The crisis in Anglicanism

Insightful, as always. Thank you, Fr. McBrien

There is certainly a price to be paid for prophecy...

"...is also a sobering reminder to Catholics that local autonomy has pitfalls of its own." No question about that (including the"prince bishop" concept) .

Personally, it is my conviction that the extreme centralization of our church and much that goes with it is a medieval fossil. The Irish and North American clerical sex scandal, for example, are symptomatic of illness and rot in the limbs of the body but also in the head, heart and systems of the institution.

The concentration on retention of stagnation rather than an appropriate evolution has resulted in a significant gap between the state of the church and the position it might/should/could be to address Christ in the contemporary world. The fear and warning are that even should we know what change is needed, we are not ready to address and assimilate. The "teaching" church has kept its thought, systems, mind-set, etc.,etc., so firmly ensconced in pre-reformation or counter-reformation paradigms that chaos is a real alternative to enduring continued historical decline.

The community of/in Christ must come to some comprehensive agreement of quest in trust. Somehow, the whole body - men,women, lay and cleric, hierarchy -must embark on a model of the original post-Pentecostal community to establish and agree on our goal and mechanisms toward them in trust and reciprocal responsibillity. In order for the Holy Spirit to begin to ferment within, we must open our hearts and minds and the systems loosen their hold.

Meanwhile with the likes of Morlino and other licit yet vocational invalid political appointees by Rome, hostiley adversial to our local Churches, we see the other side of Caesar's coin.

As invalid as such destructively purely political appointees as Bush's Brownie at FEMA or his Supreme Court appointees denying women equal pay for equal work, blessing more efficient methods of the death penalty, etc., or several educational administrators, doing damage not their duty, appointed as all such are by so-called "conservative" ideology, not capacity, not vocation.

Saints preserve us!

Former archbishop Carey seems a lot like former vice president Dick Cheney: neither seems to have the grace to retire gracefully or to allow their successors in office the freedom to deal in their own way with the problems of the day. Perhaps Professor McBrien, who I know has a serious and sincere interest in furthering Anglican-Roman Catholic dialogue, would do better to comment on the efforts of the current Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, to hold the communion together rather than on the maneuverings of one who seems to want it to fall apart.

Dear Richard McBrien, Perhaps you make a case for an earthly head of a spiritual community greater than any individual previously attempting to do so! We have an Anglican Community with "no" head voting for female priests and a gay for leader and one questions the lack of attendance at an important get-to-gether???!!! When an earthly human founds your community you can expect all sorts of errors!!!

I thought from reading here that same sex marriage, gay clergy, married and women priests and bishops were the answer to all of our problems in the Catholic Church??

Thanks to Lord Carey for his clear and open critique of the troubles with Anglicanism. Of course, that is to be expected when one casts off the central authority which holds the Church together, and replaces it with a modified form of congregationalism. The result is that anyone who wants to believe anything can do so, and that leads to a lack of unity of belief.

Thanks be to God for the Holy Father and the bishops in communion with him who provide for us a sure and certain stability in the storms of modernism.

There's a great deal that McBrien overlooks to justify his characterization of Anglicans as "maintain[ing] international unity while respecting local autonomy." For instance, the existence of Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists, Congregationalists, Unitarians, and Quakers, all of whom were driven out of the Church of England.

And that the English spent 20 years fighting a civil war over the unity of the Church of England.

And that for 300 years (1535-1829) all subjects of the crown in order to hold any legal or ecclesiastical post had to swear an oath recognizing the king or queen of England as Supreme Head of their Church.

And that whatever international unity the Church of England had was precisely at the expense of local autonomy (unless being part of the British Empire doesn't interfere with local autonomy).

So, if we count from the de-colonization of England's African colonies in the 1960s, to the beginning of the fracture, which McBrien places in 1988, they had about 20 years of international unity and local autonomy, which they only achieved after spawning off a dozen other denominations. This isn't that impressive, and I don't know what exactly we're to learn from them.

