I generally ignore the standard anti-Pope, anti-Rome rantings of the known 'liberal Catholic' mouthpieces like the National Catholic Reporter and America in the USA, and The Tablet in the UK, leaving it to other commentators to point out their most egregious fits of perversion and just plain wrong thinking. Damian Thompson does that now...
The Tablet launches bitter
and ignorant attack on the Pope's
Apostolic Constitution
Nov. 13, 2009
The Tablet’s editorial this week is a wretched attack on the Pope’s Apostolic Constitution, arguing that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (read: the Pope) doesn’t understand Anglo-Catholicism.
The article is a bitter and partisan piece of work, reflecting the wounded pride of English bishops who were not consulted about the Apostolic Constitution for the very good reason that they would have tried to sabotage it. The editorial says:
"Perhaps because of lack of consultation with both Catholic and Anglican authorities in England, the CDF seems to have failed to grasp what Anglo-Catholicism is really all about".
What about the CDF’s years of consultation with the bishops who lead the Anglo-Catholic conservatives in England? Do you think that Bishops John Broadhurst and Andrew Burnham failed to communicate what Anglo-Catholicism is “really all about”? The Tablet continues:
[Anglo-Catholicism's] fundamental aim was to reassert the Catholic credentials of the Church of England as the “ancient Catholic Church of these lands” identical in essence to the medieval English Church.
It is from this foundation that derive all those characteristics of its style that the CDF is keen to preserve – the interiors of its churches almost indistinguishable from Catholic churches, the use of “Father” as the title for its clergy, and devotion to a Catholic type of spirituality including honouring the Virgin Mary.
But unless one counts use of the Roman missal in some of their churches, there is no distinctive Anglo-Catholic liturgy.
Anglo-Catholicism is going through a profound crisis precisely because it is losing faith in its central principle.
Anglicanorum coetibus is offering to let incoming Anglo-Catholics hang on to the incidental symbols of that principle, while relinquishing what lies behind it. Does that make sense?
Well, no, it doesn’t make sense – if you accept the Tablet’s ignorant account of Anglo-Catholicism, a phenomenon it has never remotely understood.
There isn’t space to go into detail here, but the Anglo-Papal strand within the movement was not chiefly interested in recreating medieval English Catholicism (as some other Anglo-Catholics were) and made sure that its liturgy reflected post-Reformation (and post-Vatican II) developments in Roman Catholicism.
Then we get the old argument that, because English Anglo-Catholics use the Roman liturgy, they would be just “hanging on to incidentals”, even that “there is no distinctive Anglo-Catholic liturgy”.
Can you imagine the Bitter Pill – and it really is bitter this week – insulting any other religious tradition in this fashion? The distinctiveness of the English Anglo-Catholic liturgy arises partly from its ethos, which reflects a solemnity that has been lost by so many Roman Catholic parishes in this country.
There is nothing “incidental” about this ethos. In Anglo-Catholicism at its best you find a way of celebrating ancient feasts in an English manner that draws authentically on the medieval Church: it is one of the “treasures” that the Holy Father wishes to see reincorporated into Catholicism.
And it is he, not the CDF, who is the author of the Apostolic Constitution
Anglicanorum Coetibus. So let us be very clear about this.
The Tablet is attacking the Pope, rubbishing a project that is very dear to his heart and central to his ecumenical mission.
The magazine also contains a sour, biased analysis of the Constitution by ex-priest Nicholas Lash, criticising it for the way it cites The Catechism of The Catholic Church – “a useful if uneven compendium of Catholic teaching. It has little or no authority in itself…”
[Excuse me???? Since it is derived from specific magisterial acts (each referrence duly noted in the Catechism), it is part of the Magisterium, so how can it not have any authority???? Lash is not just sour and biased, he too is showing his ignorance. We must be thankful he is an ex-priest!]
And yet still
The Tablet has the nerve to call itself Catholic.
[Just as Notre Dame and NCReporter and America and countless others we can name still do - because in fact they claim to 'be the Church' ['We are Church'!], as though the faithful alone make up the Church and there is no structure and leadership that have guided her and kept her together for 2000 years!]
