalists. 

After all, who knows what the approach of the new Archbishop of Canterbury might be.  It seems unlikely that he will be as understanding as Rowan Williams has been.  The make up of the selection committee cannot, we suppose, offer much comfort to Anglo-Catholics. 

We have focused too much on developments in the CofE recently, even if given our history it is inevitable that we should.  One more mention then of the Ordination at Westminster Cathedral today, on which we will provide a report in a subsequent post.  Our prayers for all the candidates ordained deacon this morning.  Thanks be to Almighty God for sending so many good and holy men to serve in his Church.

H/T to the Once I Was a Clever Boy blog for this beautiful 15th century Catalan painting of the ordination of St Vincent to the diaconate by Bishop St Valerius.

A word also about the feast of St Philip Neri, Father of Oratorians.  His feast is being kept in the greatest style at the London Oratory today, led by HE Cardinal Burke.  We ask the prayers of St Philip Neri, and also offer our prayers, for that wonderful church, led of course by its new Provost, who like us is a former regular at St Mary's Bourne St, and with many former members of the Bourne St congregation in its pews.    Our fellow Catholics at the Oratory had the Theresienmesse as the setting of the Ordinary of their Solemn Pontifical Mass this morning.  Here is the Gloria, followed by a couple of photos taken by Eoghain Murphy of proceedings in Brompton this morning. 

Here We Go Again

Old issues keep cropping up, time and again.  Although in some places a constructive and engaged dialogue continues, in other places there is merely shouting (or as the French, in their unashamedly un-pc way, say un dialogue de sourds).  Currently, there are two very different examples of this phenomenon that are floating around the public consciousness (one rather more than the other), although there was a third example, to my mind in no way less important, which has been obliterated from the forum.

The first topic is the one that is all over the UK media, being the question of same-sex marriage and its near certain introduction into the English legal system (indeed the government now tells us that it doesn't matter how many people say they are for or against it, it is going to happen, come what may).  I am not going to dig a hole for myself by getting involved in that debate (and so it is unlikely that any comments will be published) : there are already plenty, far more eloquent and informed than I could ever be, on both sides of the discussion, who have made their case, just as there are those on both sides of the debate who have merely shouted at each other.  However, I will say a couple of things, writing purely in a personal capacity.

It is to be hoped that people on both sides of the debate understand that people on the other side do genuinely feel strongly about their position.  They each very honestly believe that they are putting forward a case that is robust, just, and in many ways, they feel, so obvious that it barely need be spoken.  That last part being the reason why the debate often gets so heated.  Some express themselves better than others, some show a deeper awareness of the contrary arguments than others, the words of all of them alike are twisted into grotesque (yes, I know the reference I am making, and no, read the original, Cardinal O'Brien did not say that anyone was grotesque) soundbites by the media, but underneath it all, they know that they sincerely hold the views they express and they know that their debating partners are no less sincere in their belief.

There are times when this slips and the situation turns unpleasant, though I won't name names : we can all think of examples on both sides. 

It should be emphasised that whatever else it is doing, and whatever else it may be perceived to be doing, the Catholic Church is not throwing itself into an attack on any particular group in this debate.  Those who like to deride the Catholic Church sometimes talk about its "unhealthy" obsession with sin, and how it imbues an enduring sense of "Catholic guilt" in its members : well, that in itself is an old debate, but in this context I would answer the "charge" by saying that all Catholics are indeed taught that they all sin, every one of them, each in their own ways, that none of them should feel superior to anyone else in this regard, and most importantly that they can all, if they want, receive God's forgiveness.  In support of this assertion, I could cite a familiar Bible text about motes, but in addition I would draw your attention to this recent homily given by the Holy Father.

The Catholic Church is defending something, not attacking something.  The letter from the Archbishop of Westminster and the Archbishop of Southwark read out in parishes last Sunday morning was a reasoned and calm, but very clear, defence of the traditional understanding of the institution of marriage. 

One big fear - and you don't have to agree with the Catholic Church's understanding of marriage to see this - is that the government just hasn't thought this through in detail.  The implications are not insignificant (for example, an interesting debate recently about something as basic as vocabulary, will the words husband, wife and even mother and father become politically incorrect?).  There is a special concern in the Church of England, whose statement yesterday points out the naivety of imagining that the dividing line between civil and religious marriage is quite as neat and tidy as seems to be assumed in the case of the established church, whose clergy are licensed to perform marriages.   

