Friday, January 07, 2011
Wm Oddie on the Ordinariate
William Oddie writes here about the unprecedented pace of reception, ordination and action on the Ordinariate in England. I must admit that I have been proved wrong. I thought the English bishops would drag their feet, eventually start the ordinariate in some backwater somewhere and hope it would all go away like a bad dream. Instead the action is taking place in the heart of Westminster--down the road from Westminster Abbey and around the corner from Buckingham Palace. The English like symbolism, and like the Pope's address in Westminster Hall where Thomas More was tried--the location, speed and positive attitude towards these matters by the English bishops--led by the Archbishop of Westminster--backed no doubt by his auxiliary Alan Hopes--himself a former Anglican priest--indicates the highest possible profile being given to the new converts. I'm jubilant.
Elizabeth Scalia on Cheating the Habit
Elizabeth Scalia a.k.a. The Anchoress write here about the sad silliness of groovy nuns abandoning their habits. She points out what a cheat it was to all of us who actually liked seeing the sisters in their habit. The abandonment of the habit was not the cause of the radical decline of women's religious orders. It was, instead, a symptom of a deeper malaise, a deep misunderstanding of their own calling and the real mysterious and mystical reasons for religion and the living out of a religious vocation.
Thursday, January 06, 2011
A Catholic Way of Seeing
Well, it is very difficult for modern Christians to understand the Hebrew and early Christian perspective on Scripture, and for that matter on all things. They have been trained in the literary critical method. They have imbibed as a given the cynical, literalistic, rationalism of the historico-critical methods of Biblical interpretation. They have learned to look for the surface meaning and no other. Like the village idiot, who took apart the clock to discover time, then couldn't put it back together again, they dissect sacred Scripture looking for the 'true meaning' which they never find and then ridicule people, who through a mystical exegesis propose that they have found the true meaning. Alas, the gap between these two mindset, these two sets of assumptions, these two world views is practically unbridgeable. Two persons of these opposing mindsets may discuss Scripture endlessly, but they are like two tennis players attempting to play a game on adjacent courts.
The rationalistic, 'enlightenment' educated Protestant will see the burning bush and say, "It was a tree in the desert of Horeb that had bright red flowers on it, and in the radiating waves of heat in the desert, and being a bit light headed from hunger and heat exhaustion, Moses thought it was 'on fire' and he then had a 'mystical experience' which he interpreted as a revelation from God." If he does not take quite so extreme a literalistic, non miraculous interpretation he may say, "It was a bush. A bush is a bush."
In the meantime, in concert with the Fathers of the Church, the Hebrew wise men, the saints and mystics of the ages, the Catholic (or at least a certain kind of Catholic) will say, "Ah, the burning bush. It is not simply a burning bush. It is a miraculous moment. It is a divine revelation to humanity of more depth and wonder and meaning than we can articulate. It is the burning love of God. It is a the Holy Spirit fire. It is the Sacred Heart of Jesus--burning with an unquenchable fire--aflame always and yet never consuming the human heart. It is the Blessed Virgin Mary who was overshadowed by the burning love of the Holy Spirit, who became the mother of the burning babe while never having her virginity consumed. It is not just a burning bush it is the burning radiance of the mystery of the Immaculate Conception. It is the burning fire at the heart of the altar of God in heaven. It is the candle on the altar, the charcoal in the thurible, the blaze of the pillar of fire and the tongues of flame at Pentecost.
Or then you could just say it is a bush.
So the Catholic lives within a tradition that views all things in a radically different way from the ordinary rationalistic, enlightenment-educated man. Of course, there are many Catholics who do not view the world this way, and there are many non-Catholics who do. (I am using the terms in an open ended way to make a larger point) This more Catholic or perhaps 'poetic' way of viewing the Scriptures and all things is something which is difficult to explain. You either see it or you don't. Are we reading things back into Scripture which aren't there? Yes and no. We are aware that the writer of Exodus did not mean to record the story of the burning bush with an knowledge that he was pre-figuring the Immaculate Conception. However, we also believe that all things are woven together in the mysterious divine providence in deeper ways than we can see and with stranger patterns than we can understand.
We believe that when Adam and Eve first fell the Divine mind already foresaw the beauty of the second Adam and the second Eve. Therefore when the Lord revealed himself as 'I AM' at the burning bush we also see that he knew--even if the prophet did not--that the burning bush through which he was revealed was the implicit revelation of all truth and every aspect of truth for it was a revelation of himself. If this is so, then we are not reading anything back into the burning bush. Instead, as one looks through a gemstone and sees reflected and refracted there the whole surrounding world, we see through this story and every other the whole of God's mystery revealed.
Miles Jesu Founder Dismissed
I'm pleased to report that the founder of Miles Jesu has been dismissed for 'totally unacceptable behavior'. I got to know the members of Miles Jesu when I lived in England. American Steve Ryan was the leader of the community of celibate, consecrated laymen. Steve is an intelligent, devoted and spiritual man who lived a very sacrificial life in service of the church. The guys at Miles Jesu organized the annual Path to Rome conference in London at which various converts to the Catholic Church were invited to speak. At a couple of the conferences the founder, Fr. Alfonso Duran turned up with his retinue. I have to say that the guy gave me the creeps from the start. My impression was of a sinister, power hungry leader of a cult.
However, this was simply my personal, subjective impression, and always wishing to give everyone the benefit of the doubt, and not liking to accuse anyone of being a Catholic Darth Vader, I kept my opinions to myself. Nevertheless, I was not surprised a few years later to discover that Miles Jesu was under investigation, that my friend Steve Ryan had left the organization, nor that he was being persecuted and having false allegations made against him by those members who remained loyal.
