Pope: Married Bishops in all but Name

Tremendous day. The Apostolic Constitution has been published. It is all that Catholic Anglicans hoped for and more.While it officially keeps the door closed on any relaxation of the norms on celibacy - former Catholic priests who became Anglicans, married or no, will not be permitted to join the new Ordinariates -  it is clear from Article 11 that former Anglican bishops can become Catholic bishops in all but name, even where they are married. They will officially retain the status of presbyter, but will be allowed to be the Ordinary or head of the Ordinariate, will be allowed to be a member of the local Bishops' Conference with the status of retired bishop and, significantly, will be allowed to ask permission from Rome to use the insignia of episcopal office. This leaves the path clear for Bishop of Fulham Father John Broadhurst, married father of four, to head the new Ordinariate in Britain. Heady stuff indeed - and I mean that theologically and metaphorically.

This document is in essence a practical working out of the embracing spirituality expressed in Pope Benedict XVI's first encyclical, Deus Caritas Est.

It shows once again a passionate man, this time one who is passionate for unity.

It will be some time before we fully grasp the enormity of its implications and the breadth of its imagination.

For example, is their a hint here of a revised concept of the revolutionary worker priest, banned in France in the 1970s but on which rules were slightly relaxed more recently? A sort of 'New Catholic' worker priest? Because how will these Ordinariates be paid for? The Holy See cannot afford to finance them. With the ongoing financial issues besetting the Church Commissioners, many Anglican priests have been financed by their congregations for nearly a decade, especially in London where the majority of defections are likely to take place. So this arrangement can just continue under the banner of Rome instead of Cantuar. And where there is no congregation going with him to pay for him, the cleric can get a job. Many Anglicans already do this, in any case.

The document explicitly makes provision for ex-Anglican clergy to have secular careers that are compatible with their ministry, solving at a stroke the problem of providing income for priest, wife and family. Brilliant or what?

This leaves the delicate problem of where these congregations will worship. Many are already talking of local ecumenical sharing agreements. In other words, congregations would divide into two - but still use the one church. Would the Church of England be generous about that? After all, the requests to The Episcopal Church for generosity in the case of its own departing flocks, and with all the local ecumenical projects embracing everything from Methodist to Orthodox up and down the land, it would look a tad hypocritical if dioceses began expelling priests and congregations whose only crime was to espouse the 'One Holy Catholic Apostolic Faith' in deed as well as Word.

Among the first to comment on the Apostolic Constitution was Bishop of Guildford Christopher Hill, chairman of the Church of England's Council for Christian Unity. He said:  'It will now be for those who have requested and at this point feel impelled to seek full communion with the Roman Catholic Church to study the Apostolic Constitution carefully in the near future and to consider their options. The Vatican response to certain requests from individuals and groups across the world does not deflect us from either the continuing mission of the Church of England in its parishes and dioceses throughout the land, or its longstanding commitment to seeking the unity of all the Churches, including the Roman Catholic Church.'

Soon after followed a message to the 1,000 or so members of Forward in Faith, who constitute those most  likely within the Church of England to go. (The Traditional Anglican Communion in the UK has already indicated it will join the Ordinariate, largely a response in any case to repeated requests from its leader in Australia, Archbishop John Hepworth.)

Father John Broadhurst said: 'I had thought the original notice from Rome was extremely generous. Today all the accompanying papers have been published and they are extremely impressive. I have been horrified that the Church of England while trying to accommodate us has consistently said we cannot have the jurisdiction and independent life that most of us feel we need to continue on our Christian pilgrimage.

'What Rome has done is offer exactly what the Church of England has refused. Indeed it has offered the requests of "Consecrated Women" with the completion of its ecumenical hopes. We all need now to ask the question 'is this what we want?' For some of us I suspect our bluff is called! This is both an exciting and dangerous time for Christianity in this country. Those who take up this offer will need to enter into negotiation with the Church of England about access to parish churches and many other matters.

