One reason why senior Catholic clerics view a possible schism with dismay is personal and emotional. As the Second Vatican Council’s decree on ecumenicism noted, the Anglican Communion occupies a “special place” in relation to the Catholic church. In the 44 years since then, many Catholics have invested time, effort and prayer in trying to reunite with the Church of England, and there have been moments when they dared to hope it was possible. Good friendships and working relationships have been formed along the way (one is between Rowan Williams and the Archbishop of Westminster, Cormac Murphy-O’Connor). No one likes to hear a row in a friend’s house.
But there are other, less sentimental reasons why the Catholic hierarchy dreads a split. In particular, the acceptance into the Catholic church of large numbers of married Anglican clerics would make it harder for the Vatican to hold its already shaky line on priestly celibacy. Since 1980, when rules were drawn up for the reception of Anglican clerics (some of whom were unhappy at the prospect of women priests in their Communion), more than 80 have taken the leap worldwide. Most are married. Catherine Pepinster, the editor of a liberal Catholic weekly, the Tablet, says that in Britain most Catholics feel that these priests “bring something beneficial to their ministry. They understand people’s married lives, and that is appreciated.”
“Already shaky line on priestly celibacy?” What in the world has given anyone this impression? The line has been held fast.
This is a really anglo-centric viewpoint; why on earth would the Vatican fear that the admittance of a few priests, at best some hundreds, in a country where the church has a few million (compared to over a billion Catholics world-wide), threaten the millenia-old tradition of priestly celibacy in the Church as a whole? Consider that the Eastern Catholic Churches allow this and have for a long time, and yet celibacy remains intact in the West.
[blockquote]…make it harder for the Vatican to hold its already shaky line on priestly celibacy.[/blockquote]
Anglicanum & Tridentine make perfect points above. This line is just stock “liberal-media” written for the secular audience in a business magazine.
Yeah. Anyone who thinks that Ms Pepinster is representative of Catholic thought (which may well be an oxymoron when applied to The Tablet) in England’s churches needs to get out more.
It may not be a shaky line as far as church hierarchy goes, but it probably is perceived as one by those who care more about popular opinion than about doctrine. I think it is increasingly hard for our contemporaries to understand religion. Look at the popularity of that spate of trite books by Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, et al in the last two years. Most claim that religion is vapid, mere form over no content. Very few people are educated in church history, cultural history, and theology. For them, a church that does not change with the times must be an unimaginable institution; so if popular Catholic opinion leans toward married clergy, it must be just in the offing, ready to sail into port.
One thought #’s 1-4. What in the world would make the Anglican orthodox upset about ordaining a few homosexual preists in the 70’s and 80’s, in a country with only a few million members compared with a world wide church of 77 million? I don’t agree with the necessity for preistly celibacy, but if you buy into the doctrine, it is always impossible to let just one cow out of the barn.
If you read it all, you will also see this:
[blockquote] those [b] Roman Catholics [/b] who would welcome a more tolerant attitude towards homosexuality, or the greater involvement of women, could see their cause set back by the arrival of the rebels. “High†Anglicans can be more papist than the pope. …their services can contain “more smells and bells than you would find in the average Catholic parishâ€. [/blockquote]
I’ve read this sentiment elsewhere in the British press. It would seem that the “faithful remnant” of Anglicans is perceived as a threat among revisionist British Roman Catholic hierarchy.
[blockquote]I don’t agree with the necessity for preistly celibacy, but if you buy into the doctrine,[/blockquote]
But the key is that priestly celibacy is NOT doctrine… it is discipline. A discipline that is hardly on a ‘shaky line’.
I know in the west where all most people are exposed to is the Latin Rite they don’t know about married priests in the Catholic Church. However, I would expect better reporting from The Economist.
The Eastern Rite Catholic Churches have married priests and convert clergy from Anglican and Lutheran (as was mentioned in the article) may be ordained under the pastoral provision. If it were a doctrine of the Church then no exceptions could be made.
7 you are right, the English Catholic bishops are very liberal, for them smelly smoke and Latin mass are aboration. I’m Roman Catholic conservative(Brazilian)and my wife Anglican liberal(Affirming Catholicism, if you can call that catholic), my catholic parish is much,muhch, much and much lower than hers(even that her church don’t have smelly smoke), en England you will find smelly smoke just in some RC cathedrals. As a Roman Catholic I am against Anglicans ritualists pastor/ministers married being ordained priets, because it isn’t fair that Roman Catholic married men like me can’t be ordained priests, while Protestants pastor can just because their denomination started ordain Women pastors. And I am against a Anglican Catholic Church because the Anglo-saxon church has always being part of the Latin rite. If they want to became Catholics , just come back home.
The article says (gasp!) there are more smells and bells in an anglican papalists churches than there are in an average Roman Catholic parish. That statement is true of the Eastern Orthodox and Uniate churches. This hasn’t driven Rome into a panic. Such a silly article.
#7 – now that is a good point, and that’s why I hope we get a good sized group coming over. Orthodox reinforcements are always welcome – sadly we have plenty of fellow travelers of KJS, VGR, et al in the Church, even if they don’t run the place they cause plenty of mischief.
I became skeptical of the author’s knowledge of Anglicanism when he wrote:
That gives the impression that the Anglican Communion consists of liberals and traditionalists — with traditionalists all being Anglo-Catholics longing to kiss the ring.
Ummmmm… hello? There was this little thing five centuries ago called “The Protestant Reformation” that has a little bit to do with Anglican identity. There are loads of Anglican traditionalists who identify with their Luther/Cranmer roots and not with the much later Oxford Movement. In fact the Global South is much more Evangelical than it is Anglo-Catholic, though both streams of Anglicanism are represented there.
I am very fond of my A-C brothers and have great respect for them, but the author of the Economist piece lost all cred with me when he missed a vast chunk of Anglican identity and history. I agree with the other people posting: just another example of the secular press deciding they can write about a thing without knowing anything about it, as long as that thing is Christianity.
Jon #12, I agree. For me, the Lutheran Church was the natural place to run from the apostate ECUSA.