I ended my remarks in my previous posting on this issue
http://www.theanglocatholic.com/2010/06/divorce-and-remarriage-in-historic-anglicanism-part-i/
Of June 8, 2010 with this paragraph:
We are not finished with this subject yet, but already certain implications have begun to emerge. Above all, it is clear that a loose marital discipline, whether tricked out in the robes of alleged "pastoral care" or "meeting people where they are," is no part at all of that "Anglican patrimony" which is seeking to be resituated in and restored to Catholic communion. Rather the contrary: the "Anglican patrimony" is one that has upheld the traditional marital discipline of the pre-Reformation Western Church to a degree that is unparalleled among Reformation bodies, and one which was profoundly uncongenial to the Erastian powers-that-be in post-Reformation England — as witness the phenomenon of "Parliamentary divorce." Another is that in the context of this resituated "Anglican patrimony" one of its functions will be to witness to and uphold the longaeval marriage discipline of the Church, as a counterpoint to those sad failings of Henry VIII that led to the original breach between England and Rome, and thus in a way vindicating the stand of Clement VII, Paul III and Cardinal Pole in opposition to that monarch. And finally, although there is the hopeful possibility of the ordination of suitable married men to the diaconate and presbyterate in the soon-to-be-erected Ordinariates, it has to be emphasized that there is little or no possibility of those in irregular marital situations, and certainly not in DaR situations, to be ordained or to serve in any clerical capacity in them.
The fact is, though, that contemporary Anglican practice in this area has become an absolute disgrace, with nothing of “Historic Anglicanism” about it, and that this applies just as much to most “Continuing Anglican” bodies as to those of the “Canterbury Communion.” In the Episcopal Church, the decisive date was 1973, when the canons of that body prohibiting remarriage of divorced persons in the lifetime of the divorced partner were repealed — but the floodgates had already been opened in practice. (PECUSA’s General Convention had resolved as early as 1808 that clergymen should solemnize the marriages of divorced persons only in cases in which the divorce had been caused by adultery. This was embodied in a canon in 1873, and from 1877 to 1943 various canonical changes had allowed bishops to accord “decrees of nullity” to divorced individuals, and had clarified and extended the grounds on which the might be granted — and although between 1899 and 1904 a determined attempt has been made to ban remarriage of divorced persons altogether in the church, that attempt had been defeated in 1904.) My impression — I have no detailed knowledge of the subject — is that the practical acceptance of clerical divorce and remarriage in PECUSA lagged behind such allowance for lay persons, but that by the latter part of the 1960s resistance on that front had crumbled as well. In the Church of England, it was only in the 1990s that divorced clergymen who remarried (DaR) no longer had to cease to function as clergy, and at the present day there is a battle looming in that church over the issue of allowing DaR clergy to become bishops. (The first bishop in the Church of England to marry in widowhood a divorced woman and remain in office, in 1981, was Stephen Verney [1919-2009], Bishop suffragan of Repton from 1977 to 1985; the first diocesan bishop to do so, in 1997, was Mark Santer [b. 1936], bishop of Birmingham from 1987 to 2002. A DaR clergyman became Bishop of Bangor in the Church in Wales in 2004.)