For the archconservative mind, it is always a matter of "authority" and "obedience" to such; or it is a matter of biblical / papal / doctrinal "truth" and unswerving loyalty to that; in any case, anything less than the "ideal" will quickly lead us down the "slippery slope" to "socialism / protestantism / catholicism / name-your-favorte-ism."

If unity is to be had only at the price of justice, then unity is far too expensive for the Body of Christ. And if there is no justice, how do we dare put up a pretense about "love"? Can we love each other and still disagree with one another? Of course. Can we love each other and be villainously unjust to one another? Of course not.

Amazing, isn't it, how we manage to disregard the most important biblical principles while holding firmly to biblical truths! "What" indeed "does the LORD require of you?"

Although Anglicanism has had its share of troubles in recent years, one has to admire their determination to face their troubles head on, with honesty and grit. That is what Catholics can learn from Anglicans. Our approach is very different. Not only do ordinary folk have no say in how the church operates, those who do have a say simply hide behind their mitres and follow the Vatican's dictates. Give me honesty and determination any day. Who needs deceit and cowardice?

Seems to me that it doesn't matter what denomination you are in, there will always be the eternal, human, quest for power. That's what's going on in the Episcopal Church, and that's what's going on in the RCC. Just a different kind of power to grab, depending on the organization. For Episcopals, Fort Worth is in the middle of court fights for 'naming rights' and property. Very sad. Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Rome begins an inquisition of sorts of American nuns, and women continue to be disenfranchised throughout the church.

Seems like a "pick your poison" kind of situation.

As always, a cogent piece by Richard McBrien, but he is only presenting part of the connundrum: Authority is one issue; expression of sexual orientation is another. Many of us who have belonged to and/or observed both the Anglican Communion and the Roman Catholic Church are well aware of the large number of gay clergy, officially "closeted" and unpartnered/celibate, whose orientation is obbvious to all around them and whose sexual secrecies are often revealed only as part of their grand schema to cover them up. It then is so ironic that clergy such as Gene Robinson and many other Episcopal priests (both male and female) who have broken the curtain of hypocricy and deceit and been open about their affections and their partners, are the ones who are being scapegoated, while the closet cases go on and on without being confronted. There certainly are issues of authority ---and it is quite ironic that Episcopal church officials who are calling for tolerance and acceptance of gays and lesbians at all levels have played such organizational hardball with those that disagree with them. Perhaps they could re-read the advice of Rabban Gamliel in the Book of Acts and let the lives of the dissenters be their witness to truth or the vehicle of their demise.

There is always going to exist a tension between local autonomy and unity in the Church. National and local church communities are not cookie cutter entities, but each has its own unique flavor, unique characteristics that makes them relevant to their people. But they must remain faithful to universal teachings, the Apostolic Tradition that has come down to us through the centuries, and has been our strength. This is were the tension lies, this is where dialogue and discerment are needed, both on a local and international level.

Those of us who are working to reform, to renew the Church in this country, need to be reminded that we are not alone, that there is a global Church out there, with different views, different priorities. If we do not enter into dialogue with them, and address their concerns, we may find ourselves in a balkanized Church.

This article seems to be a conundrum of sorts. I was never aware that the Anglican Communion was an integral part of the Catholic Church, so Fr McBrien's article has startled me somewhat. He says:

The Anglican Communion and the Catholic church (of which the Roman Catholic church is by far the largest portion)......etc

