Pride and Prejudice

In my last post I mentioned that Pope Francis had received an ecumenical delegation from Finland that included bishops, priests, and the faithful from the Lutheran Church of Finland.  Reading the krazies’ blogs I see that after their meeting with the Holy Father the delegation went to Mass in Saint Peter’s Basilica where they were all—including the Lutherans in the group—given Holy Communion.  To be fair to the Protestants in the party they had apparently approached the Lord’s Table seeking only a blessing but the concelebrating priests, with full knowledge that they are not Catholics, gave them the Eucharist.  Needless to say, the krazies are running in circles screaming about “sacrilegious communions.”  Talk about an over-reaction.  These people are totally mad.

Part of the problem—at least in the krazies’ minds (and I can see their point) is that Pope Francis himself hemmed and hawed when recently asked by a Lutheran woman if she could receive Holy Communion when attending Mass with her Catholic husband.  The Pope didn’t say that she could but he really didn’t clearly say that she couldn’t.  In fact he did what most priests do: he explained why she shouldn’t but left the question ultimately to her own decision.  The krazies didn’t like that.  They want selective obedience to be their sole prerogative—it’s how they maintain the illusion that everyone else is eating in the cafeteria.   

Of course Pope John Paul II had given Holy Communion to Tony Blair while he was still an Anglican when he attended the Pope’s Mass with his Catholic wife and children.  And at Pope John Paul’s funeral, then Cardinal Ratzinger gave Holy Communion to Brother Roger, the Protestant prior and founder of the ecumenical monastery of Taizé.  Moreover, several months later when Brother Roger was murdered by a krazy person, Pope Benedict sent Cardinal Kasper to celebrate a Mass of Christian Burial for Brother Roger and with the instructions that all—including Protestants—were to be given communion.  In fact, according to Canon Law, the local ordinary can—under certain circumstances—grant permission for a baptized non-Catholic Christian to receive Holy Communion in the Catholic Church.  Needless to say the Pope can also grant this permission, even outside his own diocese.  I happen to have a Protestant sister-in-law who has the permission of her local bishop to receive Holy Communion when she attends Mass with my brother (which she does weekly). 

There is nothing “sacrilegious” about a Protestant receiving Holy Communion in the Catholic Church.  It may be (and it may not be according to circumstances) illicit but it is not sacrilegious.  A person in grave (aka “mortal”) sin who receives the Eucharist makes a “sacrilegious communion” but not a non-Catholic acting in good faith.  In fact, reading Matthew 9:10-13, I would think that the Communions of these “Communion Police” who want to keep others from the Lord’s Table might very well be the sacrilegious communions. 

The fact of the matter is that each weekend at thousands of Catholic parishes across the world, non-Catholics receive Holy Communion.  In some places announcements are made that “only Catholics in the State of Grace…” but they are for the most part ignored.  (On the other hand, I remember attending Sunday Mass at Notre Dame in Paris some years back and the canon presiding at the Mass made the announcement that “all baptized Christians are welcome to receive Holy Communion.”  That certainly was beyond the canon law even in the liberal Paris of then Cardinal Archbishop Lustiger.) 

So in the end Pope Francis acted no differently than most priests.  And the priest(s) in the Basilica who gave Holy Communion to the Lutheran pilgrims should have respected their willingness to follow the canons but their communions were hardly sacrilegious.  And perhaps we need to pay attention to the fact that despite the rules and regulations, thousands of Christians are sharing together in the Sacrament of Christ’s Body and Blood across the lines that divide us. Indeed, perhaps the Unity of the Eucharistic Body of Christ will restore the unity of the ecclesial Body. 

