Catholic Anglicans - what next?

 Catholic Anglicans – what next?

 

In the July 2021 edition of the ‘Forward in Faith’ magazine New Directions, my colleague Fr David Craven has a piece entitled ‘Ordination Training Fit for Purpose’. Fr Craven’s concern is with vocations to the priesthood and how those coming forward might be formed and trained.  In particular, his focus is on Ladyewell House in Preston.

As Fr Craven makes clear, significant changes are already underway with regard to preparation for ordination.  The emphasis is changing from residential theological colleges to courses and ‘contextual’ training.  The Ladyewell House project will work in collaboration with the new Emmanuel Theological College in the North West.  It would seem that candidates for all the various traditions represented in the Church of England will train together, in the spirit of the notion of ‘mutual flourishing’ and the Five Guiding Principles.  Ladyewell House will operate within this polity and provide a single-gender setting in the context of urban placements.

Those seeking to establish such provision should, I think, be commended for their vision to provide the best preparation possible for ordained ministry in these times of straitened finances, although I am troubled by some of the language used by Fr Craven in his article.  It reveals starkly the extent to which the Catholic movement in the Church of England has become captive to an alien and novel ecclesiology.

Fr Craven writes of a ‘new generation of priests formed within the Catholic stream of the Church of England’ (my italics).  He tells us that the ‘early pioneers of the Anglo-Catholic cause had a zeal and passion for preaching, teaching and establishing new worshipping congregations’.  He emphasises ‘what we have to offer as a constituency’,  and refers to the ‘whole spectrum of the Church of England where mutual flourishing is encouraged as part of the 5 Guiding Principles’.  He wishes to ‘promote a vibrant and flourishing Catholic strand within the Church of the future’ (my italics).

 

The problem that faces Catholics in the Church of England now arises from what Fr Craven calls the ‘settled agreement over the issue of Women Bishops’.  This agreement has placed traditional Catholics into a niche – into a space defined by others, and of which tolerance is the hallmark; indeed, it can well be argued that traditional Catholics are in something of a bind.  The Oxford Fathers are often cited by today’s ‘Anglo-Catholics’ as a primary source of inspiration; and yet the Oxford Fathers’ vision was to raise the consciousness of Church of England people generally as to the inherent Catholic nature of the whole Church of England.  It was certainly not to occupy a niche alongside other traditions; and whilst it can be argued that many of the second generation after Keble and the others abandoned the original vision in favour of ‘tolerance and forbearance for themselves’[1], there were always those who were able to retain hold of a bigger picture in which the whole Church of England was but a (small) part of something far greater than itself, namely the Catholic Church as a whole, East and West.  The situation today in which Anglican Catholics find themselves is a very long way indeed from the motivating vison of Keble, Newman, Pusey and the others.  The truth of this can be clearly seen in Fr Craven’s reference to a ‘Catholic stream’ and a ‘Catholic strand’.

 

The language of stream and strand reveals that the Five Guiding Principles encapsulate an ecclesiology in which traditional Catholics, or ‘Anglo-Catholics’, are simply invited and expected to make a contribution to an Anglican smorgasbord of what the Church of England ‘offers’.  There is a Catholic strand, a conservative evangelical strand, a liberal strand, and so on – and all these, taken together, make up the rich tapestry of the Church of England.  The implication is that the Church of England itself is somehow greater than ‘catholicity’, for catholicity appears to be seen as but one strand (or stream) of something greater, fuller and richer. This is quite unacceptable to anyone with a truly Catholic self-understanding, since it is founded upon ‘the liberal principle, as one party in the Church’[2], among others.  In addition, it ignores the etymology and meaning of the word ‘Catholic’ as denoting universality and, more particularly, wholeness.  Catholicity has been relativized.

The idea that ‘Catholic’ can be understood as relating to a ‘part’ of something or, indeed, a ‘party’ within a greater whole, is novel indeed:

 

Jesus did not found a Catholic party in a cosmopolitan debating society, but a Catholic Church to which he promised the fullness of truth…A body which reduces its Catholics to a party within a religious parliament can hardly deserve to be called a branch of the Catholic Church, but a national religion, dominated by and structured on the principle of liberal tolerance, in which the authority of revelation is subordinate to democracy and public opinion[3] (my italics).

