Loved this one from Disputations

Our friend, Tom @ Disputations, has some insightful thoughts on the brouhaha being raised in some quarters over the Vatican's outreach to Anglicans.

I do, though, have an opinion about the sort of reaction to yesterday's news exemplified in this comment by Michael Sean Winters:

But, I worry, too, that some of these newcomers will also be nostalgists, anti-feminists, and anti-gay bigots.

Some have suggested this translates to worrying that some of these newcomers will profess Catholic doctrine. But even granting that some Anglicans may join the Catholic Church out of sheer cussedness, I say:

So what?

I joined the Catholic Church out of sheer helplessness. When I was baptized as an infant, I not only lacked a good reason to become Catholic, I lacked any reason; I flat lacked reason altogether.

A Church that practices infant baptism is not a Church with demanding membership requirements.

I thought that part was brilliant, and he anticipates the next objection and deftly answers it:

I get, of course, that someone who has reached the age of reason ought to join the Catholic Church if, and only if, he believes the whole of the Catholic Faith. By the same token, though, parent ought to have their children baptized if, and only if, they believe the whole of the Catholic Faith, and I've heard no one grumble about the children of nostalgists, anti-feminists, and anti-gay bigots joining the Church.

Full communion with Christ's Church is a big deal. Too big, I'd say, for us to screw with it much. Let the Church welcome those who demonstrate the wish to be a part of her, and leave the personal judging to God.

You see, this is the same problem as you see in the hate crimes legislation. People can't just look at intent by asking "is this person going to be a good Catholic?" they just have to suspiciously probe motives. So they put their suspects under a microscope and pick apart their entire thought processes. And this provides us with... what exactly?


I converted from a very "conservative" Protestant denomination, so I didn't have the same axe to grind as some of those now under Mr. Winters's microscope. But I can imagine someone thinking to himself the following in a completely sensible manner, without a hint of prejudice or yen for nostalgia: "I'm watching progressive types whack away at my traditions, I'm listening to angry feminists howl about male domination, I'm seeing gay bishops parade their sins for all to see and the head of my church is conceding to Islamic Sharia Law. I'm just not sure there is much continuity with the historical Christian church here anymore. Maybe I'll look into Roman Catholicism." Those last two sentences describe my journey to the bark of Saint Peter. And the fact that the first part was neither experienced by me as a 20-something, nor Tom as an infant, nor Michael Sean Winters as an open-minded guy with a middle-name is completely irrelevant.

Strategic angle of the Vatican's ecumenical move

I liked this Douthat piece very much. Excerpt:

Here Catholicism and Anglicanism share two fronts. In Europe, both are weakened players, caught between a secular majority and an expanding Muslim population. In Africa, increasingly the real heart of the Anglican Communion, both are facing an entrenched Islamic presence across a fault line running from Nigeria to Sudan.

Where the European encounter is concerned, Pope Benedict has opted for public confrontation. In a controversial 2006 address in Regensburg, Germany, he explicitly challenged Islam’s compatibility with the Western way of reason — and sparked, as if in vindication of his point, a wave of Muslim riots around the world.

By contrast, the Church of England’s leadership has opted for conciliation (some would say appeasement), with the Archbishop of Canterbury going so far as to speculate about the inevitability of some kind of sharia law in Britain.

There are an awful lot of Anglicans, in England and Africa alike, who would prefer a leader who takes Benedict’s approach to the Islamic challenge. Now they can have one, if they want him.

This could be the real significance of last week’s invitation. What’s being interpreted, for now, as an intra-Christian skirmish may eventually be remembered as the first step toward a united Anglican-Catholic front — not against liberalism or atheism, but against Christianity’s most enduring and impressive foe.

Earlier he makes the point that this Benedict's move is not "good manners". But what are good manners going to buy you when your head is being sawed off?

MCJ on the Personal Ordinariate Announcement

Popped over to MCJ for his take on the developments. Plenty of stuff there from someone who welcomes the news and who can't write a bad sentence nor one without the perfect measure of wit.

So start off with Bombshell which contains the great line: "Odd, isn’t it, how the hidebound, reactionary church was the one that took the revolutionary step?" Over 100 comments on that one.

