The Vatican will not create an enclave within the Roman Catholic Church for Anglicans opposed to women clergy and the ”˜gay agenda’, Rome’s La Civiltà Cattolica predicts.
In an October article entitled Catholic Anglican Relations after the Lambeth Conference (La Relazione tra Cattolici e Anglicani dopo la Conferenza di Lambeth) the semi-official Jesuit bi-weekly stated the “corporate unity” under discussion between the Vatican and traditionalist Anglicans “will not be a form of uniatism as this is unsuitable for uniting two realities which are too similar from a cultural point of view as indeed are Roman Catholics and Anglo-Catholics.”
“The Holy See, while sympathetic to the demands of these Anglo-Catholics” for corporate reunion, “is moving with discretion and prudence.” Opposition to the ordination of women to the ordained ministry and to gay bishops and blessings “is not enough,” the newspaper said. Anglo-Catholics should be motive not by a rejection of Anglicanism but by the “desire to join fully the Catholic Church,” Fr. Paul Gamberini SJ wrote.
A Jesuit publication… moving on.
Ad Orientem:
I know this is a blog. But you can do better than an ad hominem attack. Try again.
It does merit some reflection about how the RC church will consider Anglicans who leave church mainly about WO or homosexuality. I knew one older RC priest who was worried that they would have clergy who were generally angry and anti rather than truly embedded in the totality of Catholicism.
Anti-Gay Anglican priests will be in for a surprise when they join the RC priesthood. It is a subculture that is privately supportive of homosexuality, if publicly opposed. Which might be one reason the RC church is wary about such Anglicans.
“Anglo-Catholics should be motive not by a rejection of Anglicanism but by the “desire to join fully the Catholic Church,†Fr. Paul Gamberini SJ wrote.”
Right on the money. Fr Paul brings up a question I’ve never seen satisfactorily answered by Anglo-Catholics. Is it that ACs value their culture more than they do their theological differences with Rome? If Rome let them keep their liturgy, would they bow to all they currently oppose? Seems so.
Misleading title. There is an enclave for Anglicans that want to join the Roman Catholic Church. It is called the Roman Catholic Church. Furthermore, the “Pastoral Provision” allows married Epsicopal clergy to join the Roman Catholic priesthood. Anglican Use liturgy should be acceptable to anyone who has been using 1979 Rite I for the last 30 years. The only thing that would be nice is if Anglican Use was more widely available, or better yet an option that any parish can use as it is essentially just a minor variant on Novus Ordo.
“Opposition to the ordination of women to the ordained ministry and to gay bishops and blessings “is not enough,†the newspaper said. Anglo-Catholics should be motive not by a rejection of Anglicanism but by the “desire to join fully the Catholic Church,”
I agree completely. You should join the Roman Catholic Church because you believe their entire doctrine and want to be under the Bishop of Rome, not because you got ticked off about your last denomination. For example, since I don’t believe in Papal Supremacy, I’m not going to join the Roman Catholic Church unless I come to accept that doctrine.
No one should become Catholic unless they believe what the Catholic Church teaches. And if someone joins the Catholic Church because they think it will be a refuge from homosexual priests, heretical clergy and lay people, bad bishops, muddled teaching and outright scandal to the faithful they are going to be very, very dissapointed.
I say this as a Catholic who is fully loyal to the Pope and the Magesterium. But I do not delude myself that the frail humans in the Church are somehow more perfect than others. I know we are all sinners in need of our Savior. So I don’t base my faith on their behavior.
I base it on Christ and His promise. On the charism I believe is fully given to the Pope and the Magesterium to be without error when teaching in matters of faith and morals. That some will reject those teachings is a foregone conclusion. But I also know through God’s grace some will hear those teachings and obey them. But if you enter the Church only because you are in a spirit of rebellion then you are less likely to be open to the fullness of Truth. Because no matter who we are there are going to be hard sayings we plain do not want to hear. It is the Church’s call to speak these hard sayings so that we may be brought more fully into the life of Christ. So please do not become Catholic because you think the stained glass is more luminous on the other side.
Is it that ACs value their culture more than they do their theological differences with Rome?
It’s hardly accurate to believe that all Anglo-Catholics are queuing up for Rome. For many of us, there is a reason why we are *Anglican* Catholics.
I hardly think a “spirit of rebellion” is an apt description of why folks must flee the Anglican Communion.