Why Are They Afraid of Pope Francis? 13

  There was much made of the questionairre that Pope Francis instructed be sent out to prepare for the upcoming Synod on the Family, but in the end no one seemed to ever see it.  I have heard that--somewhat suprsingly--Archbishop Lori had it put on the website of the Archdiocese of Louisville, but other bishops were not so enthusiastic.  I asked our local pastor about it and he said that there was no communication whatsoever from our Archdiocese about it.  Lori's suffragen, Bishop Paul Loverde of Arlington, one of the most conservative dioceses in the country, was led after one cocktail too many to express his opinion of Pope Francis and this entire process. It was not favorable.  Newman saw a need to consult the faithful, Loverde and many of his brothers in the episcopacy do not.  But then Newman was a man of superior intelligence.   Checking with my colleagues in diocese after diocese, the average person in the pews is being given no access to this opportunity for input.  Perhaps only the party-faithful are being asked for their opinions but that would be sad as the Holy See seems genuinely want to get a good read on where the faithful are at.  In any event, here is the questionairre.  Notice: there seems an honest attempt to see whether the doctrine articulated in Humanae Vitae has been "received."  This is extremely significant as it indicates a return to the ancient idea that a doctrine must not only be proclaimed but be received to stand.  Notice too that there is honest inquiry about how divorced and remarried are dealt with in terms of the sacraments of Reconciliation and Eucharist--not about how the issue should  be dealt with but what is the actual pastoral practice.  If the bishops are given the same sort of opportunity for honest talk at the synod there could be some remarkable changes ahead in pastoral practice. 

Top of Form

Pastoral Challenges to the Family in the Context of Evangelization

1. THE DIFFUSION OF THE TEACHINGS ON THE FAMILY

a) Describe how the Church's teachings on the value of the family contained in the Bible, Gaudium et Spes, Familiaris consortio and other documents of the post-conciliar Magisterium is understood by people today?  What formation is given to our people on the Church’s teaching on family life. 
b) In those cases where the teaching is known, is it accepted fully or are there difficulties in putting it into practice?  If so, what are they? 
c) How widespread is the Church’s teaching in pastoral programmes at the national, diocesan, and parish levels?  What catechesis is done on the family? 
d) To what extent and what aspects in particular is this teaching actually known, accepted, rejected, and/or criticizes in areas outside the Church?  What are the cultural factors which hinder the full reception of the Church’s teaching on the family?

2. MARRIAGE ACCORDING TO THE NATURAL LAW

a) What place does the idea of the natural law have in the cultural areas of society; in institutions, education, academic circles and among the people at large?  What anthropological ideas underlie the discussion on the natural basis of the family?
b) Is the idea of the natural law in the union between a man and a woman commonly accepted as such by the baptized in general?
c) How is the theory and practice of natural law in the union between man and woman challenged in light of the formation of a family? How is proposed and developed in civil and Church institutions?
d) In cases where non-practicing Catholics or declared non-believers request the celebration of marriage, describe how this pastoral challenge is dealt with?

3. THE PASTORAL CARE OF THE FAMILY IN EVANGELIZATION

a) What experience has emerged in recent decades regarding marriage preparation?  What efforts are there to stimulate the task of evangelization of the couple and of the family?  How can an awareness of the family as the “domestic Church” be promoted?
b) How successful have you been in proposing a manner of praying within the family which can withstand life’s complexities and today’s culture? 
c) In the current generational crisis, how have Christian families been able to fulfill their vocation of transmitting the faith?
d) In what way have the local Churches and movements on family spirituality been able to create ways of acting which are exemplary. 
e) What specific contribution can couples and families make to spreading a credible and holistic idea of the couple and Christian family today?
f) What pastoral care has the Church provided in supporting couples in formation and couples in crisis situations? 

4. PASTORAL CARE IN CERTAIN DIFFICULT MARITAL SITUATIONS

a) Is cohabitation ad experimentum a pastoral reality in your particular Church?  Can you approximate a percentage? 
b) Do unions which are not recognized either civilly or religiously exist?  Are reliable statistics available?
c) Are separated couples and those divorced and remarried a pastoral reality in your particular Church?  Can you approximate a percentage?  How do you deal with this situation in appropriate pastoral programs?
d) In all the above cases, how do the baptized live in this irregular situation? Are aware of it? Are they simply indifferent? Do they feel marginalized or suffer from the impossibility of receiving the sacraments?
e) What questions do divorced and remarried people pose to the Church concerning the Sacraments of the Eucharist and of Reconciliation? Among those persons who find themselves in these situations, how many ask for these sacraments?
f) Could a simplification of canonical practice in recognizing a declaration of nullity of the marriage bond provide a positive contribution to solving the problems of the persons involved? If yes, what form would it take?
g) Does a ministry exist to attend to these cases? Describe this pastoral ministry? Do such programmes exist on the national and diocesan levels? How is God’s mercy proclaimed to separated couples and those divorced and remarried and how does the Church put into practice her support for them in their journey of faith?

