Three dubious and curious conclusions

Yesterday's announcement from Rome was quite stunning and historical, and much ink is being spilled, opinions rendered, and spleens ruptured (at last metaphorically) as every stripe of Catholic, Anglican, human, and other biological life form takes aim, makes claim, and—in some cases—cries, "Shame!" Amid the spilling, rupturing, and aiming, here are three negative, even sulking, pieces that caught my attention:

1. The Times (of London) ran the headline, "Vatican moves to poach traditional Anglicans," with an article by Ruth Gledhill and Richard Owen that took wild aim at a target—the Vatican—few thought could move so swifty:

The Roman Catholic Church today moved to poach thousands of traditional Anglicans who are dismayed by growing acceptance of gays and women priests and bishops.

This abuse of the word "poach" really annoys me, in part, because I grew up around hunting (my father is a gun maker and a superb hunter) and I knew a poacher or two. Poaching is, even among the natives of western Montana (where I spent my youth), a rather reprehensible activity because, as any decent dictionary indicates and good hunter knows, it is a violation of law and property. It is, put simply, cheating—either by trespassing on private property or by breaking the laws that regulate hunting. But, of course, Gledhill and Owen never show—or even attempt to show—how Pope Benedict or the Vatican violated anyone's rights or property or broke any laws (secular or canonical). It seems quite obvious the term "poach"—even stretched thin for effect—is an infantile and empty insult, both to the Pope/Vatican and to those Anglicans who will enter the Catholic Church under the provisions to be detailed in the yet-to-be-released apostolic constitution. It suggests the Pope is a sly cheater and greedy grabber who is preying on naive, wayward sheep while the good shepherd of the Anglican Communion does whatever it is he does. Pathetic.

2. AOL News ran a piece focusing on married priests:

The number of married Catholic priests could grow sharply as the result of the Vatican's epochal decision to welcome thousands of disaffected Anglicans and Episcopalians into the Catholic church. ...

"It's a stunning turn of events," says Lawrence Cunningham, theology professor at Notre Dame University. "This decision will allow for many more married clergy in Western churches, and that's going to raise anew the question, 'If they can do it, why can't the priests of Rome?'" says Cunningham. "I can already picture the electronic slugfest on the Internet in coming days and weeks."

The Catholic church already allows clergymen who convert from Protestant denominations to remain married on a case by case basis, and married priests are common in the Eastern Rite, a group that uses Orthodox traditions but is loyal to Rome.

On one hand, this aspect is both interesting and legitimate. On the other hand, it is being needlessly sensationalized (yes, that was redundant). Saying the number of "married Catholic priests could grow sharply" is rather misleading considering there are about sixteen million Eastern Catholics in the world, and most of the Eastern Catholic Churches allow married men to be ordained priests, just as the Orthodox Churches do.

The language in the article is a bit sloppy: that should be "Eastern rites" or "Eastern Catholic Churches", as there are 22 such rites; the term "group" has the sense of a sub-section of Catholics, which Eastern Catholics certainly aren't (they are just as fully Catholic as any Western rite Catholic); and those Churches do not "use Orthodox traditions"—they are Eastern Churches that were once Catholic, then were Orthodox, then returned to full communion with Rome (the Maronites were always in full communion).

Be that as it may, I think this focus on married priests is being blown out of proportion, especially since no priests—whether Eastern or Western—can be married after ordination. If a man wishes to be married and to become a priest (in that order, mind you) there is a simple solution: stay Catholic, go East, stop complaining.

3. TIME magazine has a piece that could be called the "Bu...bu...bu..." article, although its actual headline is: "The Pope to Unhappy Anglicans: Come On In!" Here are the three sections of interest:

• At first glance, the surprising news on Tuesday that Pope Benedict XVI has created a new structure to welcome some disenchanted Anglicans into the Roman Catholic fold — it was accompanied by a joint statement from his counterpart, the Archbishop of Canterbury — might look like a happy reunion. But the Vatican's establishment of new "Personal Ordinariates," in which Anglicans, including married priests, can practice Catholicism while maintaining much of their own identity and liturgy, reveals more about the growing internal rifts within each of the two churches than any sign of real hope for reuniting the fractured Christian communion.