The headline is thoroughly misleading. An “enclave” of some kind is not ruled out.
While it was never likely that “uniate” status would be granted to Anglicans (since the English Church, at least since the Synod of Whitby, has been considered part of the Western Church), it is quite possible for an other structure, such as a personal prelature or an ecclesiastical society, to be created. Opus Dei, the Priestly Fraternity of St Peter, and the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest, the Campos arrangement, and the Anglican Use parishes are all examples of what can be done, at different levels. The question is how much continuity and autonomy will be allowed.
The TAC hierarchy have already jointly signed the Catechism of the Catholic Church in recognition that they accept the doctrine and teaching of the Church. Now the discipline needs to be worked out. I think the TAC is right to try to seek a corporate reunion. Many individual Anglicans had unpleasant experiences on the way to reception, and this group undeniably has a common life that is worthy of some respect.
The proponents of ecumenism, mostly liberal, are suddenly the most rigorous of institutionalists over this. The last thing they want is a buch of traditionalist English speaking Catholics undermining all that has been accomplished in protestantizing and modernizing the Church in the US and UK.
While there is no evidence of what Rome may be thinking, there is certainly a more generous attitude from the present Holy Father and senior cardinals than in recent years. I suspect they’re giving up on the Anglican Communion over the long term and looking to save the bits they can. And that won’t please most Jesuits.
Francis, Yes it was a poor choice of words. I meant simply that if one flees to Catholicism only because they are against what is now being embraced by TEC they may not be in the right mindset to hear some of the harder sayings of the Catholic Church.
The fact that I have a choice over the liturgical style in which I can worship is a big part of why I am an Anglican. The fact that you have to be impressive to the vatican (important in numbers or in position) to warrant the freedom to worship in a theologically sound, worshipful, and APPEALING manner is beyond me.
Catholics had to fight decades for rights to use a latin order of service. Anglicans don’t have a chance at affecting similar freedoms. The Orthodox Churches on the other hand, if they came to the bargaining table would, I am sure, elicit a very different response 🙂
I can’t imagine Christ acting similarly. But then, I’m an Anglican.
Re # 2,
John Wilkins,
I would hardly call my comment Ad Hominum. I attacked no individual by name. It is no secret that the reputation of the Jesuits within the Roman Catholic Church has sunk so low that the Pope himself has publicly offered what can be charitably described as thinly veiled criticisms and warnings that there are limits to how much he is gong to put up with.
The new Jesuit superior (they call him the Black Pope) just recently went on record defending liberation theology! This would be the same nonsense which the former prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith condemned as inconsistent with Roman Catholic doctrine and basically called Marxism in clerical garb. The Jesuits are arguably one of the most liberal religious orders in the Roman Church these days (and that’s saying a lot). More than a few of their more prominent members are outright heretics.
With respect to your cautionary about the subculture of the Roman Catholic clergy, I think there is some truth to that here in N. America and in some parts of the English speaking world. But the Roman Catholic Church does not exist just here. That is the same tunnel vision which seems to afflict TEC. Once you step outside N. America (and arguably parts of western Europe) it’s a whole different ballgame. The discreet support for homosexuality you refer to is all but nonexistent. In fact the opposite is much more prevalent in the rest of the world.
Even here in the United States times are changing. You made reference to an older priest in your comment, which is quite telling. The hippie generation that came out of seminary in the 70’s and thought they were going to turn the Catholic Church upside down (for a while they did) are dying off. The new generation of priests are far more conservative, as are the bishops being appointed by Rome.
This entire article sounds more like wishful thinking than serious analysis. You have a group of Anglo-Catholic hierarchs (we will for the moment set aside the issue of orders etc.) who have affirmed each and every article of faith held by the Roman Catholic Church in the most profound way possible, by signing their names to a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. They are not simply rejecting women’s ordination and the pan-sexual heresy rampant in parts of the Anglican Communion. If that was all they wanted they would have just gone to the Africans as most of the TEC secessionists did for a while.
No. It is much more than that which they are rejecting. They are rejecting Protestantism. They no longer wish to be in a church. They wish to be in what the believe to be The Church. This is something which is being, and will continue to be, taken very seriously in Rome.