In the light of all this, and especially in view of the rapid onset of this shameful abandonment of “the Anglican discipline” over the space of barely thirty years before the emergence of Continuing Anglican churches beginning in 1978, one might imagine that one aspect of that “Anglican patrimony” that “Continuing Anglicans” purposed to continue (or restore) was this marital discipline that I have elucidated in this posting and its predecessor. In fact, however, this was not the case: “Continuing Anglican” jurisdictions have proven, by and large, to be as grossly undisciplined in their marital “discipline” as those bodies of the “Canterbury Communion” which they have felt compelled to leave. I am unaware whether in the early years after 1978 the various, and multiplying, Continuing Anglican bodies declined from an originally “orthodox historic Anglican” stance on DaR, or whether they fell short of it from the beginning — accurate information on that score would be most welcome — and I certainly cannot claim to know anything about either the marital disciplines or DaR status of the bishops of most of the estimated 40-45 Continuing Anglican jurisdictions in the United States. I have no relevant information on, to give a few examples, the Anglican Orthodox Church, the Christian Episcopal Church, the Episcopal Missionary Church, the Episcopal Orthodox Church, the Holy Catholic Church – Anglican Rite and other small jurisdictions, nor on the Reformed Episcopal Church and its twelve bishops, but I do have information about what are usually taken to be the principal Continuing Anglican bodies in the United States: the Anglican Catholic Church – Original Province (ACC-OP), the Anglican Church in America (ACA), the Anglican Province of America (APA), the Anglican Province of Christ the King (APCK) and the United Episcopal Church (UEC). The numbers that follow may be mistaken, especially as regards the total number of bishops in each “jurisdiction,” and corrections coming from informed readers would be most welcome.
Of the five current diocesan bishops in the ACC-OP, two are DaR. One of them was originally a bishop in the APCK, then the ACA, before joining the ACC-OP. Of the four active bishops in the UEC, one is DaR. Two of the three current diocesan bishops in the APCK are DaR, one of them doubly so (2xDaR). The APA currently has three dioceses, one of which is vacant; incidentally, it appears from various newsletters that I have perused online that there are other bishops numbered among the clergy of the APA, but not actively serving in parochial ministry. There are no easily accessible lists of such bishops, however. One of these bishops was deposed from the ministry in the Episcopal Church for adultery before remarrying and entering the APA. One of the APA diocesan bishops is DaR, the other not. Two non-diocesan bishops serve as rectors of APA parishes. One of these, the former primate of a jurisdiction that united with the APA some years ago, is DaR, but I am unaware of the marital status of the other. The late Rev’d Dr. Louis Tarsitano (d. 2005) informed me in 2001 or 2002 that at that time all of the bishops in the APA were DaR, but I understand that that situation ended a the time of the union to which I have just alluded.
The situation in the ACA is just as bad — or worse, if one takes into account its aspirations, as a province of the TAC, to be reconciled sacramentally with the Catholic Church, as formally and unanimously resolved upon and accepted by the TAC bishops at a synod held in Portsmouth, England, in October 2007. Two of the four current diocesan bishops of the ACA are DaR, as is one retired ACA diocesan bishop, as well as the primate of the TAC. One of these diocesan bishops was elected and consecrated in 2007, while the other was consecrated immediately after the Portsmouth synod and became a diocesan bishop at the beginning of 2008. The first of these was a diocesan bishop at the time of the Portsmouth synod, which he attended and whose decisions he supported; the other became a bishop subsequently, but both of them have since taken a highly equivocal stance and have been anything but clear about their support for the process set in motion at that synod. One is forced to wonder why the second of these bishops was allowed to become a bishop without, seemingly, having been required to give assurances of his support for that process. Although, as I wrote above, it is wholly to be deplored that the preservation or recovery of the “Anglican patrimony” of marital discipline has been so largely neglected by most Continuing Anglican bodies, it is astonishing to see how negligent those in the ACA responsible for establishing qualifications for fitness for selection as bishops have been, even after, and especially after, the Portsmouth synod, when it would have taken no exceptional degree of intelligence and discernment to realize that the advancement of DaR clergy to the episcopate would present additional grave problems for the realization of the goal which the TAC bishops set for themselves in Portsmouth. Ineptitude is an ever-present reality in the affairs of men, as much in church matters as in others, but such a concentration of ineptitude as this seems as remarkable as it is likely to prove unfortunate.