5. On Unions of Persons of the Same Sex
a) Is there a law in your country recognizing civil unions for people of the same-sex and equating it in some way to marriage?

b) What is the attitude of the local and particular Churches towards both the State as the promoter of civil unions between persons of the same sex and the people involved in this type of union?
c) What pastoral attention can be given to people who have chosen to live in these types of union?
d) In the case of unions of persons of the same sex who have adopted children, what can be done pastorally in light of transmitting the faith?

6. The Education of Children in Irregular Marriages
a) What is the estimated proportion of children and adolescents in these cases, as regards children who are born and raised in regularly constituted families?

b) How do parents in these situations approach the Church? What do they ask? Do they request the sacraments only or do they also want catechesis and the general teaching of religion?
b) How do parents in these situations approach the Church? What do they ask? Do they request the sacraments only or do they also want catechesis and the general teaching of religion?
c) How do the particular Churches attempt to meet the needs of the parents of these children to provide them with a Christian education?
d) What is the sacramental practice in these cases: preparation, administration of the sacrament and the accompaniment?

7. The Openness of the Married Couple to Life
a) What knowledge do Christians have today of the teachings of Humanae vitae on responsible parenthood? Are they aware of how morally to evaluate the different methods of family planning? Could any insights be suggested in this regard pastorally?

b) Is this moral teaching accepted? What aspects pose the most difficulties in a large majority of couple’s accepting this teaching
c) What natural methods are promoted by the particular Churches to help spouses put into practice the teachings of Humanae vitae?
d) What is your experience on this subject in the practice of the Sacrament of Penance and participation at the Eucharist?
e) What differences are seen in this regard between the Church’s teaching and civic education?
f) How can a more open attitude towards having children be fostered? How can an increase in births be promoted?

8. The Relationship Between the Family and the Person
a) Jesus Christ reveals the mystery and vocation of the human person. How can the family be a privileged place for this to happen?

b) What critical situations in the family today can obstruct a person’s encounter with Christ?
c) To what extent do the many crisis of faith which people can experience affect family life?

9. Other Challenges and Proposals
What other challenges or proposals related to the topics in the above questions do you consider urgent and useful to treat?

 

Foundations of the Anglican Church LII

A question to consider is: Should Henry have gotten his annulment? 

Martin Luther defended

Katherine's cause against

an annulment.

The refusal of the annulment was purely political and shaped by the interplay of Medici and Imperial policies.  (Pope Clement VII was a Medici and Katherine was the aunt of the Emperor Charles V.)  Did Henry’s case have sufficient merits that he should have, if it had not been for the political aims of the Medici Pope, Clement VII, received an annulment from his marriage to Katherine of Aragon?

