Vatican Influence in the Anglican Crisis: A Wary Welcome is in Order

Many orthodox U.S. Episcopalians have been heartened by signs that the Vatican is paying close attention to the ongoing crisis in the Anglican Communion. Acutely conscious of their own uncertain, vulnerable situation within a denomination now thoroughly controlled by revisionists, they find it reassuring to learn that they have sympathetic friends among the leaders of the world's largest Christian communion.

Indeed, public statements from the Vatican have been entirely supportive of the traditionalist side in the Anglican debates about homosexuality. These interventions have been received with gratitude by the orthodox Anglicans-and dismay by the revisionists. It is not surprising that some have drawn a simple conclusion: Closer links between the Anglican Communion and the Roman Catholic Church, with greater influence of the latter upon the former, will inevitably strengthen the orthodox Anglicans and weaken the revisionists.

But the matter is not nearly so simple. Roman Catholics and orthodox Anglicans, despite their mutual warm feelings, may easily misunderstand one another. They may largely agree on sexual ethics, the "presenting issue" in the Anglican Communion today; however, they do not necessarily think alike on the interpretation of Scripture, the nature of the Church, and other deeper issues that have become intertwined with that presenting issue. An excessive eagerness to leap over these differences, assuming an Anglican-Roman Catholic convergence that does not yet exist, can have dangerous side-effects.

Recent developments illustrate both the promise and the peril of the Roman Catholic connection. In April the election of Benedict XVI as the new pope was widely cheered among orthodox Anglicans. They remembered that it was Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger who, in October 2003, had sent them a warm letter of greeting on behalf of Pope John Paul II. When that letter was read, during a meeting in Dallas to rally conservative Episcopalians against the decisions of the 2003 General Convention, the reaction was almost ecstatic. With Ratzinger's elevation to the papacy, many hoped that the Vatican would maintain the same level of interest in the Episcopal/Anglican struggle.

As if to confirm that hope, in May the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity released an "Update on Relations with the Anglican Communion." The Catholic council took a very positive view of the October 2004 Windsor Report and the February 2005 communiqué from the Anglican primates. It saw the two documents as "clarify[ing] the direction the Anglican Communion wishes to move. In doing so, they have offered new hope that our dialogue can continue to make progress towards the full communion which has been its aim since it was first conceived in March of 1966…."

The Pontifical Council also reasserted that "the decision of the Episcopal Church of the United States of America to ordain as bishop a priest in an active homosexual relationship, as well as the introduction of a rite of blessing for same sex couples in the Diocese of New Westminster in the Anglican Church of Canada, created new obstacles for relations between the Catholic Church and the Anglican Communion." But it seemed confident that the problem had been addressed and was on the way toward resolution.

The "Update" recounted, with apparent appreciation, the way in which Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams had invited Vatican input both before and after the publication of the Windsor Report. It referred back to a December 2004 letter to Williams from Cardinal Walter Kasper, president of the Pontifical Council. Kasper had welcomed the Windsor Report and the "ecclesiological approach by which the Report seeks to address and resolve the problems which confront the Anglican Communion."

Kasper noted with particular approval three elements of the Windsor Report: "the interpretation of provincial autonomy in terms of interdependence, thus 'subject to limits generated by the commitments of communion,'" the "thrust towards strengthening the supra-provincial authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury," and "the proposal of an Anglican Covenant which would 'make explicit and forceful the loyalty and bonds of affection which govern the relationships between the churches of the Communion.'"

Of course, it is precisely this ecclesiological approach with which revisionists in the American and Canadian branches of Anglicanism take issue. The Diocese of New Westminster in the Anglican Church of Canada, for instance, has been open and clear about its rejection of these elements of the Windsor Report. In a response issued by the diocese's synod on May 14, New Westminster said that it could not agree "that the role and influence of the Archbishop of Canterbury should be strengthened as advocated by the Windsor Report" or that "the Lambeth Conference and the Primates' Meeting should exercise anything more than monitory, consultative and advisory functions for member churches of the Communion."