The case is too much like the problems of the Legionairies and Fr. Marcel Marciel. Anyone associated with this kind of religious behavior will recognize that it is not only a problem with Catholicism. There are fundamentalist, Evangelical colleges, churches and other organizations that operate with the same cult-like mentality--demanding total loyalty and black listing and ostracizing those who criticize or leave the little fortress of faith. The problem is complex and is not only the blame of the domineering cult leader. Those who belong to such groups collude with the leadership, and a sick symbiosis of the dominator and those who wish to be dominated develops. Often those who follow such leaders desire the security and absolute certainty that comes with membership and the totally unacceptable demands for loyalty and mindless obedience that are part of the system.
The same problem can exist within marriages, families, parishes, schools and workplaces in a less extreme form. Anyone who demands total, unquestioned loyalty and anyone who wishes to submit themselves to such a regime or relationship is living out a frighteningly immature and irresponsible reaction to life's challenge. Such systems, wherever they occur, breed infantilism--not the proper child-like trust of the saint--but a diabolical counterfeit that controls and oppresses (and even more sickly) desires to be controlled and oppressed. Saints are not made in this way. All that results from such a life is spiritual, social and psychological abuse of a profound nature which produces not saints, but sad and stunted souls.
Finally, we should understand that those who are involved in this sick relationship are more often sick than evil. The dominator really thinks he is doing God's will and is simply exerting the necessary discipline to produce saints. The dominated really thinks he is doing God's will by living out a life of sacrifice and total obedience. Most often the great growth of such organizations, their ability to raise funds and attract followers and their undoubted good works make them difficult to criticize. Their deception operates at many different levels to both themselves and outside observers. Either way, sick or evil, such religious behavior has to be exposed and rooted out.
However, this was simply my personal, subjective impression, and always wishing to give everyone the benefit of the doubt, and not liking to accuse anyone of being a Catholic Darth Vader, I kept my opinions to myself. Nevertheless, I was not surprised a few years later to discover that Miles Jesu was under investigation, that my friend Steve Ryan had left the organization, nor that he was being persecuted and having false allegations made against him by those members who remained loyal.
The case is too much like the problems of the Legionairies and Fr. Marcel Marciel. Anyone associated with this kind of religious behavior will recognize that it is not only a problem with Catholicism. There are fundamentalist, Evangelical colleges, churches and other organizations that operate with the same cult-like mentality--demanding total loyalty and black listing and ostracizing those who criticize or leave the little fortress of faith. The problem is complex and is not only the blame of the domineering cult leader. Those who belong to such groups collude with the leadership, and a sick symbiosis of the dominator and those who wish to be dominated develops. Often those who follow such leaders desire the security and absolute certainty that comes with membership and the totally unacceptable demands for loyalty and mindless obedience that are part of the system.
The same problem can exist within marriages, families, parishes, schools and workplaces in a less extreme form. Anyone who demands total, unquestioned loyalty and anyone who wishes to submit themselves to such a regime or relationship is living out a frighteningly immature and irresponsible reaction to life's challenge. Such systems, wherever they occur, breed infantilism--not the proper child-like trust of the saint--but a diabolical counterfeit that controls and oppresses (and even more sickly) desires to be controlled and oppressed. Saints are not made in this way. All that results from such a life is spiritual, social and psychological abuse of a profound nature which produces not saints, but sad and stunted souls.
Finally, we should understand that those who are involved in this sick relationship are more often sick than evil. The dominator really thinks he is doing God's will and is simply exerting the necessary discipline to produce saints. The dominated really thinks he is doing God's will by living out a life of sacrifice and total obedience. Most often the great growth of such organizations, their ability to raise funds and attract followers and their undoubted good works make them difficult to criticize. Their deception operates at many different levels to both themselves and outside observers. Either way, sick or evil, such religious behavior has to be exposed and rooted out.
The Mystery
One of my catchphrases when teaching RCIA is, "A mystery is something that can be experienced even if it cannot be explained." From time to time at the altar, as a priest, one glimpses the mystery in a new way which is astounding and so real that it makes ordinary reality seem pale and insubstantial. It happened like this tonight:
On Wednesdays I hear confessions from 5:15 to 6:15. At this time there is a holy hour concluded by Benediction. Then at 6:30 I celebrate Mass. I do so on Wednesday evenings ad orientem. Tonight the Mass was simple and dignified. Deacon Ballard assisted. Two children served. We celebrated the memorial of John Neumann. I was reminded earlier in the day of his extraordinary missionary zeal, his knowledge of many languages so he could minister to the immigrants, his love for children, for the poor, of his tireless work and how he literally died of exhaustion. While preaching about him, for a moment I was overcome with a sense of awe at his life. Then, at the altar I was aware of a presence--the presence of a little man so full of energy and zeal that he burned like a radiant light. Then after Mass, while deacon tidied the altar the presence was again so strong in a way I cannot explain.
It was like I could understand at once the power and the eternal radiance of the saints. I could see that the power and zeal and supernatural energy of the true saint was something far greater and more astonishing a human capability than that of any sports star, celebrity, genius or human marvel. I saw that a saint is infused with a supernatural quality which is humanity at its zenith, humanity having reached its true and amazing potential. I am now trying to put into words what was simply an impression which was powerful and real, but which only lasted for a brief moment. It was a flash of insight and then it was gone.
At once I understood at a deeper level than ever before why we say that the saint or blessed is 'elevated to the altar'. Through the Eucharist time is suspended. Heaven and earth are met. The saints above connect with the world below and it is as if (and I do not mean to be irreverent) that the saint at that moment is 'beamed down' to the altar and we somehow share in the supernatural graces of Christ through the saints who make up the Mystical Body of Christ and that through the sacrament we too have a share in a communion far far greater and more marvelous than our blinkered eyes and hardened hearts can usually experience, and this share that we have is actually always present and always real. It is just that we are not usually vouchsafed the realization.
Wednesday, January 05, 2011
Pious Opinions?
