Ex-Anglicans: The Wrong Kind of Catholics?

This discussion of the issue at GetReligion includes a link to the William Oddie book that Rod briefly references. There are plenty of hard, documentary references to the situation in ENGLAND in that book. Again, the Roman left trumped the Anglo-Catholics seeking Rome:

http://www.getreligion.org/?p=3803

I am flabberghastered at what happened in Baton Rouge. How sad but I think I can guess who was leading the charge on that blunder.

I do think the situation is different now and I think having a very in control healthy Bishop of Rome is significant

Having a few married priests if the least of the problems.

The larger problem is taking this dysfunctional, controversial diocese into the church wihtout understanding their motives. If the goal is just to stick a finger in the eye of Canterbury and the TEC or to provide a home for some wayward rebel orphans, it would be a bad move. It would also draw the church--and the church's bank account--into the property fight that would result.

It would also seem to be a very hostile act towards the larger Anglican community if the RC took them in. It's a very very bad idea.

The Anglican Communion is in the midst of a crisis and taking a bunch of wayward dissidents searching for a home would seem pretty hostile. I don't think the desire for converts is worth taking on the political and financial problems of people looking to take a stand against the TEC and the larger communion.

Nobody is preventing any Anglicans from joining the Catholic parishes already in existence.

What, you want want to bring your OWN church with you, lock stock and barrel?

No thanks, we already have a Church with functioning parishes. We do not need an Anglican overlay or any more separatist enclaves.

http://www.fwepiscopal.org/news/statement081208.html

Finally, a break from all that complexity and nuance of Russian invasions and a return to the simple fun of beating up on Catholic priests and Bishops. Such a relief to feel so grounded in something that is a constant in a changing and uncertain world.

You see, Rod can explain how it is that it's a quite simple matter to bring a bishop of another religion into being a bishop of the Catholic church, since it happens so often (or would do if weren't that Catholic leaders don't like people to believe in Catholicism). And so of course it would also be a simple matter to bring in another bishop, scores of priests who have never been trained in a Catholic seminary, and entire congregations of perhaps hundreds of people, together with distinct property, history, practices, and customs. And so any delay or hesitations that might come about will no doubt be the fault of those bad baddy priests and (shudder) bureacrats.

Rod never gives liberals any credit for wisdom or smarts, but the partition seems to have made for greater peace in Dallas and left the Fort Worth clergy with a diocese to make the best of- or run it into the ground in some fashion.

Well, the traditional Latin Mass in the Fort Worth diocese is celebrated every Sunday in a beautiful old church in downtown Fort Worth. Next door in Dallas, we (I go there on occasion) are crammed into a tiny (but beautful, because recently refurbished) convent chapel on the periphery of the city. From that perspective, at least, I'm happy for the good people of Fort Worth, who are free of the drama of the Dallas diocese.

Let me just add this: as a priest who did take the trip, the discrimination and marginalization don't stop with entrance!!! One is forever branded (in my case, 24 years). But, if you do come in, don't remain loyal to the Magisterium. So, what's the matter with Orthodoxy, I ask.

This is a very big and complicated world. As has been noted by others on this blog, the prospect of a mass influx of Anglicans has occurred several times, but nothing of significance has ever come of any of it. Until now! The Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC) broke off from the Global Anglican Communion back in the 1970’s
Suffice to say that its global membership is approximately 400,000 souls. TAC has been in talks with Rome about returning to “full communion” (not just “in communion”) for literally decades. The process has been slow, and a tremendous patience and perseverance that could come from only the Holy Spirit, has empowered TAC to be tenacious. In a meeting earlier this year, a Roman Catholic Bishop asked what TAC wanted. The TAC delegation replied that they wanted to keep the Anglican Liturgy and their rite to be/have married Priests and Bishops. Although the idea of married Priests and Bishops may have been a serious impediment in the past, there has recently been an interesting development. A letter from William Cardinal Levada, Prefect, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, dated July 5, 2008. In this letter, Cardinal Levada, states “I wish to assure you of the serious attention which the Congregation gives to the prospect of corporate unity…”
The prospect of “corporate unity” is being taken most seriously by those in the most appropriate offices. To the people of Fort Worth, I wish to convey my best wishes. The road to Rome is obviously long and tiresome. Perhaps this is just as well. The more that you persist, the more you will be seen as being both serious and genuine in your desire to re-uniting the Church that Jesus Christ created. It will take time for your desires to be seen as something other than a knee-jerk reaction to current events. If you are to ever achieve communion with Rome, than you will need to look forward with love for our Brothers and Sisters in Faith, and no longer look back with regret at what once was.