 

This principle was enunciated by Newman, as early as 1843:

 

I fear that I must confess, that, in proportion as I think the English Church is showing herself intrinsically and radically alien from Catholic principles, so do I feel the difficulties of defending her claims to be a branch of the Catholic Church.  It seems a dream to call a communion Catholic, when one can neither appeal to any clear statement of Catholic doctrine in its formularies, nor interpret ambiguous formularies by the received and living Catholic sense, whether past or present.  Men of Catholic views are too truly but a party in our Church…[4]

 

The so-called Five Guiding Principles, with their liberal ecclesiology of tolerance, cannot sustain Catholic mission in the Church of England.  ‘Anglo-Catholics’ are forced into a niche (a bind) which is controlled by others; and inhabiting that niche makes the current vision radically different from the vision which motivated the Oxford Fathers almost two hundred years ago.  The point has been reached at which the only hope for Catholics within the Church of England is to try to develop a vision much greater and more ambitious to win the Church of England as a whole to its position, rather than simply to be content to co-exist with groups (strands and streams) whose differing visions are completely antithetical to its own.  The bind is precisely the ‘settlement’ to which Fr Craven refers.  It is designed to render such a vision unattainable.

---

[1] John Shelton Reed, Glorious Battle: The Cultural Politics of Victorian Anglo-Catholicism (Vanderbilt, 1996)

[2] Sheridan Gilley, Newman and his Age (DLT 1990 & 2003)

[3] Joseph Ratzinger, Church, Ecumenism and Politics (Ignatius Press, 2008)

[4] John Henry Newman, Apologia Pro Vita Sua (Longmans, Green, and Co. 1890)

 

Trinity Sunday (Year B) 

Happily, most well-balanced individuals are attracted to good qualities in other people.  Examples of good qualities include holiness, goodness, truth, beauty, honesty and a sense of justice.  The ancient Greek philosopher Plato believed that these good qualities exist in perfect Forms, which lie beyond what we can perceive fully; but that we can participate in them – we share in them to a certain degree through our senses and what we can perceive with our minds.  So, for example, when we love, our love cannot be absolutely perfect, but it is a genuine sharing in the perfection of love which lies beyond.  What we experience of justice, truth, goodness and so on, are not their absolute perfections but a genuine sharing nonetheless.

The idea of participation (from the Greek methexis) became important in the thinking of Christian theologians even before the Middle Ages; and in the thirteenth century, St Thomas Aquinas used the language of participation to indicate the dependent status of human beings in relation to God.  We share in His life, and not the other way round.  So, the fullness of love, justice, truth, goodness and beauty were understood to be in God; and we share in them through his grace, and to some degree.  What we experience of these qualities by sharing are perfections in God.  So, this means that, although God is qualitatively different from us, he nevertheless shares his life with us here and now.  Through grace, we can grow so as to share these qualities more and more.

Holy Scripture is insistent that God wills to share his life with us, and all three of today’s readings bear this out.  Israel is spoken of in the first reading as the Chosen people of God, taken to Himself; St Paul speaks of the baptised as coheirs with Christ and as children of God.  In the gospel reading, St Matthew speaks of the commission to share the Good News with ‘all the nations’.  God, we can be sure, wants all people to share his life.

Today, we celebrate God as Holy Trinity.  Of course, Christians celebrate God as Trinity all the time, as we are reminded right at the start of every Mass; but today’s feast invites us to consider the nature of God as the mystery of three distinct Persons within one godhead.  It makes no sense mathematically, of course – three cannot be one in that scheme of things.  But the language of love, truth, goodness, beauty and the like gives us a way into the mystery.  Some theologians have said that the language of love - as well as that of truth, goodness and so on – provides us with profound insight into the nature of God.  The love which binds the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit is of such sheer perfection that they cannot be other than One.  The loving relationships that we know or have known are sharings in, and reflections of, that perfect love which characterises the life within the godhead – and are thus intimately related to it.  This enables us to see why the marriage liturgy speaks of two becoming one – in the sacrament of marriage, the spouses remain distinct, but the love between them has an unlimited potential to grow towards the perfect simplicity of oneness.

What all this means is that, even now, we share in the life of God.  The sacramental life of the Church is entirely to do with this theme of sharing God’s life.  When we come to celebrate the Eucharist, we are not simply gathering for a time of fellowship, as important as that aspect is.  More fundamentally, we are gathering to make an offering of ourselves to God and to receive in return what we might describe as an infusion of His risen life in Holy Communion; and this is why it’s so important to prepare carefully.

