When I first read this interview with John Milbank, I confess that I found it mildly annoying. My emphases, excluding the questions.
* * *
October marks one year from Anglicanorum Coetibus: how important is the meeting between the Primate Rowan Williams and the Pope?
I think it is important that the two leaders take the opportunity to show that their agreements are far more profound than their differences. For they espouse a similar sort of theology: rooted in the legacy of Augustine and the recovery of authentic Patristic and High Medieval tradition. Their approaches to the political and economic sphere are also highly compatible, with both of them stressing the importance of Civil Society as against either the State or the Market and both following Bruni and Zamagni in advocating a 'civil economy'.
In your estimation, how many bishops and faithful of the Church of England have taken up the opportunity offered by?
Extremely few and I don't think that many will follow in the UK, though more may in the USA. However, I still think that the AC will be of great importance in the future. First because it involves a new recognition by the Papacy of the validity of the Anglican tradition, beginning to equate it more with Eastern Orthodoxy; secondly because it can create a fluidity between the two communions that will help to lead to full intercommunion in the future. The debates about the role of women, married clergy and the norms for homosexuals are discussions that are now common to all the episcopally-ordered churches and in a globalised era it will prove anachronistic to think that they can be confined within any one single communion.
The pope will beatify the Cardinal Newman in Birmingham. Do you think it will bring Rome and Canterbury closer or, on the contrary, fuel controversy?
I think that this is a wholly positive development and will be welcomed by Anglicans. Apart from a few evangelical extremists, who dislike Newman's theology anyway, Anglicans by no means feel that Newman 'betrayed' them by becoming a Catholic. On the contrary, they are very proud of Newman's double contribution to both modern Anglicanism and to modern Catholicism. Newman is a sign of unity: he belongs to both Churches and I am sure that our prayers to God through him will aid us in the cause of Church unity, as in the revival of a Christian Britain.
Just over a week ago, the Synod of the Church of England ended in York. Lots of english newspapers talked about "defeat" of the Primate concerning the ordination of women bishops. Do you agree that it was a "defeat"?
No, that is a big exaggeration. Unfortunately, the two Archbishops of York and Canterbury tried to push through a minor amendment that was probably unnecessary, but was intended to safeguard the interests of those who cannot accept the advent of women bishops. Although this was defeated, most people involved agree that these interests will be in any case adequately safeguarded under the arrangements now agreed upon.
I think that Rowan Williams now also accepts that. His standing has not been in any way seriously damaged by this matter of detail. Clearly women bishops seem to be controversial from an ecumenical point of view, but I do not think that this will prove the case in the long term.
* * *
Hmm… Who out there knows John Milbank? Does he think women bishops are inevitable in the Catholic Church? How do our Anglo-Catholic readers feel about the Ordinariates being seen as a bridge for, ahem, those enlightened views now in the Anglican Communion — how prophetic, you know — to help bring about ecumenism — an ecumenism that would profoundly alter the Catholic faith?
William Oddie has responded to this interview in the Catholic Herald:
* * *
John Milbank’s feelings about the Pope are not surprising; he is associated with the predominantly Anglo-Catholic movement known as “radical orthodoxy” and is known for his anti-secularism: in this and other ways the present Pope’s mind-set is congenial to him. It is what he has to say about John Henry Newman’s forthcoming beatification that needs to be questioned. He sees it as giving an ecumenical boost to Anglican/Catholic relations. “Newman is a sign of unity” he claims: “he belongs to both Churches and I am sure that our prayers to God through him will aid us in the cause of Church unity…”.
The “cause of Church unity”, however, was hardly one ever espoused by Newman, and I fear that Professor Milbank’s mellifluous sentiments are part of a general movement towards setting him up as a somewhat anaemic “plaster saint”.
The fact is that Newman was the very opposite of an ecumenist: he was, in his very bones, a controversialist in such matters. To say that “Newman belonged to both Churches” is absurd: the Catholic Newman didn’t believe that the Established Church was a Church at all, but a mere national institution.
