++Justin offers a masterful review of state of Communion in his Presidential Address to the current session of the English General Synod (here, also here). The following points stand out for me (within which I have emboldened some words):
"First of all, and this needs to be heard very clearly, the Anglican Communion exists and is flourishing in roughly 165 countries. There has been comment over the last year that issues around the Communion should not trouble us in the Church of England because the Communion has for all practical purposes ceased to exist. Not only does it exist, but almost everywhere (there are some exceptions) the links to the See of Canterbury, notwithstanding its Archbishop, are profoundly valued. The question as to its existence is therefore about what it will look like in the future. "
"Secondly, Anglicanism is incredibly diverse. ...
At the same time there is a profound unity in many ways. Not in all ways, but having said what I have about diversity, which includes diversity on all sorts of matters including sexuality, marriage and its nature, the use of money, the relations between men and women, the environment, war and peace, distribution of wealth and food, and a million other things, underpinning us is a unity imposed by the Spirit of God on those who name Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour. This diversity is both gift and challenge, to be accepted and embraced, as we seek to witness in truth and love to the good news of Jesus Christ."
"Thirdly, the potential of the Communion under God is beyond anything we can imagine or think about. We need to hold on to that, there is a prize, the quest for which it is worth almost anything to achieve. The prize is visible unity in Christ despite functional diversity. It is a prize that is not only of infinite value, but also requires enormous sacrifice and struggle to achieve. Yet if we even get near it we can speak with authority to a world ..."
"Our divisions may be too much to manage."
"In many parts of the Communion, including here, there is a belief that opponents are either faithless to the tradition, or by contrast that they are cruel, judgemental, inhuman. I have to say that we are in a state so delicate that without prayer and repentance, it is hard to see how we can avoid some serious fractures."
"the future of the Communion requires sacrifice. The biggest sacrifice is that we cannot only work with those we like, and hang out with those whose views are also ours. Groups of like-minded individuals meeting to support and encourage each other may be necessary, indeed often are very necessary, but they are never sufficient. Sufficiency is in loving those with whom we disagree. What may be necessary in the way of party politics, is not sufficient in what might be called the polity of the Church."
After noting that no Primates' Meeting will be called unless the majority of Primates think that should happen, and there will be no Lambeth Conference if the Primates do not think that should happen, ++Justin observes,
"The key general point to be established is how the Anglican Communion is led, and what its vision is in the 21st century, in a post-colonial world? How do we reflect the fact that the majority of its members are in the Global South, what is the role of the Instruments of Communion, especially the Archbishop of Canterbury, and what does that look like in lived out practice? These are great decisions, that must be taken to support the ongoing and uninterrupted work of ministering to a world in great need and in great conflict. Whatever the answer, it is likely to be very different from the past."
++Justin is brutally honest here. Realistic, hopeful, yet cannot see how the broken unity (or visible disunity) can be repaired without considerable sacrifice. Are you and I willing to make it?
49 comments:
Justin ++ challenge and frankness in speech offers us a part in deciding where we stand and what path is chosen.
While he notes the dis-unity his emphasis is on the possibilities of the potential of a Communion under God as being beyond anything we can think or imagine.
I would choose to not let this possibility go easily but fight the good fight to keep it insofar as one can.
While the Anglican Communion is only one part of the body of Christ, is a part we wish to keep?
I, for one, Peter, am not only willing to live with our Communion broken-ness - I have no other option. I did not, however, move out of the Communion provenance. I await the return of those who have left.
I am fully aware of the prayer of Jesus: "That ALL may be One". That is my own prayer, too.
What must be remembered here is that none of us is whole. Our wholeness lies on the redemption of Jesus Christ.
If there is " ... diversity on all sorts of matters including sexuality, marriage and its nature, the use of money, the relations between men and women, the environment, war and peace, distribution of wealth and food, and a million other things" then how can you "witness in truth and love to the good news of Jesus Christ"?
Surely there is only one Truth and its the Church's role to discern this?
Hi Jack
It is the church's role to discern the truth but God has not guaranteed that we will always discern truth in its singularity. There has always been room, even in the revelation of God in Scripture for diversity.
To take one issue only: are Christians, everyone of us, called to give up all material possessions?
I am not aware that the church has ever agreed on the answer to that question and that has something to do with the variety of answers given in Scripture itself.
The big temptation for Archbishop Justin - in his quest for reconciliation between the Provinces of our Communion - might be for him to agree to GAFCON's own agenda as a pre-requisite for a next Lambeth.
For the A.C. to march to the tune of a separatist 'Jerusalem Statement' agenda would be counter-productive to any movement towards justice in the Church for people with 'difference' who are currently shunned by GAFCON.
Hi Peter
Jack agrees there are many areas left open to private judgement according to each person's gifts and calling in life. However, other issues are not so easily open to private judgement.
Issues such as "sexuality, marriage and its nature, the relations between men and women" (and Jack would include contraception and abortion), for example, cannot simply be categorised under "a million other things".
There either is an objective moral order that encompasses these issues, or there is not. And the Church having taught a certain position for nigh on 2000 years on these issues, cannot now switch its understanding.
There are other critical matters too. The nature of Baptism, the meaning of the life, death and resurrection of Christ, the nature of the atonement, the Eucharistic sacrifice .... Jack could go on.
