The "Generosity" of Pope Benedict XVI

Pope Benedict XVI has opened the door of the Roman Catholic Church to those in the Anglican Communion (which includes the Episcopal Church in the US, the Church of England, and others) who are disaffected over issues of ordaining gays and women, same-sex marriage, etc. He has even said that these disaffected Anglicans, including married priests, can form their own congregations under the aegis of the Catholic Church and go on as if nothing had happened. Oh -- married clergy can’t become Catholic Bishops, but that’s probably unlikely even for unmarried clergy. (Presumably, given the issues involved, they won’t have to deal with what to do with female Anglican Priests, but it would be fun if they did.)

On the face of it, this sounds good – the Pope is willing to have the Catholic Church be a “big tent” to take in those who feel disenfranchised by the progressive views of, particularly, the Episcopal Church in the US. But this is the same Pope who, thus far in his short reign, has on numerous occasions emphasized that while the Roman Catholic Church is willing to co-exist with other Christian denominations, his commitment that the Catholic way is the only right way is unwavering. So why would he not only reach out to disaffected Anglicans, but even tacitly endorse one of the practices that most distinguishes the two churches, that of allowing clergy to marry?

OK -- time out for a credentials check. I’m a Jew who is married to an Episcopalian and who teaches and writes with my close friend Jim Beebe, an Episcopal Priest. I’ve made an avocational study of how the first century Jewish group called “followers of the way” came to be a new religion called Christianity and how that new religion and its mother religion came to be persecutor and victim, respectively. We are currently working on a book on this subject. None of that makes me an expert on Catholicism, Anglicanism, or much of anything, but I’ve probably studied more about the two (plus Judaism) than many, so you can take my views for what you think they’re worth.

So to the question I raised at the end of the second paragraph. I think the answer is simple -- the Pope’s move seems to me transparently calculated to sow dissension in the Anglican Communion and to further polarize it. The leaders in the Anglican debate are the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, who has taken on the role of trying to resolve it for the benefit of the worldwide Communion, the Presiding Bishop of the United States, Katherine Jefferts Schori, and a number of Anglican Bishops in the US and particularly in Africa. Beginning in the 2008 Lambeth Conference (an every 10 years conference of bishops convened by the Archbishop of Canterbury -- 2008 had 800 bishops in attendance and was boycotted by a number of the aforementioned conservative bishops), Williams began to take steps toward finding a solution.

I don’t know if a solution can be found. Even if we take the case that the two sides of the Anglican debate are both people of good faith, the polarization is so great that it seems unlikely. Add to that that, in my opinion, the conservative position smells suspiciously of homophobia and sexism cloaked in dubious scripture, and it makes it even less likely. But one of the principles of negotiation is that the more difficult and polarized the parties are, the more you need to cut off alternatives to a solution. If Williams can appeal to both sides as Anglicans and to their commitment to the integrity of the Anglican Communion, he at least has a chance of starting with something both sides can agree on. If the Conservatives in the debate have a place to go and leave the Communion, the chances diminish.

But back to the Pope -- why would he do this? Well, maybe, just maybe, he gets two benefits from it -- he undermines the integrity of the Anglican Communion and possibly he has a place to move from to bring these disaffected Anglicans gradually into the arms of the Roman Catholic Church.

In our book, Jim Beebe and I take the view that the institutionalization of Jesus’ teachings in dogma and church politics has distorted those teachings beyond recognition. I can’t help but find the Pope’s “generous” gesture suspect in its piety and more likely to be cynically political.

 

Follow Ed Gurowitz, Ph.D. on Twitter: www.twitter.com/egurowitz

Comments

[LifeChangeStartsNow]

Ed Gurowitz, I love your mind my man. I haven't seen some "real" talk as you have laid out about the catholic church in a long time. And I completely agree with you, They are and have always been about politics in order to maintain the status quo and most importantly, their power base. Pope Benedict's gesture is blatantly transparent and unfortunately, far too many are going to fall for the illusory hand of "peace".

[Ed Gurowitz, Ph.D. - Huffpost Blogger]

Thanks, LifeChange­StartsNow. I appreciate your kind words.