Here is FlyingVic's response:
I've read Fr Z's dissection, however, and I think it encapsulates, for good or ill, all the reasons why I am an Anglican rather than a Roman; in essence, it is the application of human logic to matters that are most definitely divine. When our line of argument leads us into definitive statements about what God would or would not do in situations about which we have no historical knowledge whatsoever, then surely we are being presumptuous? You yourself, Father, tried to slap my wrist a few weeks ago by saying that you preferred not to deal in suppositions: what is belief in either the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption of Mary if it is not supposition? That these beliefs may be an aid to devotion I can happily accept (and as an Anglican, as you well know, I am welcome to embrace them if I so wish); but to elevate them to the level of things-that-must-be-believed-or-else is, frankly, un-Christ-like. Can you show any instance in the Gospels where Christ imposes any comparable condition of belief upon a follower or an enquirer?
I certainly understand Vic's wish that the Marian dogmas were kept as pious opinions rather than dogma. It is a view I held for a long time as an Anglican. However, Fr. Z did explain how Catholics believe in a hierarchy of truth. Some dogmas are more important than others. He admitted that it was perfectly possible to be a good Catholic and not necessarily have a high and mighty love for the Marian dogmas. It would be admissable (one could argue) that one's acceptance of these dogmas might simply be on the level of not denying them. I have known very good, practically minded converts who have said, "Well, once I accepted the papal claims the rest followed. If the Pope, speaking for the whole church, said we are to hold to these dogmas, then I accept them."
We are charged with the Marian dogmas being mere supposition, and that the church should not have turned into dogma what was mere supposition. However, this is what the church has done from the beginning. The creeds are the product of the church engaging in exactly this process. So for example, from the evidence of the New Testament alone we have ambiguous understandings of the divinity of Our Lord. The Arians found evidence that Christ was not co equal with the Father, while the Adoptionists saw in the Baptism of Our Lord, evidence for their false understandings of Christ's nature. As the Church developed a clear understanding of the Divinity of the Lord she clarified and codified it in dogma. The same is even more true of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. Evidence in the Scriptures is scarce and opinion in the church was divided. It would have been much easier to say, "Well, you know, this Holy Trinity business is really rather complex. It is not much more than supposition based on a few scraps of Biblical evidence. Let it remain a pious opinon." However the Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, decided that it was dogma and was necessary for the fullest understanding of God's revelation.
If one accepts the historic creeds, then one must accept the validity of the process whereby those creeds were hammered out and finally accepted by the whole church. You cannot have the creeds without silently accepting the authority that promulgated the creeds. It is that same authority operating within the Church that consulted, debated and finally decided on the various Marian dogmas. What I found interesting while researching my book Mary-A Catholic Evangelical Debate was that the Marian dogmas were not 'late inventions'. It is true that the Immaculate Conception was only defined dogmatically in the nineteenth century and the Assumption in the twentieth, but both dogmas were rooted in the earlier defined dogmas about the Blessed Virgin and were a natural development and outgrowth of them. (Bl. John Henry Newman's essay on the Development of Doctrine is a very important resource to clarify and explain how this process works.)
My final point is this: if one accepts the creeds, then not only must one accept the authority that determined those creeds, but one must also read the history and see that at the same time that the church was deciding the dogmatic formularies concerning the divinity of Christ and the Holy Trinity, she was also deciding on the true identity of the Mother of God. In fact, the definition of Mary as Mother of God at the Council of Ephesus was given as a defense against Christological heresy. If one does not have a correct view of the Blessed Virgin (say the fathers) one cannot have a correct view of her Son. From the dogma of Mary Mother of God, all other dogmas about the Blessed Virgin logically follow. That they may follow is accepted by Anglicans, that they must follow is what is disputed.
This is why the argument, like all arguments in Protestant-Catholic debate, must come down to the authority question. It's very simple: we believe in the Immaculate Concpetion and the Assumption because the Pope tells us to. Put less baldly--we believe in the Immacualte Conception and the Assumption because the whole church has been brought to the point where we now understand that these beliefs are an essential part of our understanding of God's whole work of redemption through the incarnation of his Son. The Pope has simply voiced this belief and the joyful affirmation that is indispensable if we wish to enter into the fullest acceptance of the miracle of God's saving work.
My plea to a Protestant who is considering Catholicism, (but is stuck on the Marian dogmas) would be, "Just let it be for now. Don't actively deny these things. You might just be denying that something greater than you that you don't understand, and which might just be a great gift. If you think they may be pious opinions, then join us and hold the opinions piously. If you truly do not deny these dogmas, and if you come to hold them piously, then perhaps one day you will come to a point where you also see their necessity. Until then, don't blame the Catholic Church for calling all to receive what she has come to understand as a great blessing. Have an open heart and accept with joy what is offered."
This is the attitude of 'More Christianity'--one which I encourage whenever I can, even when (on this blog and in my personal life) I fall from my own ideal and lapse into pettiness, mean ness or lack of charity.
Tuesday, January 04, 2011
Another Anglican Shocker
Just when you thought the Anglicans couldn't top their outrageous behavior they find a new way to shock you. On New Year's Day Katherine Ragsdale--Dean and President of the Episcopal Church's leading seminary--Episcopal Divinity School-- has "married" another high ranking Episcopal priestess called Mally Lloyd. It turns out that Mally Lloyd had been married for 24 years and has three adult children who took part in the service.
Furthermore, the ceremony was in the cathedral of the Diocese of Massachusetts, in front of 400 guests, and the bishop took the service. They're not even pretending to call it a 'blessing of a same sex union' but are naming it a marriage. Read all about it here.
Monastic Churches - 11
(click to enlarge)
The great Benedictine monastery of San Giorgio in Venice. Learn more about it here.
The Great Re-Alignment
What is really going on with the Anglican Ordinariate? Why has Pope Benedict XVI taken such a bold and innovative step? This is historic. Never before has the Catholic Church opened its doors so wide to a group of Protestants in such a creative way. Essentially Pope Benedict is creating a little Anglican Church within the Catholic Church. The Anglican Ordinariate will have its own governing structure. It could have its own seminaries, its own religious houses, its own hierarchy and its own global network in addition to its own liturgy, customs and traditions.