This is how he addressed those of Catholic mind within the Church of England (Difficulties of Anglicans, lecture 4): “You can have no trust in the Establishment or its Sacraments and ordinances. You must leave it, you must secede; you must turn your back upon, you must renounce, what has—not suddenly become, but has now been proved to you to have ever been—an imposture. You must take up your cross and you must go hence.”
* * *
So, folks, what think ye?
Go Oddie, I say.
And Milbank may be really more of a postmodern than an orthodox Anglo-Catholic, or at least he comes across like this in this particular interview. As I recall, his Radical Orthodoxy was an attempt to revisit the roots of the Christian faith (hence radical from radix) but yet speak to a postmodern culture. Why do I keep thinking of President Bill Clinton and his famous, "It depends on what the definition of 'is' is"?
For example, Rowan Williams may say a lot of the same things as Benedict XVI (though with far less clarity) on such things as, I don't know, divine filiation, for example. (But usually, he's talking about Millennium Development Goals, no?)
But I'm afraid the Archbishop of Canterbury may mean something entirely different by divine filiation than Benedict XVI does. If divine filiation means that we'll all soon discover that women and men are interchangeable at the altar, and homosexuals are meant to express their God-given sexuality in committed relationships as children of God, then that's not what the Church teaches. Divine filiation means something far more lofty than what the latest pseudoscientific discoveries tell us about gender and sexual orientation.
Your thoughts?
Be sure to follow our Moderator at Eccentric Bliss, his personal blog!
Part of the Anglican Patrimony is to embrace all that is positive in Christian thought and action.
There is much to celebrate in what Millbank says, such as:
". . . rooted in the legacy of Augustine and the recovery of authentic Patristic and High Medieval tradition. Their approaches to the political and economic sphere are also highly compatible, with both of them stressing the importance of Civil Society as against either the State or the Market . . ."
Oddie's criticisms are legitimate but we need to be careful about sniping at those who seek to make positive comments about AC, the papal visit, Newman and the Ordinariate process. Once again, it is better to look ahead than to take aim at those who are staying behind.
Millbank is certainly correct about the very small initial numbers that will form the ordinariates. We should celebrate his positive evaluation of what this may lead too.
The cup is half full.
What is there to celebrate in this:
". . . rooted in the legacy of Augustine and the recovery of authentic Patristic and High Medieval tradition. Their approaches to the political and economic sphere are also highly compatible, with both of them stressing the importance of Civil Society as against either the State or the Market . . ."
How rooted in Augustine and authentic Patristic High Medieval tradition can one be if one concludes that women's ordination and homosexual unions are the prophetic wave of the future?
One can say all sorts of things and use the same erudite words and nod that gee, we must mean the same thing, but really, not mean the same thing at all as the fruit is very different.
I do not like the idea that the ordinariate might be seen as a bridge for that kind of thinking. Do you?
Not that many Catholics need any help from Anglicans in that regard. If you went and did a survey of self-identified Catholics on their attitudes towards women's ordination or birth control or gay marriage, the majority would be for it in the west.
I am not sure how it would shake out if you restricted it to weekly mass goers, but I expect it still might hover around the 40-50 per cent mark in favor of these things.
That is not a good thing. It means that many Catholics are really badly catechized these days and more influenced by the wider society than they are by the Church.
I hope and pray the Ordinariates will be a haven for Anglicans who want the protection of Peter to hold to an Apostolic faith–a real one, not a "living tree" model like that of modern interpreters of constitutions where the words have no inherent meaning but are only containers for whatever meaning judges or bishops want to put into them.
Deborah
I again make an appeal for dialogue aimed at winning people to the Faith. We do this when we deal with what people actually say rather than what we know or think we know are their personal opinions. I was attempting to evaluate the Millbank interview on this basis. In the interview he said:
"The debates about the role of women, married clergy and the norms for homosexuals are discussions that are now common to all the episcopally-ordered churches and in a globalised era it will prove anachronistic to think that they can be confined within any one single communion."