This statement seems to presume that there is complete integration on theological issues shared by both Catholics and Anglicans. This may indeed be true in relatively minor matters, insofar as Anglicans follow to a fault the Vatican declarations on Liturgy and form, especially in recent years. The High Church branch in fact prides itself on its "Catholicity" but this is pure Anglican invention, not a Roman Catholic one. However, let us not forget that basically for Anglicans, still technically Protestant, the Mass is still a blasphemy, the Eucharist is mere symbol, that there is no sacrificing priesthood, the Papacy is anathema, etc etc. (Look up the 39 Articles, still the touchstone for Anglican faith problems). And let us not forget that Anglican Orders remain invalid, officially declared so to be by the Vatican under Leo Xlll. Which is why many Anglican ministers have sought re-ordination by Orthodox Bishops in a vain attempt to authenticate their "priesthood", and over the centuries others have "swam the Tiber" to enter the Catholic Church. Furthermore, the interior schisms of the Anglican Church - Low Church, High Church, Broad Church, Reformed Anglican Church, and Episcopalians, among others - seem to contest the fact that it is indeed an integral part of the "subsisting Church", as defined by Benedict XVl.
The basic premise of this article therefore seems to be faulty. Though there are indeed grounds for the conclusions the writer proposes, I would still contest his basic premise, and once more I confess my surprise that he has slipped this in without so much as a protestation or clarificatiion by the NCR.

To be autonomous and Catholic is an oxymoron. We can not transform Christ, The Word of God Made Flesh. It is Christ who transforms us, through the Communion of Love that gives us Life from the beginning, The Blessed Trinity.

For once, I have to disagree with Richard McBrien. Fr. McBrien did not do his research. Lord George L. Carey is a neo-conservative of the Margaret Thatcher wing in England. He was never a progressive thinker and always leaned toward the Evangelical Protestant wing of Anglican theology. His term as Archbishop of Canterbury was regressive. The present Archbishop of Canterbury, is of the Anglo-Catholic wing of Anglican theology with a very progressive and inclusive theology. He is also trying to prevent splintering of the Anglican Communion. There are fundamentalist bishops who favor excluding women, gay, lesbian, bi and transgendered people from inclusion in the Church and they have a great deal in common with your own Pope and current roster of bishops who are of the same narrow mindset.
You did not do your research well and I am surprised, Fr. McBrien, as you are usually right on target. You need to educate yourself about a topic such as this before you rattle on with such a lack of facts. I would hardly call this piece of yellow journalism cogent. The disenfranchised, that's what this article should address but does not. Central authority has proven a disaster for Roman Catholics. Fr. McBrien failed to even mention Rowan Williams in this disappointing article.

I've never posted here before, but as an Anglican in the process of swimming the Tiber I think I can comment on this particular issue:

The essential question is: did or did not Christ found his Church upon Peter the Rock, or did he found his Church on a collective democratic body? Is the Truth revealed by Christ and interpreted by the Magisterium, or is truth decided in committee?

The Church for two thousand years has taken stands on moral issues anathema to the world around it. The early Church spoke out against infanticide (exposure) -- a common practice in Roman and other classical societies, spoke out against the treatment of women, children, and any others seen as an underclass, and spoke out against extra-marital sex. In fact, one of the most striking features of the early Church that astounded the Roman aristocracy was the sexual continence of its members.

Two thousand years later we find our society requiring an acceptance of complete sexual liberty and demands that the Church also accept this as a God-given necessity of our births, a natural form of expression that it would be cruel to hinder in any way. But where is this in the Gospel? I thought we were asked to lay down our lives and proclivities and to take up the Cross. I thought being a Christian, especially a Catholic Christian, was all about a way of life that conforms to God's kingdom, not the world's.

If all of you here WANT to see the Catholic Church destroyed, as the Anglican Communion is now surely destroyed, then by all means push for the Catechism to be burned and replaced with the United Nations Millenium Goals and the platform of the US Democratic Party National Committee. But be careful what you wish for -- you'll find very quickly, as the Episcopal Chuch has found, that when what one hears from the pulpit and in Sunday School is only a reiteration of the same stuff one hears continuously on Oprah, or CNN, or the View, or many classrooms, then, one doesn't need to go to Church at all.