Before we go directly to that issue, we need to look at Katherine’s claims that her marriage to Henry’s brother, Arthur, had not been consummated.  Arthur was fifteen when they married; Katherine sixteen.  They were both in good health.  The marriage was solemnized and the couple was publicly bedded with prayers and a blessing by William Warham, then Bishop of London.   The marriage lasted only five months before Arthur died of a malady, probably influenza, which Katherine survived.  Although the Bride and Groom were young by today’s standards, it would be probable that the marriage had been consummated, but….
In order to obtain the required papal dispensation to marry the brother of her deceased husband, Katherine swore an oath that the marriage had not been consummated.  Now Katherine had plenty of reason to swear this oath—it was very much to her advantage as it involved both inheriting a crown and attaining a husband with whom she was in love.  But…in an age and in a court-culture where duplicity was the routine form of communication, Katherine stands as a monument to an inflexible integrity.  For her whole life Katherine could be counted on to tell the truth no matter what the cost; she was incapable of dishonesty.  If Katherine said the marriage was not consummated—you can take it to the bank. 
Shortly before her death, Katherine herself—in a frenzy of anguish about the consequences of her refusal to cooperate in the annulment process— acknowledged to the Imperial ambassador that had she ‘gone quietly’ i.e. acceded to the annulment, Henry would have been granted it.  She is undoubtedly right.  The annulment would have been granted, however, not on its merits but for political reason even as it was denied for political reasons.  Uncontested annulments of various royal marriages were routinely granted through the period before the Council of Trent—and often afterwards as well as in the case of Napoleon and Josephine’s marriage to permit Napoleon to marry Marie Louise of Austria in hopes of an heir. 
Thomas Cromwell in 1530 suggested to Henry that he poll the canon law faculties of the universities of Europe for opinions regarding the annulment.  The overwhelming response was in favor of the King’s argument.  While academics were always looking for patronage and Henry was in a better position to grant patronage than Katherine, they had to offer sound arguments in the King’s favor and many credible tracts were produced.  It was all a bit of a charade however as the universities did not have the power to grant annulments and while their arguments were meant to push the Pope into the King’s corner, Clement’s own political  interests made such pressure irrelevant to his decision.  Nevertheless, the Universities showed that credible canonical arguments could be made.  On the other hand, had Katherine been in a position to offer patronage, she too would have found her support among the academics.  Bishop Fisher, one of the leading voices of Church reform in England and a good theologian and canonist, went to the scaffold for defending the marriage. 
Curiously enough, two voices in favor of Katherine and the marriage were Martin Luther and William Tyndale.  We all know the former.  The latter was an English priest who was a pioneer in introducing Protestant thought into England in the 1520’s.  Tyndale provided an early translation of the Bible into English for the common folk to read.  Tyndale was arrested and executed in the Netherlands for his Protestant ideas in 1536, the year of Katherine’s death.  Both Luther and Tyndale said that it was unscriptural for Henry to end his marriage, but then each of them wanted to make the point that the Pope didn’t have the authority to over-rule the scriptural adjunction that what God has joined, man must not divide. 
In the end, I think we can say that were it not for Imperial/Medici politics trumping English politics, Henry would have gotten his annulment.  I also think, however—and I am not a canon lawyer—that for him to have gotten the annulment would have been a gross miscarriage of justice.  In the end, Katherine is vindicated.    

Why Are They Afraid of Pope Francis? 5

Cardinal McCarrick preaching at Georgetown's

Dahlgren Chapel, known for its popular student 

liturgies  

 

Pope Francis’ being a religious brings a new understanding to the Vatican bureaucracy that challenges the monolithic face of Catholicism that so many want to present to the world and which so many want to use to enforce greater discipline and conformity within the Church.  The history of religious life is an alternative view to the history to the Institutional Church.  Over the course of centuries the religious orders were gradually given an exemption from the authority of the bishops and placed directly under the Holy See which gave them considerable latitude to develop alternative structures and to expand into creative ministries.  In addition, many of the Orders developed their own distinct liturgical rites that differed greatly from the Roman Rite—giving the Church the Carthusian Rite, the Dominican Rite, the Carmelite Rite and several other unique usages.  While most of these Rites were given up in favor of the Roman Rite at the time of the Second Vatican Council, there are still distinct features in the liturgies of many religious Orders.  They have their own calendar of feasts and celebrations; they have their own missals with unique prayers, hymns, and prefaces not found in the Roman Rite, and they have retained certain customs that differ from the Roman Rite such as particular liturgical colors, the physical arrangement of the church, specified processions, unique iconography and other variations.   
The Jesuits have always followed the Roman Rite with their own proper feasts and, by and large (with notable exceptions such as Holy Trinity Parish in Georgetown) are not known for liturgy.  While the Jesuits aren’t normally liturgical fuss-budgets they are not known, and throughout their history generally have not been known, to “color inside the lines” not only in matters liturgical but far beyond the liturgy such as education, their approach to missions, and inter-religious dialogues.   Nor do they expect others to walk the straight and narrow path of a strict-constructionist approach to canon law.  Thus when Pope Francis, shortly after his election, met with the Conference of Religious from Latin America (CLARR), he told them

You will make mistakes, you will make a blunder [meter la pata], this will pass! Perhaps even a letter of the Congregation for the Doctrine (of the Faith) will arrive for you, telling you that you said such or such thing... But do not worry. Explain whatever you have to explain, but move forward... Open the doors, do something there where life calls for it. I would rather have a Church that makes mistakes for doing something than one that gets sick for being closed up...

"Explain what you have to explain but move forward…."  Pope Francis made it clear that the Religious are not to live in fear of Roman authority nor are the prelates of the Curia to deter the mission of religious communities.  This was a strong signal to the North American Women Religious of the LCWR that they were not to be discouraged—or deterred—by the grief they were receiving from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.  In other words, the renewal programs set out by the various congregations of Women Religious are to continue.  Yes, there may have to be some explanation of what they are about but they are still to go forward.