Jack is not so sure there is "room, even in the revelation of God in Scripture for diversity" on key theological doctrines and moral teachings. How can a Church be in communion and fellowship if it cannot agree and share basic Truths. Jesus founded an earthly Church and gave it "the keys of the kingdom of heaven", with the mandate and responsibility, on His behalf, to: "bind on earth" and to "loose on earth".
Hi Jack
Agreed there are some matters on which we can and should expect unified belief. But you will have observed that Christians debate which are and are not these matters!
In part, speaking historically, the answer Christians have given have varied from the adherence to the decisions of the hierarchical authoritarian universal church (i.e. Rome), to the adherence to the decisions of the universal church via ecumenical councils (i.e. Constantinople), to the adherence to a degree to past decisions but willingness to trust other present and future decisions to national assemblies (i.e. Canterbury), etc.
It does seem to me (without knowing you personally) that the responses you offer here are more aligned with Rome than Constantinople or Canterbury ...
Dear Peter,
I read Archbishop Justin's speech with great interest. He has been careful and methodical in building relationships before taking any significant action communion-wise. It seems from this speech he is keeping the brakes on by devolving power to call the Primates Meeting and any subsequent Lambeth Conference to the Primates themselves.
I certainly welcome his conciliar approach to the Communion and greater involvement of the other Primates. He also has a great gift for setting the right priorities for different issues - getting us to talk about more fundamental issues like using money and caring for persecuted believers rather than the hot-button issues. His call to prayer and repentance is well timed.
My fear is that he has misdiagnosed the depth of the problem. He talks of "functional diversity" and how we differ on areas like sexuality, environment, war etc. He calls for sacrifice on all sides. He suggests unity is more important than advancing our position or view across the church.
Our problem is that we have theological diversity, not just functional diversity. We don't agree on the gospel. We don't hold the same fundamental approach to the Bible as God's word. That is the root cause of the million disagreements we have. Unless we deal with that issue, not one of these million issues will be resolved. And as for sacrifice, the problem is that too many Anglican churches have sacrificed the gospel that is meant to unite us and substituted it for a different gospel. We are not pushing a personal view or opinion, we are fighting to retain the orthodox faith that the Anglican Communion has ascribed to since its founding.
My fear is that Archbishop Justin will spend his term treating symptoms rather than trying to cure the disease. The Anglican Communion has an infection of a false gospel that denies Jesus' Lordship, his salvation and his authority. As good as much of the ongoing ministry across our Communion is, without proper treatment that infection will kill us.
I would be surprised, Andrew, if the ABC has misdiagnosed the depth of the problem. He seems much too much of a realist to do that. But he is working from the point of view that there is disagreement over the content of the true gospel rather than that some parts of the Communion are knowingly pedalling a false gospel.
" The Anglican Communion has an infection of a false gospel that denies Jesus' Lordship, his salvation and his authority. As good as much of the ongoing ministry across our Communion is, without proper treatment that infection will kill us." - Andrew Reid -
A very, very serious allegation, Andrew Reid! I hope you can justify this extreme statement about the ills in our part of the Body of Christ!
As you have issued this challenge, can you tell the rest of us what are your suggestions for the eradication of the symptoms, and the root cause, of the malaise from which you fear we will die?
It would now appear, from the following paragraph from a link on 'Thinking Anglicans' web-site to their latest article on Anglican Unity, that the majority of Anglican male Evangelical clergy (not so the females) in the Church of England are opposed to the Archbishop of Canterbury's desire for a 'Unity in diversity' approach for the future of the Anglican Communion:
Qte: "The typical view of evangelical male clergy is both to oppose gay marriage and not to wish the Church to embrace diverse views. Overall this combination of views is held by about 25% of clergy, the majority of whom are male evangelicals. These are a major block to the Archbishop’s dream of unity in the CofE—- clergy who don’t think it a goal worth pursuing—-especially because so many of them belong to the same clergy “tribe”.
"The good news for Justin Welby is that he doesn’t have to worry about the majority of clergy. They support his goal. The bad news is that his opponents are not likely to change their minds. His success depends on finding a solution – something which eluded his predecessor Rowan Williams."
- Unquote
It would seem, then, from this article, that the prospect of future holding together of the Anglican Churches - both in England and abroad - is being threatened mainly by Evangelical clergy who do not believe in the Archbishop's
plan for 'Unity in diversity'.
This is a sad commentary on the mind-set of a sub-group within the Church that is determined to prevent others from finding common cause for communion - despite the obvious differences that exists between us on matters of gender and sexuality - oh yes, and on biblical interpretation of these matters.
In such a circumstance, one wonders why those who hold such views - based on their view of our incompatibility - insist on holding the rest of us back from our intention to remain together - despite our differences.
After all, does not the high-priestly prayer of Jesus - that ALL might be One - count for something more precious than any personal issue of conscience?
Hi Peter
Jack is referring primarily to matters of morals, not to dogma and doctrines of faith. Surely, as Christians, these are shared and constant whether we hail from Rome, Canterbury or from Constantinople?
And, yes, Jack is a Roman Catholic. Is that a problem here? Another avatar, 'Dodo the Dude', has been retired.
The answer to your question is: an unwillingness within the Anglican Church to accept the exercise of ecclesiastical authority or be bound by the past.