I'm assuming the "internal rift" in the Catholic Church referred to is the one that sprang up a few years ago, in the late 1960s, and has been a gaping chasm for about, oh, forty years now. Does it exist? Sure enough, but the author, Jeff Israely, never backs up his dubious claim that this news—involving, keep in mind, the most significant development in Catholic-Anglican relations since, oh, the 1540s—says more about "internal rifts" than about reunion. In a real sense, the assertion completely misses a point that has been obvious to quite a few other reporters and commentators: such reunion was not going to be take place via endless official dialogue. That ship has sailed. Actually, it has mostly sunk.

• But while seeming to douse one flame, the opening of an officially recognized channel for reverting to Roman Catholicism could spark other conflagrations within Anglicanism, both from conservatives and progressives who are suspicious that Rome is poaching their faithful. Indeed, Cardinal Walter Kasper, the Vatican's outgoing chief of ecumenical, or intra-Christian, affairs, used a press conference last week to try to curb such fears, insisting that Rome was "not fishing in the Anglican lake."

See point #1 above about poaching, and then ask yourself: are these journalists capable of journalism and the correct, reasonable, and non-insulting use of the English language? Strange, isn't it, how opening the borders of America to illegal immigrants is, for liberals, a matter of social justice, while opening the doors of the Church to spiritual refugees is a grave injustice. Go figure. As for Cardinal Kasper ... no comment: either from him or about him.

• The incoming converts, however, may offer a false comfort to Catholics that Rome is winning the battle for Christian hearts and souls in the West. Indeed, in the bosom of Europe, where traditional Catholicism became an immense political force, the church is very much on the defensive.

There is a bit of truth here—the Church is on the defensive in many ways. But it's important to keep in mind the Church is also leading the fight for a European identity that actually has identity, not to mention a bosom, a heart, and a future. Alas, Israely seems dedicated to finding the black lining in every silver cloud, just as he mistakes the Pope for a poacher.

• Vatican Opens the Door to Anglican Converts (Oct. 21, 2009)
• Philip Lawler praises Vatican's "rare and welcome display of media savvy" (Oct. 20, 2009)
• "Everlasting dialogue among all Christians is one of the principal concerns of the Second Vatican Council." (Oct. 20, 2009)
• Benedict XVI opens door wide to Anglicans seeking full communion... (Oct. 20, 2009)

Comments

[Julie]

I am glad I no longer subscribe to AOL and send them money. AOL news is blatantly anti-Catholic and regularly misrepresent Catholicism in an ugly way with their misleading headlines, etc. They were obsessed with the Father Cutie thing so I am not surprised they are focused on married priests. It is interesting to see journalists scramble to put a negative spin on this. Now, what do you think the spin would be from the media if it were the Anglicans paving the way for Catholics to come into communion with them?

[Dan Deeny]

Yes, of course Carl, you are right and this is a good article. But "poach" creates interest and controversy, and therefore readers. Journalists need controversy to sell newspapers and television time. Thus, they sometimes create controversy, doubt, and problems.

[SDG]

On the charge of "poaching," I like Diogenes' observation that "the 'poaching' metaphor is an odd choice of images when the 'rabbits' in question have been pleading, sometimes for decades, to jump into the hunter's game bag."

[Kevin]

Carl,

The term "poaching" in British parlance can also have a more benign connotation, such as in football (aka "soccer") in which a team can be said to "poach" a goal against the run of play. So the author might or might not have intended to portray the welcoming of Anglicans more in terms of friendly rivalry than anything underhanded.

[Sandra Miesel]

The Yahoo news headline yesterday referred to Rome "luring" Anglicans. But the largest traditional Anglican community had approached Rome first, asking for accomodation.

[Carl E. Olson]

Thanks, Kevin, for that information. That might be the case, as you note, but there have also been references (here in the U.S. and in British newspapers) to "fishing" (see this BBC piece) and "stealing sheep," which suggests the poaching reference is of the less benign sort. And some American papers are using "poaching" in the way I identified in my post (see this Chicago Tribune blog post).

[NW Clerk]

I felt sorry reading some Traditional Anglican comboxes in which commentators asked if they would be forced to accept such "unacceptable" dogmas as papal infallibility and the Immaculate Conception. No comment on my part is necessary........

[Randy]

The poaching or stealing is from the Anglican perspective. The Catholic perspective is too radical to print. They believe Pope Benedict is the only legitimate shepherd. It is so much easier to view it as a territorial dispute. When you look at it as a fight between good and evil, between false teachers and true prophets then it makes sense. It is much easier to report on the church equivalent of the Pepsi challenge than to talk about saving the remnant of a formerly impressive fallen church.