I and many other Anglicans are leaving for Rome precisely BECAUSE its Catechism cannot essentially change, as God doesn't change. 30 years ago most Americans thought the abortion debate was over and smirked at the backwardness of papal documents like the Theology of the Body. But Truth will out....the abortion debate may be turning in "our" favor, slowly but surely. I believe one day we will look back at the attitude of unfettered, undisciplined sexual expression and wonder what the hell we were all thinking.

I think this kind of break is a prelude to what is very likely to occur in the Roman Catholic Church. I'm not sure Europe really has a Church to break off (so few practicing Catholics), but I can see the American Church break into different factions.

Many have already voted with their feet and just left the Church, while others are nothing more than cultural Catholics, attending church out of habit and family tradition.

Again and again, we see the established churches take a reactionary position. This is nothing new. It has a long, long history. "We had a problem with women doing this...", "We had to stick our finger in the air and see which way the wind was blowing on African Americans....." It's always the same story, and then, somehow it gets resolved...usually usually with a progressive move forward, but there is no guarantee of this.

Fr. McBrien missed the boat on this one. In no way have the American bishops proposed disunity. They attended Lambeth except for those, including Bishop Robinson, who were not invited. (He went to the UK anyway). It was the homophobic Africans who boycotted Lambeth and it is their American counterparts who are deliberately splitting the church here. Carey, like many people these days, blames the opposition for his own side's choices.

I thank Tom W. for his thoughtful post regarding my (Chris Smith) comments. I enjoyed and appreciated your words and learned much from what you wrote. I do however, think you too have missed my point. I was not trying to devalue the role and importance of the office of Bishop. By "Central Authority" being a failure, I meant the bureaucracy it creates and how that has failed both Roman and Anglican Catholics. I believe Archbishop Williams is a good and honorable man but he has failed to stand up for the truly disenfranchised members of Anglicanism who are hurt both in words and violent deeds by the actions of fundamentalist bishops from African countries and some American regions. There are certain things that must be said and said with conviction regarding the devaluing of other human beings who are different. I applaud the many American Episcopal Church Bishops who stand with Gay and Lesbian Catholics and with women who have been admitted to the priesthood and elected as bishops. These bishops have bent over backwards trying to bridge communication between themselves and these fundamentalist bishops. It has not worked because these bishops want to punish and demean Lesbian and Gay persons and women from their rightful roles in the priesthood and episcopacy. Homophobia is a sin and it is rampant in the thinking of these fundamentalist thinking bishops. Gay and Lesbian Christians and women suffer real and painful consequences because of their self righteous words and actions. I do not believe the bishops who stood up for Gay, Lesbian and women Anglicans "snubbed third world churches" as you suggested. They took a stand against those fundamentalist bishops who have been preaching such violent and hateful language against their fellow Anglicans. Many Episcopal Bishops showed backbone and took a position that stressed inclusion instead of disenfranchisement and ridicule of gay and lesbian Anglicans and women in the priesthood and episcopate. The present Archbishop of Canterbury needed to show the same back bone and he did not. He tried to bring both sides together many times and I do honor him for these efforts but he also failed in the end, to do the right thing and take a strong and principled stand. It left many disappointed in his lack of leadership on the sin of homophobia and hatred of minority human beings and women.

what on earth has got into the anglican church
the cancer spreading itself at the rate of knots is a fuelled by the god given ignorance of us mortals
what have we to fear from gay bishops,gay fathers gay mothers
let nature take its course and there is nothing to be worried about
we will all still live our lives in love and peace if we embrace those that choose to be different

Thank you Dr. McBrien for this insightful little piece.

And, for those interested: We Anglicans are part of the Catholic church because we have maintained an unbroken line of Apostolic succession through our bishops and we have never once ordained a bishop without at least three other bishops also in line, which is more than can be said for some bishops.

It probably helps that we affirm the first seven Ecumenical councils, the Creeds, the "real presence" of Christ in the Eucharist, and a whole lot of other cool things.