This is perfectly true. Your statement speaks of conclusions that were not drawn in the interview: "if one concludes that women's ordination and homosexual unions are the prophetic wave of the future". I did not read this conclusion in Millbank's statement. It was simply a statement of the fact of discussion which will continue.
I agree with Oddie's statement about Millbank's views: "he is associated with the predominantly Anglo-Catholic movement known as “radical orthodoxy” and is known for his anti-secularism: in this and other ways the present Pope’s mind-set is congenial to him."
If we Anglo-Catholics are to get beyond the charges of being prejudiced cranks we do need to deal with what people offer and avoid unnecessarily confrontational or dismissive arguments. Millbank and Rowan Williams may hold opinions that are not in keeping with Catholic tradition as we understand it but we should follow the pattern of the Holy Father: engage closely what they say, always looking for areas of agreement where possible and then offer constructive solutions from Catholic tradition.
Speaking of "the protection of Peter", we need thoughtful theological engagement not a cheering section for our team. The Pope obviously looks for the half full cup in dialogue. We should take our lead from him and, with the courage of our convictions, trust that other people will be led by the light of faith and reason to the fulness of Catholic life. A positive and respectful dialogue can only benefit the Church.
Memories, memories, memories of Milbank. I am going to paste below an e-mail I sent around to some friends about a month ago:
This posting (see the link below) comes from a Don-Cupitt-like Anglican, but, boy, is it good:
http://pluralistspeaks.blogspot.com/2010/08/fantasy-island.html
Milbank (and his wife, Alison Legg) and I had a great row about WO at a garden party at Little St. Mary's Vicarage in Cambridge (England) in October 1978. He sent me "to set you straight about the ordination of women" to speak with a young don at Westcott House named Williams, with whom I spoke for over an hour over tea and cookies in early November of that year, but whose ideas on the subject I found largely incomprehensible (and vague) and totally disagreeable; Williams has since risen to a more eminent position, but his views remain to me equally disagreeable and equally incomprehensible. A few years ago I read, with disgust, an account of Milbank's being a guest speaker at a conference in the Ukraine held under the auspices of the Ukrainian Catholic Church, which was accompanied by a photograph of him receiving communion at it from a Ukrainian Catholic bishop, who really ought to have known better than to administer it to a pro-WO and pro-SS "Catholic Anglican."
Milbank is keen on both WO and SS (= "sanctified sodomy," or the "blessing' of homosexual "partnerships"), in this like most of the Anglicans associated with the "Radical Orthodoxy" movement (e.g., Catherine Pickstock). They even have the gall to claim that both of these monstrosities are required by "the Catholic Faith," and have expended much ink (and more gall) attacking "fundamentalist Evangelicals" for opposing them. A few years ago someone with some sympathy towards the RO crowd, but also critical of their claims — it may have been the Orthodox lay-theologian David Bentley Hart or the then Episcopalian and now Catholic lay-theologian Rusty Reno; I don't recall now who it was — was intending to write an examination of the ecclesiological stance(s) of RO, with the thesis that it stemmed from a playing-out of the "incoherence" of the traditional Anglo-Catholic notion of being a "remnant" of "true believers" within a "Catholic Church" (the Church of England or any particular Anglican church province) the great majority of whose members regarded themselves as Protestants and their church(es) as Protestant "denominations." I don't know whether the study was ever written; if so, it would be most edifying to read it.
I prefer the "New Ecumenism" approach articulated by Fr. Hunwicke in New Directions recently. It has the benefit of maintaining the bridge and valuing dialogue without sacrificing principle.
http://www.trushare.com/0182july%202010/07%20New%20sort.htm
Reno wrote a piece on Radical Orthodoxy in the February 2000 issue of First Things.