Affirming Catholicism has noted with dismay the Press Release from the Revision Committee indicating the Committee’s decision to review General Synod’s support for the adoption of the simplest form of legislation enabling the admission of women into the episcopate in the Church of England coupled with a statutory code of practice, as expressed in July 2008.
We believe that the suggestion that certain functions should be vested in bishops by statute rather than by delegation from the diocesan bishop under a statutory code of practice runs counter to the principle that the diocese is the fundamental unit of the Church. In practice, this means that the Diocesan Bishop is and must be recognised to be Ordinary in his / her Diocese. Consequently, as we have argued consistently in our submissions to the Bishops of Guildford and Gloucester and to the Legislative Drafting Group, any designated special Bishops who exercise a ministry in a Diocese where the Ordinary is a woman must share in the ministry of the Ordinary in order that the unity of the diocese ”“ and with it the Church of England ”“ be preserved.
Another article that shows the danger of divorcing theology from ritual. They might as well come out and say “Let’s hurry up and throw those backward AngloCatholics out, so WE can be the only catholic presence in the CoE.”
One wonders what ++Rowan must feel when his own party advocates for a position he claims to be at odds with (though his actions don’t seem to be advancing his own statements about providing a “safe-haven” for traditional AngloCatholics.)
Maybe there is still hope that a form of the flying bishops scheme, which actually seemed to work quite well in England can be extended, although it seems like the hardliners are determined to scuttle that arrangement.
The only “justice” of interest to them is the full and complete triumph of their viewpoint. The rest of the CoE and the Church Catholic can (and in their view, probably should) be damned to the gehenna of political incorrectness and not-with-it-ness. No concern for people of conscience in the CoE and none for the Orthodox or Romans. Ahh, “equality” is such a wondrous thing, is it not? This will disrupt the CoE and they will claim it to be the work of those opposed to their own in-“justice” agenda.
Worked in ECUSA/TEC, will work in CoE, and have the same results.
There is something slightly odd – tragic even – about saying unity must be preserved whilst urging actions that will split the church.
I think the word they were reaching for was “Conformity.”
There is also an irony in their arguing about the diocese being the fundamental unit of the church, when on the other side of the pond, the argument is that we have a pope and a magisterium (GC).
While I am in no way a supporter of women’s ordination I have to ask….what in the world were men thinking when they said yes to it? I mean stop and look at the whole picture. You tell them first they can be deacons but can go no further but men can. Then you go a little further by saying you can be priests but no further. Now in England unlike the US you are saying no to women in the episcopate but the US has said yes sometime ago. And in doing this you have at each step given consent based on what scripture? If you truly believe that scripture supports women in Holy Orders just like men then what is the problem? Where in the Bible did it say [b]only deacons[/b] when you gave that consent to women? And then when and where did the Bible change up and say, [b]okay priests too[/b] when you gave that consent to women? And then WOW to an amazing astonishment the Bible yet again has changed when and where to say [b] okay the episcopate too[/b] to be given consent to women?
I recall the former Archdeacon of York in 1992 making the case that if one were to discuss ordaining women one should start with bishops, since the other clergy’s orders were extensions of the bishop’s.
He also noted that his advice would be ignored, since such a course would doom the passage of WO.
Affirming Catholics seem to be making a strong case that they are affirming that they are not Catholics at all!
Hubris and word play in power politics is their game.
Intercessor
I’ve heard this argument before. It’s based around the idea that it is the ancient practice of the church that each Bishop has his own diocese based on a geographical area and the other Bishops cannot intervene without his agreement. This, according to those making the argument, is apparently an ancient Catholic principle which cannot be violated under any circumstances whatsoever (while, of course the even more ancient Catholic principle of an all male episcopate can be cheerfully discarded on the slightest whim).
It’s a pity, in view of the soon to be established personal ordinate, than nobody has mentioned this to the Bishop of Rome.
I am always left wondering just what ‘Catholicism’ these people Affirm….they seem to stand only for ‘girls in the sanctary and boys in the bedroom’ and rarely produce any decent theology besides depserate attempts to pretend scripture endorses the views of post modern society.
Affirming Catholics aren’t Catholic: they believe in a fallible church that can change its teaching on the matter for the sacrament of holy orders and on homosexuality. They seem to range from almost Catholic (credally orthodox and liturgically like us – they’re orthodox but follow the Protestant principle of private judgement so they’re not us) to what one Episcopalian critic (of the persuasion I just described) calls liberal Protestants who like dress-up.
That said they and other liberals are right to be offended by compromises like the proposed one for the C of E, which make no theological sense.
2: Of course they believe they’re right and I don’t begrudge them that. And I defend their right to govern themselves. It only concerns me if they want to use the state to take religious liberty away from Catholics and others.
young fogey: “It only concerns me if they want to use the state to take religious liberty away from Catholics and others”
That’s a rather peculiar argument to apply of you are coming from a conservative standpoint in the British context: the Anglican settlement in Britain after the Reformation led to to prolonged persecution of Catholics. If you are a “traditionalist” Anglican, then, you would surely approve of the idea of only one favoured form of religion in the kingdom. I think that it is the view of people like Reform and maybe some in the Prayer Book Society, for example.
