Romeward Anglicans (9): reactions

There was a risk that the publication of Anglicanorum coetibus ("Groups of Anglicans"), allowing for the corporate integration of Rome-leaning Anglicans, would chill some of the warm reactions which its announcement three weeks ago generated. The damp had already set in with the CDF's "clarification" last week, and I feared that behind the scenes twitchy canonists had been busy closing the door the Pope had suddenly and without warning opened. I particularly wondered whether my America article -- written after the announcement, but before today's publication -- would not seem, in retrospect, over-excited.  

But I don't think so. Neither the Constitution and the Norms are less than what was promised, and in some respects they go further. Both Ruth Gledhill at The Times and Damian Thompson at the Telegraph draw attention to the fact that, while Anglican bishops cannot be Catholic bishops, as heads of Personal Ordinariates they get similar powers and privileges, allowed to sit on the bishops' conference and using the insignia of episcopal office. "This leaves the path clear", says Ruth, "for Bishop of Fulham Father John Broadhurst, married father of four, to head the new Ordinariate in Britain."


Bishop Broadhurst is chairman of Forward in Faith, which claims around 1,000 priest members. In an "interim statement" today, he says:

What Rome has done is offer exactly what the Church of England has refused ... We all need now to ask the question: 'Is this what we want?'  For some of us I suspect our bluff is called! This is both an exciting and dangerous time for Christianity in this country.  Those who take up this offer will need to enter into negotiation with the Church of England about access to parish churches and many other matters.  This situation must not be used to damage the Church of England but I do believe we have a valid claim on our own heritage in history. 

The doctrinal standard demanded by Rome is the New Catechism which most of us use anyway.  We would be allowed to use Anglican or Roman rites and our ordinaries would have jurisdiction.  We will all need to meet and talk.  I would hope that this could take place in collaboration with the PEVs and other Catholic bishops.  It is not my style to give a expansive analysis of a document that I have only received today nor will I answer the question 'What are you going to do?'  That is something we need to work out together. 

There is no response yet from the Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC), but its reaction to the announcement on October 20 was fulsome. The TAC, which is not in communion with Rome, is headed by Archbishop John Hepworth. As it happens, Hepworth wold be unable, under the terms of the Apostolic Constitution, to be an Ordinary, because an Ordinary must be either a validly ordained (and unmarried) bishop or a priest. Hepworth would not be eligible to be reordained as a Catholic priest because, as David Gibson puts it at dot.Commonweal, "he was a Catholic priest before, became an Anglican priest later, married and divorced and remarried, and thus has too many impediments". 

The Daily Mail typically gets it wrong when it reports that, "The decision to allow Anglican converts to keep their tradition of married priests is a break with rules that have applied in western Catholic churches for nearly 900 years".

There are, of course, plenty of examples of married Catholic priests in the past 900 years, not least in the eastern-rite churches. And Rome has been at pains to stress that this is NOT a break with the clerical celibacy rule. When I caught Archbishop Vincent Nichols today after a press conference on the beatification of John Henry Newman, I asked him if we were right to interpret the Constitution as closing the gap in the future on married clergy. He agreed, saying the "objective norms" were still to be worked out, but that, yes, the regula was clear: the clergy would need in future to be celibate.

Comments are automatically closed two weeks after an article's initial publication. See our comments policy for more.
Austen Ivereigh
8 years 10 months ago
Apologies. I meant to say that the TAC was not in communion with Canterbury.


The latest from america

Catherine Pakaluk, who currently teaches at the Catholic University of America and holds a Ph.D. in Economics from Harvard University, describes her tweet to Mr. Macron as “spirited” and “playful.”
Emma Winters October 19, 2018
A new proposal from the Department of Homeland Security could make it much more difficult for legal immigrants to get green cards in the United States. But even before its implementation, the proposal has led immigrants to avoid receiving public benefits.
J.D. Long-GarcíaOctober 19, 2018
 Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, then nuncio to the United States, and then-Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick of Washington, are seen in a combination photo during the beatification Mass of Blessed Miriam Teresa Demjanovich at the Cathedral Basilica of the Sacred Heart in Newark, N.J., Oct. 4, 2014. (CNS photo/Gregory A. Shemitz)
In this third letter Archbishop Viganò no longer insists, as he did so forcefully in his first letter, that the restrictions that he claimed Benedict XVI had imposed on Archbishop McCarrick—one he alleges that Pope Francis later lifted—can be understood as “sanctions.”
Gerard O’ConnellOctober 19, 2018
Kevin Clarke tells us about his reporting from Iraq.
Olga SeguraOctober 19, 2018