Hi Ron
Jack offers an answer to your question:
The origins of Anglicanism. The 39 Articles and BCP avoid open differences, not a compromise, between Catholicism and Calvinism. Trying to maintain these irreconcilable theologies was always going to be fertile soil for revisionists, modernists and relativists.
It is very tempting, Jack/Dodo to play the amateur psychologist re your speaking about yourself in the third person ...
What morals are agreed by Christians?
Answer: quite a few, but there are significant disagreements (e.g. over war, crime and punishment, economic policy, responses to poverty).
Dear Father Ron,
It is indeed serious. I offer the following evidence:
- Ongoing teaching by numerous bishops and priests across the communion that salvation is not by Christ alone, that the Bible is an authority rather than the final authority, that the resurrection is not an historical event and that there is no final judgment.
- The persecution of and discrimination against orthodox Anglicans across the communion, especially in the former TEC dioceses that went to ACNA and to a lesser extent in places like CofE, Australia and NZ where they are refused for appointments as bishops, theological lecturers and other positions of responsibility.
- The growing acceptance of immoral behaviour clearly prohibited in the Bible: cohabitation, homosexual relationships, abortion and voluntary euthanasia.
In terms of actions, I certainly commend the ABC's efforts to bring about reconciliation. However, where there is continued rejection of orthodox Christian faith, Mt 18 and 1 Cor. 5-6 suggest there needs to be judgment exercised by the wider church (not the courts nor the ABC alone!) which may lead to temporary suspension from fellowship, with the aim of repentance and restoration. In our Communion, this would mean temporary suspension from participation in some Communion activities. It would also mean recognition of and fellowship with faithful Anglicans who left the official church for reasons of conscience.
Peter
Many question Jack's ongoing third person presentation. It's just his little eccentricity, 'tis all. Originally it was used as a deception to hide his identity on another site he was excommunicated from, which was very bad. Now his author finds the discipline of third person useful as it stops him being rude and personal.
As for morals, well let's stick with the God given gift of human sexuality, its intended purpose and its proper expression. Divorce, contraception, same sex attraction and abortion all fall under this ambit, don't you think?
As for war, crime and punishment, economic policy, poverty etc., Jack would see these as being of a different order. They are matters of judgement for the state and actually fall into to temporal sphere. Christians can and should have positions on social and political matters, as should the Church, but these will shift according to circumstances. Hence changes over usury and slavery.
Jack doubts God's intention for the moral expression of sex changes according to the times. Society shifts - not God. Science gives different 'Truths' - not God.
.... oh, and Happy Jack also meant to say Peter that his author hasn't really got a bright yellow face. Occasionally, when the moment suits, he wears a black hat.
*chuckle*
Yes, Jack, those matters fall under "morals" and are notoriously difficult to secure agreement on. Witness the recent Roman Extraordinary synod voting. Not the widespread refusal of Roman Catholics around the world to follow official teaching on contraception. That's before we get to the Protestants and their disagreements ...!
Sticking, as you suggest Jack, with the God given gift of human sexuality, which you do not see as changing according to the times,
do you understand a couple having sex during the menstrual period of the woman, or within the seven days after it has stopped, as being grossly immoral and an absolute abomination to God, and those who practice this that God hates lose their eternal salvation?
Blessings
Bosco
Well, Happy Jack, we're awaiting your verdict with bated breath.
p.s. I'm glad you dropped the dodo as you're pseudonym. She's long gone.
A little off-topic, but as I would probably be classified as a 'lurker' of this and other Anglican websites may I be permitted to welcome Happy Jack. I first came across him on the ArchbishopC. blog. As an Anglican I have obviously not always agreed with what he has to say, but have enjoyed his comments under his various existences - Happy Jack, various Dodos, PeterD and possibly others.
Well, Happy Jack; cat got your tongue?
Liturgy
Personally, Jack cannot see sex as sinful during this time and does not believe the Church forbids it. As for the seven days after it has stopped, why would this be an issue (excuse the pun)? Unlike the Jews, Christianity does not view women as 'unclean' during these times.
No doubt, now you'll try to throw Mosaic Law at Jack and draw a comparison with homosexuality in Leviticus. However, Jesus clearly taught that the only things that make us unclean are sins which proceed from the evil intentions of the heart. No external, physical realities can make us 'unclean' in God's eyes. Sex within a permanent marriage between a man and a woman, open to the possibility of procreation, (i.e. without being interrupted, or the use of artificial means of prevention) are not sinful.
Peter
Once something has been taught by the Church, as the revealed will of God, in matters of morals, it is settled, no matter what later generations may do or believe. Even the Pope himself cannot change this.
Rodney
Why thank you. That was all a long time ago and Happy Jack has reformed and amended his ways. Protestants have had a good influence on him, you see.
Ron Smith
I have not been "dropped", Sir. I have opted for voluntary, early retirement. To my mind, this Happy Jack bloke is way too moderate but we have to let the young 'uns have a go.
And you have insulted me! Take a good look at my avatar. Anyone who knows anything about Dodos can see I am a proud male. There is no confusion about gender and sex in our species. We are as God made us and act accordingly. Occasionally, in the heat of the moment, it has been known for one of us to get confused but the rest soon put us right. We'd become extinct otherwise.
Off back to my sanctuary now.