But is it simply “ineptitude?” I have sensed a certain unwillingness to face facts on the part of certain elements in the TAC/ACA, perhaps including some bishops, especially DaR bishops (and DaR clergy generally). The process set in motion by the Portsmouth synod was not one of “reunion” between two churches, but the reintegration into Catholic unity of what Rome, in its response, termed Anglicanorum coetibus, which may be translated as “Anglican groups,” that is, parishes, congregations, associations, religious communities and the like. It is not a union of the TAC and/or its provinces, such as it (or they) can expect to subsist as distinct entities once the reintegration has been achieved, for the Ordinariates will not be the continuation of the TAC and/or its provinces under different names, but something else altogether, and it is certainly not some kind of mere “intercommunion agreement” (like that between the Church of England and the Old Catholic churches achieved in the “Bonn Agreement” of 1931, or that between the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada, on the one hand, and the Polish National Catholic Church of 1946) which leaves the parties to such agreements largely autonomous. One “fact” that must be “faced” is that of rumors and suggestions to the effect that “some way will be found” for DaR bishops (and clergy) to receive an “amnesty” such that their marital histories will be “buried” or “swept under the rug,” without the necessity of submitting them to the judgment of Rome, or a Roman tribunal, and it must be made clear that these are without foundation, and simply insane — as, to an even greater degree, are similar reports that DaR bishops will be able to be reordained and to continue as clergy, perhaps even to serve as Ordinary of an Ordinariate, all the while remaining "married." Anglicanorum Coetibus holds out no prospect for this, and those acquainted with the Catechism of the Catholic Church and what it states about marriage have no basis for believing it, and, speaking personally, I am sure that it will never happen. If these reports accurate reflect the hopes or expectations of some DaR bishops, as I hope they do not, one would have to conclude that such individuals must have signed the CCC without reading it or without knowledge of its contents, or with the belief that, as “wearers of purple shirts,” such “technicalities” did not apply to them, or perhaps without any conviction that they would be asked to “put your money where your mouth is” — in other words, without the willingness (and intention) to convert that is the premise underlying Pope Benedict’s Anglicanorum Coetibus and the purpose that it is meant to facilitate.
Be sure to follow our Moderator at Eccentric Bliss, his personal blog!
Dr. Tighe,
I have great respect for your knowledge and your passion for truth, but this piece goes deep into issues of the internal forum and it makes me more than a little uncomfortable to see individual cases being examined here. The marriage discipline of the Roman Church is clear, as is Anglicanorum Coetibus, which goes so far as to say that ordinariates will depend upon the local diocesan tribunal until such time as they may develop their own.
I think it is one thing to say that Roman marriage discipline will apply in the ordinariates and that this will be an issue that must be confronted directly and candidly. Like you, I am an advocate of reading the apostolic constitution in its most literal sense and you make an excellent historical case for the understanding of marriage within Anglicanism. However, laying out individual cases in a public forum seems to come very close to adding to scandal rather than combating it. I know that was not your intent, but these cases also involve wives and children whose private lives and personal grief surely must lie outside of our legitimate scope of interest here.
Bridey's Bombshell indeed! [The expression would make sense to those who have read Evelyn Waugh's Brideshead Revisited.]
If these allegations of divorce and remarriage are true among our bishops, it is a serious matter. However, was there not some kind of finding of nullity declared by their church authority before they remarried? How were they first married, and how were they remarried, in church or at the Register Office? There are many questions. Have these questions not been resolved, at least to some extent, between October 2007 and now?
Another consideration is that Rome does not seem to have made an investigation over the two years between the visit of several TAC bishops to Rome in October 2007 to start the ball rolling and the announcement exactly two years later in October 2009. What imprudence by Rome to make an announcement that could be construed as condoning the TAC! Cardinal Kasper was not a part of the mechanism, yet he gave the explanation – it's not about the TAC, and the TAC missed the train. But that explanation and hermeneutic leave more questions than answers.
