A couple of things .....
An article by Fr. James Martin SJ on the pope and the condom issue mentions an article at America magazine from 2000 on condoms ... more than 25 moral theologians have published articles claiming that without undermining church teaching, church leaders do not have to oppose but may support the distribution of prophylactics within an educational program that first underlines church teaching on sexuality. These arguments are made by invoking moral principles like those of “lesser evil,” “cooperation,” “toleration” and “double effect.” By these arguments, moralists around the world now recognize a theological consensus on the legitimacy of various H.I.V. preventive efforts (The Vatican's new insights on condoms for H.I.V. prevention). This may explain why some, including me, are underwhelmed by the pope finally catching up.
And, there's a post at In All Things by Austen Ivereigh on the Church of England Synod and the Covenant - Synod approves Anglican Covenant, but will it work? (for info on the Anglican Communion and the covenant, I'd suggest Thinking Anglicans). For those who haven't been following the issue, basically stated, Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, wants everyone to sign a covenant that defines church doctrine and levels consequences for being "heterodox", but neither the conservatives nor the liberals want the covenant. Mr. Ivereigh writes ....
Although +Rowan Williams wants as many Anglican provinces as possible to sign up to it, he always knew that introducing a more Catholic ecclesiology -- defining boundaries of doctrinal orthodoxy -- would alienate both the conservative evangelicals and the liberal Anglicans. The loss of GAFCON [the extreme conservatives] and the Episcopal Church of North America [liberals] are foreseen, if not intended, consequences of the Covenant process. But the gain lies in a stronger, more unified, and more coherent Anglican Church, even if it will be considerably smaller than now. For Catholics that is good news, because Rome can again have a dialogue partner it can do business with. The good news for Anglicans will be that they can put an end to the endless eviscerating rows over homosexuality. The disagreements won't end, but the hope is that the Covenant will enable them to be contained -- rather than, as now, resulting in provinces declaring themselves out of communion with each other.
I disagree with the statement that the covenant will lead to a more stable Anglican Church, and with the idea that we Catholics should welcome an Anglican shift towards a more Roman Catholic model of governance. What exactly is our interest, as Catholics, in the Anglican Communion? I'd hope it would be that they'd flourish as themselves, but given the way we've stuck our noses into their business, and the way we've undermined their stability, all I can imagine is that we're supposed to be hoping the Anglican Communion will crash and burn and be absorbed by the Catholic Church instead. Is the expression "Catholic ecumenism" just an oxymoron? :(
And, there's a post at In All Things by Austen Ivereigh on the Church of England Synod and the Covenant - Synod approves Anglican Covenant, but will it work? (for info on the Anglican Communion and the covenant, I'd suggest Thinking Anglicans). For those who haven't been following the issue, basically stated, Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, wants everyone to sign a covenant that defines church doctrine and levels consequences for being "heterodox", but neither the conservatives nor the liberals want the covenant. Mr. Ivereigh writes ....
Although +Rowan Williams wants as many Anglican provinces as possible to sign up to it, he always knew that introducing a more Catholic ecclesiology -- defining boundaries of doctrinal orthodoxy -- would alienate both the conservative evangelicals and the liberal Anglicans. The loss of GAFCON [the extreme conservatives] and the Episcopal Church of North America [liberals] are foreseen, if not intended, consequences of the Covenant process. But the gain lies in a stronger, more unified, and more coherent Anglican Church, even if it will be considerably smaller than now. For Catholics that is good news, because Rome can again have a dialogue partner it can do business with. The good news for Anglicans will be that they can put an end to the endless eviscerating rows over homosexuality. The disagreements won't end, but the hope is that the Covenant will enable them to be contained -- rather than, as now, resulting in provinces declaring themselves out of communion with each other.
I disagree with the statement that the covenant will lead to a more stable Anglican Church, and with the idea that we Catholics should welcome an Anglican shift towards a more Roman Catholic model of governance. What exactly is our interest, as Catholics, in the Anglican Communion? I'd hope it would be that they'd flourish as themselves, but given the way we've stuck our noses into their business, and the way we've undermined their stability, all I can imagine is that we're supposed to be hoping the Anglican Communion will crash and burn and be absorbed by the Catholic Church instead. Is the expression "Catholic ecumenism" just an oxymoron? :(
posted by crystal | 8:21 PM
1 Comments:
Thoroughly enjoyed the Fulcrum article, thank you! You've given me some good stuff to research.
Post a Comment
<< Home