Dear Jack,
A. Did the Papcy ever change its mind on the morality of keeping slaves?
B. Your own words in reply to Liturgy "condemn" you: the Levitical prohibition re sex/menstruation was precisely designed to ensure sex occurred during maximum fertility in the monthly cycle. Consequently your reply in one part says there is no problem with sex which is not open to procreation and in another part says that sex is only okay within marriage when open to procreation!! Which is the definitive position?
Let’s just recap, Happy Jack.
You hold that there is an objective moral order. So there is no room for diversity of moral teaching in the revelation of God in Scripture. And this moral teaching cannot change.
God clearly taught that a couple having sex during the menstrual period of the woman, or within the seven days after it has stopped, is grossly immoral and an absolute abomination to God. That you see Jesus as altering this teaching to the point of negating God’s previous, clear moral teaching demolishes your point that Christian moral understanding is unchangeable.
As to your suggestion that artificial contraception is contrary to God’s objective moral order, the problem with your approach is that you assume that this is an infallible papal teaching. The issue is: you are fallible. There is no infallible list of infallible teachings. And like the church’s teaching against interest, one day it may very well change.
So many of today’s favourite moral issues may look so dated in the future. And not just dated, but understood to have been wrong.
Blessings
Bosco
Bosco
"Let’s just recap, Happy Jack."
Yes and let's do it honestly, please.
"You hold that there is an objective moral order. So there is no room for diversity of moral teaching in the revelation of God in Scripture. And this moral teaching cannot change."
Truth is Truth and there is an objective moral order that we are capable of understanding through scripture and through reason.
"God clearly taught that a couple having sex during the menstrual period of the woman, or within the seven days after it has stopped, is grossly immoral and an absolute abomination to God."
But why? Because of ritual purification reasons or because of the inherently sinful nature of the act? God's moral laws are not random. Use your reason. What could be objectively evil about such a thing?
"That you see Jesus as altering this teaching to the point of negating God’s previous, clear moral teaching demolishes your point that Christian moral understanding is unchangeable."
Demolishes it? Please! You've not shown it was a moral teaching. Jack contends it was a ritual law - an external discipline not an injunction to avoid something intrinsically disordered. Christians don't have to be ritually circumcised either. Jack hopes someone has informed you of this.
"As to your suggestion that artificial contraception is contrary to God’s objective moral order, the problem with your approach is that you assume that this is an infallible papal teaching. The issue is: you are fallible. There is no infallible list of infallible teachings."
Jack will accept the Magisterium's view about was is and what is not an infallible teaching. It does not depend on him precisely because he is fallible and that's why the Church is there.
There is an infallible teaching on contraception and it represents 2000 years of constant Church teaching. Not everything has to be written down, or be declared at a Councils or stated ex cathedra. This only becomes necessary during times of dispute or doubt, when formal clarification is needed.
"And like the church’s teaching against interest, one day it may very well change."
That's a red herring and Jack keeps hearing this advanced by homosexuals and their supporters. Slavery is actually a touch trickier to answer. However, both are to do with the shifts and changes in political, social and economic situations. Unlike sex which is to do with the relationship between a man and a woman and their duties to raise the next generation. These do not change.
"So many of today’s favourite moral issues may look so dated in the future. And not just dated, but understood to have been wrong."
Possibly. They've lasted for over 2000 years. Then a great falling away from the faith is prophesised too and apostasy too. Who knows what lies ahead.
Peter
Jack has answered the points about slavery and usury and the Mosaic law. As far as artificially preventing contraception - the key word is artificial. NFP is not in and of itself immoral.
Hi Happy Jack
What duty do we have to raise the next generation? Should we raise one more when the world's population is 7 billion and rising?
Why are the shifting sands of economic morality different to the shifting sands of sexual morality? Both concern people and their relationships to one another, do they not? Was not the Levitical law concerned with both?
Prior to NFP what did the Catholic church teach about regulating fertility? If it did not teach regulation of fertility why does it do so now? Where is the distinction between artificial and natural regulation of fertility drawn in the history of theology? Has it been with us since Scripture, or is it a new fangled theological distinction?
Would you say that annulments granted today by the Catholic church follow traditional patterns of granting them? Or have they changed in recent decades? If they have, do they have an intriguing relationship with the rise of divorce and remarriage in modern societies?
Do you think Jesus would approve of annulments as currently granted, many of which have the effect of bastardising children who previously thought they were legitimate?
It is all very really trumpeting the objective nature of morality and with it the triumph of Roman ethics over other more subjective Christian approaches. But a price is paid for doing so. One of which is casuistical approaches to complex human issues. Another is the inability to answer satisfactorily the kinds of questions I raise above. And I still raise the question if NFP is so infallibly right, how come many Catholics globally ignore it and use artificial contraception. I imagine most of them receive the Mass each week without having confessed that sin.
Protestants pay their own prices for their approach to morality. But we each pays our money and takes our pick.
So many questions, Peter.
They suggest confusion to Jack and an absence of certainty in the Church you follow. Too much emphasis on the individual, perhaps?
Let's unpack the sexual morality examples.
"What duty do we have to raise the next generation? Should we raise one more when the world's population is 7 billion and rising?"
If you honestly believe that there are too many children in the world already then, for you, as an individual, following your own conscience, the only course open to you is chastity within marriage after consummation or not to marry at all.