Has Pope Benedict created the Anglican Ordinariate simply because he, himself is a secret Anglo Catholic who likes smells and bells and lacy cottas? Is it because, as critics charge, that the Catholic Church is dwindling and doesn't have enough priests and so they've come up with a scheme to corral as many former Anglicans as possible? Is it a cunning plan to undermine the liberal Catholics who Benedict sees as the real enemy?
None of the above. In fact, sometimes things are simply what they seem to be. Sometimes there are no secret agendas, no Machiavellian plots, no global conspiracies. For decades serious Anglicans from around the world had petitioned Rome for some sort of mechanism whereby they might retain their Anglican traditions while being in full communion with the Holy See. As head of the CDF Ratzinger received these calls and was sympathetic. He met with these men and understood them. Being fully informed about the dead end that was the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission he began to see a different way forward.
In the early 1990s the idea of an Ordinariate-type structure had been discussed and rejected by the English Catholic bishops. The idea of the 'Roman Option' and how it was rejected was made public by William Oddie in his book, The Roman Option. For this Oddie was effectively marginalized and excluded from the English Catholic inner circle. Nevertheless, the idea took root, and most importantly it took root in Rome, and ten years later when Ratzinger became Pope Benedict XVI the time was ripe.
The Anglican Ordinariate must be seen in a wider context. The creation of the ordinariate is first and foremost an attempt to answer the repeated pleas for an Anglican-Catholic structure. Rome simply responded to those who were asking for a way in while still retaining their styles of worship and culture of religion. However, the wider context is the present re-alignment within all of Christianity. This re-alignment is not between Catholics and Protestants but between those who believe in a revealed religion and those who believe in a relative religion. It is between two different foundational philosophies. The re-alignment is between those, on the one hand, who believe that all religion is a human construction devised in particular historical circumstances and therefore flexible, ambiguous and necessarily adaptable, and between those who believe that religion is revealed by God in particular circumstances and places and times because those times themselves and those people and those places were the best and most propitious ways for the Almighty to reveal himself to his beloved race of men.
The first are those who believe religion is relative and the second are those who believe it is revealed. There are plenty of both types within the different denominations, and at this time in church history the great re-alignment is taking place. In the years to come more and more Christians of every denomination will begin to see clearly and the divisions will continue. On one side will be those who believe their relative religion was devised by humans in particular historical circumstances and so they will continue to adapt their religion to whatever the world demands. In other words, they will adapt Christianity to the world rather than challenging the world with the Christian gospel.
On the other side will be those who believe that the world and every human in it needs to be challenged by the unchanging gospel of Jesus Christ. They will continue--despite the howling rage of the worldlings--to stand up against the immorality, injustice and cruelty of our age. They will continue to tell the old, old, story of a fallen race, a forgiving God and a suffering Lord. They will continue to call a rebellious race to repentance and simplicity and the search for the heavenly kingdom, and they will learn more and more that the fullest and grandest and most terrifying path to this kingdom is through the power and the glory and the humor and humility of Catholic sainthood.
Benedict XVI has opened the way for Anglicans who believe in this revealed religion to join with others who believe the same. It is time for all who believe in the timeless tale of God's love for mankind and the poignant sacrifice of his Son for man's salvation to come together, forget their disagreements and rally around Christ, his cross, his Church and the Rock on which it is built.
Has Pope Benedict created the Anglican Ordinariate simply because he, himself is a secret Anglo Catholic who likes smells and bells and lacy cottas? Is it because, as critics charge, that the Catholic Church is dwindling and doesn't have enough priests and so they've come up with a scheme to corral as many former Anglicans as possible? Is it a cunning plan to undermine the liberal Catholics who Benedict sees as the real enemy?
None of the above. In fact, sometimes things are simply what they seem to be. Sometimes there are no secret agendas, no Machiavellian plots, no global conspiracies. For decades serious Anglicans from around the world had petitioned Rome for some sort of mechanism whereby they might retain their Anglican traditions while being in full communion with the Holy See. As head of the CDF Ratzinger received these calls and was sympathetic. He met with these men and understood them. Being fully informed about the dead end that was the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission he began to see a different way forward.
In the early 1990s the idea of an Ordinariate-type structure had been discussed and rejected by the English Catholic bishops. The idea of the 'Roman Option' and how it was rejected was made public by William Oddie in his book, The Roman Option. For this Oddie was effectively marginalized and excluded from the English Catholic inner circle. Nevertheless, the idea took root, and most importantly it took root in Rome, and ten years later when Ratzinger became Pope Benedict XVI the time was ripe.
The Anglican Ordinariate must be seen in a wider context. The creation of the ordinariate is first and foremost an attempt to answer the repeated pleas for an Anglican-Catholic structure. Rome simply responded to those who were asking for a way in while still retaining their styles of worship and culture of religion. However, the wider context is the present re-alignment within all of Christianity. This re-alignment is not between Catholics and Protestants but between those who believe in a revealed religion and those who believe in a relative religion. It is between two different foundational philosophies. The re-alignment is between those, on the one hand, who believe that all religion is a human construction devised in particular historical circumstances and therefore flexible, ambiguous and necessarily adaptable, and between those who believe that religion is revealed by God in particular circumstances and places and times because those times themselves and those people and those places were the best and most propitious ways for the Almighty to reveal himself to his beloved race of men.
The first are those who believe religion is relative and the second are those who believe it is revealed. There are plenty of both types within the different denominations, and at this time in church history the great re-alignment is taking place. In the years to come more and more Christians of every denomination will begin to see clearly and the divisions will continue. On one side will be those who believe their relative religion was devised by humans in particular historical circumstances and so they will continue to adapt their religion to whatever the world demands. In other words, they will adapt Christianity to the world rather than challenging the world with the Christian gospel.
On the other side will be those who believe that the world and every human in it needs to be challenged by the unchanging gospel of Jesus Christ. They will continue--despite the howling rage of the worldlings--to stand up against the immorality, injustice and cruelty of our age. They will continue to tell the old, old, story of a fallen race, a forgiving God and a suffering Lord. They will continue to call a rebellious race to repentance and simplicity and the search for the heavenly kingdom, and they will learn more and more that the fullest and grandest and most terrifying path to this kingdom is through the power and the glory and the humor and humility of Catholic sainthood.
