Anglican Synod

The Anglican Synod in York has voted to accept women into its episcopacy, long after the Episcopal community in the US did so, and about year after the Church of Ireland appointed its first woman bishop. The move was inevitable, regardless of what critics within the Anglican Communion said. Once women could be accepted for ordination as deacons there was no way they could be excluded from the other orders. Traditionalist and orthodox members of the Anglican Communion now have to consider their position and they are not be envied: these are hard times for them.

As Fr Z says on his blog, the Catholic Church is ready to welcome them. Thanks to Pope Benedict's founding of the Anglican Ordinariates, they can come and bring their traditions with them. We might all just offer a prayer for them at this time. Mgr Newton, Ordinary of the English Ordinariate, has issued an invitation to Anglicans to come into the Church.

As for Anglican reunion with the Catholic Church, that may well now be impossible, although the Bishops of England and Wales are still hopeful. That said, we have an obligation to maintain good relations with members of the Anglican Communion as they too are baptised and are counted among the followers of Jesus Christ, and we must find ways to work with them as brothers and sisters. Of course reunion with the Orthodox Churches is possible and to be desired. They have held to the faith, they have a valid episcopacy and priesthood, valid sacraments and we share much in common with them. Let us continue to pray for unity there. 

     

Imaginations Running Wild

 

One of the stories of the last day or so was that of the newly restored frescos in the Catacombs of Priscilla.  It seems, according to a group seeking the ordination of women, these frescos depict women priests and so the Pope must ordain women. 

 

Well, the Vatican has responded by calling the group's claims "fairy tales", and to be honest I think that was too kind.  For a good examination of the frescos and what they really depict, I refer you to Fr Z who has written most eloquently what I would express quite poorly.

 

Let us not forget that when it comes to certain groups looking for unorthodox change, anything will do to push the cause regardless of whether it is true, rational or sane. 

The Problem of Democracy

The recent troubles in the Church of England are very sad – the communion is being torn asunder by the issue of women bishops.  As you know the C of E synod has just rejected the ordination of women bishops and the fallout has been dreadful.  Some Catholics in recent times have hailed the democratic nature of the Anglican synod and urged our Church to adopt it: only in democracy, we are told, can the Church become relevant and have a future.  However, in the eyes of some it seems the democratic nature of the Anglican synod has failed to produce the goods this time, and there is now talk in some quarters of imposing women bishops.  In the fray following the rejection, some MPs say they are going to sue the Church of England for breaching equality laws. 

To be honest I find it all very strange.  Those who speak about democracy within the C of E are not happy with what seems to be a democratic decision according to the model the Anglican Communion has adopted: surely democrats should accept the decision.  Well, it seems not.  Democracy is a strange animal.  Almost worshipped as the only legitimate form of government, it is sometimes seen as a burden to be overcome in secularist nations.   In the last hundred and fifty years we have seen countries in the developed west trying to encourage less developed countries to adopt the democratic model, but when these countries adopt the model many end up being dominated in various ways by the very countries that urged them to democracy.

In Ireland, for example, our ancestors fought for freedom, for the Irish to rule themselves in a democratic way: as the blurb goes: “the people are sovereign”.  But then how many times in Ireland has the democratic will of the Irish people, expressed in a referendum, been put aside by the ruling government and the people forced back to the polls again and again to produce the “right” answer?  This charade became commonplace in the various referendums on European treaties we have had in recent times, but another example, rarely cited now, is also interesting: divorce. 

Over the years we had a number of referendums on divorce in Ireland until it was passed.  Following a rejection the government returned to issue every few years to see if the view of the people had changed, yet now that we have it no government has decided to see if the people still want divorce.  Should the government not be consistent?  After all, having had the experience of divorce for the last number of years, perhaps the will of the people has changed again.

From such experiences one might be inclined to think that democracy is a one way street, veering in the direction of the most powerful and influential in society.  Certainly, as many of us have found, scratch the surface of some of those who appeal to democracy and the people and you find they are not really interested in democracy at all, but rather want to impose their rule and give the impression that the people want it.  A brief look at history reveals this to be the case in many countries from Communist Russia to modern China and North Korea.   I sometimes wonder if democracy is seen by some as such a wild animal that it needs to be chained, sedated, fed only what the elite will concede and only brought out for a walk now and again to impress the neighbours, but always on the leash.