Cardinal Kasper also raised two points "which we hope can be more clearly articulated and directly addressed in the ongoing reception and implementation of the Windsor Report." Both of these echoed concerns that had been raised by orthodox Anglicans. The first was that "in fundamental matters of faith and discipline, the decisions of a local or regional church must not only foster communion in the present context, but must also be in agreement with the Church of the past, and in a particular way, with the apostolic Church as witnessed in the Scriptures, the early councils and the patristic tradition." (It went without saying that no previous generation of the Church would have consented to the consecration of Gene Robinson or the authorization of rites for same-sex unions.)

Kasper expressed concern, too, that the Windsor Report avoided "the moral questions at the heart of the current controversy." He suggested delicately: "We would ask whether the traditional Christian understanding of marriage and human sexuality doesn't need to be reasserted more clearly." No Anglican conservative could have said it better.

This last point highlights a significant shift in the ground being contested within the Anglican Communion. Over the past two years, the debate has moved from fundamental disagreement over interpreting scriptural teachings on human sexuality, to fundamental disagreement over church polity. Arguments over the latter have been at least as heated as arguments over the former.

It is in the area of ecclesiology, however, where many orthodox Anglicans will find the Roman Catholic advice less helpful. It is no particular surprise that the Vatican would endorse a stronger "supra-provincial authority" to secure unity in doctrine and discipline. But there is a raft of questions that arise.

Would the strong-handed approach work in the Anglican Communion? Does the Archbishop of Canterbury wish to become a mini-pope or patriarch? How many Anglicans wish to have such a powerful figure seated in Canterbury? The proposal runs counter to 450 years of Anglican history.

Even assuming that the Archbishop of Canterbury were given the power to ensure doctrinal and disciplinary unity, would the current archbishop be inclined to assert and exercise such power? Would he be prepared to recognize and rebuke doctrinal heresies and disciplinary abuses? How would such rebukes be received in the various provinces of the Anglican Communion?

This proposed ecclesiological solution to the Anglican crisis has met with substantial opposition not only among revisionists, but also in many circles of orthodox Anglicans. Revisionist opposition to creating a central teaching authority or magisterium in Anglicanism is easy enough to understand. The revisionists have argued for the autonomy of individual national churches within Anglicanism, raising this element of Anglican polity to an almost absurd height. They do this because they believe that each national church should be free to adapt Christian teaching to differing cultural contexts (even to the point of transgressing the limits of historic Christian orthodoxy).

While orthodox Anglicans reject this argument, many remain quite skeptical of central church authority for other reasons. They are wary of the damage that such structures can do when unchecked. As an illustration of this concern, they could cite the most recent development in Anglican-Roman Catholic dialogue.

On May 16 the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission (ARCIC), the body primarily responsible for ecumenical dialogue between the two bodies, announced a joint statement on the role of Mary in Christian spirituality. The document, "Mary: Grace and Hope in Christ," basically comes to the conclusion that Catholic doctrines and practices regarding Mary are not "communion dividing" issues and should be acceptable to Anglicans. Even though historic Anglican teaching had always held that the immaculate conception of Mary and prayers to her and the saints were incompatible with Scripture, the new statement backs away from that teaching.

The first is the nature of the argument itself. Preliminary summaries of the document indicate that Catholic dogmas such as the immaculate conception and the bodily assumption of Mary are defended by an appeal to the silence of Scripture on such matters. The dogmas are not directly justified; instead they are said to be not incompatible with biblical teaching.

Orthodox Anglicans are rightly suspicious of such double-negative formulations based on silence. They have heard them frequently from Anglican liberals, whose favorite debating point is that "Jesus never said anything about homosexuality." This kind of argument offers a very weak basis for altering long-settled teachings.