"how much power will they have or energy will they spend to help us?"

Who is "us"? The Eastern Orthodox faithful? I don't understand, why should they want Rome's help?

If the retired Clarence Pope truly believed that the Catholic Church was established by JESUS on the 12 Apostles and Outside of which there is NO SALVATION (Dogmatically defined many times) he would have put up with the tricks of the the liberal bishop and clergy in Baton Rouge and worked from within for change as us Latin Mass Traditionalists. Unfortunately his own pride and ego got in the way and he let EMOTIONAL ties sway him over TRUTH. Our life here on earth will be a battle from womb to tomb so nobody should expect a bed of roses when clinging to the TRUTH!!!!!!

The Church that Jesus Christ created?

The question would then become, "Would the Coptics have them?"

"Conversely, the Catholic diocese of Ft. Worth is among the most liberal and lukewarm in the entire USA."

Perhaps, but it appears that the Catholic Bishop of Fort Worth is friendly to Anglo-Catholics as was his predecessor. There are many reasons why this Fort Worth gambit may fail, but liberal pastors and chancery hacks in Fort Worth are likely not going to be the reason. I agree with the above poster who said that, in any event, times have changed since the early 90s and before. While conservative Anglo-Catholic former clergy might still get the cold shoulder or the ecclesiastical shaft in some Catholic diocese, those places are fewer and fewer now.

Still, these clergy are going to be marked men in some quarters and there will be people (clergy and lay) who will try to sabotage them. The worst story in that regard I ever heard took place about 15-20 years ago where a certain former Anglican priest was sent into a parish where the previous clergy allowed liberal activists to dominate parish operations. The former Anglican priest proceeded to dismantle feminist prayer groups and similar programs in the parish, whereupon the group of women who ran these programs went to the bishop with false accusations of "sexual harassment" at the hands of this priest. The bishop almost bought the false stories, but their stories ended up unraveling under a fortunate set of circumstances. I should also add that such malicious-minded liars are not limited to the liberal fringe but can also be found among the self-righteously orthodox. They are a real occupational hazard for clergy. On the other hand, such people exist in spades amongst the Episcopal clergy and laity. In fact, they arguably have the ability to inflict even worse damage because of that church's polity, so staying in TEC isn't going to save them from toxic liberal vendettas.

I can tell you that in Baton Rouge, we have a former Episcopal priest who was ordained as a Catholic priest. When it happened, it was really, really controversial among the priests in the diocese, not because he might be more conservative (there is a strong liberal faction in the diocese, but an even stronger conservative one), but because he was married with children. A lot of the priests saw that and resented it because it was an avenue that was never open to them. It created hard feelings toward the bishop by the priests in the diocese. That is (I'm guessing) why it went up before the priest council first.

Let me see if I understand what I just read:
the liberal Catholics do not want the conservation Episcopalians to become Catholics.

Maybe the Anglicans should try to join one of Byzantine rites? They might have a better chance of acceptance.

It would mean leaning very different traditions and would seem strange BUT they would be accepted as Catholics. The Byzantine rites are far more ceremonial and are more ornate.

Personally I would attend an eastern rite or the local Roman rite. In my diocese mass has become a concrete and is very disrespectful.

Sally, it is barely possible that a celibate Episcopalian bishop could be received into Orthodoxy as a bishop. A synod would have to agree, and I think that is unlikely. There is no way a married bishop would be accepted as an Orthodox bishop. I know that a married episcopate was common practice back in the day, but a lot of water has moved through both the Tiber and the Hellespont since then. A blessed Feast of the Assumption to you, in a couple of days. ("You say Assumption, and I say Dormition, you say Epiphany and I I say Theophany...') Through the prayers of the Theotokos, may all who love her Son be one.

"Finally, a break from all that complexity and nuance of Russian invasions and a return to the simple fun of beating up on Catholic priests and Bishops."

Sally, your ad hominem tantrum exemplifies one of the most curious aspects of this particular blog. I read several blogs on a regular basis, and in all of the others, people in the comboxes respond to the subject of the blog entry. In this combox however, people on a regular basis ignore the subject of the entry and fixate on Rod and his imagined failings. Why is that? If Rod irritates you so much, why don't you just spend your mornings reading another blog? It is almost as if you had some kind of crush on him that you are in denial about? Is that it? Whatever it is, I hope you control of it and soon, because it is irritating as all get out.