If the change is brought in, and it must be said that it seems very likely that it will be, it will probably be manageable for the Catholic Church to find a way to work with the new realities.  It will be messy, it will be difficult, but it will somehow be achievable.  There is after all the precedent of the mariage civil  and the mariage réligieux, as well as similar precedents from a few other countries, even if those do not quite replicate the context we will find here.  The time will surely come when even this will not be acceptable, and one can foresee the day when the government demands that any organisation that conducts marriages should do so for any who ask, regardless of how the request fits the organisation's own criteria for marriage. When that day comes, it might be necessary, as was suggested on the Valle Adurni blog a few weeks ago, for the Catholic Church simply to stop conducting any marriage ceremonies at all in order not to be in a position where it breaks the law where it "supplies services" to some but not to others.

The poor old CofE will have a tougher time, partly on account of its established status, but also on account of its rapidly growing body of evangelicals, who will struggle to come to an accommodation on this with the liberal wing, many of  whom would have no issue at all with conducting same-sex marriage ceremonies.

It must be conceded that those who have no religious belief must find it immensely frustrating that a group of people, however large, and based on whatever history and tradition, is perceived as trying to restrict some of those who have no interest in them. It behoves those advocating a traditional understanding of marriage to bear that in mind, just as we would ask those looking to bring same-sex marriage into existence to take account of the genuine reasons why people do not agree with them, rather than just lazily assuming that it must be down to one kind of prejudice or another.

A Stonewall lobbyist remarked that Catholics who are not in favour of same sex marriage should simply be careful to ensure that they don't enter into such an arrangement.  Some people found that flippant, but I must admit that I found it quite funny.  In return, a mildly amusing anecdote about the famous Labour MP Tom Driberg, later Lord Bradwell (immortalised in a rather unkind, if funny, 1977 Derek and Clive sketch about an exchange between taxi drivers that is definitely not for the faint of heart). 

Driberg, despite never making a secret of his homosexuality, decided to get married in 1951.  In a ceremony at St Mary's Bourne St in June that year (described as "outrageously ornate" by his biographer), at which his bride was first baptised and then entered church to the accompaniment of an organ arrangement of The Red Flag, Driberg made vows that he didn't end up keeping in front of a full house.  Among those present, so (possibly apocryphal) Bourne St legend relates, was Winston Churchill, who is said to have remarked unkindly of the bride's looks "Well, buggers can't be choosers."

On a more serious note, Driberg left instructions for the sermon to be given at his funeral.  It wasn't at all a celebration of how wonderful he was, of what a joyous and exuberant life he had led.  It was a powerful address, given by the Revd Gerald Irvine, on how Driberg had fallen short in his life, how he (exactly like everyone else, no better, no worse) was a sinner, which of the Seven Deadly Sins had plagued him most.  All of us can learn a lesson from Driberg in that respect, an awareness that no matter what our own little cocktail of pecadilloes might be, we all fall short, every one of us.

Interestingly, although Driberg maintained his lifelong Anglo-Catholicism (Lancing to Pusey House to St Mary's Bourne Street and onwards), he was supportive of someone whose life's path crossed his own on many occasions but who left Anglo-Catholicism.  Evelyn Waugh did what in 1930 was, even if not criminal, barely less scandalous socially than were Driberg's pastimes - he became a Catholic.  Did Driberg reject him as a bigot?  No - Driberg was Waugh's only guest upon his reception into the Catholic Church, and Driberg gave Waugh column space in the Daily Express subsequently to defend himself against charges of blasphemy from The Tablet (now doesn't that sound strange to the modern ear).

************

Another old issue that crops up again and again is the path to reunion between the Church of England and the Catholic Church.  Everyone with even the slightest interest in Christian Unity rejoices that the Archbishop of Canterbury and Holy Father jointly attended Vespers in Rome, and that together they gave thanks for the mission begun by St Gregory the Great of sending St Augustine of Canterbury to increase the spread of Christendom in the British Isles and to strengthen the links between the Church in England and Rome.  That Rowan Williams goes to Rome so often, and continues to be invited back, is a very good thing.  Christian Unity is a Gospel imperative, and however distant it seems, we must all seek it.

