The Anglican Church careens down a path ever more divergent from traditional Christianity. The traditional-minded among the Anglicans begged their Church and their leaders for a safe-haven. They begged for a place within the Anglican communion in which they could pretend some Catholic sensibilities and retain at least some traditional Christian doctrine. In a word, the Anglican Communion told them “Nuts!”
The clear message to Anglo-Catholics from their Church, “We don’t care about you. We don’t want you. Get lost.”
So then these Anglo-Catholics…asked for and received permission to immigrate to the Catholic Church.
So now the Archbishop of Canterbury, who heretofore had used his backbone so sparingly that some understandably thought him an invertebrate, wants a say in the conversion process….
As an RC I am an outsider, so I have no Anglican ax to grind when I say that I find this language offensive (‘invertebrate’). Yes, it is the job of a columnist to offend and entertain. But it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. He is a good and honorable man. The truth IMHO is that he is trapped in an adversarial system not of his making that would result in him being vilified whatever decision he takes, or does not take. Whichever way he goes there will be those who dislike the decision. I am therefore saddened that a Catholic writer in a Catholic weekly should join those who delight in pillorying him.
#1… thanks Terry. Always good to see expressions of charity. I have been a strong critic of the ABC on many things, but it’s good to have someone remind me to always try first to think charitably of a brother. In this case I found the following comment in the original article noteworth. Someone remarked:
Does anyone here know whether RW did indeed try to propose some kind of safe haven? It’s certainly possible that he did and the C of E rejected his advice. That possibility would be easy for an RC writer to miss, since the idea of the Pope proposing policy and that being rejected could never happen in the Church of Rome.
Fr. Tee (#1),
At first, I was confused and assumed the wrong antecedent to the “He” that is the subject of your fourth sentence. Because the last guy you’d mentioned was the columnist, Archbold, I assumed at first reading that he was the “[i]good and honorable man[/i]” you meant. But it soon became clear that you were referring to ++Rowan Williams.
I wish I could be as charitable to ++RW as you have been. He is no helpless victim, trapped in an impossible situation over which he has no control. Cantaur to a large degree has only himself to blame for how he is increasingly pilloried from BOTH sides in the ongoing battle for the soul of Anglicanism.
But I do agree with you that Pat Archbold’s scathing assessment is over the top. I’ve certainly pilloried and excoriated ++RW myself here at T19, but I take no delight in doing so. It grieves me deeply that at a momentous time when the AC stands at a critical crossroads, we Anglicans have such an inadequate and unworthy leader at the helm. Alas, you RCs can probably identify with that, since at the time of the Reformation, the papacy was in such unworthy hands as the likes of the corrupt Medici family.
David Handy+
yah, i have to agree with the tone and words used, not a thoughtful commentary. however, i do disagree that RW couldn’t do anything. he has the symbolic moral high ground on his side and he has done absolutely nothing with it.
I too think the words are poorly chosen but that the facts add up. Watch the Archbishops hands and not his mouth and you soon see how a liberal agenda has rolled out on his watch. His tactic is to let liberals act without discipline (but with the threat to seem reasonable) whilst always keeping others talking and placing the mirage of hope around the corner. He is a skilled politician who is very much part of the liberal end game I fear.
Yes he put a motion to synod but only after telling them that to vote against was not to defy him (wink, nudge).
#3 — #5… I agree that in a number of respects, RW has made terrible decisions since taking the mitre, specifically on the issues of homsexuality and of TEC’s actions in GCs 2003, 2006, and 2009 and the resulting rupturing of the Anglican Communion. He could have done a lot in 2004-2007 and chose not to.
I think it’s important, however, to keep those decisions separate from what (if anything) he did to provide a safe haven for ACs over the issue of the ordination of female bishops, which is what the article in question was about.
Can anyone give us objective details about what (if anything) RW did in terms of proposing safe havens for ACs on this issue? If RW has in fact tried to do something, the substance of the piece is misleading and unfair.
If you think that the Archbishop is a tool of the reappraiser agenda, try reading the posts (and, still more, the comments) on Thinking Anglicans or Episcopal Cafe. They are convinced that he is a tool of the reasserter agenda. To me, that suggests that he is an independent moderate who is trying to hold things together. That isn’t a particularly popular position these days (as we have been seeing in American secular politics for the last year or two). Dialog has been replaced by diatribe in both church and society, and those who shout the loudest seem to be overpowering those who merely have the facts on their side. Trying to maintain himself as a moderate, traditional Anglican has guaranteed Abp. Williams pretty much the same fate as a moderate Republican.
1. Terry Tee, I have not to hand the oath that English clergymen take, but I should think it would include something about rejecting heresy and defending the Faith as handed down (big T Tradition).
That, plus some Bible quotes about luke-warm types, leads me to question your assertion, “He is a good and honorable man.” I hope his Creator agrees with you.
This is the (forthcoming) ND (“New Directions”) editorial on the same subject:
As this is now being implemented, we are trying to make sure that
there is a joint group which will keep an eye on how its going to
happen.
Thus the Archbishop of Canterbury on the proposed Ordinariate, as
reported in the Daily Telegraph. One is reminded of Dr Johnsons
famous definition of a patron: one who looks with unconcern on a man struggling for life in the water, and, when he has reached ground, encumbers him with help. But is help what the Archbishop has in mind? Or is hindrance the more pressing aim? Both clergy and laity will be inclined to wonder.
