Posted on 02/22/2007 5:09:18 AM PST by Alex Murphy
For generations, Roman Catholic schoolchildren in this country were taught to pray for the conversion of England. Their prayers may soon be answered: as talk of an Anglican schism grows, a leaked report hints that the Church of England may recognise a modified form of the papacy.
This may seem an unlikely development in view of ancient prejudices: Anglicans inveighed against "the whore of Babylon", while Catholics scorned their Anglican brethren as heretics. But, at a time when both Churches suffer from falling vocations, dwindling attendance and depleted coffers, this marriage of convenience may not sound such a bad idea. Before we strike up the band and get the confetti out, though, we should ask: do Anglicans know whom they're getting into bed with?
Editing the Catholic Herald in the early 1990s made me realise that the popular view of the Catholic Church owed more to fiction than fact. The British saw my Church as an Evelyn Waugh creation steeped in incense, tradition and heavenly choirs. How they recoiled when they set foot in their local Catholic church and found a liberal Lefty priest preaching that raising taxes was part of God's plan, while tone-deaf youngsters wailed Kumbaya.
In the same way, those Anglicans who want to break away from Canterbury over gay priests will be horrified to learn that a great many Catholic priests are of a similar persuasion. Those who bemoan their wishy-washy liberal clergy will be shocked to find that much of the Catholic hierarchy is trapped in an Old Left mentality that regards Neil Kinnock as dangerously Right-wing. Anglicans who hold up the Church of Rome as a model for its black-and-white certainties should consider that, even under a German Pope, Catholicism is about the Italian art of arrangiarsi - or getting by. Thus, the Church bans birth control, but the majority practise it; condemns divorce while allowing annulment; forbids homosexuality, but shields paedophiles within its ranks.
A faith that teaches that even the worst sinner can confess and receive absolution is immensely appealing, so it would not surprise me to hear that some Anglicans are flirting with the notion of sheltering under our umbrella. But let them know the facts, not fall for a fantasy.
That would be called "Christianity," right? The whole point of the Crucifixion, and all that, to reconcile sinners to God?
But seriously, it is a good point that, if people join the Catholic Church expecting to find that everyone's perfectly holy and all their aesthetic needs are perfectly fulfilled, they're likely to be deeply disappointed.
Jesus would probably reply, "You should hear what they say about YOU!"
This is sort of an odd statement --->
Church bans birth control, but the majority practise it that's not "getting by", that's earning a date with perdition
condemns divorce while allowing annulment; annulments are spiritually appropriate if the sacrament wasn't entered into with intent or good faith; it's not an accomodation, it's a point of fact.
forbids homosexuality, but shields paedophiles within its ranks. Homosexuality is not forbidden. Homosexual acts are. Pedophiles are not institutionally shielded, rather, many bishops took liberty with the fact that a policy was never officially voiced by the Vatican, and sold out the flock on behalf of the lavendar mafia.
Yeah, there's a lot of garbage in the article. However, the author's garbled understanding is fairly common among Catholics, in my experience; they really think they're "putting something by" God.
That's interesting. My mother always uses this expression when she's trying to cobble together a meal for all of us on short notice or in the middle of the week when the pantry is starting to become bare. It does mean getting by, and to me that connotes a sort of working with what's on hand, but Catholicism doesn't suffer from being too lean, it suffers from bloat.
I think the truth is while we may be the Capulets and the Montagues, the truth is that Protestants and Catholics need each other. And it's important that each communion be able to see its own defects and freely admit them. I have much more confidence in the Protestant side being able to do this though, because they haven't the unenviable task of making sure three homemade councils "hath not contradicted one another." Criticism, if warranted, should come from inside each communion. If a communion of Christianity cannot -by vice of exigence or oath of loyalty- admit that it has erred then don't look for unity in this life, just look for it in the next. It won't due to treat that which issued from error in fig-leaf fashion. Unity without truth is meaningless, and, even if achieved, will yield to rupture again, because without truth the "center will not hold."
Two households both alike in dignity
In fair Verona
Where we lay our scene
From ancient grudge break to new mutiny
Where civil blood makes civil hands unclean
From forth the fatal loins of these two foes
A pair of star-cross'd lovers
Should be: It won't do to treat that which issued from error in fig-leaf fashion.
In the same way, those Anglicans who want to break away from Canterbury over gay priests will be horrified to learn that a great many Catholic priests are of a similar persuasion. Those who bemoan their wishy-washy liberal clergy will be shocked to find that much of the Catholic hierarchy is trapped in an Old Left mentality that regards Neil Kinnock as dangerously Right-wing. Anglicans who hold up the Church of Rome as a model for its black-and-white certainties should consider that, even under a German Pope, Catholicism is about the Italian art of arrangiarsi - or getting by. Thus, the Church bans birth control, but the majority practise it; condemns divorce while allowing annulment; forbids homosexuality, but shields paedophiles within its ranks.
This was entirely my experience with the Catholic Church! All you have to do is move it from a British to an American context.
I will never understand the Catholic Church's reputation for "arch-conservatism." It is my personal belief (and we all know what that is worth) that the clergy of the Catholic Church may actually be to the Left of the Episcopalians--they just don't advertise it as blatantly.
When the only genuinely conservative churches are "heretical sects" only a century or two old, you know that the whole house of cards is collapsing.
On the one hand: Episcopal Bishop PEter Lee of Virginia used to say of the former Catholic Bishop of Richmond, Walter the Pink (as I thought of him), that as long as Bishop Walter was there, Peter wasn't the most liberal bishop in Richmond.
On the other hand, let's be careful of sampling errors and of the questions we ask. What I understand of RC political/social/economic moral theory leads me to conclude that no strictly secular system will fit in every respect. Righties and lefties who hold their political "truth" as absolute will find that what the Church teaches always evades their grasp. Better for them to stick to their knitting and preach the Gospel.
***For generations, Roman Catholic schoolchildren in this country were taught to pray for the conversion of England.***
If GOD had wanted England to be Catholic the Armada crusade of 1588 would not have failed.
My very thoughts exactly. Plus the author forgets one big difference Catholicism has a magesterium that can tell pro choice priests and socialist nuns and non celibate gay clergy that they are wrong. The Church also will excommunicate those who persist in embracing and teaching scandal. The recent Vatican statement on Call To Action is a prime example of this ministry in action.
Anyone who is looking for the perfect church will on the day they join make it imperfect. Catholic or Protestant we are sinners who need God's grace to acheive even the smallest of goods or right.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.