Re: Catholic
Anglican Ordinariate
It goes
without saying that last year’s announcement from Rome raises very serious
questions for all Catholic Anglicans. I don’t mind now disclosing that, at the
request of the Forward in Faith Council, I was party to approaches to the Holy
See, along with the PEVs and a number of other bishops. But you will
nevertheless understand that I have assured the Bishop of London that I will not
be actively campaigning for the Ordinariate. Indeed, as a Bishop of the
Church of England I don’t see how I could do so! But what I can – and must – do
is try and offer you some guidance.
The Ordinariate challenges many of our suppositions
and indeed, raises the question ‘what is it to be a Catholic Anglican?’
I believe the Vatican’s response is extremely generous and demands our
attention. Though some will regret
the exclusion of married Bishops and the failure to offer conditional
ordination, in my opinion neither of these are fatal flaws.
Indeed, for the first time in an official Vatican statement, Anglican
bishops, priests and deacons are expressly referred to.
It is quite obvious that whatever else is intended, our Anglican ministry
is to continue.
What we cannot
do is to ignore the Statement when it is in response to Anglican approaches over
the last twenty years.
This statement needs carefully reading.
Many of the problems referred to by critics are found in the
complementary norms which do not have the same status as the main document.
These are effectively a code of practice.
It is a time when all of us will have to decide where we stand and what
we want. How is our Catholic
Anglican heritage to continue living?
What Rome has offered is not that we become Roman Catholics but that we
become Anglicans in communion with the Holy See.
The discussion in the Church of England is at a
crucial stage, though everything I hear from the General Synod suggests that
there is no real possibility of the sort of jurisdiction that we have
consistently demanded. What is
fascinating is that the Church of England appears unwilling to give us such a
separate jurisdiction while the Vatican says ‘You can have one’! I have always
been an optimist but in my view the best hope within the Church of England is
that the ordination of women bishops does not now progress for several years.
The Southern PEVs had a meeting with the Archbishop
of Canterbury recently and one of the tasks it was agreed they could profitably
do, without any disloyalty, was to encourage people to explore the options that
face us with, on the one hand, the Anglicanorum Cœtibus Apostolic
Constitution and, on the other hand, the women bishops’ legislation as it
proceeds along its tortuous route. With regard to the first, we have all
suggested that no one takes any decision – or at least makes such a decision
public – until after the Day of Prayer on 22nd February (and that
does not mean immediately after or indeed that any decision needs to be made
that day). With regard to the second, it now seems that the Revision
Committee discussing women bishops’ legislation will not be able to report back
to General Synod until July 2010, the last group of sessions of the present
quinquennium. What we do know from press statements is that the Revision
Committee has rejected the independent dioceses model (a.k.a. ‘free province’)
and the society model and statutory transfer of jurisdiction to complementary
bishops. All that is on offer is delegated transfer by the diocesan bishop
– whoever he or she is – and a protocol of some sort where those who insist on
male bishops taking episcopal services are duly given a male bishop by the
diocesan (who would have no jurisdiction and who, indeed, may well have been
ordained by female bishops or taken part in such ordinations).
The suffragan sees of Beverley, Ebbsfleet and
Richborough, say the Revision Committee, will not be linked to the Act of Synod
and so inevitably be suppressed (though, of course, that is beyond their power).
What the Synod makes of this, only time will tell but the result is going to be
somewhere between the legislation being unsatisfactory for us or collapsing: the
one spells ecclesiological chaos and the other a protracted delay for which we
will continue to draw the blame.
What would help me greatly is up-date information
(which will be confidential to me) of where you stand on all this. I would
like to know who is enthusiastic, who is interested, and who is disinterested.
More than that it would be of some benefit to know if all, many, some or
none of your congregation would welcome such provision. You may already know –
but it would help us to know that you were undecided – and you may properly want
to say nothing at all, even to us, until after 22nd February, and
that will be respected. The Southern PEVs and I should also like to know
about how plans for 22nd February are evolving. There are some
exciting things afoot: three or four parishes have quite advanced plans for
keeping vigil in front of the Blessed Sacrament with local Roman Catholic
congregations; Stoke on Trent has a eucharistic journey from parish to parish
(and I am not sure yet whether that involves Roman Catholics too); one or two of
Bishop Keith’s clergy have had a highly successful meeting with the local Roman
Catholic clergy chapter, who welcomed them unreservedly.
As for how congregations are going to react some
laity have been enthusiastic, though my hunch is that most have little or no
real awareness of all of this. Many are really concerned about their buildings
though I have seen enough of my own ‘holy places’ destroyed to not set as much
value on them as I once did. I do believe our heritage matters and church
sharing or licensing is perfectly possible. Many would be interested in the
Pope’s offer if they could have their building and their priest – and we are
working on that possibility, where it is appropriate (and again, notice would
help). In short, any intelligence, however hesitant or provisional, would
be very helpful.
Be assured of my prayers at this challenging time and
if you would like to come and discuss this matter with me, please just phone the
office.
+John Fulham