This independence makes many who want a rigid uniformity in the Church very nervous. The Pope doesn’t see the need for a rigid top-down control.  Unity in essentials—absolutely.  Communion and communications—yes, certainly.  But the days of a few men in their sixties who prefer red robes and buckled shoes to living in the modern world are not being given the authority to make decisions for adult women in North America.  Those who want to use Vatican authority as a bat to hit over the head the local Sisters who prefer to dress and live like human persons rather than museum pieces in a living tableau, have been deprived of their assault arsenal and that doesn’t make them happy.
Similarly, the Pope’s simpler and less rubrical style of liturgical celebration, characteristic of his Jesuit background, has made many of the younger clergy aware that the peignoir-surplices and sandwich-board chasubles are no longer the done-thing.  More important, it has given many priests the freedom to return to a more relaxed—and genuinely prayerful—celebration of the Liturgy and I for one appreciate this.  I was getting tired of seeing the local clergy attempt their peculiar imitations of pontifical masses.  I don’t want to be distracted from Word and Sacrament by fussiness and pomp when I go to Church.  The language of the revised Roman Missal is bad enough, we don’t need to gild the lily of the Liturgy with obsolete archaisms. 
It is clear that the Pope is steering the bark of Peter in a direction significantly different in course than that of the last thirty-five years.  I am enjoying the ride even though it is making some others sea-sick.     

 

 

Foundations of the Anglican Church XXXV

Canterbury Cathedral, the center
of the Anglican Communion

So here is where left this story.  The year 1527.  Henry is 36 years old.  Katherine is 42.  It has been nine years since she has become pregnant and further offspring are most unlikely.  There is one legitimate child to succeed Henry on the throne, but that child is a daughter, the Princess Mary.  The one time previous that a woman ruled England was a disaster—a time of civil war as male relatives contested the throne.  England has just gone through a long dynastic struggle and there are male claimants to the throne that Henry has been able to hold in check, but would Mary be able to do so?  What can Henry do to guarantee the stability of the Tudor dynasty? 

Henry knows that he is capable of producing a male heir.  Katherine has borne three sons, but they all died in infancy?  Is God punishing Henry for something?  Is there something wrong about his marriage to Katherine for which he is being punished?

Moreover Henry has an illegitimate son who is alive and healthy—Henry FitzRoy, Duke of Richmond and Somerset, the son of Bessie Blount, the one mistress whom Henry had publically acknowledged as royal mistress.  Could he succeed to the throne despite his illegitimacy?

Henry seriously considered naming his illegitimate son to be his heir but Katherine would have none of it.  Katherine’s proud Spanish blood would not tolerate the idea that a Princess, granddaughter of Ferdinand and Isabella, the Catholic Kings and greatest European monarchs of their day, would be supplanted by a bastard, even a King’s bastard.  Moreover, it is unlikely that the nobility of England would have accepted the boy.  In the end, the matter would have been mute.  Henry FitzRoy died before his father, reaching only 17 years of age.  But in 1527 Henry, of course, did not know that. 

But was God punishing Henry for something?  Katherine had been married to Henry’s brother, Arthur, but had been widowed after five months.  Katherine, and her chaperone, had claimed that the marriage was never consummated.  That may or may not have been the case.  Deuteronomy, chapter 25, commands that if a man should die childless, his brother must marry the widow and raise up children to his brother’s memory.  On the other hand, the Book of Leviticus prohibits such a marriage.  There is a dilemma here.  Catholic Canon Law prohibited the marriage of siblings-in-law but would give a dispensation when petitioned for it, particularly when the first marriage had not been consummated.  The Canon Lawyers claimed that when the marriage had not been consummated such a marriage was precisely what Deuteronomy required in terms of raising up children to the deceased brother’s memory.  Henry had always believed that Katherine’s marriage to Arthur had not been consummated, but now he was having doubts.  Maybe God was punishing him for a forbidden marriage by depriving him of male heirs.  After all, three young princes had died in infancy. 

Henry began to see a way out of his dilemma.  Maybe his marriage to Katherine could be annulled and he could  still produce an heir with a new wife.   

