Whilst the sectarians of the Continuum blog have been trying to trash us as deluded liars or whatever, and our own replies have provoked even more violent responses, the quiet and wise voice of our Archbishop-Primate has gone largely unnoticed. Indeed, a comment was sent to a posting dealing with the recent Pastoral Letter and the eagerly-awaited Letter from Portsmouth to Rome.
There is one eminently pastoral provision coming from our own Archbishop, which shows him in a completely different light from the image our adversaries would like to propose for our judgement. We do not have an irresponsible man seeking his own agenda or even his own “death” as a kamikaze! We have a caring, thoughtful and responsible pastor who is leading us.
I would like to bring up this passage of Archbishop Hepworth’s Pastoral:
What of those who are not yet ready to make this decision?
I have been discussing this question with national groups of our bishops and with some of those whom Catholic Bishops Conferences have appointed to liaise with us. There is no time limit on the acceptance of this Constitution. It is designed to have a lifetime of centuries. Some people are ready and anxious to move now; others are seeking more time for prayer and reflection. Others are confused by the surge of public argument about the Constitution. We are committed to the pastoral care of all our people, those who will quickly move into full communion and those who are not yet ready. We are already discussing the structures for this. The Traditional Anglican Communion will not disappear, but will endure for the same purpose that it was created to fulfil, and which is so clearly described in the text of our petition.
Many of us will be going over as soon as our local Ordinariate is up and running and (presumably) ready to incardinate clergy by groups coming from the TAC. I make no speculation what will happen to me personally, as I have always considered this consideration as off-topic on The Anglo-Catholic. I know many TAC clergy in many countries, together with their faithful, are ready to cross over in a heartbeat.
Others are going to take longer, and I see this paragraph from our Archbishop as an order not to apply any pressure on people who are going to take time in making a decision for whatever reason. The present dispute caused by the rudeness and fanaticism of Rev. Robert Hart and his friends has probably caused a considerable amount of confusion and indecision. I learn they have been going to the extent of writing private letters to our people, effectively proselytising and attempting to “poach”. This also has caused damage, alongside the prejudice many of us Ango-Saxons entertain in regard to the Church of Rome and her worldwide communion in all her Rites.
The boats will not be burned as the first waves of clergy, parishes, missions and people begin to move over. Some will stay behind, for a time, a longer time, for the rest of their lives. There will remain the TAC in some form to look after these people. They will not all be belligerent sectarians, merely people who have grown up Protestant and are invincibly convinced that the Catholic Church is wrong for some reason. We do not have the right to violate their consciences. Religious freedom is a fundamental human right (though the limit of that freedom is the freedom of others).
I have to admit that I find it difficult to imagine what form this “remnant” TAC would take. Would it be staffed by priests who themselves do not cross over? Would there be some way by which priests of the Ordinariates (Catholic priests) could assure some form of pastoral ministry to those who are “not yet ready”? Archbishop Hepworth tells us that these structures and pastoral problems are being discussed.
Rome has been extremely pastoral from the beginning. We are also called to be pastoral. This situation is the very first time that laws are being bent and adapted for the greater pastoral good. It is a new experience for the established Catholic Church. It is also a new experience for us. Flexibility and adaptability are the keywords. We are indeed marching towards the unknown. The old strategies of “bait and switch” and “grab it and run” are over. They are in the past. Rome has no interest in bringing in Anglicans to make us into “Irish Catholics”. Why would they go to the bother of doing that? They had only to leave us out in the cold as conventional wisdom would have dictated.
I think there are surprises to come. The Scribes and Pharisees of our time are going to be shocked and scandalised, just as they were when Jesus forgave the women condemned to be stoned for her sins.
Salus animarum suprema lex – the supreme law is the salvation of souls.
The matters you raise are of great significance.
While those of us who are eagerly ready to move into union with the Holy Father might believe that if a better and more enthusiastic job of explanation and preparation had been carried out within various of the the ACA dioceses, more clergy and people would be disposed and ready to join us, we must face circumstances as we find them. It will be much better to plan for and implement a peaceable and, in so far as possible, friendly parting of the ways with those who are not ready to make the journey than to engage in fights and quarrels whose only outcome can be bitterness and and the raising of further barriers to eventual unity.
Somewhere I have written that those portions of the "continuing Churches" (as well as the rest of Anglicanism) who do not make the journey with us now will, nevertheless, provide a prep school and way station for us in the future – though they may not wish it to be so.
Fr. Chadwick – I must say that I think this is your best article yet. Our bishops are justifiably concerned for all of their flock and thus are, I imagine, making the present situation within the TAC their priority. Archbishop Hepworth’s very pastoral letter is helpful. We should make provisions for those that are not yet ready to make this transition and those provisions should be generous.
At the same time, I would strongly urge the bishops to not make this their main focus. The main focus must remain on the future. They have committed themselves to this goal of corporate reunion, and to delay it for longer than is necessary is very discouraging for those of us who have prayed for such a reunion for years. There are very pressing things to attend to in the soon-to-be-created Ordinariates: I would like to see our bishops front and center in the development of the “other specific Norms given for each Ordinariate.“ If they do not fill that vacuum, someone else will. This period of transition will only last a year or so. The rest of our lives will be spent within these Ordinariates. Let’s keep that reality in full vision as we go forward and prioritize accordingly.
It is clear to all of us that there are some within our ecclesial bodies that want nothing to do with this. Some of them say it explicitly, and some of them urge delay. I have heard some saying that this is simply a `tempest in a teapot’ that will `come to nothing and we just need to wait them out’. Please, dear bishops, do not let us be held hostage by these people. If waiting is urged, then it must be clearly understood what we are waiting on.
I like the idea of going in waves. In TAC churches there could be a church sharing agreement (the details can be worked out by the bishops and the congregation) if the congregation is divided. The bishops will minister as the leaders of the groups going into full communion, and people can make the transition when they are ready. The bishops will find a way to help those that opt-out. No one will be forced to do anything they don’t want to do, and those making the transition would not be forced to wait any longer (we’ve already waited long enough). This way, there is no need for a conflict, unless it is a conflict of our own making – no blood on the streets and no lawsuits over church property. The alternative is open conflict between the different factions, with very unpleasant consequences or simply a walk-out. I don’t think anyone wants that.
So: provisions for the unwilling, yes; this issue as the main focus, no.
I believe that perhaps some of the other FACA members (Federation of Anglican Church in America / ACA, APA, REC, DHC, etc.) could serve for making provisions for those who cannot go to Rome for whatever reason. I know Bp. Hewitt and he is a fine man and I am sure someone such as Bp. Grundorf would also be willing to serve those who cannot go to Rome.
I believe in providing provisions for the unwilling but I am opposed to the ACC's poaching attempt and I hope that no ACA parishes or people go with Fr. Hart and Pope Mark I of the "Original Province".