I liked the following commentary by the missionary priest Fr. Scalese whose views I generall find congenial:
On 'Anglicanorum coetibus'
Translated from
Nov. 10, 2009
I have read the Apostolic Constitution
Anglicanorum coetibus with the Complementary Norms issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. We knew beforehand the main lines of these documents, so there were no great surprises. But one cannot remain indifferent when reading the official texts,
My first feeling was of amazement at how the Catholic Church has known from time to time how to adapt itself to various situations. This new juridical institution of 'personal ordinariates' is not provided for in the Code of Canon Law. There already exist the 'military ordinariates' - not in the Code of Canon Law, either, but also created through Apostolic Constitution - but this model had not been previously applied to any other type of congregation.
But a new situation had presented itself: Groups of Anglican faithful, with their pastors, had asked to be received 'corporatively' into the Catholic Church. And what does tehChurch do? It creates a new personal church circumscription especially for them, in order to respond to their request and their legitimate aspirations.
The only condition asked of them is this: "Do you accept the Catechism of the Catholic Church?" Nothing more.
Once the same faith is shared, everything is possible, and a solution can be found to any problem.
Do you wish to continue following your own traditions? Not a problem!
Do your married priests wish to continue being priests? OK. They must be re-ordained as Catholic priests but they can stay married.
Do your bishops want to continue being your pastors? It is possible. If they are unmarried, they can be reordained bishops and become 'ordinaries' [bishop]. If they are married, they can be re-ordained as priests, and they may continue to use their episcopal insignia on request and be part of bishops' conferences as emeritus bishops.
I told myself, this leaves little to the imagination! And all this, coming from the Catholic Church, which is usually perceived as conservative, traditionalist, and slow to adapt to changes.
But in this case, the conservatives seem to be the Anglican Church itself. Listen to Bishop John Broadhurst, of the 'Forward in Faith' federation of traditional Anglican churches: “I have been horrified that the Church of England, while trying to accommodate us, has consistently said we cannot have the jurisdiction and independent life that most of us feel we need to continue on our Christian pilgrimage. What Rome has done is offer exactly what the Church of England has refused.”
Did you hear that? These Anglicans, who do not accept the novelties itnroduced into their church, before turning to the Catholic Church, first asked the Church of England itself for legitimate autonomy [no room for them in a church where, moreover, there has always been room for the most diverse positions, even contradictory at times].
No, they were told, "Put up or do what you will!" What the liberal Church of England could not give to them has been granted by the backward Catholic Church!
This is a sign of the Church's great vitality. Those 'churches' that cnsider themselves 'open' and modern simply because they allow women priests and practising homosexuals as bishops or sanction same-sex marriage, are actually 'dead' churches.
We must wait and see what happens next, but if enough Anglican groups decide to join the Catholic church, then thexAnglican Communion risks being reduced to an aggrupation of nostalgic practitioners.
Of course, we cannot ignore the difficulties that await the Catholic Church itself. Not eveything will be easy. Just reading the Apostolic Constitution and its complementary norms, one can see a certain inevitable confusion which will result when the new ordinariates are superimposed on existing dioceses.
There are also situations which will not be easy to normalize, like priests who are in irregular matrimonial situations, as well as the Catholic priests who had converted to Anglicanism in order be able to get married. [The norms make it slear they cannot be readmitted as priests into the Catholic Church, which makes sense, I think, in terms of principle.]
We can also add the difficulties that priests and communities will have with their Anglican parishes, especially in practicale conomic terms.
And we must not forget that although the converting Anglicans may consider themselves 'traditionalists', they also come from ultra-liberal surroundings and may carry a certain mentality that finds itself at war with Catholic practices.
[I think if the convering Anglicans are traditionalist enough to oppose women priests, gay priests and same-sex marriages, then they would be unlikely to advocate abortion, euthanasia, and artificial reproduction which are more 'fundamental' to the faith.]
These are real difficulties which we cannot hide but which should not hinder us - they are difficulties characteristic of the living reality.
Meanwhile, let us enjoy this moment of grace. Let us thank the Lord who shows us, even through this episode, that the Catholic Church - that Church considered by many as broken apart and often critivized by we ourselves for her limitations and her errors) is the true Church of which - unworthily but with great pride - we are part.
[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 15/11/2009 22:25]