It seems that very few current members of the Anglican Communion will be interested, and anything going over to Rome with the present Flying Bishops (Barnes, Burnham, Broadhurst, etc.) would probably be an overwhelming majority of clergy with few laity. The magic parcel doesn't seem to fit that profile either, at least not the way the Apostolic Constitution and its rules are written. It does fit the Anglican Use, perfectly, but they are already in communion with Rome and in the USA only.
It would seem that this farce is already over. The TAC and other continuing Anglican Churches no longer have any credibility on the basis of being in "dialogue" with Rome. No one will be sitting comfortably, not even those who never wanted anything to do with this in the first place. Massive unchurchings all round?
Why did Rome make an announcement of Ordinariates, if it cannot apply to anyone other than individual applicants and the ordinariates being created ex nihilo by non-existing people? Rome only gives canonical existence, doesn't create or finance the infrastructures. You go to the Passport Office to get your passport, not to get a loan for your home, find the services of a welfare officer, etc.
It all seems impossible now, and the Pope is going to have egg on his face. However, all this could be quietly brushed under the carpet and Anglicanorum Coetibus only concerns a theory of what might happen after we're all dead. It seems we should all go back to sleep.
I'm not shooting the messenger, and I intend in no way to be facetious in regard to our esteemed Dr. Tighe. One thing I would find interesting is a credible and cogent idea of how the Ordinariate plan can be "saved" and implemented. For example, is it possible that Rome would give canonical existence as an Ordinariate to a group comprising one or two bishops, five or six priests and perhaps a hundred or two hundred laity?
Also, on a positive note, if the situation in the US is hopeless because of divorced and remarried bishops and priests, it seems not to be the case elsewhere (apart from Australia). The TAC in Canada seems very healthy from this point of view.
Ideas, anyone? A compass in this English Channel fog? Yes, I know we should pray and trust in God's Providence, and ask for the lowest place (people usually get what they ask for). We are often criticised for entering something without opening our eyes and examining the goods for sale. We won't get any hard facts from anyone, as that has been too tall an order since October 2009 – but we do need educated and informed guesses….
I think that this article, combined with Br. Stephen's comment which calls us not to allow ourselves to descend into gossip or wagging tongues, make an excellent point.
It is not news to any of us that divorce and remariage has become common in the Anglican church, and that from a historical and ecumenical perspective, if not a fundamental theological one, this was bound to cause problems down the road. Communion with Rome and the retention of Anglican particulars is a laudable goal, but Anglicanorum Coetibus makes it clear that it is one that will require a higher standard of holiness than Anglo-Catholics have historically required of all their members. Celibate bishops, and eventually celibate priests, and a stricter discipline on marriage will all be a part of this. Further, it will also doubtless mean less flexibility and experimentation will be permitted in the liturgy (how much less, who can tell at this point).
Dr. Tighe rightly says that Rome's offer calls upon all who take it up, clergy and lay, to make a real step of conversion, to dedicate ourselves to a stricter standard of Christian life. As Br. Stephen warns though, the depth of this conversion is not something any Christian can presume to weigh in another. It is a personal action, taken by the inward man, and we should not presume to weigh or know what goes on in another. (Matt Talbot's life comes to mind as an illustration of this, though I'm sure there are countless others.)
I will be praying hard for all who muster the courage to take this great step, but I will be praying harder for those whose courage fails them, now so close to the goal.
There is another thought in all this. I as a simple priest never asked anything from anyone. It's our Bishops who did all the asking. I signed no Catechism of the Catholic Church or any letter. I simply stand under Archbishop Hepworth's jurisdiction. If Archbishop Hepworth is "trashed" then I will find myself not belonging to anything – unless there is some "Plan B" I know nothing about.
Obviously, I agree with the step made by the TAC, and joined it in 2005 knowing that it was Romeward bound in its intentions. But it should go on record that we simple priests and the laity are simply following our bishops.
If this happens, as may happen to other priests under bishops in irregular situations rejected by Rome, we will simply be "orphaned" priests. Then, either we make individual applications to Catholic bishops, ordinaries of ordinariates who are accepted by Rome, or we make no application to anyone. Until now, we have been assured of some kind of corporate conversion to Rome, simply being a part of the furniture.