I’m not a traditionalist Anglican. Born Anglican and a traditionalist but a former Anglican. (Elves: I don’t proselytise.) And what is a trad Anglican anyway? Cranmer? 1500s Calvinism? Prayer Book only, with surplice and scarf, weekly Morning Prayer and north-end quarterly Communion? The 1700s deists like America’s founding fathers? Or what we in the late, great Anglo-Catholic movement thought one was, just like a Tridentine Roman Catholic only accidentally cut off from the rest of Europe by an act of state, nothing more?
Anyway after RC emancipation in the 1800s the question’s moot. Unlike the situation in Newman’s day (he thought the C of E’s place in English society ultimately helped the Catholic Church) I couldn’t care less about disestablishment (nor do many English people, most of whom never go to church).
I’m a libertarian, a politics very American but with English common-law roots, so I’m for religious liberty (or English history shows what happens when a state church turns on Catholics). Everybody’s freedom is the church’s freedom.
young fogey: but if one is a traditionalist, one does not believe in religious liberty. There is no example of a traditional (i.e. ancien regime) European form of Christianity which did not deny religious liberty to dissenters from it. It so happened that the RC Church in the countries where it prevailed was often rather harsher to opponents than some other churches, but they were all intolerant institutions until very recently. In that respect, the Christian tradition has not been good, and should properly be repented of, in my opinion.
A libertarian surely would be in favour of granting equal marriage rights to all, and keeping the views of individual sects separate from the state’s regulation of marriage.
Good point, Fr Mark. I just live with it, taking my lead from the Salamanca school which explained the free market, Blessed Antonio Rosmini and some French ‘progressive’ priests and other Catholic Action types who were betrayed by Vatican II. You don’t have to be a French fascist or mediæval historical fantasist to be a traditionalist!
[blockquote]A libertarian surely would be in favour of granting equal marriage rights to all, and keeping the views of individual sects separate from the state’s regulation of marriage. [/blockquote]
I am and I do. Because of that, many trads would put me in the same camp as the activist liberals (who want to impose their view of marriage on the rest of us, just like the right and not like me) and again I just shrug and live with it.
One might nuance this – noting that actual civic life in say medieval towns may have permitted all sorts of liberty (witness the complaints of clerics and the questions asked in visitation articles!) – but it is true that assuming that christianity is true and that God had divinely founded one church presumably led folks to believe that such truth ought to be believed. (Just as I guess you, and I for that matter, think that say the hypothesis of plate tectonics is true and one shouldn’t allow untruth to be taught about a matter on which one has good reason to be confident of truth).
I’m of course not denying that there is much to deplore – I am saying that liberty of conscience has a particular history and is essentially connected, amongst other things, to reflections about pluralism in the three centuries following the Reformation.
In addition it’s also true – as far as I know – that we insist that those being baptized (or those speaking on their behalf) – affirm the faith of the church.
In other words liberty of conscience is a matter between the state and its citizens. Civic organizations (such as churches) are quite at liberty to insist that their members affirm certain beliefs or values as truthful if they are to participate in the goods of the community’s life.
young fogey: “You don’t have to be a French fascist or mediæval historical fantasist to be a traditionalist”
That’s a pity: those are the fun bits!
driver8 “but it is true that assuming that christianity is true and that God had divinely founded one church presumably led folks to believe that such truth ought to be believed”
Except that each church or sect believed (and believes) it has a monopoly on truth. That is still how Christians behave badly today, isn’t it? Some Christians evidently get kicks out of the attempt to impose their views as uniquely true on everyone else – that’s what the explosion of intolerance we’re currently seeing towards gay people from churches in Europe is all about – and I think that misuse of our holy religion should come to an end.
Really? A monopoly? As in a statement that no truth is to be fond elsewhere. As an Anglican, I believe that the overwhelming majority of what the Roman Catholic Church teaches is true. And the Eastern Orthodox. And the Baptists. And, indeed, in matters of scientific, historical, or musical knowledge (for example) those outside the Church (along with some untruths). Of course, there are points where I disagree with each of them; and there I believe that I (or rather, the reformers, Church fathers and my ancestors in the evangelical faith) am right and they are wrong; just as they believe that we are wrong and they are right on those matters. Clearly if I accepted the Roman’s church’s doctrine then I would become a Roman Catholic. That does not mean that I do not believe that the gospel is not preached in the Roman church; nor that those within her are not Christian brothers. The position of the Roman Church towards me is, I think, similar. Where one of my fellow Churchmen to decide to move to Rome, then I would argue with him over points of the points of doctrine which would separate us, and if I cannot succeed wish him all the best.
As for “the explosion of intolerance we’re currently seeing towards gay people,” I would rather say an explosion of love and a desire for those people to live righteous lives, but of course each Church will stand by its doctrine, and what God has clearly revealed to be right and holy, and ask those who claim to have submitted to her doctrines and authorities to do the same. To place the prejudices of man above the revelation of God (and empirical evidence) – that is the misuse of our holy religion.
