It's sad, really
Anyone with a personal interest in small 'c' catholicism or small 'o' orthodoxy must certainly feel dismayed by the election of Katharine Jefferts Schori as Presiding Bishop-elect of the ECUSA. Not only was she "arguably the least experienced and possibly the most liberal" candidate in the pool, she is also unabashedly forthright in her heterodoxy.
Still, as the Archbishop of Canterbury has said in response to the General Convention that elected her, what is most at issue here is not women's ordination, the ordination of practicing homosexuals, the consecration of same sex unions, or any other number of fault lines that have fractured the unity of the Episcopal Church in America. Regarding the Anglican Communion as a whole,
...whatever the presenting issue, no member Church can make significant decisions unilaterally and still expect this to make no difference to how it is regarded in the fellowship; this would be uncomfortably like saying that every member could redefine the terms of belonging as and when it suited them. Some actions – and sacramental actions in particular - just do have the effect of putting a Church outside or even across the central stream of the life they have shared with other Churches...In acting unilaterally, the leadership of ECUSA has demonstrated that it is prepared to formally institutionalize schism with the rest of its Communion. This to say nothing of the fact that a number of Asian and African provinces had already declared that they were no longer in communion with their American counterpart. I can only imagine the intense fear and heartwrenching that orthodox Episcopalians must be experiencing now, as their Church is now merely another isolated American denomination.
Archbishop Williams, again,
It is true that witness to what is passionately believed to be the truth sometimes appears a higher value than unity, and there are moving and inspiring examples in the twentieth century. If someone genuinely thinks that a move like the ordination of a practising gay bishop is that sort of thing, it is understandable that they are prepared to risk the breakage of a unity they can only see as false or corrupt. But the risk is a real one; and it is never easy to recognise when the moment of inevitable separation has arrived - to recognise that this is the issue on which you stand or fall and that this is the great issue of faithfulness to the gospel. The nature of prophetic action is that you do not have a cast-iron guarantee that you’re right.Boy does he hit the nail on the head here.
For capital 'C' Catholics (like myself) and those of the capital 'O' Orthodox tradition, these recent happenings are especially disconcerting. The Catholic Church is ever committed to greater Christian unity, and there have long been hopes that Anglicanism would someday re-enter the greater fold of the Catholic Communion. Given the present circumstances, the prospects of that happening now appear to be slim to none.
Neuhaus, as always, says it best:
As of this week’s General Convention, however, one thing seems certain beyond doubt: The Episcopal Church in the U.S. has declared itself to be just another liberal Protestant denomination, in deliberate defiance of the Anglican Communion and in scornful indifference to a long history of hope for reconciliation with Catholicism. Yes, many, going back to John Henry Newman in the early nineteenth century, said that this would be the inevitable outcome of Anglicanism’s claim to be a “middle way” between liberalism and Catholicism, but it is nonetheless very sad to see it come to pass, and to see the self-congratulatory rejoicing of Episcopalians in celebratory assembly at the death of an honorable, if finally untenable, hope for greater Christian unity.The gravity of the situation cannot be downplayed.
Labels: catholicism, moral high ground, pretension
5 Comments:
I was actually getting a post ready for the Ten Years Gone site on this subject so I will be brief here and work seems to be piling up on me, sorry for the typos…
Some of you may or may not know, I have recently been baptized, married, and confirmed in the Episcopal Church. I would like to add a bit to Toonces opinion as I currently attend Palmer Episcopal Church in Houston.
The events of the past few years are troubling indeed but not for some of the reasons the Catholic Church may have you believe. The Archbishop of Canterbury is correct is his assessment that the ECUSA acted hastily and unilaterally in its decision to endorse Schori. And yes, the ECUSA does have a history of acting quickly with complex issues at hand (2003 for instance). Last Sunday in services, we heard that the election of Schori was completed without much deliberation or reflection. The ECUSA ignored requests from the greater Anglican community to postpone elections to allow for more reflection/discussion time. For the record, my church and dioceses did not vote to elect her (See the Archbishop of Canterbury’s release).
That being said, as far as Schori's credentials are concerned, most detractors make the point that she has only been ordained for 12 years, is liberal, (approving of gay marriage, gay priests, etc…) and is rather defiant of the Anglican community in her writings and opinions. As our Priest put it on Sunday, "I don't think the fact she has been ordained for 12 years should be a detractor for her election, for I have seen people with 30 years of ordained service not capable of as much thought and intelligence as Schori”. I happen to believe his logic having seen a few “lost” men of the cloth in my short time with organized religion. What is in question here is not her seniority or organizational skills but her personal and political views which of course are considered liberal. Liberal. Just say the word. Sounds like a dirty work does it not? Some religions would teach you that it is, similar to heretic or traitor. I for one am not afraid of a new direction as long as the change is grounded in the axioms that religion have taught us. In no way do I find the election of Schori or her viewpoints to be untenable with the foundations of the Episcopalian Church...love of your fellow man, acceptance of your fellow man, and service to your fellow man.