As regards women bishops in the Church of England: first to say that I accept the Catholic Church’s position on the issue of the ordination of women, as taught by Pope Paul VI, Blessed John Paul II and Pope Benedict, and I believe that is the will of God for his Church.  If the Anglicans want to ordain women ministers it is their concern, but if they see that that is right for the Church of England, then how can they refuse to ordain them bishops?  If women can be priests for them, then they can be bishops: they cannot refuse since the offices of priest and bishop are intimately connected.  They cannot decide to go half way down the road once they have committed themselves.  That may be hard for the opponents of women priests and bishops to hear, but they will eventually have to face the inevitable.  That said: the doors of the Ordinariate are always open – we would be delighted to welcome them home. We should keep them all in our prayers.  On this issue Francis Philips has an interesting article in the Herald which is well worth reading. 

The big news in the Church here in Ireland is the appointment of the new bishop of Cloyne - the new nuncio's first appointment.  The bishop-elect is Canon William Crean from the Diocese of Kerry and was a most unexpected candidate.  Here is the bishop-elect's acceptance speech.  As bishop, Canon Crean will face many challenges - the difficulties that have arisen in his new See in recent years, and the stirrings of renewal in the Church here.  We must keep him in our prayers, as we must remember all our bishops.

Other news.  John Jalsevac over on LifeSiteNews is beginning a series of articles on internet pornography.  In the first article he writes about his own experience as an addict and offers some shocking statistics.   Brandon Vogt has a very good piece on how Blessed John Henry Newman dealt with anti-Catholic bigotry.  As I was reading it I could not help but think of our contemporary situation: good advice for us all.

The Rocky Road To...

The Church of England is all in a tizzy.  The synod is debating whether or not to ordain women bishops.  They have finally made a decision - they're postponing a decision until November, or perhaps even February.  The ladies in ministry are not happy.  Melanie McDonagh has a few interesting things to say. 

The problem is that the traditionalists in the Anglican communion, who do not recognise the validity of the ordination of women, want assurances that they will not be subject to a woman bishop, but have a male bishop, ordained by a male bishop to cater for their pastoral needs.  The women who want to be priests/bishops are not happy with that and do not want the synod to make provision for it - if it does, then they will opt out - the decision to ordain women as bishops must be on their terms and on their terms only.

To be honest I don't see a problem here.  First of all, as a Catholic, I do not consider Anglican orders as valid, so there is no issue of the sacred priesthood here (see explanation here, and Pope Leo XIII's bull Apostolicae Curae).  If the Church of England has decided that women can be ordained priests of their community, then it cannot refuse to ordain them bishops - if they are eligible for two levels of Holy Orders why not the third?  This was all decided when the decision was taken to admit women to the diaconate.  I understand that there is little unity of faith in the Anglican communion now - it seems many doctrines are decided by majority votes by synods, so officially there ends up being varying beliefs in every corner of the community.   At this stage I really do not know what it is that binds them as a communion. 

The traditionalists are going to have to accept the ordination of women bishops and let the C of E get on with it and go wherever it is going.  They are, of course, welcome to come into the Catholic Church through the Ordinariate, where is a central authority and real communion in faith, even if we have members who rebel against it.  The door is open, we will be delighted to welcome them - the Church is renewing, in a new springtime, and their presence and contributions would be most welcome. 

This crisis in the Church of England should serve as a lesson to us: we must maintain the unity of faith and remain true to the teaching of Christ and the authority of the Pope as Vicar of Christ, whom the Holy Spirit guides.   The Church has no authority to ordain women, and this means admit them to Holy Orders be it diaconate, priesthood or the episcopacy, as Blessed John Paul II explained in his letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis which is binding on Catholics who wish to remain in communion with the Church.   For those who do not want to accept it, I'm sure there are denominations out there who would be glad to welcome them into their ranks.