'This situation must not be used to damage the Church of England but I do believe we have a valid claim on our own heritage in history. The doctrinal standard demanded by Rome is the New Catechism which most of us use any way. We would be allowed to use Anglican or Roman rites and our ordinaries would have jurisdiction. We will all need to meet and talk. I would hope that this could take place in collaboration with the PEVs [flying bishops] and other Catholic bishops. It is not my style to give a expansive analysis of a document that I have only received today nor will I answer the question "What are you going to do?" That is something we need to work our together.'

Article 11 §1. A married former Anglican Bishop is eligible to be appointed Ordinary. In such a case he is to be ordained a priest in the Catholic Church and then exercises pastoral and sacramental ministry within the Ordinariate with full jurisdictional authority. §2. A former Anglican Bishop who belongs to the Ordinariate may be called upon to assist the Ordinary in the administration of the Ordinariate. §3. A former Anglican Bishop who belongs to the Ordinariate may be invited to participate in the meetings of the Bishops’ Conference of the respective territory, with the equivalent status of a retired bishop. §4. A former Anglican Bishop who belongs to the Ordinariate and who has not been ordained as a bishop in the Catholic Church, may request permission from the Holy See to use the insignia of the episcopal office.

Comments

[Australian Anglican]

In the Antipodes we are all waiting to see what this will mean for "Archbishop" Hepworth.
We suspect that the highly questionable claim that the TAC has 400000 members is part of what has seduced the Vatican into this highly questionable move. If they actually believe Hepworth's preposterous numerical claim of 400K, how will they possibly say no to him retaining his episcopate.
Even though he is:
1. An ex RC priest
2. Either a person who is divorced or who at best has annulled his own first marriage
3. A person who many regard in his diocese of origin as having many questions to answer about a wide range of matters while he was priest.
Surely the Vatican knows this!!!

[ARLS]

@JHN: presumably, +Fulham will be able to join confidently the Ordinariate (at least as a lay member), by joining as a family member (assuming the rest of his family wants to do so).

Archbishop Hepworth would seem to be disbarred as serving even as priest, as he is a former catholic priest, divorced, and remarried.

The Bishops of Ebbsfleet, Richborough, Beverley, would, presumably fail to be considered for episcopacy in the ordinariate as they are all married (they could apply to use their episcopal insignia of course, but, unless reordained as mere priests, not even allowed to say mass).

Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali, an ex Roman Catholic, would not be allowed to be a member of the ordinariate (assuming he was baptised in the Roman church).

So which current anglo-catholic traditionalist/FiF Church of England bishops will the new apostolic constitution allow as candidates for eventual episcopal ordination (once reordained as priests)? Perhaps I have missed a couple out of the lists above.

This is why I said in an earlier post here that there will need to be a lot or unusual Roman leeway to allow these bishops to be episcopally ordained in the ordinariate. And, presumably, why Rome allows for priests to act as Ordinary.

[David Cohen]

"Tremendous day"

Ruth, are you thinking of joining the Ordinariate?

[jhn]

Wayne

The official documents published by the Vatican include the following:

Article 5

§1. The lay faithful originally of the Anglican tradition who wish to belong to the Ordinariate, after having made their Profession of Faith and received the Sacraments of Initiation, with due regard for Canon 845, are to be entered in the apposite register of the Ordinariate. Those baptized previously as Catholics outside the Ordinariate are not ordinarily eligible for membership, unless they are members of a family belonging to the Ordinariate.

(my emphases)

This seems to rule out +Fulham from joining even as a lay member.

[delilah]

"In the case of married ministers, the norms established in the Encyclical Letter of Pope Paul VI Sacerdotalis coelibatus, n. 4215 and in the Statement In June16 are to be observed."

Ruth, what are these norms? Does it merely boil down to a ban on divorce and divorcees, or is there more?

I have been impressed by the joint nature of Orthodox married ministry; which imposes pastoral and sacramental rights and duties (and requisite training and sacramental support) on the priest's wife as well as the priest. Some of these relate to sexual relations, for the same reasons that drove the Catholic church to universal celibacy in the priesthood; others relate to the life of the family and rearing of children while still ministering to the parish - another conflict which drove the Catholic church to impose celibacy, and which is an ongoing problem in Anglican ministry.