"Why are the shifting sands of economic morality different to the shifting sands of sexual morality? Both concern people and their relationships to one another, do they not? Was not the Levitical law concerned with both?"
There are certain transcendent moral laws that bind us, regardless of situations and circumstances. Laws pertaining to a agrarian economy where money was stored and had no other use than buying things, called for a different ethic. The transcendent ethic is not to exploit people and not to pursue self-gain at all costs. This still holds, whereas how this is exercised will change. Men and women do not change and neither does the moral law concerning sex. Overpopulation is not a justification for contraception - or for abortion. Both are intrinsically immoral and therefore cannot be acceptable.
No Christian Church prior to the Lambeth Conference in 1930 supported contraception. Indeed, all the reformers were opposed to it. It was a constant teaching of all Christian Churches - a part of what Catholics call the "deposit of faith" which is unchanging.
"Prior to NFP what did the Catholic church teach about regulating fertility? If it did not teach regulation of fertility why does it do so now? Where is the distinction between artificial and natural regulation of fertility drawn in the history of theology? Has it been with us since Scripture, or is it a new fangled theological distinction?"
The science about ovulation, fertility and conception was unknown until relatively recently. The Church taught either continence or sex involving no artificial means of avoiding conception. From memory, there was a considerable theological debate within the Church before it settled on NFP as acceptable - and even then within limits. (Have you read Humane Vitae?)
"Would you say that annulments granted today by the Catholic church follow traditional patterns of granting them? Or have they changed in recent decades? If they have, do they have an intriguing relationship with the rise of divorce and remarriage in modern societies?"
Well they're not as easy to get as Henry VIII's if this is what you mean!
This is a contentious issue at the present moment in the Catholic Church as you well know. Annulments have increased. Perhaps because the modern world devalues the sacrament of marriage and spouses are actually poorly taught about its binding nature. There's also a greater awareness that both spouses may not be on the same page when they make their vows. Even so, Jack would be troubled if annulments were granted without the necessary rigour of examining whether the actual marriage was valid.
"Do you think Jesus would approve of annulments as currently granted, many of which have the effect of bastardising children who previously thought they were legitimate?"
If His Church grants them, then Jesus would understand this. There are many, many more bastards in the world because marriage has become so devalued than through annulments. There are also many children without a father and mother too. What do you think causes the greatest harm? Jack believes Jesus would be more worried by the Anglican acceptance of 'no fault' divorce and remarriage.
"It is all very really trumpeting the objective nature of morality and with it the triumph of Roman ethics over other more subjective Christian approaches."
What are "subjective Christian approaches"? Are you denying an objective morality altogether?
"But a price is paid for doing so. One of which is casuistical approaches to complex human issues. Another is the inability to answer satisfactorily the kinds of questions I raise above."
Moral questions concern the application of reasoning and not emotions and feelings. The questions above can all be answered.
"And I still raise the question if NFP is so infallibly right, how come many Catholics globally ignore it and use artificial contraception. I imagine most of them receive the Mass each week without having confessed that sin."
You attend Mass and receive Holy Communion. Anyone can attend Mass. To receive Communion you must be in a state of grace.
Then if they do this knowing it is sin and against the teaching of the Church, they are committing the grave sin of sacrilege.
"Protestants pay their own prices for their approach to morality. But we each pays our money and takes our pick."
Yes and it's tearing your Church apart and sending the wrong message to society at large about our first duty to God. We're slipping back into pre-Christian sexual immorality and the worship of self pleasure. You are aware of that?
Hi Jack,
Lest we forget, I believe we agree on many things!
What is less agreeable to me is an over-emphasis on "objective" morality when what seems to be "objective" has "subjective" elements.
To take one example from the discussion points above, what is the objective basis for granting annulments if we go along with "There's also a greater awareness that both spouses may not be on the same page when they make their vows"? I cannot think of the verse in Scripture which supports that way of thinking!
In other words, "objective" is itself potentially if not in reality a slippery term when it comes to discussing objective morality.
(With the exceptions of a few way out "marriage is for the life of the marriage" very liberal Christians) all Christians are agreed that a couple marrying should intend it to be for life. (Perhaps that "all" is a sound objective basis!) Not all Christians are agreed on the "what happens if the marriages breaks down" situation. Even Eastern Orthodox, notoriously conservative in many ways, have a different view to Rome at that point. Rome's own approach to annulment is under serious questioning these days. Might we agree that some subjectivity has entered the Christian world on the question of divorce?
(I am not interested, by the way, in demolishing Roman ethics, nor defending Protestant approaches to the death. Each way has its strengths. I am interested in weaknesses. Even more on whether together we can find a way forward in the 21st century.)
Hi Peter
Here's your central issue: "I am interested in weaknesses...". Jack is more interested in strengths!
"What is less agreeable to me is an over-emphasis on "objective" morality when what seems to be "objective" has "subjective" elements."
What you actually mean is that discerning the objective morality may be difficult and then applying it to concrete situations even more so. Jack wouldn't disagree but this does not detract from accepting that murder is murder, or theft is theft. Look at the current discussion about euthanasia. Clearly this is self-murder. And yet there are some promoting as Christian! Loose the idea of a morally objective reality and morality will be just whatever an individual thinks is okay. We will have become like gods!