Foundations of the Anglican Church, XV

The stone in the pavement of Canterbury

Cathedral that marks the site of the

martyrdom of Saint Thomas Becket

The issue of papal authority in England became more acute in the reign of Henry II and in particular with his conflict with Thomas Becket, his onetime chancellor and then, as Archbishop of Canterbury, the fierce opponent of royal authority over the Church. 
Medieval canon law, recognized by the King and his law as governing the Church, exempted members of the clergy from royal justice and mandated they be tried in Church courts.  In other words, there were two parallel legal systems.  If a layman stole a cow or killed his brother-in-law he was tried in the King’s Court and punished by the King’s court.  If a member of the clergy stole a cow or murdered his brother-in-law he was tried and punished by Church courts.  As Church courts were limited in their ability to punish grave crimes—they could only impose sentences of fines, flogging, loss of clerical state and office, and excommunication—the King was not convinced they could adequately punish—or deter—grave crimes.  Moreover, clerical privilege applied not only to bishops. Priests, and deacons but to any man who had been tonsured as well as monks, nuns, friars, hermits (both monastic and lay), pilgrims and anyone who lived “under the protection of the Church.”  There were many men who had been tonsured—subdeacons, acolytes, lectors, sacristans, clerks in minor orders, as well as most university professors and even students. Probably 15% or more of the adult population qualified for Church protection.  Many of these men—the majority in fact—had no intention of ever advancing to higher orders or Church ministry.  In addition to the problem of clerical exemption for the King’s justice, there were other issues where royal authority was coming into conflict with the Church or papal authority.  Some of these matters concerned appointment to certain church posts, what happened to church revenues during the vacancy of an ecclesiastical post, the right of a bishop to appeal over and against the King to the Pope and various other issues.  In 1164 King Henry issued a charter of 16 provisions called the Constitutions of Clarendon.  They were meant to regulate the conflicting authorities of the Crown and the Church.  Needless to say, they regulated them in favor of the Crown but to the modern ear, even the Catholic ear, they do not sound unreasonable.  They did not sound unreasonable to the Bishops and Abbots of England who, with one exception, approved them.  They did, however, sound unreasonable to Thomas Becket as Archbishop of Canterbury and Primate of England.  Becket refused to accept the royal decree and for that was tried for contempt of royal authority and malfeasance in his office as Lord Chancellor.  Becket fled to France before he could be apprehended.  Louis VII of France, an enemy of Henry, was only too happy to give refuge to the exiled Archbishop.  Becket spent six years in exile before Pope Alexander III was able to negotiate a compromise between King and Archbishop that allowed Becket to return to his see.
Henry was a proud man and demanded a humiliation of Becket in return for his having had to accept the Archbishop back on more or less Becket’s own terms.  Henry arranged that his eldest son should be crowned king in June 1170.  This was not unusual in the central Middle Ages—the crowning of the “young king” while the old one was still alive and well.  In fact, Henry the Father would outlive Henry the Son by six years.  The point of a coronation, somewhat strangely, is not the crowning but the anointing.  The anointing with sacred chrism confers a special character on the monarch with the scriptural admonition: “Touch not the Lord’s anointed” (1 Chronicles 16:22).  While a second coronation would often be held when old king had died, having the heir in place, crowned, and anointed was seen to provide for a smooth transition.  So Henry the Father arranged for Henry the Son to be crowned with all due pomp at Westminster Abbey.  Henry invited the Archbishop of York, assisted by the bishops of London and Salisbury, to do the honors.  But the honor of crowning the monarch belonged by right to the Archbishop of Canterbury, Becket.  Becket—for his revenge—excommunicated Roger de Pont l’Évȇque of York, Gilbert Foliot of London, and Josceline de Bohon of Salisbury for usurping his, Becket’s, right to crown the king.  The bishops, all political enemies of Becket, fled to Henry who was at the time in Normandy. Becket was on a roll and went on to excommunicate several of the King’s nobles who had committed offenses against the Church, including one who had, in violation of the Church’s right to administer justice to its own, arrested a priest, tried him for murder (outside a Church Court) and hung him.  These excommunications were seen as challenges to Henry and his authority.  Shortly after Christmas 1170, Henry, probably under the influence of too much wine, exasperated “What miserable drones and traitors have I nourished and brought up in my household, who let their Lord the King be treated with such shameful contempt by a low-born cleric?”  Four knights, overzealous to win the royal favor, immediately set out, crossed the channel, and arrived at Canterbury on December 29, 1170. They were Reginald FitzUrse, Hugh de Morville, William de Tracy, and Richard de Brito.  They forced their way into the cathedral where they confronted Becket on his way to vespers and in the ensuing scuffle killed the Archbishop.
The murder of the Archbishop of Canterbury was not initially to the political advantage of the Crown.  Henry treated the matter lightly, advising the knights to flee to Scotland where Henry could not reach them so that he would not have to punish them.  Their property escheated to the Crown but Henry seems to have allowed them to continue to receive their incomes from their lands.  Pope Alexander III excommunicated them several months later, however, and the King was unable to protect them from the papal sanctions.  All four were ordered to go on Crusade to the Holy Land.  None seem to have returned.  Henry, though not personally excommunicated (though his lands were for a while placed under interdict), was sentenced by the Pope to go on Crusade.  Henry agreed but never, in fact, went.   By the Compromise of Avranches Henry permitted the English Church to appeal over royal authority to the Pope—thus expanding papal power in England.  He also annulled the Constitutions of Clarendon and restored the authority of Church courts to punish members of the clergy.  In other words, Henry lost the battle with Becket, but he still managed to win the war.   Henry managed to “spin” the cult of the martyred Archbishop to his own benefit and by his accepting his penances and then building shrines to the Becket and furthering the cult of the martyred Archbishop, actually became the hero of the story in the popular imagination rather than the villain.  Henry was far more cynical than he was pious but his strategy worked.  The conflict with Becket was a political misstep and Henry was unable to push back on the expansion of papal power in England, but he emerged all the stronger nonetheless.  His son, King John, would squander that heritage and lose even more power to Rome.   