Then he posted yesterday, Day Two, which I just skimmed. He also links to a quote from Father Rutler.

[The Vatican's Anglican provision] is a dramatic slap-down of liberal Anglicanism and a total repudiation of the ordination of women, homosexual marriage and the general neglect of doctrine in Anglicanism. Indeed, it is a final rejection of Anglicanism. It basically interprets Anglicanism as a spiritual patrimony based on ethnic tradition rather than substantial doctrine and makes clear that it is not a historic “church” but rather an “ecclesial community” that strayed and now is invited to return to communion with the Pope as Successor of Peter.

The Vatican was careful to schedule simultaneously with the Vatican announcement, a press conference of the Catholic Archbishop of Westminster and the deeply humiliated Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury to enable the Anglicans to save some face by saying that this recognizes the spiritual patrimony of Anglicanism and that ecumenical dialogue goes ahead. That is like George Washington at Yorktown saying that he recognizes the cultural contributions of Britain and hopes diplomatic relations flourish. The Apostolic Constitution is not a retraction of ecumenical desires, but rather is the fulfillment of ecumenical aspirations, albeit not the way most Anglican leaders had envisioned it.

Oh, man. The George Washington analogy―ouch. That's got to hurt dear Mr. Williams.

Today's offering from Christopher is a high-larious smackdown delivered to several alabandical reactions to the news from liberal quarters.

Heck, we got loads of R.E. for y'all

In Father Longenecker's excellent piece on the Anglican Personal Ordinariate announcement, these paragraphs popped out at me:

For mainstream Anglicans, the right thing would be for the Anglican Communion worldwide to face this challenge squarely and put their own provisions in place for Anglo-Catholics to leave and take their buildings and resources with them. The Anglicans across the world should realize that their communion is shrinking and look at things from a practical point of view. They already have too many buildings and staff members to maintain. What would be the point of having a great Anglo-Catholic church if there is nobody there to fill the pews? In English cities, there are plenty of Anglican churches that could very easily be handed over. Corporations downsize all the time. Part of that process is stripping out and getting rid of the properties they no longer need.

The Anglicans should be realistic and set up the procedures for an Anglican-Use Roman Catholic parish in every town. That would solve their problem of the troublesome Anglo-Catholics and free them to then turn the Anglican Church into the Politically Correct Church of Christ. While this would be the sensible and Christian way forward, it is unlikely to happen. Instead, be prepared for more property battles as disaffected Anglicans attempt to leave and take their assets with them.

My guess is that the Anglican powers-that-be are not going to let the property go. But in Cleveland—and I'm guessing many other metro areas—this would not present much of a problem. There are all kinds of churches being closed which could be given to new Anglican use parishes. This would mean kind of a win-win in any case where the traditional Anglicans can't keep there old digs, the outcome on which I'd put my money.

Meanwhile, the Catholic League has a good release dispelling the myth of a supposed "bidding war" orchestrated by the Pope and the Vatican for the traditional Anglicans. Donohue ends the release by asking which other parties were bidding against the Catholic Church, lol.

Personal Prelature for Traditional Anglican Communion?

Creative Minority Report has the story. Excerpt:

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has decided to recommend the Traditional Anglican Communion be accorded a personal prelature akin to Opus Dei, if talks between the TAC and the Vatican aimed at unity succeed, it is understood.

The TAC is a growing global community of approximately 400,000 members that took the historic step in 2007 of seeking full corporate and sacramental communion with the Catholic Church – a move that, if fulfilled, will be the biggest development in Catholic-Anglican relations since the English Reformation under King Henry VIII.
TAC members split from the Canterbury-based Anglican Communion headed by Archbishop Rowan Williams over issues such as its ordination of women priests and episcopal consecrations of women and practising homosexuals.

The TAC’s case appeared to take a significant step forwards in October 2008 when it is understood that the CDF decided not to recommend the creation of a distinct Anglican rite within the Roman Catholic Church – as is the case with the Eastern Catholic Churches - but a personal prelature, a semi-autonomous group with its own clergy and laity.