We surely have to agree that God in His wisdom has created us for a purpose and equipped us to understand and live according to that purpose? All our 'natural' drives and emotions are designed to achieve this. Because of the Fall there is a dissonance between our God given consciences and our natural desires.
Let's start with agreeing that the fundamental foundation of society is human relationships and family life. One of the strongest drives in nature is sex. The purpose of sex is unitive and procreative. Children need stability as do adults in their old age. In theory, and according to God's will, everyone's a winner with marriage being permanent. Sex is controlled; society is stable; children have parents; and parents have children in their later years.
Now, annulment. A few examples. If a person contracts a marriage and has no intention of having children, the Church considers there has been no marriage - it is null. Why? Because one of the requirements of marriage has not been fulfilled. Similarly, if a person is impotent there is no marriage. Why? Again, because the purpose of marriage cannot be fulfilled. Another example. If a man marries with no intention of keeping his vows, say being faithful, or honouring and loving his partner, there is no marriage. Get the picture?
" "There's also a greater awareness that both spouses may not be on the same page when they make their vows"? I cannot think of the verse in Scripture which supports that way of thinking!"
Really? Why does this have to be written in scripture? Read Matthew 16 for Jesus' commission to His Church and the authority He placed with His Apostles as leaders as His Vicars. If a couple who are making vows to one another have different intentions in their heart, how would this be valid unless they both agreed on the purpose and life long nature of marriage?
The Church guards access to the Sacraments and has authority to decide if a marriage has been validly contracted or not. Once validly married it is for life and cannot be dissolved. If you divorce, then you cannot remarry without committing adultery.
Annulments seem to me perfectly acceptable. Its the same with the Church deciding what are and what are not valid ordinations and then whether these are licit or illicit.
The current rift in the Church is whether, for the sake of mercy, one should adopt a more lenient, pastoral approach to the Sacrament of marriage and grant access to Holy Communion for the divorced and remarried. This is unlikely as it contradicts established Church doctrine which cannot be changed. Some want to make annulments a simple administrative process and lower the threshold. Again, Jack can't see this happening. There is a genuine issue about the extent to which the contracting parties were properly aware of the nature of their vows. This is where the debate will be centred.
“Truth is Truth and there is an objective moral order that we are capable of understanding through scripture and through reason.” Happy Jack
3/4 of the theologians and 2/3 of the bishops on the Pontifical Commission on Birth Control, using Happy Jack’s scripture and reason, and throwing in tradition for good measure, came to a different conclusion than Pope Paul VI and Happy Jack about the morality of artificial contraception.
“Jack will accept the Magisterium's view about was is and what is not an infallible teaching. It does not depend on him precisely because he is fallible and that's why the Church is there.” Happy Jack
The loop just keeps repeating: the Magisterium acknowledges it is fallible, just as fallible as Happy Jack; and only infallible under certain, limited specified conditions. There is no infallible list of what are infallible teachings, and the view that “There is an infallible teaching on contraception” is merely Happy Jack’s fallible opinion.
Happy Jack conveniently relegates biblical teaching he seeks to ignore to the merely ritual, and elevates biblical teaching that suits him, even when phrased in the same manner, in the same chapter, to intrinsically disordered. That NFP encourages the direct contravention of the previous biblical teaching can then be brushed off.
Happy Jack forgets that NFP was long taught as being immoral, that many still regard it as immoral, and that even Paul VI himself was clear that NFP was to be used only for spacing births, not for preventing conception (as it is now used), and only then if there are well-grounded reasons for spacing births.
Blessings
Bosco
Happy Jack suggests you take a quick course in Catholic theology before claiming to be an expert on the Magisterium.
You could start with the concepts of the "Deposit of Faith" and the "Indefectibility of the Church".
" ... the Magisterium acknowledges it is fallible, just as fallible as Happy Jack; and only infallible under certain, limited specified conditions."
This is just plain inaccurate.
The Magisterium consists of the infallible Sacred Magisterium and the fallible Ordinary Magisterium. The infallible Sacred Magisterium includes Ecumenical Councils and ex cathedra declarations of the Pope. The Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, despite its name, is also part of the infallible the Sacred Magisterium. It is the commonest form of the infallibility of the Church.
Examples of infallible teachings of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium are hard to point to as these are not contained in any one document. They are the common teachings found among the Bishops dispersed through the world united with the Pope. And they are unchangeable. An extraordinary definition is not necessary to make a teaching
irrevocably binding. Indeed, the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium is the usual form of infallibility. (Examples are the male priesthood and contraception. Always held as part of the faith and unchangeable by future generations. Divorce and access to communion also falls under this.)
Here's what the then Cardinal Ratzinger said of Saint Pope John Paul's 'Ordinatio Sacerdotalis':
"The Supreme Pontiff, while not wishing to proceed to a dogmatic definition, intended to reaffirm that this doctrine is to be held definitively, since, founded on the written Word of God, constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium. As the prior example illustrates, this does not foreclose the possibility that, in the future, the consciousness of the Church might progress to the point where this teaching could be defined as a doctrine to be believed as divinely revealed."