Dear Ron,

An ad hominem is an attack on a person. My remark was a response to Rod's ad hominem attacks on the priests and bishops whom he accuses of bad faith because he suspects they don't like those who believe in the Catholic faith to be a part of the Catholic church.

It was also intended to juxtapose the way that Rod seems to be much more willing to see complexity when the question is closer to his religious home than when it comes to the religious homes of others.

I think both of those are fair remarks with regard to how he addresses interesting questions. I think perhaps you are over-reacting by characterizing this remark to be a "tantrum". For myself, it was more a joking reference to something I find exasperating about Rod's approach to various issues. I went on to point out that the question was not as simple as Rod suggested.

His post suggested that since the motives of those wishing to explore union seemed sincere, the only reason for not waving a wand and making it happen is that Catholic priests and bureaucrats don't want it to happen. That's just silly, as there are many complex and difficult questions involved that have nothing to do with such motives.

Finally, as we're commenting on other commentator's styles, I for one get rather tired by the "if you don't like it, leave" comments. Rod can dish it out (particularly the ad hominems), and I'm sure he can take a bit of it in reply. Cowboy up, people. This is the internet after all.

When Scott Hahn first considered becoming Catholic, he first came across a priest that essentially told him "Since Vatican 2, we don't look to convert other Christians anymore. We're more interested in unity with the other churches, not conversion."

Hahn realized that he was speaking with the wrong priest and the Holy Spirit moved him to keep pushing on. The rest is history.

I happen to live in Scott Hahn's old diocese (Milwaukee) and can happily say that the leadership has undergone a complete 180. Our present archbishop, Bishop Dolan, is wonderful. In a recent interview with a Catholic magazine, Dolan warned that the greatest problem in the church today is the lukewarm, feel-good, demand nothing homilies that are being preached in the pulpits. Turnarounds do take place.

Whether certain American bishops like or dislike Anglican conversions en masse, the Holy Spirit will guide God's Church. We need to pray for conversions and, when necessary, help others to convert.

Sally: An ad hominem is an attack on a person. My remark was a response to Rod's ad hominem attacks on the priests and bishops whom he accuses of bad faith because he suspects they don't like those who believe in the Catholic faith to be a part of the Catholic church.

That's an oversimplification of what I said. I quoted the Una Voce (Catholic traditionalist) document telling the story of an Episcopal bishop who wanted to be united to Rome, whose conversion was reportedly stymied by the Catholic bishop and priests in Baton Rouge. I happen to know, having lived in that diocese before and having had a friend, now deceased, who was a priest of that diocese, that there was at that time a liberal establishment running things. I don't know what the story there is now, as I haven't lived there in ages.

The Una Voce article was simply pointing out how the ecclesial establishment has in many cases treated traditionalists like red-headed stepchildren. It is a strange thing to encounter Catholic bishops and priests more interested in maintaining stable relations with other churches than with winning converts. Surely, Sally, you know that this is not a myth. I could understand it in a society in which proselytization could bring down intense persecution. But this is America! If a bunch of Catholic priests decided in conscience that they wanted to convert to TEC, I would hope that the Episcopal bishops would welcome them. Not gloat, certainly, but welcome them.

Sally: It was also intended to juxtapose the way that Rod seems to be much more willing to see complexity when the question is closer to his religious home than when it comes to the religious homes of others.

Sally, I was a Catholic for 13 years. Though not a traditionalist Catholic, I know how uninterested many (not all) bishops and priests are in helping Catholics who really do take the faith seriously. When I was in the Archdiocese of Miami preparing for marriage, I took NFP instruction from a CCL couple who told me of a number of parishes that had told them to stay away from marriage prep, that the Church is not interested in teaching couples in pre-Cana about natural family planning, or the Church's teaching on contraception. I believed them. I heard stuff like this all the time. It's common knowledge among orthodox Catholics that this stuff goes on. Why be so offended by pointing it out?

Sally: His post suggested that since the motives of those wishing to explore union seemed sincere, the only reason for not waving a wand and making it happen is that Catholic priests and bureaucrats don't want it to happen. That's just silly, as there are many complex and difficult questions involved that have nothing to do with such motives.