Still, there are those who see this as proof that everything can carry on exactly as before, that there are no new impediments to Christian Unity being gleefully erected by parts of the Anglican Communion.  I regret that those people would seem to be in Egyptian mode.  A strange comment on this was made by the American Episcopal Church's Pierre Whalon, who took the opportunity to have a little go at the Ordinariates formed under Anglicanorum Coetibus, declaring that they had no ecclesiological basis and that as pastoral measures would only last a decade or two.  Well, as an American he ought to know that the US Pastoral Provision, creating the Anglican Use in the Catholic Church in the USA was brought in 32 years ago. Furthermore, as the head of ECUSA's European branch, which overlaps with the Church of England's Diocese in Europe, he ought to know something about the endurance and ecclesiology of multiple jurisdictions of the same denomination co-existing in the same geographic territory.

This film of the event by Rome Reports shows the clear and genuine affection and respect that exists between the Holy Father and the Archbishop of Canterbury.  However, even though Pope Benedict XVI is most definitely the Pope of Christian Unity, the debate has moved on and there can be few who seriously believe that any kind of corporate reunion is possible in their lifetime (even if there were many who believed precisely that even twenty or thirty years ago).



************

Finally, the third old story that came briefly to public attention, yet has quickly been displaced by the two old stories above, particularly the first one, is abortion.  That, in itself, is sad.

However, the saddest thing is that those academic ethicists who argued (even if in the context of academia) that infanticide (or if you prefer, post natal abortion) could be justified did not expect the reaction they got.

We all know the difficult cases where there are heart-rending tales used to argue in favour of and against abortion.  The victim of rape who can't bear the thought of a permanent reminder of the awful crime that befell her.  The mother of several children who cannot see how she could possibly cope with more children without causing severe difficulties for her existing children.  The adult who might so nearly have been aborted when in the womb but wasn't.  The disabled child who brought joy to their parents.  We all understand the difficulties here, all of us know that glib answers just won't do, and we all know that you can find people for and against any such cases (even when Church teaching is very clear). 

However, is the world really such a horrible place that shock and revulsion at the very idea of infanticide come as a surprise to some?

Thank You

Today marks the second anniversary of the Apostolic Constitution, Anglicanorum Coetibus.  It had been announced at press conferences in Rome and London on 20 October 2009, and was finally made public on 9 November 2009, but 4 November is the date on the document.

It is of course too early to comment on what the ultimate effect of Anglicanorum Coetibus will be.  The Ordinariate in England is not even one year old, the Ordinariate in the USA is to be established before the end of this year, and the Ordinariate in Australia is said to be "going live" in 2012.  We shall all just have to wait. 

From a personal perspective, all we can say is "Thank you".



As the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, said at that London press conference, Anglicanorum Coetibus is not a commentary on any Anglican debates or supposed problems.  Instead, it is, entirely separately, a response to those Anglicans who wish to become Catholics as part of group. 

Levitation, Flagellation, Ecstasy and the Baroque

St Teresa is a saint that most people find rather hard to understand.  All those stories of levitation, flagellation and ecstasy.  It's hard to link that to the experiences most of us have on a day-to-day basis (at least it is in my case).  The record shows that it was rather awkward for St Teresa in her own time too.  Levitation has always been seen as rather socially awkward.

Yet, there is a side to St Teresa that surely everyone can understand.  She is often cited as some who engaged in many forms of prayer, and this is so, but most of us can probably relate more easily to an earlier period of St Teresa's life, when she found prayer very difficult.

A homily preached at Pusey House many years ago by one of the clergy there who is now a Catholic layman related a tale from his Anglican seminary days at Mirfield.  A young seminarian was feeling a lack of motivation to engage in the programmed hours of meditation and prayer.  When challenged on this, his response was to say "I am very worried, Father, because I don't want to pray".  The answer that came back was in the form of a question "Ah, but do you want to want to pray?"  That mini-debate must resonate with many a well-intentioned believer struggling to build their prayer life. 

St Teresa was a reformer, not only in ecclesiastical terms but also in social terms, a prolific writer, a great intellect and a powerful theologian.  She was, along with St Catherine of Siena, one of the first two women to be declared a Doctor of the Church.  She has been a huge influence in Spanish Catholicism but also very far beyond - the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams has written a book on her, and along with Julian of Norwich, she was regularly cited by the then Vicar of St Mary's Bourne Street in homilies during my early years there.

You can find out more about her here.

The Holy Father gives a concise summary of her importance in this video. 



The Introit set for mass today is Dilexisti justitiam, the same text as was sung during communion during the Holy Father's recent visit to Germany.  Here you can see the small schola singing the chant.



Finally, since we have had a few days without anything baroque, here is a rather fine piece of Spanish baroque sacred music by Sebastian de Vivanco, who was born in Avila in the same century as St Teresa. 



St Teresa of Avila, pray for us.