[SonofLiberty1]

The Ёcumenical movement has been going on for years. What our current Pope just did was to bring all the hopes of the years into fruition.

That's another fact that you should know, obviously you didn't.

[Ed Gurowitz, Ph.D. - Huffpost Blogger]

Dear SonofLiberty1,

Help me understand how raiding another denomination's disaffected people is ecumenical? It seems competitive to me. So if my local coffee shop has a bad run of beans and Starbuck's advertises that people who are unhappy there should come to Starbuck's, that's ecumenical, right. You seem pretty sure about what I "should" know. I'm fascinated by that in that it seems that everything I "should" know are not matters of fact, but of opinion and interpretation on which you and I don't agree.

[Ivriniel]

I have to disagree. What Benedict did here was not ecumenicalism, it was a cynical attempt to raid another church for adherents.

I can't imagine that this is going to help the reconciliation talks between the Anglican Union and the Roman Catholic Church.

[Ed Gurowitz, Ph.D. - Huffpost Blogger]

Ivriniel,

I agree with you - makes one question the good faith (no pun intended) in the reconcilation talks.

Ed

[Social Construct]

I have nothing of relevance to add, as I am deficient in knowing the ways of either church. However, as more of a moral relativist than not, and knowing how much that philosophy is publicly censured by the current conduit to god within the Catholic faith, I'll side with the author and agree it's more of a political decision. Yet, no matter which way we choose to deny it, aren't we political animals at the core?

[Ed Gurowitz, Ph.D. - Huffpost Blogger]

Dear Social Construct,

My point exactly - if the Pope wants to be political, that's fine. In my view his position as a head of state, whatever else it might be within the Church, is manifestly political. My objection is that, as a political move, it seems like a rather underhanded one and I'd object to it if Obama or Putin did something similar. Politics is as subject to ethical rules as anything else, even if that obligation is honored more in the breach than in the observance.

Thanks for your support.

[Social Construct]

Dr. Gurowitz:

Indeed, sir, while political ethics has become somewhat of an oxymoron, I am again in agreement with you on that subject. An informed and mindful citizenry is essential to keep the corruption that accompanies power in check.

[FloresdelaHoz]

Anglicans are and will always be most welcome into the Catholic Church.

[Ed Gurowitz, Ph.D. - Huffpost Blogger]

Thanks, FloresdelaHoz, but that's not the point - the Pope specifically reached out to Anglicans who are disaffected over issues that have homophobia and sexism at their root, and that could make it much less likely that those issues will get resolved.

[FloresdelaHoz]

There is no homophobia in the Church. The pedophile scandal made clear to most "Practicing" Catholics that we need more heterosexual men in the priesthood. That may require the end of the celibacy restrictions so that we can have married men as priest. As to women priest, we practicing Catholics would be happy with women being deacons.

[ddeldude]

Ed,

While you may well have mastery over the history of the Anglican Church, I sincerely hope, unlike the mass media, that your investigations are fair and balanced towards the present. The Anglican Church, based on its history as an Anglo political offshoot of the Catholic Church is nearing bankruptcy, proof that the integration of Church and State is destined to fail.

There are now more Catholics in England (not Great Britain) than there are Anglicans. The conversion is not just priests, but everyday people looking for a stronger spiritual life. Around the world there have been discussions between Anglican and Catholic dioceses of mergers... because the Anglican Church is on it decline.

Perhaps the real issue is that the loss of America as a nation, replaced by the United States of Democrats and Republicans, wishes to look for other worldly examples of liberalism at one end of the spectrum, and neo-conservatism at the other... with the truth somewhere in between.

[Ed Gurowitz, Ph.D. - Huffpost Blogger]

Dear Dave,

I know the facts you cite are true, but I don't think they're relevant to my posting. The Anglican Communion is way beyond the Church of England - including the large number of Episcopals in the US, where the church is far from in decline. No, the issue is, in fact, political. The schism in the Anglican Communion is over a political issue - ordination of gay bishops (not priests - figure that one out) and ordination of women as bishops. As you know, I have made a study of what Jesus can reasonably be thought to have actually said, and I can find no basis for this exclusion other than politics. My point is that by doing what he did, the Pope (and I don't consider that the same as saying the Catholic Church) made it less likely that the schism will be healed, and I believe that this very political pope did this for very political reasons.