The sacraments build us up in the life of God.  The whole Christian life is a life which is oriented towards the justice, holiness, goodness, truth and beauty of God.  Salvation means sharing in God’s own life, being drawn ever more deeply into the relationship between Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and seeing as God sees.  Each of us is called by Him to participate in the eternity which is God’s own life.  What we do here Sunday by Sunday and day by day is as important as that.

 

 Online worship and livestreaming

Whilst I am disquieted about the uncritical embrace among so many in the churches of the normativity of livestreaming and recording worship to be viewed online, I can see that such initiatives have been valuable to many during the time of lockdown and relative social isolation.  It has provided a way for people to continue to engage at some level with corporate and liturgical worship.

My concern is with the acceptance of online worship as normative.  The present Archbishop of York has been speaking recently of the Church of England as a 'mixed ecology' church. This rather odd-sounding phrase appears to mean that online worship is here to stay as part of the mainstream of the Church of England's liturgical worship, to be engaged in alongside and equally normatively with traditional in-person, or embodied, worship.  Indeed, the communications team of the Church of England now quite naturally speaks of worship being 'online or onsite', and in that order.

There is, in my view, a significant downside to and a danger in this mentality.  I was speaking with a colleague recently who told me that one of her parishioners told her that she preferred Zoom worship to having to go to the church because she could watch it on the settee in her pjyamas with a cup of coffee.  My colleague was perfectly relaxed about this, whilst I will admit to being horrified.  It seems that there is a very real danger of reducing worship and sacred acts to something more akin to entertainment, and turning participants into spectators - which is ironic, given that so much emphasis has been placed for decades (rightly) on encouraging greater lay-participation in the liturgy and other aspects of ecclesial life.

This would appear to me to be part of a wider and by now, well-established cultural trend.  It is a trend especially noticeable in the field of sport.  There are more people than ever with subscriptions to Sky Sports and BT Sport and yet fewer people than ever actually participating in sport.  My own main sport is cricket and I can think of several clubs which no longer exist, several clubs with fewer teams than in the past and other clubs fearful for the future, often citing a lack of interest among the young.  My local rugby union club, which fifteen years ago fielded three teams every Saturday, folded altogether a couple of years or so ago because it could no longer find enough players even for one team.  When did anyone last see a group of children or teenagers having an impromptu (as opposed to official) game of football or cricket on a school field, in a park or in the street? Yet, prior to the pandemic, many pubs were thronging with people clustered around a big TV screen watching several Premier League football games every weekend.

The language used by those in the churches providing online worship shows the extent to which they have travelled down this road already, and is troubling.  My own diocese provides online worship at least every Sunday (and on other occasions), and tells us that we can 'watch it later if you prefer'; as we might say when commending a TV programme to someone before mentioning I-Player.  I have flagged this up politely on several occasions but I can never elicit a response.

For me, what emerges from all this is a theological issue which needs serious reflection.  It is to do with the orientation of worship.  A traditional understanding would be that worship is something offered by people, by the Church and by individuals, to God.  Much of the language we now hear suggests that worship is offered by the person or group of people people 'putting it on' for other people; instead of defining the activity of worship 'vertically', we are now defining it 'horizontally'.  I am not saying that an online act of worship cannot be oriented in a godly way; rather, that the language used usually suggests otherwise, and that this cannot but affect the way in which people conceive of worship.  It is similar to the impression given on some church noticeboards when, after listing all the various acts and times of worship, it says 'something for everyone' - which I have seen more than once.  We are commodifying worship, and no-one seems to be taking any notice of what is going on.  I have to say that if the churches think they can compete realistically in an entertainment market-place, they are going to have a rude shock, sooner rather than later.

When Archbishop Sentamu was enthroned in York Minster at the beginning of his archiepiscopal ministry in 2005, he drew a distinction between what he called 'consumers of religion' and 'disciples of Christ'.  Those in authority in the churches may like to consider that many (most?) of these consumers/watchers of the product on offer, and who are usually referred to, patronisingly, as a 'new fringe' will not be contributing to the coffers.

One final point: it is unarguable that one of the clearest trends of the last couple of decades is the increasing isolation of many people, and a similar trend towards individualism.  The churches have been a key antidote to these trends for some, especially older, people.  Encouraging more people to spend more time in front of computer and other screens is likely to exacerbate any feelings of isolation.  It is time for the leadership of the churches to actively encourage people back to corporate worship as a shared enterprise, along with other aspects of church life which help to build up our local communities and afford many opportunities to share quality time with those we may otherwise never even meet.