Second, there is question whether any such document could be adequately representative of the diverse opinions on the issue that one finds among Anglicans. While many Anglo-Catholic Anglicans do not find Marian spirituality offensive, many evangelical Anglicans do. It does not appear that the Anglican representatives to ARCIC, appointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, consulted adequately with the full range of their fellow Anglicans.

British evangelicals were quick to note the problems. The document is "a demonstration that to move forward would require compromises on our understanding of the Bible's teaching that, however courteously expressed, are still issues that divide us," said Rod Thomas, spokesman for the British evangelical Anglican organization Reform. "The document goes nowhere near addressing the understandings of revelation, of scriptural authority, and the uniqueness of Christ that were the cornerstones of the Reformation and are the cornerstones of evangelical faith today."

Third, in stating that the immaculate conception and praying to Mary are acceptable biblical practices, the document conflicts with traditional Anglican teaching. What troubles many orthodox Anglicans is that ARCIC here seems to continue the trend of burying the 39 Articles by neglect. These articles expressing the core of Anglican belief and practice have never been repealed; however, they are treated as if they had lost all force in the life of the Communion. Article 22 specifically condemns as "repugnant to the word of God" the activity of praying to Mary and other saints. Article 15 implies a rejection of the immaculate conception (the Catholic dogma that says Mary was born without sin) when it affirms that Christ alone was without sin. So far we have not heard the Anglican representatives on ARCIC explain why they feel justified in casting aside the teaching of the articles on these points.

We are then faced with an odd contradiction that needs to be addressed. This ecumenical agreement (which Catholic teaching supports) seems to have been driven by the same revisionist tendencies that led to the election of Gene Robinson (which Catholic teaching rejects). Those tendencies include:

We must then ask whether this kind of Roman Catholic-Anglican rapprochement is helpful, or if it only exacerbates the crisis within the Anglican Communion.

We fear that the Vatican may have misjudged the seriousness of the situation in the Anglican Communion. Perhaps because of its attachment to strong "supra-provincial authority," it seems to place too much weight on the shoulders of Archbishop Williams and the other instruments of Anglican unity. The archbishop does not have the ability, and may not have the will, to bring the Episcopal Church USA and the Anglican Church of Canada back into line.

Despite the optimistic tone of the latest Pontifical Council "Update," the situation in North America is not well on the way towards a solution. The Episcopal Church and the Diocese of New Westminster have shown no signs of repentance. The integrity of the Anglican Communion is imperiled. Hard decisions may lie ahead, absent an extraordinary work of the Holy Spirit.

In the midst of this crisis, orthodox Anglicans of all stripes should welcome all the prayers and friendly words from Roman Catholics. They should engage in dialogue with Catholics and seek agreement where possible. But they must also speak a word of caution to their Catholic friends. There are limits to the help that the Vatican can render to the orthodox Anglican cause. And there are limits to what the Anglicans can properly promise to the Vatican. There may not be, at this time, enough mutual trust within the Anglican Communion to move very far forward in the dialogue with Rome.

The ARCIC document potentially confirms orthodox Anglican qualms about unaccountable central church authority. And such documents also potentially undermine trust in Archbishop Williams to defend orthodox Anglican teaching. Williams has promised that he would defend such teaching, despite his own liberal beliefs about homosexuality. But his willingness to go along with a document that many feel abandons the Anglican tradition only increases doubts about his priorities. Is his highest priority traditional teaching? Or is it Anglican unity? Or is it ecumenical dialogue? Confusion on these points only breeds further distrust.

The assertiveness that Catholics have shown in defending traditional teaching and in demonstrating solidarity with orthodox Anglicans is appreciated and welcomed. And such overt acts of Christian charity do throw a precious line across the chasm separating Anglicans and Catholics. But we must also warn Catholics that there is a limit to the amount of bridge building that can be done in a time when our own Anglican foundations are in question. High expectations about the ability of church polity changes to solve our theological problems must be lowered.