Just a few more months….
When Fr. Chadwick writes, "It all seems impossible now, and the Pope is going to have egg on his face. However, all this could be quietly brushed under the carpet and Anglicanorum Coetibus only concerns a theory of what might happen after we're all dead. It seems we should all go back to sleep," he shows forth his pessimism and frustration in the face of the waiting game we now seem to play regarding the implementation of the A.C. While I can easily understand his concern and impatience, I for one will remain hopeful that God will finish what He started, and that right soon.
If we choose to now go back to sleep and do not prepare to meet the opportunity when it comes, we will surely miss out on that very thing that we say we desire above all else. If we do not stand ready, willing, and able to enter back into communion with the Church when she opens the door, we will be left out in the cold vastness of what has become Anglicanism and we will have only ourselves to blame.
So we must remain wide awake and do the necessary work that will prepare our parish families to be ready to move when the time comes for us to rejoin our long-lost relatives – no matter how long that may take to actually happen. To keep everyone motivated, hopeful, and willing to hold on, we must constantly remind our "sheep" (and ourselves) that with God all things are possible. We simply must remember that if the progress toward unity already realized is of God (which I firmly believe it to be) then there is no obstacle that we see that is so big that God cannot overcome it.
There is little doubt that our goal of complete unity with the Holy See is a "God sized dream" that can only only come to fruition with a huge move of the Holy Spirit, and I refuse to give an inch to our enemy who would have us believe that King of kings and Lord of lords is impotent in the face of such opposition and challenges.
"But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
And they were astonished out of measure, saying among themselves, Who then can be saved? And Jesus looking upon them saith, With men it is impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible. Then Peter began to say unto him, Lo, we have left all, and have followed thee. And Jesus answered and said, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel's, But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life."
Dear Father Mark Siegel,
Amen! to your above reply. You mention preparing your lay people for this historic step. May I be so bold as to recommend a nonprofit book publisher – Roman Catholic Books (BooksforCatholics.com) – who reprint Catholic classics.
You say that for us Anglicans complete unity with the Holy See is a "God sized dream" and with God all things are possible. Yes, let us cooperate with the Holy Spirit in this and prepare ourselves for this momentous occasion. My particular continuing Anglican church may well not be going in the direction of Rome, but somehow, God only knows, I pray to someday become an Anglican Catholic in full unity and in good standing with the Church of Rome.
Sincerely, Ruth Heyder
May God Bless your desire for visible unity.
Fr. Chadwick, when you write "Why did Rome make an announcement of Ordinariates, if it cannot apply to anyone other than individual applicants and the ordinariates being created ex nihilo by non-existing people? " I think you have missed a key point in Dr. Tighe's post, which is this: The process set in motion by the Portsmouth synod was not one of “reunion” between two churches…[but of]…“Anglican groups,” that is, parishes, congregations, associations, religious communities and the like.
The Apostolic Constitution envisions ordinariates that are coextensive with national bishops conferences, and while the possibility of two or more in one conference territory is possible, it is unlikely. That being the case, an ordinariate is likely to be home for groups of Anglicans from several traditions: in the U.S., e.g., AU parishes, ACA parishes, TEC parishes, etc. Possibly the Sisters in Catonsville (i.e., not a parish). Keeping in mind that the AC is a legal document, it goes about setting up legal entities, or what are known as juridic persons. In the Church, such juridic persons include parishes, religious communities, secular institutes, dioceses. They do not include national episcopal conferences. If an ordinariate is equivalent to a diocese (as the AC makes plain) then what is left for the incoming Anglican groups? Not a national entity (that would be the Ordinariate); rather, the parishes will be the "group" (i.e., juridic person) to enter the Ordinariate. Individuals may also join who are not members of a parish, much as you yourself are part of Archbishop Hepworth's jurisdiction, without being a member of a French "Anglican" group. That's my take on things anyway.