But I didn't characterize the Fort Worth situation one way or another! I have no idea what Bp. Vann is thinking, or is likely to say. His is a more complex situation by far than that faced by the Clarence Pope conversion. The point I was simply making is that outside observers might think that Catholic clergy would be pleased to have fervent, convinced Christians wanting to come into full communion with the Holy See. That's simply not the case everywhere, and for reasons that Catholic traditionalists, like the Una Voce folks, understand all too well.

Had a Catholic made this point -- as one did in that Una Voce article -- you wouldn't have objected, I suspect. Because a former Catholic did, you got defensive.

Dear Rod,

Thanks for responding to my comments. In reply, I would say a couple of things. First, I would say that the writings of Una Voce do not have a lot of credibility with me. In my opinion, alot of people in such groups and other angry rad-trads have a deep and abiding animus toward Catholic bishops and clergy that goes way beyond reason. I've also known them to "stretch the truth" in order to bolster the story of their own victimhood. It's an odd drama they inhabit, and one that I believe is not very helpful in advancing God's kingdom or helping one live a Christian life. But God bless them in their pursuits. I certainly understand that their anger grows out of hurt feelings, but I do question how far their anger takes them. That is why I don't take their writings at face value.

If you say you were not taking a position on how this story of a diocesan conversion is playing out, I'll take you at your word. However, that was the impression I got from the headline and statements like the following sure sound to me like you were taking a position:

"some Catholic clergy don't want those traddie Episcopalians, presumably because they would be a force for Catholic orthodoxy. A possible secondary reason: because keeping the church bureaucracy functioning, including maintaining good relations with bureaucrats in other churches, is more important than conversions."

You say this, but you give no evidence that this is true or operative in Ft. Worth, and then you quote Una Voce. To the untrained ear, that sounds like an insinuation that this dynamic is likely influencing Bishop Vann.

I would simply point out again that it is a very complicated question about how to take a bishop from one religion and make them bishops of another religion. I know nothing of Clarence Pope or how it was that his hopes to become a Catholic Bishop were dashed. But, as noted above, it would be very unlikely that the Orthodox Church would have accepted an Anglican Bishop as an Orthodox Bishop either, and for reasons having nothing to do with animus toward the man (nor because having a man called "Bishop Pope" in the Orthodox church might sound funny). Therefore, I find it implausible that the only reason that Bishop Pope was not made a Catholic Bishop is because of those bad priests. Perhaps there is evidence to prove me wrong, but Una Voce is far too biased to be accepted at face value.

Perhaps I am a bit defensive, but I will tell you honestly that I see a pattern in your comments that seem to often accept the worst possible interpretation of the motives and actions of Catholic leaders, while doing the exact opposite with regard to things involving the Orthodox -- at least giving them the benefit of the doubt and explaining the complexities involved. Is there a reason for not extending the same courtesy to the non-Orthodox?

In any case, I still do have a crush on you Rod. It's those darned dreamy eyes. And no one can blame me.

I know nothing of Clarence Pope or how it was that his hopes to become a Catholic Bishop were dashed.

TO be ordained a priest, if I recall correctly. The only "difficulty," if the candidate is worthy, is the question of whether it is to be a conditional ordination or not.

As for Catholic bishops and priests blocking the entry of Episcopalians and Anglicans, Damian Thompson and William Oddie have written on what's gone on in the UK.

Gee Rod:

It would seem to me thht any orginization, community etc. would want to go slow on such a large number from a simmilar, but diferent group coming in to it. As a cradle Catholic, the idea of a guy who was an Episcopalian last week beoming one of my Bishops just doesn't sit well. Moreover, there will be a nasty fight between the Episcoailians, Southen Cone Anglicans etc. over the real estarte. The RC Bishop needs to avoid that like the plague.

Bishop Pope is an unwell man, and has been for some time. He has, in fact, become Catholic *three times,* and reverted to the Episcopal Church three times -- the latest "round trip" having occurred within the last year. The conversion and reversion discussed in Rod's article was the first one, and is accurate, so far as I can tell, in all particulars. After that one, several years later, when he faced a serious operation, he "poped" again, and reverted some months later (and that only when he was discovered receiving communion on Saturday evenings at a Catholic Mass, and on Sunday mornings in his old ECUSA parish of St. Luke, Baton Rouge). He did it again about a year ago, when there was the prospect of his being quickly ordained a Catholic priest, but when this failed to materialize, he went back again.

On the first occasion, he really was spiritually mugged by the Baton
Rouge RC liberals. On the other hand, during his spells as a RC he continued to wear his episcopal ring and purple stock, which might well lead even well-disposed observers to believe that he was living in an ecclesiastical Fantasy Land. It is behavior of this sort, together with reasonable doubts about his spiritual stability, that made many RCs doubt the propriety of ordaining him in the Catholic Church.