In fact, it would be nice if the reporting on the issue of married clergy could concentrate less on sex and the concerns of the priest partner, and more on the fact that married ministry is (whether spouses like it or not) a joint one.

(rg writes: i think the full text of the norms can be found on the vatican website via the link in the original blog post here.)

[jhn]

The Bishop of Fulham was baptised as a Roman Catholic. Having "abandoned" the RC Church, he may find that this is a canonical impediment to reordination.

[Wayne]

Since when was +Fulham a Roman Catholic??

[Recusant]

Ruth, I think you need to have a word with your sub editors, because your article in the newspaper on the same subject is headlined:

'Vatican holds line on celibacy for Anglican rebels'

That headline and the one on your blog can't both be right.

[ARLS]

I did, of course, mean to say in the last paragaraph of my earlier posting: "small groups of conscientiously catholic-minded former Anglicans"

I hope the traditionalists stay in the C of E. The catholic wing of the C of E is responsible for most of this church's sense of spirituality and liturgical beauty - should the traditionalists depart, any balance between liberal and traditionalist catholics will be destroyed - each side needs the other to keep increasingly extreme and intemperate utterances in check.

[AndrewBourne]

I am not sure if you are correct about the Ordinary rg as this person being appointed by the Supreme Ordinary of the Latin Church will have to be also an Ordinary in the Latin Church as far as I have read the document. As for Liturgies they will probably want to use the Extraordinary Mass using Latin !

[Peter Palladas]

@Sara K - I heartily endorse your concerns. Cradle Catholics can be appallingly snobby about individual converts (this I know), so how they will respond to any 'job lot' transfers is deeply open to question.

Arrived 'Full in the panting heart of Rome'? The tourists may believe it so, but I doubt the natives will agree. Condescension unto the third generation would be nearer the mark.

[ARLS]

Seems to me like the devil is in the detail.

Article 5.1: "...Those baptized previously as Catholics outside the Ordinariate are not ordinarily eligible for membership, unless they are members of a family belonging to the Ordinariate."

Does this mean that Anglican bishops who were baptised as Roman Catholics will not be eligible for membership (let alone priesthood)? Is Rome going to check the baptism details of everyone joining? Surely people will just lie about this inconvenient detail?

And will those "former Anglican bishops" seeking permission to use their episcopal insignia have - at least - to be reordained as priests?

Presumably people like Mgrs Graham Leonard and John Klyberg would not be admitted to the ordinariate, as current Latin-rite catholics (regardless of their provenance) are clearly excluded.

It looks to me as if there are more reasons not to admit some current anglican bishops into the ordinariate than reasons to do so. I see much opportunity for some right Roman fudges here.

I still see this as something that will appeal more to outfits such as TAC which are no longer canonically Anglican, small conscientiously catholic-minded former Anglicans (many of which have been using the Latin rite for years - so why would they now want to start using Anglican rites again). Our traditionalists are much more personally liberal then they make out - accepting Roman obedience might be rather too much for some...

[Christopher]

I think Thirsty Gargoyle is theoretically correct that one of the Anglican ordinaries could be made a cardinal in that until Vatican II cardinals were not necessarily bishops. Originally clergy of the diocese of Rome and thus electors of the Bishop of Rome, the role of cardinal became titular and world-wide to reflect the growing power of the Roman Church.

Newman was a priest not a bishop and I understand Cardinal Richelieu was in minor orders. Again, theoretically, any baptised man could be elected pope. He would be ordained fairly quickly as Bishop of Rome but his authority would stem from his election.

(rg writes: I used to enjoy many years ago writing about the appointments of minor canons at the Anglican St Paul's in London, where they were and possibly still are called cardinals, meaning 'hinge'. Could these new RC ex-Anglican cardinals be the Benedict-ine hinge by which the door to true unity swings open?)

[Robin Usher]

"Bishop (not Father) Broadhurst" "Um, Ruth. "Father" John Broadhurst is a Bishop."

I call my bishop 'Father' - so does my licence!

(rg adds: I used to call Father Basil Father Basil, I call Father Cormac Father Cormac and try and remember to call Father Vin Father Vin but keep calling him Vin by mistake because I've known him such a long time. I call Father Broadhurst Father Broadhurst on the telephone. In the copy, I would normally use 'Bishop' but in this case, Father Broadhurst was a deliberate nod to the 'narrative' of the story.)