Oh, and to head them off at the pass: for those who say that women were ordained deacons in the early Church - they were not.  Yes, there were women who fulfilled certain roles in the Church and were called deaconesses - but there was no laying on of hands - they were not ordained.  Their chief function was to assist at the baptism of women.  Given that baptism was by total immersion and the candidate was naked, it was not deemed appropriate for men to assist the lady in the baptismal pool - modesty and chastity were paramount, so certain women were on hand to help the female candidate.  Perhaps if we go back to full immersion of naked adults for baptism, the Church may well reintroduce these "deaconesses", but given codes of behaviour now I doubt it - too risky to have naked people running around the Church.

Same Old Same Old

I was listening to George Weigel's interview on the Pat Kenny show this morning, on RTE radio.  While Pat often interviews various figures alone, including controversial ones, it seems George was not to be accorded the same style of interview: he was to be marked by liberal theologian Gina Menzies.  So the interview was not an interview at all, but a debate.  

If I had hoped for balance and openness in this debate, well I was deluding myself.  The debate soon boiled down to an attack on the Catholic Church's position on the ordination of women - again the same old same old.   Before long Pat and Gina teamed up and formed a two against one in good RTE fashion and grilled George on the Church's position.  It is a credit to George's basic decency that he did not turn on them. 

As usual Menzies was peddling misinformation with regard to scholarship - that the Catholic Church had investigated the ordination of women in the Church's history and could not find evidence that proved or disproved the ordination of women.  George put her right by pointing out that the Church had investigated the nature of the diaconate to see if women were ordained deacons, and found that at no point in history had the Church ordained women deacons.  When this fact came out Pat and Gina changed tactics. The "interview" was supposed to be about renewal in the Church, in the end it was a teenage rebellion against Church teaching. 

To be honest, is it worth even posting on this?  Given the anti-Catholic bias that is in RTE (sorry Patsy McGarry I do not accept your argument that there is no bias - there is and it is obvious).   When it comes to Catholic issues and Catholic figures RTE is not interested in understanding, they just what to create controversy and get a bit of bashing in too.  They do not allow the Church to speak on her own terms, but rather must always have someone to criticise and contradict (they call this "being balanced"), and often these are dissident Catholics who no longer hold the orthodox faith and are, for all intents and purposes, no longer in communion with the Church - and yet they are passed off as Catholics.  Until very recently Gina Menzies was trading under the title of "Catholic theologian" until a real Catholic theologian exposed her and forced her to admit that she wasn't. 

Let it be noted: the Catholic Church will not ordain women as priests - ever - not because she won't, but because she CAN'T.  Whether the liberals like it or not, Jesus did not ordain women, and all the arguments in the world will not change that fact.  The Church, then, has no authority to do so.

If people do not like that, if they want to be members of a church that has women clergy then the Catholic Church is not for them: it is time to leave and look somewhere else.  And, taking the cue from Archbishop Martin, I would urge them to leave.  Those ecclesial communities that have ordained women are losing members at a rapid pace, their churches are emptying - I am sure they would be glad of ex-Catholics to fill their pews. 

The Catholic Church is not forcing anyone to stay: she will not force anyone to believe what she teaches, but she does expect people to be true to what they believe, and if people in the Church reject her moral, doctrinal and social teachings, her position on women priests, married priests, gay marriage, contraception and abortion, then the door is open: please go and leave the rest of us in peace!  

But then again, I believe, that is exactly what they do not want to do: they would rather stay and make trouble than actually go and enter full communion with people of similiar beliefs.  There is another force at work here, and it is not human. 

Eavesdropping

Speaking of Irish Jesuits.  Overheard in a conversation between an Irish Jesuit priest and a Church of Ireland woman minister, on the subject of the ordination of women:

Jesuit: "It's the future really and the Catholic Church is moving slowly towards it; we'll get there eventually.  Pope Benedict supports it, he's way ahead of a lot of them.  His visit to England was great, he confounded the critics."

No, your eyes are not deceiving you.  It seems, according to this Irish Jesuit priest who was worshipping the Lady Vicar, Pope Benedict fully supports the ordination of women.  The Jesuits are not what they used to be.