Benedict XVI has opened the way for Anglicans who believe in this revealed religion to join with others who believe the same. It is time for all who believe in the timeless tale of God's love for mankind and the poignant sacrifice of his Son for man's salvation to come together, forget their disagreements and rally around Christ, his cross, his Church and the Rock on which it is built.
From the Notebook
As I see it, we shall never succeed in knowing ourselves unless we seek to know God. ---- Teresa of Avila
St Elizabeth Ann Seton
Well, I was doing okay for the first few. Seriously, what a wonderful saint is Elizabeth Ann Seton. It was a joy today to celebrate Holy Mass in her memory on the first day back at school at St Joseph's Catholic School. We have a first class relic of her in a very nice reliquary in the school chapel along with an icon on display. She's a perfect patron for a Catholic school and I could feel her prayers in support of all we are trying to do with the children at St Joseph's.
St Elizabeth Ann Seton...ora pro nobis.
Problem Solved
Sorry you couldn't read the blog. I had to update a credit card number on my online mailbox which hosts the images. See, it cost me some loot to run this blog! Thanks for all your donations in November.
Monday, January 03, 2011
Set Free to Love
My problem with John Paul II's theology of the body is that too often it is communicated in a theoretical and intellectual manner. Certainly its basis in JP2s philosophical basis of phenomenology can be daunting, and because the teaching is repetitious and complex it can sometimes miss the target. This book helps put it all together for a wide audience. Marcel takes a few pages at the beginning to give us the kernel of JP2s teaching, and the rest of the book consists of eleven short chapters from young people who's lives have been transformed by careful and prayerful attention to the theology of the Body. We hear from a young priest and a young sister, a seminarian, a young married couple and various college aged students. We hear from a guy with same sex attraction, others with porn problems and those who have moved from a sordid and selfish sexual existence to one which is fully open to live and the self sacrifice of a truly Catholic marriage.
Marcel LeJeune has gathered together a punchy, relevant and clear book which should continue to change the lives of those it touches. It's a great book for a college study group, high school students and all young people who want to live a life truly set free to love. Highly recommended. Available here.
Anglican Catholics Then and Now
Last weekend, in London, three Anglican bishops and their families were received into full communion with the Catholic Church in a very public ceremony in Westminster Cathedral. Three Anglican nuns and some laypeople were also received. By Easter it is expected that the Anglican Ordinariate will have been set up, and up to 50 more Anglican priests will be received into the Catholic Church along with a significant number of laypeople.
This public reception is in marked contrast to the manner in which I, and many others were received into the Catholic Church in England in the mid 1990s. At that time "ecumenism" was still the main priority for the Catholic bishops of England and Wales as well as the Anglican establishment. There was a pact between the rulers of both churches that the defections to Rome would be low key. No one wanted to rock the ecumenical boat. Consequently, the publicity machines of both churches went into overdrive to downplay and minimize what was happening. In fact, in the mid 1990s there were not fifty Anglican priests who converted but 500. Some even reckoned the numbers to be between 750 and 1000. The reason it was difficult to establish how many of us converted to the Catholic faith at that time was because certain categories of Anglican priest didn't register in the official tally. Retired clergy, clergy in minor posts like hospital chaplains and school chaplains or priests who were only ordained for a short time all failed to appear on the official lists. This was on purpose. Both the Catholic and Anglican hierarchy had done a deal that the numbers would be deflated, those receiving converts into the Catholic Church were told specifically to make the reception low key. Those of us resigning our livings and being received were told to keep a low profile. So, for example, my wife and I received private instruction at Quarr Abbey and were received on a Tuesday evening in the crypt in a very quiet and private Mass.
After the event the task of training us for ordination was dealt with on a quiet level in each diocese. No fanfare, no publicity, just a quiet work of putting us through our re-training and then getting us ordained. It was almost as if we had committed a social error by converting. If we committed a further social error by being a high profile convert clergyman we were ostracized by the Catholic establishment, kept at arm's length and excluded in every way possible. So, for example, I was being put forward for ordination by one English Catholic bishop, but when I published The Path to Rome--a book of conversion stories--and asked him to write a forward he declined, and when I asked about ordination in his diocese, I received a brief note informing me that it was now impossible.
This was the world of English Catholicism fifteen years ago. Everything was done to stay in with the English Anglican establishment. Conversion was embarrassing and the idea of an ordinariate at that time was unthinkable. How things have changed! Now three bishops and fifty clergy are converting and they pull out the stops and have the Mass in Westminster Cathedral--the mother church of Catholicism in England; for this is not the embarrassed reception of disenchanted Anglicans, but a very public beginning of the Ordinariate, and what is going unsaid is the fact that under the papacy of Benedict XVI it is all but shouted from the housetops that the old ecumenism is dead.
This pope understands Anglicanism better than any other pope. He sees clearly that ecumenism with the Church of England is dead. The ordination of women, the consecration of women bishops, the rationalization of homosexual unions, the doctrinal apostasy and the openly moral degeneracy has led Benedict XVI to conclude that the new ecumenism is not a diplomatic building of bridges, but a bold establishment of a new kind of Anglicanism within the greater fold of the Catholic Church. The Ordinariate will begin small and it will be persecuted. There will be difficulties and defections. There will be many problems, but history will show that the Anglican Ordinariate will provide for the ultimate preservation of the Anglican patrimony.
All Catholics should watch this development with care and with prayer. Those Anglicans who are stepping out to pioneer the Anglican Ordinariate should be upholded in our prayers. The Anglicans often like to portray themselves as bold innovators and pioneers of the future, (We first had the liturgy in the vernacular and five hundred years later Rome followed) The real innovators are Pope Benedict XVI and the three bishops and their flocks who are, at last, coming home to Rome.