[Thirsty Gargoyle]

Vladimir, I'm not sure you should be pulling Ruth up on her ecclesiology here. I'm rather puzzled by your statement that 'sacramentally they will not be bishops,' given that there is no sacrament of episcopacy; the episcopacy is simply the fullest expression of the priesthood.

I can't help but wonder whether one of these bishops in-practice-but-not-in-theory could eventually become a cardinal. It strikes me as very possible. After all, that's not a sacerdotal position, and there is precedent for abbots and priests who are not bishops to hold that position.

I'm not sure it's fair to contrast this unfavourably with how things were handled in the 1990s with those Anglicans who became Catholics, either. There's nothing to stop any Anglican who wants to become a conventional Catholic, rather than a member of Anglo-Catholic ordinariate, from doing so. There's no obligation for Anglicans who wish to come aboard to do so as part of an ordinariate, after all; the Church is simply giving them that option.

[James]

Yes, we're all bored by 'holy' folk who dislike women and homosexuals.

[cp36]

>>I can not imagine that there will be very many in the Church of England for whom this news makes any difference at all.

Hope so, but it seems the Global South is highly excited now and believes the Anglican Covenant, whatever that is, will solve all the problems in the Anglican Communion and must be implemented as soon as possible.

Cheers

[Sara Kowalska]

Much as I hate to dampen anyone's hopes, it would be well worth considering what has been the fate of other special-rite groups admitted to the Catholic Church over the centuries, such as Ukrainian Greek Catholics. Their experiences have been universally negative - shunned by their former co-religionists on on side, and not fully accepted or respected by Catholics on the other. I would advise Anglicans considering taking up the offer to reflect very carefully - not just about about what is being offered and proposed today, but about how it will develop and pan out in future.

[Tim Chesterton]

Ruth, your analysis of this situation is very UK-centred. This is obvious in the following comment:

'With the ongoing financial issues besetting the Church Commissioners, many Anglican priests have been financed by their congregations for nearly a decade, especially in London where the majority of defections are likely to take place.'

The vast majority of Anglican priests in the world have been financed by their congregations for much longer than a decade. Most of us have never had anything remotely resembling the Church Commissioners to fall back on.

[iain rae]

May I recommend all Anglicans with their toes in the "holy water" to watch (you tube)the recent Hitchens/ Fry debate with Widdicombe,where the Catholic Church are demolished for their homophobic immoral views.

[Christopher]

Robin Usher's point is interesting but not in any way a new departure. Mitres and other pontificalia can be used by certain abbots, who are not in bishop's orders. Nevertheless within the jurisdiction of their abbeys they exercise an episcopal-type authority (they carry the crozier facing back to symbolise this limitation on their authority), even ordaining monks to the minor orders when they were in existence. This is the nearest parallel to an ordinariate. It is a long way off from a married episcopate, so "Married Bishops in all but Name" is a somewhat misleading headline, perhaps reflecting wishful thinking on the part of some bishops, Ruth. Surely if any one was going to be ordained a married bishop it would have been Fr Graham Leonard, one time Bishop of London?

(rg writes: my thought exactly. I called him yesterday for his response and was saddened to discover he has had a stroke recently and is in hospital.)

[Trygentius]

Broadhurst was originally a cradle (Roman) Catholic, as was Nazir-Ali. Do the new arrangements have anything to say about apostasy ???

[Jeremy Hummerstone]

John writes, "Deckchair-rearranging on the Titanic springs to mind".

Gosh, John, what a mind you must have if that is the sort of thing that springs to it!

[PhilipH]

I think this is wonderful news for the dissident Anglicans, and they will be made very welcome in the RC Church. I made the move from Anglican to RC church in the 1990s and have never regretted it.