The recent actions and elections may create a break to be sure. As I stated above, I wish that could be avoided by discussing issues at length and reflecting on those decisions. If that “schism” happens then it is not to be lauded or criticized but rather accepted as a natural progression of the ECUSA’s desire to govern itself. Why I may not agree with the ultimate outcome, I as an American can easily understand the parallels of self-determination and sovereignty that once caused our own great country to form a new “governing body”.
I am deeply disturbed by the Catholic belief that the Anglican community is some type of lost child who will one day come to its senses and find its way home. Who is to say the Catholic Church should not be the one to reform? The tolerant nature of the Anglican communities and the acceptance of all people, all communities, and other religions is a hallmark of modern day USA Episcopalians. Can Catholics say the same? Our Sunday experience should reflect acceptance and community not pity or judgment of others. Isn’t that the point?
Hi Vince!!
I'm a capital R, capital C Roman Catholic myself!!!
I'm about mostly drunk right now, but let me see if I can put together some sort of response...
As far as Jefferts Schori is concerned, the American Anglican Council has this to say:
The election of Katharine Jefferts Schori as presiding bishop is an affront to the Anglican Communion. Before the election, her record was clear. At the 2003 General Convention, she voted against a resolution affirming basic tenets of Christian faith and the authority of Scripture, and supported V. Gene Robinson’s confirmation as well as blessings of same-sex unions. In the days following her election as presiding bishop, her personal theology has been exposed even more clearly. In her first sermon as presiding bishop-elect, she referred to “our Mother Jesus.” In interviews, she expressed her version of the Gospel: “Now the Bible tells us about how to treat other human beings and that’s certainly the great message of Jesus. To include the un-included.” She has also stated that homosexuality is not a sin. When the global primates were gathered in October of 2003 in Lambeth Palace to deal with the chaos resulting from Gene Robinson’s confirmation as bishop, she was in her Nevada Diocesan Convention pushing a same-sex blessing resolution for her diocese. This does not argue well for her having a sensitivity to the larger Communion, or even caring.
When asked about life after death, Jefferts Schori responded: “But what’s important about your life? What is it that has made you a unique individual? What is the passion that has kept you getting up every morning and engaging the world? There are hints within that, about what it is that continues after you die.”
Such statements indicate clearly that Jefferts Schori is committed to a belief system which is fundamentally contrary to Scripture, Christian teaching and Anglican doctrine. There is no other way to interpret her words.
I concur, but again, I think that focusing on her personally is missing the big picture.
ECUSA, along with every other regional church, is already fully autonomous. Therefore, I don't think it makes much sense to say that a schism would be the result of its desire to govern itself. A schism has resulted from its, as you say, hasty and unilateral actions, taken in spite of the very real (see the statements given by the African and Asian provinces post 2003) and very imminent threat of dis-unity.
I guess it really all comes down to the value one places on the Anglican Communion in itself. I think that the decisions of the Convention evidence a belief that certain social issues supercede the necessity of remaining in the Communion. Reserving judgment for private quarters, I think all will agree that this is unfortunate, at minimum.
Moving on...
Our Sunday experience should focus on complete and total submission to and worship of Almighty God. Notions of acceptance and community are important, but they are really and truly only religiously definable in terms of Communion and/or the Body of Christ. As such, they are secondary.
Be it any pertinent statement or publication from the Vatican, or the tireless work of both religious and lay in missionaries and ministries the world over - these are proof positive that the Church proper has ever been dedicated to those most disenfranchised. Therein lies its dedication to tolerance and acceptance. However, one must be careful to make the necessary distinction between tolerance and acceptance of a person, and tolerance and acceptance of a lifestyle; the two are often morally exclusive.
Lastly, who is to say the Catholic Church should not be the one to reform? Certainly, as the Church on earth is comprised of humans, there are always shortcomings to be addressed. However, I can confidently and unabashedly say in full faith, given to me by the grace of God, that I believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church, that that church is in name the Catholic Church, and that that church, and that church alone, holds the fullness of truth. It's not arrogance - its a revealed truth.
Such is faith.
So, uh, strip club tomorrow night?
Seems to me this is a very anal discussion - though interesting for all that. We live in a world in which women are discriminated against - you reinforce that in my view. We should live and let live. I am sure God weeps over the way we distract ourselves with little issues whilst the world tears itself apart.
I agree...strip club it is
Post a Comment
<< Home