This public reception is in marked contrast to the manner in which I, and many others were received into the Catholic Church in England in the mid 1990s. At that time "ecumenism" was still the main priority for the Catholic bishops of England and Wales as well as the Anglican establishment. There was a pact between the rulers of both churches that the defections to Rome would be low key. No one wanted to rock the ecumenical boat. Consequently, the publicity machines of both churches went into overdrive to downplay and minimize what was happening. In fact, in the mid 1990s there were not fifty Anglican priests who converted but 500. Some even reckoned the numbers to be between 750 and 1000. The reason it was difficult to establish how many of us converted to the Catholic faith at that time was because certain categories of Anglican priest didn't register in the official tally. Retired clergy, clergy in minor posts like hospital chaplains and school chaplains or priests who were only ordained for a short time all failed to appear on the official lists. This was on purpose. Both the Catholic and Anglican hierarchy had done a deal that the numbers would be deflated, those receiving converts into the Catholic Church were told specifically to make the reception low key. Those of us resigning our livings and being received were told to keep a low profile. So, for example, my wife and I received private instruction at Quarr Abbey and were received on a Tuesday evening in the crypt in a very quiet and private Mass.
After the event the task of training us for ordination was dealt with on a quiet level in each diocese. No fanfare, no publicity, just a quiet work of putting us through our re-training and then getting us ordained. It was almost as if we had committed a social error by converting. If we committed a further social error by being a high profile convert clergyman we were ostracized by the Catholic establishment, kept at arm's length and excluded in every way possible. So, for example, I was being put forward for ordination by one English Catholic bishop, but when I published The Path to Rome--a book of conversion stories--and asked him to write a forward he declined, and when I asked about ordination in his diocese, I received a brief note informing me that it was now impossible.
This was the world of English Catholicism fifteen years ago. Everything was done to stay in with the English Anglican establishment. Conversion was embarrassing and the idea of an ordinariate at that time was unthinkable. How things have changed! Now three bishops and fifty clergy are converting and they pull out the stops and have the Mass in Westminster Cathedral--the mother church of Catholicism in England; for this is not the embarrassed reception of disenchanted Anglicans, but a very public beginning of the Ordinariate, and what is going unsaid is the fact that under the papacy of Benedict XVI it is all but shouted from the housetops that the old ecumenism is dead.
This pope understands Anglicanism better than any other pope. He sees clearly that ecumenism with the Church of England is dead. The ordination of women, the consecration of women bishops, the rationalization of homosexual unions, the doctrinal apostasy and the openly moral degeneracy has led Benedict XVI to conclude that the new ecumenism is not a diplomatic building of bridges, but a bold establishment of a new kind of Anglicanism within the greater fold of the Catholic Church. The Ordinariate will begin small and it will be persecuted. There will be difficulties and defections. There will be many problems, but history will show that the Anglican Ordinariate will provide for the ultimate preservation of the Anglican patrimony.
All Catholics should watch this development with care and with prayer. Those Anglicans who are stepping out to pioneer the Anglican Ordinariate should be upholded in our prayers. The Anglicans often like to portray themselves as bold innovators and pioneers of the future, (We first had the liturgy in the vernacular and five hundred years later Rome followed) The real innovators are Pope Benedict XVI and the three bishops and their flocks who are, at last, coming home to Rome.
From the Notebook
And so the shadows fall apart,
And so the west winds play,
And all the windows of my heart,
I open to Thy day.
And so the west winds play,
And all the windows of my heart,
I open to Thy day.
Some Links
Ever wondered why economics couldn't be more people friendly and 'Catholic'? Friend and fellow Greenvillian, Matt Pelicano writes here on Distributism.
David Mills on Cosmopolitan magazine. He's not a fan...
Here are New Years predictions and wishes from the writers at InsideCatholic.
David Mills on Cosmopolitan magazine. He's not a fan...
Here are New Years predictions and wishes from the writers at InsideCatholic.
The Vicar on Anglican Conversions
Guest blogger, The Rev'd Humphrey Blytherington is Vicar of St Hilda's, Little Snoring with All Saints, Great Snoring. He is a graduate of Plymouth University. He completed his studies for the ministry at Latimer Hall, Durham. He is married to Daphne and enjoys home brewing, model railroading and is an avid member of the Great Snoring Morris Dancers.
Now then lads, I'm terribly sorry that I couldn't be there for the Sunday School's Epiphany Carol service. I'm sure Lavinia covered for me well enough. I must say I wasn't too pleased to find out after the event, that she took it upon herself to introduce those new fangled carol sheets. Christmas is one of the few times of the year when we can settle down to some traditional carols, and I'm a bit peeved that she made you sing "We Three Queens of Orient Are..." At least you knew the tune. That's something I suppose. What's that you say? No. Come now. I think that really is taking it too far Ian. You say there was a new tune as well? Written by that Elton John fellow? I say, that's not quite cricket. Lavinia's a good girl in her own sort of way, but I must admit she does take her enthusiasms a bit far at times. Never mind. I'm sure a good time was had by all, and once you had a few mince pies washed down by a glass of sherry all was forgiven and forgotten.
Thing is, Daphne and I went up to London for the weekend. I had some old college friends to see up at my club. We have an annual get together you know. Then Daphne hauled me off to Westminster Cathedral see those Flying Bishop fellows jump across to Rome. I suppose that is why they call them 'flying bishops' because they flew the coop. Har Har. Not being unnkind, but we're better off without them I reckon. Nevertheless, it was all rather splendid in a Roman sort of way. Lots of processing about and incense and all that. Daphne gave me the grand tour of the place beforehand. I must say, it's a corker of a church. All Byzantine in style. Marble and mosaics everywhere. What I noticed is the number of people actually kneeling down to say their prayers. Not the sort of public display of religious enthusiasm one is used to in an Anglican cathedral, and I have to admit it was rather pleasant. Whenever one pops into our cathedral it's filled with tourists milling about, and one can hardly find a quiet place to sit down and gather one's thoughts. Old Bishop Bracket once said the place was like a barnyard with lots of noisy geese and goats. Didn't endear him to the Director of the Visitor's Center, but there we are.