I am not at liberty to disclose sources, but I have a few. And while no details have emerged there are some very encouraging signs for the TAC. Among the most significant is that Pope Benedict XVI has taken a personal interest and has removed their petition from the dicastery which would normally have jurisdiction and has handed it over to his former portfolio at the CDF which is still staffed with Ratzinger loyalists.
I do not believe that the TAC is going to get all they want. For instance there is zero chance that Rome will permit a married episcopacy and it is likely that any concessions with respect to a married clergy will apply only to the current generation of TAC priests. I also think that whatever structure is finally adopted, TAC will not be called a suis juris (western rite) church. Probably the best they can hope for will be something along the lines of a personal prelature from the Holy See which would allow them to operate with minimal interference from local bishops (many of whom in the English speaking world are still very liberal).
Much of this is conjecture. But it is conjecture based on at least some facts and information passed from a couple of sources who who have an ear to the ground in the Vatican. However, the Jesuits simply can not be treated as a credible and unbiased source. Their influence and position in Rome has been waning for decades and under the current Pontiff I think it could be fairly said that the Jesuit’s stock in the Vatican is lower than General Motors.
In closing I would note that I am not Roman Catholic. As an Orthodox Christian I have a certain prejudice about where I think TAC should have looked. But I understand that there are a host of reasons why Orthodoxy was probably never a realistic option. Given the circumstances and their obvious and sincere commitment to the Roman Church’s doctrine I believe they have made the best decision.
I wish them well.
Under the mercy,
[url=http://ad-orientem.blogspot.com/]John[/url]
An [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gj4pUphDitA]Orthodox [/url] Christian
[i] A Jesuit publication… moving on [/i] —#1
[i] I would hardly call my comment Ad Hominem [/i] —#11
Ad Orientem: You dismissed the article simply because it appeared in a Jesuit publication. That is, or closely resembles, the classic [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem]ad hominem fallacy[/url]:
[i]Person A makes claim X
There is something objectionable about Person A
Therefore claim X is false[/i]
Ad orientem,
I have no idea about the “reputation” of the Jesuits. It still remains, however, the most educated of the RC clergy. As plenty of protestants have argued, however, education leads one to irreligion. With one exception, every young Catholic I know remains Catholic because of a Jesuit or a liberal priest.
You continue with the ad hominem, as if Liberation Theology, for example, was clearly unorthodox. It is certainly scriptural.
Although the Jesuits may be waning, they still control the most important theological institutions in the US. The US is still the richest church. Your reference to the “black pope” clearly demonstrates your bias, and also indicates your hostility towards Romanism. Would they actually allow such a person as superior to their order?
But if you are a gay man in Africa with spiritual leanings, the best place to be is the priesthood. You hang out with only men. You might not act on your urges, but you can be part of a gay subculture.
Remember also that Cardinal Dulles was a Jesuit. he was well loved.
I think you have personal preferences about politics and theology that are not shared by the universal church.
Re # 12
Irenaeus,
Upon reflection I concede your point. But I also stand by my criticisms in my #11.
Re #13
John Wilkins,
[blockquote] I have no idea about the “reputation†of the Jesuits.[/blockquote]
It’s not a state secret and the Pope has been unusually direct in his criticisms as have others in the Roman Curia.
[blockquote] It still remains, however, the most educated of the RC clergy. [/blockquote]
That’s an opinion which is debatable. But in any case it’s not relevant to the issue at hand.
[blockquote] With one exception, every young Catholic I know remains Catholic because of a Jesuit or a liberal priest. [/blockquote]
Why does this not surprise me? I will go out on a limb here and hazard a guess that you move in some very different social circles from the ones I and the Catholics I know move in.
[blockquote] You continue with the ad hominem, as if Liberation Theology, for example, was clearly unorthodox.[/blockquote]
If you want to make accusations about Ad Hominum I would suggest you direct your complaints to the Holy See. The opinions I cited are those of the guy in the white cassock. For the record though I agree with him.
[blockquote] It is certainly scriptural[/blockquote]
It is certainly not.
[blockquote] Although the Jesuits may be waning, they still control the most important theological institutions in the US. [/blockquote]
A very accurate statement which explains much about the state of the Roman Catholic Church in the United States.
[blockquote] The US is still the richest church[/blockquote]
Since when does wealth presume orthodoxy?