"Why the lack of charity by some Catholics against devout and sincere Christians, seeking--however hesitantly--reunion with Rome? I understand why liberal Catholics fear Anglican converts; I'm perplexed as to why the more orthodox resent them." Tom Nealon

Tom, nice post, but I think you are needlessly concerned that orthodox Catholics resent Anglican converts. In my own experience, I've never seen that happen, or even heard of it; liberals (who may be less orthodox than the converts), yes, of course, and ditto for the tiny Marcel Lefevre-type kook fringe. But orthodox Catholics? Not to worry.

Tom, I've seen a convert priest work miracles in my once-disgustingly liberal Catholic parish. The majority of parishioners, who had been hiding their true orthodox faith, soon adopted the priest and his family, and gave him tremendous love and support. The "miracles" of orthodoxy, finance, growth and activity was something this cradle Catholic never saw or thought possible.


Rod, you've gotten yourself in trouble-- again--and have to fall back on long-winded defenses and explanations. When will you learn to simply refer to the phony, pot-stirring, orthodox-hating Catholics, most of them termite socialists and homosexuals, as homosocialists and be done with it? That way, as in my case, nobody will misinterpret your meaning ;-)

Don't engage in rash judgment against others who won't engage in rash action.

Oops - I must be misunderstanding something. I thought we're talking about the entire Episcopalian diocese wanting to join the Catholic church somehow with their own rite under their own bishop. When I hear "the diocese en masse" I assumed that means the Bishop wants to come over and remain a Bishop. How would you bring a diocese without bringing a Bishop? To me the two seem rather integrally related. "Where is the Bishop, there is the church gathered" - said one of the Church Fathers (don't remember who).

Then the quotes that said things like: "He tried to negotiate for a personal prelature, or some form of nationwide, expanded pastoral provision, with the help of Cardinal Law" (which to me sounds like asking for a non-geographical bishop position) and "if Rome is too powerless to bring over an Anglican bishop who the Pope has said he is "in communion".. and the fact that Bishop Pope remained a bishop made me think this was what was being discussed.

Others here have said he continued to wear the symbols of a bishop's office and then attended the liturgy of both churches - this is all more complicated than I can follow.

Trying to unwork the knots we've woven over the centuries will sure be interesting!

I often wish the Gallup polling folks had asked for agreement with something like "everybody else is a hypocrite" (put with a little more subtlety) for the last 50 years or so, because my sense is that agreement has gone up a lot lately. Somebody in authority disagrees with me, and my immediate response is "they're all in league with the liberals/conservatives/reasserters/reappraisers/some other label that allows me to dismiss them (and celebrate myself) without further thought. Thank God I'm so bmuch better than them!

Maybe your NFP teaching friends were really persecuted for their faith, or maybe they just gave up pretty quickly because they already expected most of their fellow Catholics were, in fact, not up to snuff (wild eyed liberals!). And the parishes they were turned away from? They probably heard them mention NFP and turned them away quickly because, of course, they also believed most of their fellow Catholics were not up to snuff (wild eyed traditionalists!). Maybe it's just human nature and we've always been like this, but my own experience is that it's gotten a lot worse -- everybody honestly believes they're persecuted for their fidelity.

I agree with Sally -- too many uncharitable presumptions about people's motivations are being made here by people who claim that charity is the greatest of the virtues.

One more thing: if I were a conservative Roman Catholic priest and had to decide whether to welcome a large number of ex-anglican priests into my diocese about whom all I knew was that they couldn't live with liberal episcopal views on homosexuality and women priests, I'd have a lot of questions to ask, too. After all, the Roman Catholic church and the Anglican churches have been separated for a long time, and they've been separated by issues that were around long before any Anglicans were talking about women priests and gay issues. That's why Pope Leo declared that Anglican holy orders were "absolutely null and utterly void" (and Cardinal Ratzinger made a point of affirming this a few years ago). Why wouldn't a conservative RC commentator just assume that the Anglicans were kept from joining the RC priesthood en masse because they were still Anglicans at heart, whatever their views on hot button issues?

Anyone received into the Church must affirm that they believe all that the Church teaches. After forty years, I have come to the cynical conclusion that many Catholic priests would be lying if they were required to make a reaffirmation of that sort, that their theology is, in some cases, less Catholic than John Calvin's.