What was my meeting with the other clergy about? Oh, nothing of importance really. Just a few of us discussing what sort of things are going on in our parishes. Rather sad how disenchanted so many of them are. I was shocked to find that Reginald Smithson has gone rather high church and calls himself Fr. Reginald now. He was talking rather excitedly about this ordinariate thingy and is very seriously thinking of going over to Rome with a few of his flock. What with him and Fr Giles over at St Barnabas planning to go it's starting to hit home. I don't think it will come to much in the end. There have always been a few high church types who get Roman fever.
Mind you. They come and they go. My friends tell me that a good number of Anglican priests pop across to the Roman Church, and then before too long they come slinking back, tail between their legs asking the bishop if he hasn't got a little parish they could have after all. Then what no one seems to mention is how many of the Romans come our way. I'm told that the just as many swim the Tiber the other way you know. Am I tempted to go over to Rome! Good heavens no! I can't be doing with all that worship of Mary and so forth. I realize she was probably a very nice woman and a good girl and very well brought up, but Queen of Heaven and so forth? I think not! As for the Pope, He's a nice enough nice enough fellow. I don't like his German accent much--reminds me of the Nazis, but at the end of the day he's an ordinary chap just like you and me. "Gets his trousers on one leg at a time just like the rest of us." He doesn't wear trousers you say? Wears dresses instead? Har Har. That is a good one!
But you know what I mean. I can't be kissing the pope's toe. No indeed. The Church of England is the Catholic Church in this land. It's the Catholic Church reformed that's all. Henry VIII cleaned up all those corrupt monasteries and so forth and brought things up to date. That's the genius of the Church of England you know--we're up to date. Always have been. I know I seem rather a stick in the mud at times. I like the good old traditions like the summer fete and change ringing and carol singing, but I'm glad we have people like Lavinia because they help to keep us on our toes and make sure we are still up to date. Yes lads, we don't follow all those medieval superstitions like inquisitions and witch hunts and so forth. We don't go about kissing dubious relics...what's that you say? You once saw Canon Huffington Post kissing his wife, and she's a dubious relic. Har Har. Good one! Excellent!
Listen lads, like those Bishops I must fly. The dubious relic is waiting at home with a hot chocolate and something new discovery from one of these tiresome books of Catholic apologetics she keeps reading. What ho! For better or for worse and all that! Over and out!
Hart to Heart
Certain circles in the blogosphere are all abuzz with the return of Fr Addison Hart to some form of Anglicanism. Here are his parting words:
As an Anglican priest who, with high ideals but considerably lower savvy, "poped" back in 1997, all I can say to those who may be thinking likewise is this: Unless you know in your heart you can believe in such super-added dogmas as papal supremacy and infallibility (very late inventions), that Jesus did not need to possess "faith" during his earthly years (to which I respond, was he or was he not fully human?), and that the bread and wine physically change into his body and blood during the Eucharist without any palpable evidence of it; unless you can believe in Mary's "Immaculate Conception" (an unnecessary and unverifiable belief, if ever there was one), her bodily assumption, and so on, then I would urge you to stay put. You already have everything you need, and, what Rome would add to you, you not only do not need, but should positively avoid weighing yourselves down with. Anglicanism is doctrinally sound and blessed with great forms of worship. Rome is neither. As for Rome's claims to a vastly superior moral authority -- well, I would venture to say that after such revelations as clerical sexual abuse on an international scale and their bank's money-laundering, the lie has been put to that.
No, don't make my mistake. I wouldn't make it again myself, and, as it is, I'm making my way out the Roman door.
Fr. Hart was a former Anglican priest, ordained under the pastoral provision. He is the brother of Revd. Robert Hart--who is a priest in one of the over 120 Anglican schism denominations. They have another brother who is an Eastern Orthodox theologian of some reknown. Robert Hart and some of his pals maintain a blog called The Continuum. I've stopped by there from time to time and it's never a joyful experience I'm afraid. It represents a sort of dry, overly intellectual, conservative Anglicanism. The blog has a musty bitterness to it. Think of milk soured by lemon or Ebenezer Scrooge in preaching scarf and tabs.
Fr. Addison Hart was, for a time, one of the Catholic voices of Touchstone Magazine, and I met him at a Touchstone conference in the late 1990s. He reviewed one of my books very nicely, and then I lost touch with him. I'm afraid there is a fair bit of gossip buzzing about him and his departure from the Catholic Church. Fr. Z dissects his words of departure here, and I can't really improve on that. People are also saying that he divorced his wife some years ago and plans to remarry, and of course, there is no lack of self righteous comment and gossip on that element of the story (if it is even true).
I'm not going there. What befuddles me about Fr. Addison's statement is the amazing naivety of it all. Was this man ever truly a Catholic believer? Is it possible that he not only was received into the Catholic Church, but was also ordained as a priest with so little understanding of the 'difficult' elements (for the convert) of the Catholic faith? If he had not got his head and heart around these elements of Catholic belief why on earth did he become Catholic? If it was only as a reaction to his unhappiness in Anglicanism that was not good enough.
This brings me to another point about the doctrines of the faith. As converts we confront the 'difficult' doctrines of papal infallibility, the Marian dogmas, Eucharistic dogmas etc., and we most often encounter them with our minds. We seek intellectual and logical understanding. This is good, and through study and prayer we can get to the point where we both understand and accept the Catholic beliefs. What is most often missing, however, is the heart. I do not speak for Addison Hart, because I don't know him well enough, but I do know that for many converts the head is convinced of the Catholic doctrines, but the heart is not involved.