[blockquote] Your reference to the “black pope†clearly demonstrates your bias, and also indicates your hostility towards Romanism. Would they actually allow such a person as superior to their order? [/blockquote]
Your comment demonstrates your ignorance of the Jesuits. That is a very old nickname for the superior general of the order. It has been widely used both in an outside the order probably for centuries.
With respect to the Roman Catholic Church, your suggestion of hostility is mildly amusing. Half my relatives are Roman Catholics and I was raised one myself. I have enormous respect for the Roman Church, my serious though respectful theological differences of opinion notwithstanding. I agree wholeheartedly with Bishop Hilarion that Rome is the only church among the Western Christian confessions that Orthodoxy should be having really serious ecumenical discussions with. I also happen to think the current Pope is the best thing to happen for them in a very very long time.
In the (admittedly unlikely) event that communion is eventually restored with Rome, Benedict may well be commemorated as the first Western Father in a thousand years.
[blockquote] But if you are a gay man in Africa with spiritual leanings, the best place to be is the priesthood. You hang out with only men. You might not act on your urges, but you can be part of a gay subculture. [/blockquote]
I am not sure of the relevance to the question of TAC here but your point is certainly valid. I have made that observation to some of my Roman Catholic friends many times. I think Rome would do well to gradually adopt the discipline of the Eastern Church and permit married men to be ordained as diocesan priests. It would instantly reduce the obvious attraction of the priesthood to persons afflicted with certain passions who might be seeking a place to hide in plain site.
[blockquote] Remember also that Cardinal Dulles was a Jesuit. he was well loved. [/blockquote]
Indeed he was . (May his memory be eternal!) He was also a product of the order pre-Vatican II. But in any event I am not condemning everyone with the initials SJ at the end of their name. My observations are directed at the order in general. There are without doubt many fine and orthodox (small ‘o’) Jesuits. The problem is that they are in the minority.
[blockquote] I think you have personal preferences about politics and theology that are not shared by the universal church. [/blockquote]
If by universal church you are referring to the Roman Church and given that I am not Roman Catholic, I’d say that’s a pretty safe bet. But I would note that neither my opinions nor yours count for much in the RCC. It is not a democracy. The Pope calls the shots, not the Jesuits. And it is worth recalling that the order was suppressed by the Holy See once before.
Under the mercy,
[url=http://ad-orientem.blogspot.com/]John[/url]
An [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gj4pUphDitA]Orthodox [/url] Christian
Predicting the actions of the Vatican is a full-time hobby for some folks. For some odd reason, even the best Vatican watchers only wind up batting around .500 with their predictions.
How about we just wait for something authoritative instead of hopping from blind speculation to speculating blindly about the prior speculation.
[blockquote]I have no idea about the “reputation†of the Jesuits… every young Catholic I know remains Catholic because of a Jesuit or a liberal priest. [/blockquote]
Which says more about you than the Catholic Church. You clearly need to get out more.
[blockquote]Your reference to the “black pope†clearly demonstrates your bias, and also indicates your hostility towards Romanism. Would they actually allow such a person as superior to their order?[/blockquote]
That was my howler for the day. “Black” refers to the color of their habits.
As to the racially black persons, well, despite being generally “liberal”, they would, I suspect elect a person of African descent to their leadership. Certainly, the Catholic Church in general does. Cardinal Arinze of Nigeria just retired from one of the highest profile positions in the Vatican. Archbishop Gregory of Atlanta has served as president of the U.S. Catholic bishops conference, and so on.
John/AO –
There are, indeed, many fine and stalwart younger Jesuits. Fr. Fessio comes to mind. However, that 60s-70s generation does, indeed, harbor a gay subculture that has decimated the order, as it decimates everything it touches.
However, I disagree with you that the celibacy rule is a bad thing, contributing, as you argue, to said gay subculture. In fact, celibacy works quite well for the Church overall, and the presence of a relatively high percentage of men afflicted with homosexual leanings (maybe 20%, maybe higher) must be balanced against a great number of positives and the difficulties of the Catholic priesthood are hard on a marriage. Obviously, I don’t entirely agree with recent directives on the subject philosophically, although I think them necessary in the current culture of the U.S. The instruction as issued only hinted at the real problem, which is the promotion of homosexualist ideology, and that’s done by priests of both homosexual and heterosexual preferences.
As always, language is being manipulated here. “Gay subculture” is a loaded phrase which does accurately describe some dioceses and religious orders (notably the Jesuits); however, it’s grossly unfair to label “gay” those men who experience a disordered sexuality, but work against it, and teach the Catholic Faith.