As in a statement that no truth is to be fond elsewhere? Sorry, Even if I do have a monopoly on the truth, I clearly still lack the ability to spell.
I’m slightly baffled by this given what I understand of your own views about what is true concerning human sexuality and what that truth should mean for church practice. Indeed it’s really hard to see how one might successfully argue for changing the church’s historic teaching on what is true about human sexuality except to argue, as you properly try to do, that it is in fact erroneous. It’s surely not reasonable simply to say that an 18-23 UK demographic finds it implausible – since an 18-23 UK demographic finds the Trinity and the Incarnation even more implausible. Nor is it reasonable to suggest that the simple fact of disagreement should lead one to alter one’s view about truth. (That is, noting that I disagree with you about human sexuality ought not – and in fact as far as I can see, does not – in itself, persuade you that your views are false).
Thus that the church historically, like you, has made truth claims, and argued those truth claims are reasonable in the face of those who disagree, and, like you, wanted to see, where appropriate, that truth reflected in the good ordering of society. As I understand you, your claim is not that no one can know the truth (that is, we have no way of knowing the truth on this matter) but that we can know that the church’s historic teaching is in error. If you are right, of course, the church should change its practice.
In other words, as I understand, you don’t disagree on the importance of knowing what is true nor the significance truth ought to have in shaping the church’s pastoral practice. You simply disagree about what the truth in this matter is.
I don’t know that I’ve said all that, driver8!
I think the change that I seek in the Church regarding gay people and women is permissive rather than restrictive: I’m not trying to prevent people from doing anything, so much as to say we need to get a bit more real about allowing everyone to own fully the institution which asks for their time and money. My partner, for example, gets cross when we are visiting some old-fashioned church which thinks people like him should stay in the closet, and yet, unfailingly, the collection plate is passed round, showing clearly that they would nevertheless like to take his money. He doesn’t see why he should pay to be (increasingly) insulted by the Church as an institution. I think lots of gay people who have historically given a great deal to the Church are increasingly peeved at being so badly treated by it. And a lot of gay people are well-off enough in terms of time and money that they would give a great deal more if encouraged. Were one a woman, I can imagine one might feel the same way: why should one pay to contribute to the living costs of bishops who perpetuate injustice against one’s fellow women? And yet the C of E is heading for financial disaster at the moment, and needs people to be more motivated and generous in their giving in future.
I don’t know that I would express it in terms of truth claims, actually. Christian upholders of slavery, segregation and apartheid claimed to have the truth: now, pretty much everyone sees it the opposite way. Perhaps such matters do not need to be expressed in exclusive truth claim terms?
Permissive and restrictive are relative to some context – that is, some substantive conception of the good. In other words, the folks you disagree with also see themselves as permitting something good to flourish. The disagreement is thus not fundamentally about who permits and who restricts but, in fact, about what is good.
No, the “conservative” argument is restrictive: they don’t want to allow women to be diocesan bishops like the men, without restrictions: they don’t want to “allow” what already exists, having partnered gay people at all levels, including clergy, in churches. They want to restrict church so that they can avoid encountering women bishops or partnered gay people. I think that position is ludicrous, in a reality-defying, flat-earth sort of way, and wish us to accept and permit.
In fact, when I pinch myself and reconnect after a day at work with normal non-churchy people who cannot begin to understand the depths of the current narrowness and smallness of vision of some loud Christians, it is amazing that this is still at all controversial.
Of course you can assert that based on your view of the human good. Very crudely, the broadly liberal view that it is in itself good – or even the highest good – that people be permitted to satisy their preferences in this area regardless of their content and providing they do no harm. In addition, that it is good, in some or many circumstances, that folks be restricted from preventing other people satisy their preferences. So you see you too are committed to both permission and restriction – some expression of some preferences, I imagine, you think ought to be restricted because they conflict with what is, in fact, good (that is making free choices) for humans.
In my view I too want to permit what is good and restrict that which is inimical to human flourishing – I just don’t see it in terms of preference satisfaction of individuals. For me making free choices is ethical insofar as those choices are themselves good.
Thus, what we really disagree over is what is good for human beings and it’s a slight bit of misdirection to claim that only the liberal view is permissive. The right question to ask is “permissive of what”. We disagee over what to permit and what to restrict because we disagree more fundamentally over what is good.
So the really interesting discusison to be had between is for me to ask you to explain and defend your view of what is good for human beings and for you to do the same to me.
driver8: no, long-winded semantic wrangling doesn’t do much for me, I’m afraid.
I prefer to operate in the realm of real humans whose lives are harmed by daft harshness vented at a weak minority in the name of a religion supposedly of love. (See the Ugandan Church’s appalling press release today and imagine what it must be like to be a gay person in that society. If you can’t do that, start with recalling what it was like to be a Jew in Europe in the 1930s, and you’ll be half way there.)
Hey that’s OK – not everyone has to value conversation with those with whom one disagrees. However, in a context in which mutual recriminations abound then actually trying to be precise about how and why we disagree is one way of showing love and respect to those with whom we do disagree.