[Amy]

That is a bold move but beware of the Catholic Church. I used to be Catholic but then I stopped practicing after I found out some disturbing truth. Some say the papacy is the antichrist. They changed the ten commandments which is the Law of God, the Pope claims to be a god, they have killed innocent people for centuries like the Spanish Inquisition and supporting the Nazis, and the priests have molested a lot of children. Jesus would not approve of any of these, it is not Christian, that is evil hiding behind religion. People really need to open their eyes. I know I did!!!

[Stephen Sparrow]

When it comes to stuff written by Ruth Gledhill, well if your blood pressure is a little on the low side go ahead and read it ;-)

[Mulder]

Amy:

As much as I think you are probably joking or attempting to derail the thread, I'll play along long enough to suggest you check out this link for the responses to your "disturbing truths":

http://www.catholic.com/library/anti_catholicism.asp

[Damien]

I have seen this same post from Amy on three different Catholic blogs. I consider the comment troll material and not worth a response.

[Evan]

I've commented on the matter here. I take it that many Ignatius Insight readers will disagree with me, but there is critical commentary out there that isn't quite the fish in a barrel that Carl likes to provide, and you may be interested in reading it.

Yes, some people are talking a lot about married priests. But you don't need to act as if you didn't already know that journalists latch on to insignificant details or twisted facts, or as if they only do this to Catholics. Why not read more interesting commentary? Wouldn't that be more edifying?

[Athelstane]

Hello Evan,

I read the commentary. Thanks for the link. "Rome makes ecumenical work with Protestants more difficult." Probably so. But you will forgive some of us for thinking that you can't resuscitate a corpse. And a corpse is what ARCIC is now.

What prospect was there that ARCIC could achieve anything further, doctrinally? As the Anglican communion fragments rapidly, it becomes hard to even know what the Anglican position is - so how can we even dialogue with it? For that matter, how much interest really remains among Anglicans for rapprochement (on any terms) with the Catholic Church?

[Jack G.]

About the married priests issue... doesn't the "epochal" nature of this decision all depend on whether the new structure will allow for married men who are *not* Anglican clergy to become seminarians?

[TerryC]

Just a point on comment about married priest and Eastern Rites. I know of at least one Eastern rite that specifically will not ordain married men in the UNited States, even though their tradition allows it and they do so outside the U.S. Why? Because Roman Rite bishops kicked up such a fuss about it, because the bishops were afraid men would as you said "stay Catholic, go East" and be ordained. Then the Eastern Rites might become more than just a small ethic conclave and become wide spread.

[Evan]

Athelstane, thanks for the comments. I agree that in many ways ecumenical dialogue hasn't been very successful, and I'm with Carl in his comments elsewhere that perpetual talking isn't the goal. So at least I can respect that the CDF is doing something.

That said, a lot of the response on this- both supportive and opposing- seems to act as if "the Vatican" as one voice is doing this, and I'm not convinced that that's the case. Ed Peters brought up the question on his blog of why the CDF is handling this rather than the Congregation for Bishops. There's also the question of how this affects the PCPCU's work. While I wouldn't want to assert that there's some sort of dispute or silencing going on inside the Vatican, this move reads easily as a Ratzinger-Levada-CDF fast track, and with many Anglo-Catholics and others who are "more Catholic than the pope", that headline is just dandy... and the work of Kasper and others just gets left to the side. This characterization of the work of the Vatican isn't wrong, per se. But it's certainly a weighted account of things.

On ARCIC, I don't think one can dismiss the hope for constructive work simply because there is a current crisis. It's not as if there are churches out there who lack their share. I also don't know whether the question should simply be whether Protestant dialogue partners are interested in rapprochement with Catholics... presumably Catholics need to be interested in rapprochement with Protestants as well. And I think the answer to both questions is, yes, the interest is there. And what needs to be worked towards in fulfillment of this interest is a mutual recognition of orders and sacraments, the way that there's already a recognition of baptism. On this point, I see the Protestants (not just Anglicans, others as well) getting more done than the Catholics.

[Gabriel Austin]

Why in all the comments are there no references to the man who is the most famous for having swum the Tiber, John Henry Newman.
He appears to be not much liked in the Anglican community because he told the truth about that community's lack of apostolic authority. He was indeed rather brutal about that community's subservience to the English government.