Best wishes for a joyous Christmas.
FWIW, I have been hearing much the same thing as “Ad Orientem” reports in comment #11 above.
I will repeat for emphasis one things mentioned in that comment. All of the bishops of the TAC present at their October 2006 synod in Portsmouth, England solemnly signed both the *Catechism of the Catholic Church* and the later “Compendium” of that Catechism. They did this after deliberating on the matter for a whole day, then making a trip to the (Anglican) shrine of Our Lady of Walsingham to pray over the matter, and then, on the final day of their synod, all signed the two documents. Subsequently a delegation of their bishops, led by their primate Archbishop Hepworth, traveled to Rome and presented these documents, together with their petition for “corporate reunion” to the CDF, where it was warmly received.
What will come of it all is not for me to say. I doubt that it will be an “Anglican-Rite ‘Uniate’ Church;” perhaps a Personal Prelature (such as Opus Dei has) or an Apostolic Administration (such as was created for the formerly-schismatic “Tridentine” Diocese of Campos, Brazil, some 3 years ago) — or some combination of the two (one difference being that in the case of a Personal Prelature the local Catholic bishop can exclude it from operating in his diocese altogether, or allow it only under terms imposed by himself, while an Apostolic Administration is essentially a “parallel diocese”).
What is true, and needs to be stated again and again, is that if “ecumenical progress” is to be defined as “progress towards ecclesiastical unification,” as opposed to “making nice” and producing interesting (or dull) “agreed statements” from time to time — and this goal of “unification” was one to which both the Anglican Communion and the RCC committed itself, perhaps naively, in the 1960s — this prospect has been dead as a doornail between the Anglican Communion and Rome ever since the advent of WO and Rome’s realization that WO was not just a “local anomaly” practiced by some “outback” Anglican provinces — and it appears that for Rome the decisive turning point came in 1992/4, with the Church of England’s accepting WO. From this perspective, the kerfuffle over +VGR and SS was simply so much “icing” (or some other dark, chocolate-appearing, and odoriferous soft substance) applied to the Anglican/RC “ecumenical cake” — a “cake” which, in any event, had long passed its sell-by date. Rome now appears to be slowly realizing, and accepting, that the only Anglican bodies worth dealing with are those that have left, or are in the process of leaving, the Anglican Communion.
Quite remarkable it is, that Prof Tighe can read a report from the Vatican such as the above and come to a diametrically opposite view.
As for ecumenical relations: well we had Cardinal Kaspar and delegation to the Lambeth Conference; the Archbishop Rowan at Lourdes with his delegation and the English Anglican and Roman Catholic bishops meeting together recently, but please don’t let facts get in the way.
[blockquote]well we had Cardinal Kaspar and delegation to the Lambeth Conference[/blockquote]
I assume you didn’t read the addresses of Kaspar et al at Lambeth.
[blockquote]the Archbishop Rowan at Lourdes with his delegation and the English Anglican and Roman Catholic bishops meeting together recently[/blockquote]
If you believe this bears any relevance to the mind of Rome you are deluded. Fluff and empty gestures. ARCIC is dead, some just haven’t recognised reality yet.
#21 Conor
[blockquote]I assume you didn’t read the addresses of Kaspar et al at Lambeth.[/blockquote]
Actually I did.
[blockquote]some just haven’t recognised reality yet[/blockquote]
I don’t understimate the difficulties, but I have certainly appreciated the help and assistance, care and prayers extended to our church by Rome. Them coming alongside has been really helpful and a good Christian witness.
#20 Professor Tighe knows more about these issues than most of us have forgotten, and has proved remarkably accurate in both his analysis and his forecasts. It’s part of Romanitas to be unfailingly polite, even when the diplomatic goal is already lost. To respect the rapprochement of the recent past, Rome will continue to be polite, even excessively so, to Anglicans. That does not equate to movement towards unity.
I write with a note of clarification as some appear to be confused about what the article is saying.
I reported that the original article by Fr. Paul Gamberini says that is very unlikely that the Roman Catholic Church will create a uniate Anglican branch. He then explains why.
What he does not do, nor did I, is to make a sweeping declaration about the talks for corporate reunion. Others have pointed to what might be done in this area—but the soft option of an Anglican uniate branch is not likely to happen—in the opinion of the author.