[Andrew, Venezuela]

On first reading, it seems there are parts of the "Apostolic Constitution" which appear to be extraordinarily accomodating under the circumstances. It will remain for those who are tempted to jump in head first to make a conscientious analysis of the situation, including the 'small print', before making a final decision. There has always been plenty of room for "coming and going" between the two denominations concerned, and the 2 "crossed keys" symbols can always be understood as meaning one key to let you in, and the other key to let you out, all in accordance with a very personal decision by each individual. It will be fascinating to hear more about this generous offer, once some further details have emerged as to its coverage and workability, and after the initial preening process has concluded.

Andrew, Venezuela

[Robert Ian Williams]

As for the Traditional Anglican Communion in England , I doubt whether they have numbers in three figures..as for working for their living... most will not want that!

[Robert Ian Williams]

As a Fornmer Catholic, Broadhurst could not be ordained under the provision. So, Ruth , forget about him.

(RG writes: Broadhurst was never ordained an RC priest, so I think he would be allowed to be now.)

[Bonaventure]

I am getting fed up with Press comments about "Anglicans who don't like women/gay priests/bishops." These issues, though they have a bearing, are not central. For many years, some of us have dreamed and worked for reunion with the Holy See. While others have "swum the Tiber" individually, we have believed it better to remain within the CofE to work for a corporate solution. But recent developments in the CofE and America have finally convinced us that we are wasting our time. The CofE simply isn't interested. So a corporate solution for at least some of us is going to be very, very attractive.

[ElizabethR]

"Do Rome and Lambeth realise rational, sane folk are getting the best bellylaugh of the millennia at this tosh?" John

No John, and they actually think that this revelation means something, since they are all in thrall to the notion of subservience. The Holy Gnome and his strange mates must be rocking, whilst the rest of the pantomime publicly debates the arcane non-workings of nothing sensible.

Marsh, for example, drawing attention to the self-serving nature of those in the Dry Club, is concerned about church music and property, a Ninian Smart type of material dimension which he clearly associates with forms of ownership.

These people have had a good run.

[Revd Dr. Edward Baty]

Ruth,

Isn't this roughly the template for provision General Synod ought to make?

Reading the document carefully indicates many pitfalls for those who move over to the Roman fold however much goodwill there may be shown on either side.

Ted Baty

It may not be as easy or comfortable as it looks!

[Peter Ould]

Um, Ruth. "Father" John Broadhurst is a Bishop. Of Fulham. Just thought I'd point it out. Must be those devils in Church House getting in the works...

[Alan Marsh]

I realise it's all very exciting for journalists, but for Anglicans the offer amounts to very little that is new - the RC Church has been receiving and reordaining married Anglican priests for many years.

I can not imagine that there will be very many in the Church of England for whom this news makes any difference at all.

Bishop (not Father) Broadhurst can be counted on to welcome the statement as can a small number of priests nearing retirement. But are there many clergy remaining who did not leave in 1993, who are likely to follow suit? I think not.

Even more problematic is the irrelevance of the offer to lay people. We all know people who have been divorced and remarried, and the Church of England thankfully does not excommunicate them. They will not be in any hurry to embrace a life without Communion as Roman Catholics, or to adopt Humanae Vitae (which of course most RCs cheerfully ignore).

Most important of all for many of us who cherish our churches and church music, the Church of England has already indicated that it will not be transferring any property to another denomination. We can not take our "Anglican patrimony" with us, and I hope that the very fine priests who minister to us in the Church of England will not leave us.

[David]

I wonder,
1. What will happen to the congregations while their ex priests are being re-trained. Who will look after them?
2. What will happen to the buildings?
3. What will the priests who are unsuited to any sort of secular work do, and those in the country and those in areas of high unemployment?

[Ernest]

I agree that this is a momentous moment for those, who have embraced the Pope's initiative.

I am sure that all in the CofE will wish well, those who feel the need to take up this offer.

Difficult times ahead, but in the spirit of generosity needed from all sides, I believe that if legal difficulties can be overcome, Church Sharing is a possible option for the new Parishes to be created under the initiative.

[Victor]

Ruth,
I think you (and Damian before you) misinterpreted Article 11 §3, which deals with former Anglican Bishops belonging to the Ordinariate - not heading it as the Ordinary. As I understand it, the Ordinaries are members of the Bishops' Conference anyway, but even those former Anglican Bishops who, while having converted, do not exercise the office of an Ordinary may still sit in the Bishops' Conference "with the equivalent status of a retired bishop." Read like this, the Constitution is even more generous.