Ed

[ddeldude]

Ed,

While I will never disagree (entirely) with the master, and do take your point, perhaps the "Pope's politics" is more in the eye of the beholder?

For those who deeply engaged in the Anglican schism, one's emotions are mired in its politics, and see the issue as deeply political. I agree with you entirely that the words of Jesus do not provide a basis for exclusion... at one level.

On a higher plane, layers of context if you will :-), Jesus loves everyone equally... those who deep in the schism, on both sides, he loves you and loves the Pope. We are all called to rise above our own views, and to act as Jesus would. When you choose to judge the Holy Father, is it possible that you have not risen high enough to see the whole situation for what it is?

I give the Pope the benefit of the doubt... as I have read his stance on this and other topics (such as conception, etc.) and his beliefs are founded in a wonderful comprehension of Jesus, his life and its meaning. Actually, for such a rational man, never I have read more love in his words.

[SonofLiberty1]

Dr. Gurowitz,

Gays gay marriage female clergy were never part of Jesus teaching.
Sorry, but bashing Catholics isn't a great thing to do.

All Christians are half Jewish, you should know that.

Jesus, his mother Mary, his Grandmother Anne and foster father Joseph were all Jewish.

[Ed Gurowitz, Ph.D. - Huffpost Blogger]

Dear SonofLiberty1,

Sorry, but you cannot justify being anti-gay, gay marriage, and female clergy by citing an omission in Jesus' teaching. What Jesus actually can be thought to have said (vs. what others said he said) is always loving, inclusive, and reaching out to the despised. You would be hard put to find anything that is exclusionary or condemnatory.

I'm aware that Jesus and his whole family were Jews - don't be condescending - in fact, his brother James was a Jew and founded a church for "followers of the way" as Jews who followed Jesus were called. James' view was that you had to be a Jew to follow Jesus - unfortunately Paul, the self-appointed "apostle to the gentiles" wanted to lower the barriers to entry for non-Jews (that whole circumcision thing among others), and ultimately superseded James' church as Christians later came to consider themselves having superseded Jews as God's chosen people.

Finally, I am not bashing Catholics, I'm bashing the Pope who does not speak for most Catholics on this any more than he does on birth control, abortion, or divorce.

Ed

[JaimeGuitaress]

Hi Ed,

As a (non-practicing) Catholic, I couldn't agree more about how the Pope doe NOT speak for the majority of modern-day Catholics. In fact, upon hearing the news of the Pope's announcement, my first reaction was thinking that this move had less to do with the Angligan church, and more to do with an attempt to 'stack the deck' against more progressive Catholics who have been lobbying for change within the church.

The thing a lot of people don't realize is that in some communitie­s/cultures­, being Catholic has become less a religious stance and more a cultural one. You try being Polish, Italian, Irish, or French-Canadian without being Catholic ;) And because of this, as the generations go on and people become more progressive, they don't leave the church even though their views no longer match - they can't, because it's a part of their family and culture! So they try to work for change, and as the years pass, the numbers seeking change grow larger.

Hence it would really behoove the Vatican to acquire a large number of parishioners who share their more archaic views, wouldn't it?

[TryToBeFlexible]

Of course the pope's moves are a cynical and manipulative effort to forward the fortunes of his "one true religion". Plus, they cynically get to use an unpopular minority as the sacrificial lamb to bring it about. What better way to express god's love of this world and humanity, than to work toward further damaging the lives of an innocent, weak, and harmless minority?

[Ed Gurowitz, Ph.D. - Huffpost Blogger]

Dear TryToBeFlexible,

I love your sense of irony, and of course you're right - they are throwing gays, gay marriage, female clergy, and, in effect, the teachings of Jesus under the bus. How sad for them - I can only see it as a rear-guard action to defend a dying institution.

[CatholicJoe]

Refresh my memory which teaching of Jesus is the Pope throwing under the bus.