The solidarity and prayerful support from Catholics who share orthodox Anglican commitments to traditional Christian teaching is indeed a blessing. However, if too hard a push is made for significant ecumenical agreement while so much of the Anglican Communion is in turmoil, there can be unfortunate side-effects. Moves intended to bring greater ecumenical unity can sometimes result in deeper divisions among Anglicans around the world. And that would be a shame.

Re: your post # 20
I concur that there are serious theological differences. But Anglicanism is not a well defined theology even within their own body. You have liberals of all sorts & stripes on the one side and you have at least three different groups of conservative Anglicans on the other. Among the conservatives they start (roughly from left to right on the theological spectrum) with the evagelical low church types. They favor a very Bible oriented faith that is close to that practiced by many less structured fundamentalist Protestants. Then you have the more High Church types who are you basic series II or 1928 BCP Anglicans. They are staunchly in favor of the 39 Articles but are not comfortable with the theology of either the social/theological evangelical wing or of the more right wing group... the Anglo-Catholics. This last group is theologically much more in line with either Roman Catholic or Orthodox (as in Eastern) theology and may not be all that enamored of the term "Protestant" in the self view. Many of these latter use terms like "Mass" for their liturgy and they DO in fact believe in the real presence as also all seven of the sacraments. So its hard to indicate what conservative Anglicans feel about the Roman church because there are so many distinctly different versions of "conservative" Anglicanism.

To an evangelical, the concept of the development of doctine is foreign (although they develop doctrine as well). For example, evangelicals point to St Paul's declaration that Christ is our only mediator as being contradicted by the dogma of Mary being the mediatrix. Most complaints about Catholicism by evangelicals center around Mariology. They further point to growing support of the doctrine that Mary is co-redemptrix. Just as the Episcopal Church has taken the notions of inclusion and social justice way too far; so have some in the Catholic Church taken Mariology too far.

Ultimately, no two churches will agree on everything. Even every parish does things different. Does anyone actually believe the Cardinals are in complete agreement with each other on everything all the time? No. Are they all in Communion with each other? Yes. Where should the line be drawn?

You make an excellent point here, jec. I am attempting to found an Anglican mission and am confronted with the situation that, on the one hand, an Anglo-Catholic, staunchly conservative, would prefer very High Church, nearly Roman services (I am rather in sympathy here). On the other, I have an evangelical traditional Anglican, who might prefer I wear cassock, surplice and stole. Both are repelled by ECUSA for what come out as opposite liturgical reasons and apparently very different in theology. How shall I split the difference?

Might I point out that we would not all be in this boat if we all had a bit more charity and a bit less tendency to triumphalism. It was that 'we can define it when we see the worth' that led to the unsought impositions of IC/Assumption. It was long the Church's most sensible position that she will worship her Founder and minister to His flock and only strictly define what her charge means when absolutely forced to. And that means the emergence of an arch-heretic. Now, IMHO, the propositions for female and active homosexual ordination/consecration, serial monogamy, allowance for abortion and same-sex unions being shifted into ECUSA and ACC represent just that kind of thing and would/should stimulate a doctrinal response in the OEcumencial Church. Problem is, we're still eyeing each other warily, unwilling to concede that Orthodox, Roman and Anglo-Catholic might actually have joint authority to rule in such a question and even be able to promulgate the result.

But that last a tad over-estimates the situation for Anglicans. Should my own province, APCK, agree, would the AMiA? How about the ACC, ACA, REC or APA? And that leaves out the overarching Communion. Sadly, there ain't nobody sufficiently in charge in Anglicanism to really go to and that all comes back to what I see as the gravamen of the article: until Anglicanism proposes and accepts a Magisterium, it will fail of unity and be unable to discipline wayward sons and daughters. After all, Our Lord charged His apostles to "Go therefore, and teach all nations...teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you..."

That sounds like a clear Scriptural requirement to build a reputable, competent and universal Magisterium to me. Such a thing, being so clearly expressed in so central a document as Matthew's Gospel, should appeal to Anglicans, yes?

In Christ,
Deacon Paul+

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.