[Lewis Winders]

And the nett benefit of all this to the starving, oppressed and diseased peoples of the world will be......? How come Christ never mentioned the rules for Catholics wishing to convert to Anglicanism, and vice versa? For that matter, how come he never mentioned Catholicism or Anglicanism at all? If the distinction was irrelevant to him, why is it supposed to be important to us?

[Vladimir Nikiforov]

Ruth,
It's difficult to agree with your undestanding of "Bishops in all but Name". Sacramentally they will not be bishops, i.e. they will not be able to ordain priests even if they can have episcopal administrative powers. Meaning they can never have positions of proper authority in the Vatican.
Catholics? yes... of a kind. For example, only former Anglicans and their children can belong to those ordinaries or indeed be admitted to the Anglo-Catholc seminaries. Latin rite priests cannot excersise ministry in the Anglo-Catholic parishes. And so on. Catholicism behind a glass wall. It's very different from the mid-1990s response to the influx of dissatisfied Anglicans. Those became simply full size Roman Catholics, without restrictions or qualifications.

[John]

"Heady stuff indeed - and I mean that theologically and metaphorically."

Yawwwwwwwwwwwn! Deckchair-rearranging on the Titanic springs to mind.

I wonder if Rowan Williams still thinks the Vatican bigot-rustler's intentions are neither aggressive nor threatening?

Interesting too that the Anglican deserters have a list of what they will be "allowed" to do and I daresay a much longer list about doing just as His Popeness tells them.

Do Rome and Lambeth realise rational, sane folk are getting the best bellylaugh of the millennia at this tosh?

[Sean]

I suspect that the liturgical book that will be used on an interim basis already exists: http://www.atonementonline.com/bodw.php.

My reading of Article 6(2) of the Complementary Norms was that former Catholic priests who became Anglicans and married and now return will be allowed to be members of the Ordinariate, they just won't be entitled to act as priests. After all, if I remember rightly that class includes John Hepworth himself.

[SJM]

I hope that the same provision will be made available to ordained roman catholic priests who may wish to have a break from the grind of parochial ministry and take on the slightly more flexible role of a worker priest. Let's hope that what Rome has generously provided for Anglican clergy will also be made available to those catholic priests who wish to explore different dimensions of their ministry.

[Robin Usher]

Ruth, I think Article 11 (§4. A former Anglican Bishop who belongs to the Ordinariate and who has not been ordained as a bishop in the Catholic Church, may request permission from the Holy See to use the insignia of the episcopal office.) may allow the 'bishop' to use the 'insignia' (mitre, ring, pectoral cross, and pastoral staff) rather than the 'seal'.

(rg writes: good point of course, i will amend.)

[Andrew Bourne]

Ruth I believe from reading the document that the Ordinary for the group coming into Communion with Rome may still need to be a Latin Rite Ordinary article IV. Another point is that the liturgical rites, books etc. need approval by the Holy See at present I am not sure if any Anglican liturgical documents are approved save for the rites of Initiation.

(rg comments: it explicitly states: 'A married former Anglican bishop is eligible to be appointed Ordinary.' You are right about liturgies - they will have fun amending some of the articles in the BCP!)

[Fr. Graeme Buttery SSC]

Ruth,
while there is nothing in the constitution to frighten the horses, from an anglo-catholic point of view, there are still many questions to answer - not least time scale, resourcing etc. But I am intrigued that you think +-The Bishop of Fulham will head up this ordinariate. It is not for FiF but those anglicans who wish it. In England this will include the few TAC parishes, won't it? at least they are an organised body - the Fif contingent ar not so organise ( not yet any way). Perhaps TAC people want a say in their new ordinary?
The onus is now on three sets of people. Firstly the RC bishops of England and Wales - they have joint oversight and will be asked to povide resources. Secondly, FiF ( shorthand I know) has to respond and be organised if it wants this. Thirdly the Church oif England itself has to respond. Does it still want people like me?

Fr. Graeme Buttery SSC