He also makes the argument that Rome is not all that flattered by arguments made by some Anglicans that if just one more bad thing happens then they will cross the Tiber. Being received into the Roman Catholic church should be an affirmative decision rather than a reactive one.
Why is this worth reporting? In my judgment Fr. Gamberini knows of what he speaks—I believe he was present at the 88, 98 and 08 Lambeth Conferences and is teaching this semester at Boston College. (I remember him from 08 & 98)
The 3000+ word article in Italian appeared in La Civilta Cattolica. This is a Jesuit edited publication, but has long had a semi-official status. While there are some foolish Jesuits, as there are foolish Anglicans (I know this admission may shock people), the greater fool is he who argues that as this article was written by a Jesuit, it therefore must carry no weight with the curia.
While the exchange of gossip and claims to inside knowledge is common in Vatican reporting—and especially on the Anglican question, this article was a first in that it addresses the issue in the forum of an influential and semi-official publication. This is the first public statement (of which I am aware) from someone whose views carry weight since Lambeth 08.
Fr Gamberini also touches upon a number of issues in Anglican-Catholic relations, and is not sanguine about its future. He also picks up on the important point made by Cardinal Walter Kasper (and reported in the CEN at the time) that the Vatican might one day have to enter into dialogue with more than one group of Anglicans … e.g., Gafcon (though Gafcon is not named the group so described is readily identifiable as Gafcon).
However, if you want to read all that, learn Italian and buy the back issue of La Civilta Cattolica.
George Conger
Whereas I agree completely with the above, it’s fair to note that some folks have begun to explore other faiths out of rejection, but eventually came to a positive acceptance. It’s not a bad place to be, as long as you don’t stay there.
No. 21 – Conor – As evidently so you hope.
Re # 24,
George,
Thank you for your thoughtful amplification. On the basis of your endorsement I am inclined to be a bit less suspicious of the motivations behind the article though I remain highly skeptical of the Jesuits as do most of my Roman Catholic friends.
I think a point made in the article and repeated by you and some other needs to be addressed though. It is absolutely true that rejection of w/o and the pan-sexual heresy rampant in parts of the Anglican Communion are insufficient grounds to be received by the Roman Church (or the Orthodox for that matter). But is that the case with the TAC?
I am not sure what more one can do to affirm one’s unreserved embrace of the Roman Church’s doctrine and discipline than the bishops of the TAC have already done. I presume that an oath of some kind would be required abjuring heresy and embracing each and every tenant of the faith held by Rome. But they have already signed a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church and have all but prostrated themselves at the Pope’s feet. Further there is ample evidence from TAC’s history that they have always looked to reunion with Rome as their ultimate goal.
As I have said on T-19 and elsewhere on many occasions; rejection of something which one knows at a gut level to be wrong can be a very good and acceptable reason for breaking ties with a church. But one needs more than that to join a church. I believe that by any reasonable standard the bishops of TAC meet that criteria. In this case I simply don’t see a credible argument that these are just disaffected Anglicans looking for a warm pew to occupy for a while.
Every piece of evidence I have seen strongly suggests that these people are serious (big ‘C’) Catholics in every matter of faith. I think Rome would be wrong to reject their petition outright without some compelling reason. That said I remain cautiously optimistic about their odds of getting some kind of an offer, though likely less than what they are hoping for. The current Pope has a track record of listening very carefully to all sides in a debate before acting. But he also has a track record of following his conscience even when it has put him at odds with the vast majority of his bishops. Witness Summorum Pontificum.
Under the mercy,
[url=http://ad-orientem.blogspot.com/]John[/url]
An [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gj4pUphDitA]Orthodox [/url] Christian
All this speculation. This is a waiting game. As is I suppose this whole Church thing.
I don’t know any Anglo-Catholics who want to join Rome because they’re fed up with this or that Anglican problem (though in some way those problems help). That is a red herring (whether invented by scheming Jesuits I do not know!). Anglo-Catholics want to be in communion with Rome because we long for the visible unity of the Catholic Church. (And I do think that is true despite varying degrees of how [i]necessary[/i] communion with Rome is.) The presenting issues do not provide the reasons for that unity, they rather provide the evidence that such gestures towards unity in the past have come to nought, and that new actions are pastorally appropriate.