But this means that the Ordinariates are certainly not being created by "individual people"; it also takes nothing away from the petition for a means of corporate unity having been made by the TAC as a whole; but TAC's petition was not the only one on the table: there were requests from the AU in the US, from Forward in Faith, etc. There have been several masters and doctoral theses about the current and potential corporate reunions of Anglicans with Rome; this has been "in the air" for decades, and now being brought to fruition.
This posting raises profound questions for all Anglicans considering their entry into a process of conversion.
On the positive side it should lay to rest any assumption that existing Anglican bodies should in any way expect the first ordinaries appointed to be from amongst their number.
As I have pointed out previously, the process of conversion of clergy will take time as well as commitment. It is logical to assume that the first ordinary bishops or priests must be clergy from the Roman Rite who have been Anglicans in the past or who have some understanding of the Anglican patrimony.
Let us continue to pray this Assumptiontide for the CDF as they seek wisdom in the selection of those who are to lead people in the ordinariates.
Our Lady of the Assumption
J.H. Newman
ora pro nobis
I agree with Brother Stephen that this post, Dr. Tighe, goes too much into details about individual persons who may or may not be in the circumstances you describe and it is not up for us at The Anglo-Catholic to either gossip or dissect or speculate about individuals.
That said, I think the principles you have outlined are very important concerning marriage. The Anglican Catholic Church of Canada has a marriage tribunal patterned after a Roman Catholic tribunal.
It's not only clergy who will have to ensure their marriages are valid, but us lay people as well.
But, please, folks, let's stick to principles.
Deborah
Mr. Newman's comment raises at least a couple of practical questions. For instance, from a pastoral perspective, how will it be received by converting Anglicans, many of whom are quite leary of what awaits them, when they are told they may lose their priest? This is one of the primary points of assault made by Protestant Anglicans to sway folks from considering the AC option.
Additonally, something else to be answered in this context involves such matters as whether or not the pronouncements of Anglican tribunals in respect to annulments will be satisfactory in the eyes of the Church; will the cases be revisited by RC tribunals? For if Anglican pronouncements are recognized, the discussion is moot in most cases.
This subject is profoundly troubling, and is going to take some exquisite footwork through the associated pastoral and theological minefield. I do not envy the men that will be making determinations in the matter.
"Doc"+
As Br Stephen notes, the marriage discipline of the Catholic Church is clear — and could hardly be otherwise in our view given Our Lord's own words in Mark x. 11f. However, our canonical jurisprudence also provides for the determination, after a careful investigation and canonical trial by a competent ecclesiastical tribunal, that the facts of a particular case indicate that a prior marriage was null ab initio, leaving open the possibility of regularising a subsequent marriage. That's what Article XII of the AC seeks to address.
Let us assume the bona fides of all involved here. I for one think that it argues strongly for his credibility and good faith that the Primate of the TAC is courageously leading his people into full communion with the Catholic Church despite that fact that he knows he himself, having been previously ordained as a Catholic before becoming an Anglican, will never have a priestly ministry in the Ordinariate (under the terms of Article 6 §2 of the Complementary Norms).
I was a Roman Catholic for 30 years and met my wife, a divorced RC. We were married by a protestant minister and I ,6years later was received into the Episcopal church USA. I have discovered and Anglican parish seeking to join the Roman Catholic church. What must I do to become able to receive the sacraments in the church? Am I banned due to marrying a divorced Catholic since I have never been married before? God bless and Pax Christi, Matt.
I wish that others with more expertise than I would answer your question, but you need to speak with a knowledgeable Catholic priest concerning your situation. Certainly, your wife would have to seek and receive and annulment of her first marriage (not that such annulments are given "automatically;" a church tribunal will have to render a judgment on the status of her first marriage) before either of you can return to the communion of the Catholic Church.