What, they will be inclined to ask, could be the purpose of such
co-operation, except to flatter the control-freak pretensions of the
Anglican episcopate? Much could be done by bishops who genuinely sought to help those who can no longer remain in the Church of England. Where whole congregations are intent upon leaving for the Ordinariate, for example, arrangements for the sharing or leasing of buildings, for example, would materially ease the transition. We trust that the Archbishop will set an example of best practice in his own diocese with St Peters, Folkestone. But other diocesans have already ruled out such generosity – even though most dioceses need to loose both clergy and places of worship simply to balance the books. In such a context the Archbishops proposals look less like good will and more like sour grapes. Noses and faces come readily to mind.
The Church of England has broken its solemn promises to the opponents of women priests and bishops. They were offered safeguards in perpetuity and for as long as they were needed. After a mere fifteen years those assurances have proved not worth the paper they were written on. But there is no shame. Not a single proponent of womens ordination (and certainly no bishop) has risen to rebuke the Synod for this shameful behaviour. Why should we now trust those who have so flagrantly betrayed us? And why should it be supposed that they now have any right to keep an eye on the Ordinariate as it unfolds?
I was very taken aback that this large step was put before us without any real consultation, Rowan told the Telegraph. He needs to ask himself what form that consultation might have taken, and in what (other than the extant proposals) it might have resulted. The Church of England has turned its back precisely upon that party within it which has fuelled its ecumenical vision for unity with the great Churches of East and West. It has sunk any hope of the recognition of its orders either by Catholics or Orthodox. And now it wants to be granted a role in determining how those it has rejected should find a home within the Church from which it has further estranged itself. What a (diabolical) cheek!
[blockquote] In a related story, a number of foxes have proposed to form a committee overseeing hen-house migration. [/blockquote]
Hey! That was the exact metaphor *I* used on a related thread a couple days ago! This guy has been plagiarizing from T19!
I tend to agree with Date Rye on this. Perhaps he could have pursued a different course which would have furthered his objective, but it is clear to me that this objective was never to further the aims of one theological party or another. It seems to me that what he wants is a communion in which the various churches engage these issues together and do not go off and take unilateral and offensive (if not contemptuous) actions. I don’t know that I would identify this so much as “moderate” as I would, well, “Anglican”, but in any case the “RW is an agent for the liberals” theory is only plausible as an explanation for his failures, and not even all of these. It seems to me that the bigger problem is a general resistance to being led (as opposed to being commanded) which I don’t think any personality could overcome; his bigger problem is a rebellion within his own church, as reflected by the way things went at synod.
Perhaps the Methodists or a Shinto group could be found which could give a neutral perspective on this. The NCR is a relentless cheerleader for American institutional Romanism, and I suspect that their vision of the ordinariate in this country is as a road on which Episcopalians can be more readily conveyed to right-thinking N.O. mass-barn Catholicism. I wonder how accepting they are going to be of Anglo-Catholics who are used to being burrs under the Episcopal saddle converting to being burrs under the archepiscopal saddle.
I remember when women were ordained as Deacons there was a group of clergy who left my diocese. The RC Archbishop immediately packed them all off to the Beda ….. but when things started to surface and one was put on the next train back to the UK in disgrace … I was with my bishop when the RC Archbishop rang up in high dudgeon demanding to know all about the men who had gone over and why my bishop had not told him about the one now on his way home.
“You did not have the decency to ask.” he said.
There are one or two clerics I know of who are hoping to avail themselves of the Ordinariate who would VERY much like to keep the exchange of information between the two churches to NIL.
Rowan Williams let it be known some years ago that he was OK with a “Third Province” . That’s a big yes to a safe place.
FWLIW Archbishop Rowan abstained both in July 2008 and July 2010 when General Synod considered the Catholic Group’s proposals for creating additional non-geographic dioceses for those unable to accept the episcopal ministry of women.
The “Third Province” idea had already been dropped by July 2008, but the nearest alternative, didn’t receive “a big yes” from the Archbishop when it actually came to casting his vote.
Of course, by July 2010 the Archbishops had their own proposal for, more or less, the continuation of the “flying bishops” model. The Synod deemed this unsatisfactory and rejected their proposals.
#7 Dale, I absolutely agree with you. And the Republican analogy was especially spot on. The whole problem with churches these days is they’ve become extensions of political ideologies and political tactics. +++Rowan is not especially good at that and it’s a shame that church leaders now have to be.
Which brings me to my own personal lament — that the Anglican experiment is not faring well now. When I was received into this Communion, it was with the probably naive hopefulness and delight that Christians may not need a strong central authority and all of the bells and whistles to ensure cohesiveness, obedience, and the authentic preaching of the Good News. I truly believed — and still do — that the Anglican model most resembles the structure and form we see in the New Testament. To me, it is tragic for all of Christendom if we prove that it can’t work.
Well, we have the experimental evidence that without the willingness to call a Council and abide by its rulings, we cannot be a NT organization. The failures of the ABC immediately preceding this one and this one are proof of that existential reality. And they are living to see the results of their failure to lead by heeding the councils advice.
IIRC- The Archbishops of Canterbury and York put a proposal to General Synod to provide a “safe place” for those who felt they could not function under female episcopacy. However, as was pointed out above, the ABC cut the proposal short by allowing each member to vote either way without defying him. The proposal went down in flames.
I also recall that one bishop did speak out against Synod’s hardline on women bishops, though I can’t remember which bishop it was.
Only the naive would believe that Rowan Williams attempts to be even-handed in his management of the Church of England and the Anglican Communion. Although he will not be open about it, there is ample objective evidence that his goal is to promote liberal apostasy throughout the church.