Someone has said the 'longest journey is from the head to the heart.' What I am trying to get across is that in the process of conversion we have to not only come to an intellectual understanding, but we must also come to love the doctrines that have been so alien to us. I could never, for example, abandon the Marian dogmas--not because I am so totally intellectually convinced that they are true (although I am) but because, by God's grace, I have come to love the Mother of God. I do not just believe in her Immaculate Conception. I love her Immaculate Conception. It thrills me and fills me with wonder and joy. It is the same with her perpetual virginity, assumption and coronation. Likewise, I do not just believe in papal infallibility. I love the Pope. I wept with joy every time I saw him in person. What a marvel and thrill to have the papacy and both marvelous popes I have known. The same can be said of the Eucharistic Doctrines. I do not simply believe in transubstantiation. I have come to love and adore Jesus in the most Blessed Sacrament of the Altar.
This is what Bl. John Henry Newman means with his motto, Cor ad Cor Loquitor -- Heart Speaks to Heart. The Sacred Heart of Jesus in the beauty and fullness of the Catholic faith, speaks to my heart. It is a matter of deep love for me, and I think I am only now beginning to understand how St Paul spoke of marriage to the Ephesians and then said--as if he was reaching for words he did not have--"But this is a mystery, but I am speaking about Christ and his Church." I therefore could not imagine walking out on this nuptial relationship. Where else would I go?
As an Anglican priest who, with high ideals but considerably lower savvy, "poped" back in 1997, all I can say to those who may be thinking likewise is this: Unless you know in your heart you can believe in such super-added dogmas as papal supremacy and infallibility (very late inventions), that Jesus did not need to possess "faith" during his earthly years (to which I respond, was he or was he not fully human?), and that the bread and wine physically change into his body and blood during the Eucharist without any palpable evidence of it; unless you can believe in Mary's "Immaculate Conception" (an unnecessary and unverifiable belief, if ever there was one), her bodily assumption, and so on, then I would urge you to stay put. You already have everything you need, and, what Rome would add to you, you not only do not need, but should positively avoid weighing yourselves down with. Anglicanism is doctrinally sound and blessed with great forms of worship. Rome is neither. As for Rome's claims to a vastly superior moral authority -- well, I would venture to say that after such revelations as clerical sexual abuse on an international scale and their bank's money-laundering, the lie has been put to that.
No, don't make my mistake. I wouldn't make it again myself, and, as it is, I'm making my way out the Roman door.
Fr. Hart was a former Anglican priest, ordained under the pastoral provision. He is the brother of Revd. Robert Hart--who is a priest in one of the over 120 Anglican schism denominations. They have another brother who is an Eastern Orthodox theologian of some reknown. Robert Hart and some of his pals maintain a blog called The Continuum. I've stopped by there from time to time and it's never a joyful experience I'm afraid. It represents a sort of dry, overly intellectual, conservative Anglicanism. The blog has a musty bitterness to it. Think of milk soured by lemon or Ebenezer Scrooge in preaching scarf and tabs.
Fr. Addison Hart was, for a time, one of the Catholic voices of Touchstone Magazine, and I met him at a Touchstone conference in the late 1990s. He reviewed one of my books very nicely, and then I lost touch with him. I'm afraid there is a fair bit of gossip buzzing about him and his departure from the Catholic Church. Fr. Z dissects his words of departure here, and I can't really improve on that. People are also saying that he divorced his wife some years ago and plans to remarry, and of course, there is no lack of self righteous comment and gossip on that element of the story (if it is even true).
I'm not going there. What befuddles me about Fr. Addison's statement is the amazing naivety of it all. Was this man ever truly a Catholic believer? Is it possible that he not only was received into the Catholic Church, but was also ordained as a priest with so little understanding of the 'difficult' elements (for the convert) of the Catholic faith? If he had not got his head and heart around these elements of Catholic belief why on earth did he become Catholic? If it was only as a reaction to his unhappiness in Anglicanism that was not good enough.
This brings me to another point about the doctrines of the faith. As converts we confront the 'difficult' doctrines of papal infallibility, the Marian dogmas, Eucharistic dogmas etc., and we most often encounter them with our minds. We seek intellectual and logical understanding. This is good, and through study and prayer we can get to the point where we both understand and accept the Catholic beliefs. What is most often missing, however, is the heart. I do not speak for Addison Hart, because I don't know him well enough, but I do know that for many converts the head is convinced of the Catholic doctrines, but the heart is not involved.
Someone has said the 'longest journey is from the head to the heart.' What I am trying to get across is that in the process of conversion we have to not only come to an intellectual understanding, but we must also come to love the doctrines that have been so alien to us. I could never, for example, abandon the Marian dogmas--not because I am so totally intellectually convinced that they are true (although I am) but because, by God's grace, I have come to love the Mother of God. I do not just believe in her Immaculate Conception. I love her Immaculate Conception. It thrills me and fills me with wonder and joy. It is the same with her perpetual virginity, assumption and coronation. Likewise, I do not just believe in papal infallibility. I love the Pope. I wept with joy every time I saw him in person. What a marvel and thrill to have the papacy and both marvelous popes I have known. The same can be said of the Eucharistic Doctrines. I do not simply believe in transubstantiation. I have come to love and adore Jesus in the most Blessed Sacrament of the Altar.
This is what Bl. John Henry Newman means with his motto, Cor ad Cor Loquitor -- Heart Speaks to Heart. The Sacred Heart of Jesus in the beauty and fullness of the Catholic faith, speaks to my heart. It is a matter of deep love for me, and I think I am only now beginning to understand how St Paul spoke of marriage to the Ephesians and then said--as if he was reaching for words he did not have--"But this is a mystery, but I am speaking about Christ and his Church." I therefore could not imagine walking out on this nuptial relationship. Where else would I go?
Sunday, January 02, 2011
I'll Be Back
I've thought it over. I've heard all the kind words. I've prayed about it. I'm going to continue blogging. I guess I just needed a breather. Also, over the Christmas break I wrote a chapter for a new book about the church and the new media about blogging. The book comes out in the Spring and I thought I couldn't really write a chapter all about Catholic priests blogging and then quit blogging. Also, in the new year I will begin a regular column on Belief.net and I hope the new column will expand the reach of this blog. In the meantime, thank you for your support and good cheer, and may God grant you all a very happy new year!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