The Ordinary Magisterium is not infallible and includes teachings and theological ideas of individual Bishops or groups of Bishops taken separately from the whole College of Bishops. It also covers things like the social teachings of Popes or their theological opinions. Catholics are not free to simply dismiss these depending on a variety of things and Catholics must respectfully hear all opinions. These fallible teachings too might progress to be infallibly defined if they become not only Ordinary but Ordinary and Universal too.
"Happy Jack conveniently relegates biblical teaching he seeks to ignore to the merely ritual, and elevates biblical teaching that suits him, even when phrased in the same manner, in the same chapter, to intrinsically disordered.2
Leviticus does not use terms like abomination about sex during a woman's menstruation, now does it?
Leviticus 15:24 clearly locates it within ritual purity; 18:19 simply instructs not to do it; and 20:18 says if sex takes place the couple will be cut off from the people. How have you leapt from this to a universal moral law prohibiting natural family planning that equates with homosexuality?
"Happy Jack forgets that NFP was long taught as being immoral"
Was it? Evidence? Contraception was always viewed as immoral.
" ... that many still regard it as immoral"
Who?
"... and that even Paul VI himself was clear that NFP was to be used only for spacing births, not for preventing conception (as it is now used), and only then if there are well-grounded reasons for spacing births."
Er, to space births means avoiding conception through natural methods. And Jack agrees the application of NFP has to be moral too.
Happy Jack; 'infallibly fallible' is the only sort of infallibility that can be said be the state of our common fallen humanity. Jesus never declared Peter to be infallible - only human beings in the Church have ever claimed that for him.
"Rock of Ages, cleft for me" proclaims the identity of Christ, not Peter.
" if a person is impotent there is no marriage. Why? Again, because the purpose of marriage cannot be fulfilled."
- Happy Jack -
If you are happy with this statement of yours, Jack, you must be seriously out of kilter with Roman Catholic reality. Are there no catholic marriages contracted in old age in your Church?
There are many in your Church who do not act according to the Magisterium's edict of contraception. How do you see this as a healthy option?
Happy Jack’s “The Magisterium consists of the infallible Sacred Magisterium and the fallible Ordinary Magisterium.” is merely another way of saying, as I did, “the Magisterium acknowledges it is fallible, just as fallible as Happy Jack; and only infallible under certain, limited specified conditions.”
To quote Cardinal Ratzinger about whether he thought a pope’s teaching was infallible merely gets one back on the same loop. Cardinal Ratzinger was fallible when he said that!
Rather than fabricating statements I obviously never made, and firing off ad hominem put-downs from behind your latest anonymous persona, Happy Jack, how about humbly acknowledging some of the clear difficulties?
As for your insistence that the biblical teaching against sex during and for a week following the woman’s menstrual cycle is solely about ritual purity and can be happily disregarded, does the same apply to the surrounding verses against incest, having sex with animals, sacrificing children, homosexuality, and adultery – or do you just nicely cherry-pick your way through those verses?
Blessings
Ummm ... rattled you cage there Jack sees.
You were disingenuous about the Magisterium - or didn't understand it. When one refers to infallible teachings most Catholics know this precludes the Ordinary Magisterium.
" ... the Magisterium acknowledges it is fallible, just as fallible as Happy Jack; and only infallible under certain, limited specified conditions.”
There are degrees of weight that Catholics should give to the Ordinary Magisterium. A Pope giving a social teaching, for example, should be given more attention than a local Bishop - or Happy Jack.
The majority of the Church's teachings were at one time accepted as infallible but were clarified and honed through dispute, division and theological debate. On becoming dogmatic, this didn't change their status. They were already infallible. It lifted them to having been Divinely Revealed Truth.
"As for your insistence that the biblical teaching against sex during and for a week following the woman’s menstrual cycle is solely about ritual purity and can be happily disregarded ..."
Can it? On what basis? Jack gave you the supporting scriptural texts. Where are there any condemning NPF as you implied?
" ... does the same apply to the surrounding verses against incest, having sex with animals, sacrificing children, homosexuality, and adultery ..."
There are no verses suggesting any of these are associated with ritual purity but rather with not killing and also with sexual morality.
" – or do you just nicely cherry-pick your way through those verses?"
No. Jack uses scripture, tradition, and also reasoning based on natural law.
"If you are happy with this statement of yours, Jack, you must be seriously out of kilter with Roman Catholic reality. Are there no catholic marriages contracted in old age in your Church?"
*sigh*
Of course Jack is happy with it. It's the Churches teaching.
Being impotent is not the same as being less virile or less fertile. A marriage, to be a marriage, has to be consummated. Sex has to take place at least once. Until then, it is not a marriage. Jack thinks this applies in the Anglican Church. It is the civil law in Britain too - with the exception of homosexuals who, in law, cannot consummate marriage or, for that matter, commit adultery.
"There are degrees of weight that Catholics should give to the Ordinary Magisterium. A Pope giving a social teaching, for example, should be given more attention than a local Bishop"
- Funny Jack -
And who exercises that sort of power in your Church, Jack? is it another sort of infallible, notional, 'magisterium' - other than the occupant of the Vatican Throne? Or, in the case of Anti-Popes, which one decides on the inauthenticity of the other?
One problem with the present system may be that the agreed outcome of Vatican II's deliberations seem to have been stifled by successive Roman Bishops.
Hi Jack,
Your argument seems to amount to this, What God has revealed in Scripture he has taught us; and what God has not revealed in Scripture he reveals through his church which is a certain guide to the truth because God has guaranteed it to be so.
Questions immediately arise about what 'the church' consists of, to which this guarantee applies. It has something to do with Peter and his successors, but not wholly so, as there have been some outright ratbags among them, and some dodgy teachers also (indeed, some question the present occupant), hence the role of the Magisterium, which kind of keeps the popes in line (except that they have the authority to lay down the infallible truth in a manner not wholly dependent on majority rule of the Magisterium). Further, the Magisterium itself has its own history of dodginess: witness the times it comes down hard on theologians, forbids them to teach etc, then changes its mind (de Lubac springs to mind; but I particularly have the Modernist controversy in mind, when the teaching authority of the church forbade critical scholarship in era and admitted it was a lost cause doing so in another era).
We might also ask about papal power to appoint people to the Magisterium and wonder who rules who ... Cardinal Burke spings to mind and his recent 'demotion.'
Ergo: there is NO guarantee that the Roman-system-of-guaranteeing the truth will work either consistently or coherently.
I think that is the main point Bosco is making. In my view you have not refuted it. The ordinary magisterium bit about the revealed truth believed by all is neither here nor there: that presumably includes all Christians on all the things we agree on.
What we are interested in here is deciding on thorny issues such as the filioque clause being in or out of the Nicene Creed. The Magisterium of itself cannot decide that matter: only a full ecumenical council of the universal church. Would such a council agree to the Assumption of Mary? I think not ...
Peter
"Ergo: there is NO guarantee that the Roman-system-of-guaranteeing the truth will work either consistently or coherently."
Catholics believe the God will not allow the Church to err in matters of faith and morals. This itself is an infallible teaching. So we have the surest guarantee of all - God's word.
It all rests on the promise given in Matthew 16 and also on John 16:13 and Luke 10:16. God never said Popes would be saints. The Church is a human organisation composed of flawed men. It has a human history. However, it cannot commit error in matters of faith and morals.
"Your argument seems to amount to this, What God has revealed in Scripture he has taught us; and what God has not revealed in Scripture he reveals through his church which is a certain guide to the truth because God has guaranteed it to be so."
Not quite. What God has revealed in scripture has to be understood and this understanding is revealed to man through the Church. Sometimes, this requires an extraordinary exercise of the Magisterium through Councils and ex cathedra statements of the Pope. At other times, the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium teaches it as established tradition passed down through the ages.
The Magisterium should not be conceived of office holders. It is not some 'office' in Rome.
The Magisterium we mean the teaching office of the Church. It consists of the Pope and all the Bishops.
"What we are interested in here is deciding on thorny issues such as the filioque clause being in or out of the Nicene Creed."
That has already been infallibly decided.
"The Magisterium of itself cannot decide that matter: only a full ecumenical council of the universal church."
Which is precisely what happened!
The Ordinary and Universal Magisterium declared it. The 'Filioque' had been included in the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed and had been used in most Western Christian churches since at least the 6th century. It erupted into and issue in the 11th century essentially because a dispute over Papal authority.
"Would such a council agree to the Assumption of Mary? I think not ..."
Eh? It wouldn't be put up for a vote. All Catholics, and, indeed, members of the Orthodox Church believe in the Assumption of Mary. We see it as being in scripture but not explicitly so, and the truth having being Divinely revealed. Some Protestants agree and some Protestants don't. That's what's neither here nor there.
"The ordinary magisterium bit about the revealed truth believed by all is neither here nor there: that presumably includes all Christians on all the things we agree on."
You think its neither here nor there? It's what binds the Body of Christ together in Communion - the Truth. And, just to be clear, it applies to members of the Catholic Church - Christ's Church on earth. If you don't believe the doctrines and teachings and submit to the authority of the Pope and the Bishops - the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium - then you're not a member of this Church.
"The task of authoritatively interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on [Scripture or Tradition], has been entrusted exclusively to the living Magisterium of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."
(Dei Verbum # 10)
Hi Jack,
As a non-member of Christ's church I am not sure why I would bother to have further discussion with you on this site.
Since I am not prepared to have commenters on this site who declare commenters here to not be members of Christ's church you need in your next comment to resile from the position you have pronounced or you will be banned from further commenting here.
There are plenty of Catholic blogs which will welcome your comments.
Peter
The Catholic Catechism at para 838 recognises that there are genuine Christians outside the RCC. Happy Jack has obviously forgotten. As for Catholic blogs, the Catholic Herald has revamped its website and it's hard to comment on now. You might get some increased RCC traffic, though probably not the type you want!
Nick
Thank you Nick (on behalf of all the world's non-Catholics)!
I welcome Catholic commenters here, including conservatives who read the Catholic Herald a fine, thoughtful newspaper. But they must steer clear of consigning rafts of Christians to non-membership status.
Dear "Happy Jack",
Thank you for expressing your views again to me.
I fully understand the position as officially given by the Catholic Church.
You are welcome to promote and discuss that position elsewhere in blog land. But not here where the presumption is that baptised Christians are members of Christ's church. I am not going to be party to views which put down brothers and sisters in Christ.
Further, even if you yet resile from these views in order to continue commenting here, I need you to use your real name.
With kind regards,
Peter.
Goodbye, Jack. Blessings!
Post a Comment