 

Back to the Whys and Wherefores

Sunday Morning at Saint Teresa

of Avila parish, Washington DC

Well, I want to get back to the why’s and wherefores of why I do this blog and then move further back to our look at the history of the Anglican Church in its relationship to the papacy.  I had mentioned in the two previous “Why and Wherefore” entries that I well remember the Church before Vatican II and it was a crucial part of my own spiritual growth—but that precisely because of Vatican II my faith deepened and my understanding of Catholicism was renewed by the Council and the vision of its “Fathers,” the Popes, bishops, and other prelates who took part in the Council and energized its new relationship with the modern world. 
This past Sunday I was in Washington DC and had the opportunity to participate in Mass at Saint Teresa of Avila parish.  Saint Teresa of Avila is an old parish—going back into the late nineteenth century when the “Uniontown” section of Washington began to develop in Anacostia—“East of the River”—and Catholics had to ferry across the Anacostia River to attend Mass at St. Peter’s Capitol Hill.  Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore (at that time Washington DC was part of the Baltimore Archdiocese) opened the parish of Saint Teresa.  Washington was a segregated city at the time and Saint Teresa’s was left a white parish when African-American Catholic parishioners withdrew to form Our Lady of Perpetual Help parish “just up the hill” from Saint Teresa’s. But all things change in time and as Anacostia became increasingly African-American Saint Teresa of Avila parish lost its white parishioners to suburban flight.  When Father George A. Stallings became pastor in the 80’s he brought incredible new life to the parish introducing Gospel Music and vibrant African-American worship.  Father Stalling’s departure from the Catholic Church to establish an “African-American Catholic Church” and become its presiding Archbishop decimated the parish as the majority of parishioners followed him.  Father Raymond G. East was sent to Saint Teresa’s as its new pastor and in only a short time his dynamic preaching and worship style rebuilt the parish, even winning back many who had followed Archbishop Stalllings into schism.  Monsignor East was pastor from 1989 until 1997 and then was brought back to Saint Teresa’s in 2005.  He is still pastor there today.  And Sunday’s Mass was Saint Teresa of Avila Parish in its full glory with Monsignor East at high energy and the congregation even more revved up “by the sweet Holy Ghost.”  Mass lasts about two and a half hours and is filled with music and dance.  Monsignor East gave a phenomenal homily of 40 breathless minutes opening up the tenth chapter of the Gospel of John and bringing it down to every day realities.  Now you would think that a two and a half hour Mass with a forty minute homily might  be a nightmare, but not at Saint Teresa’s—to the contrary! It is seeing heaven open before you—exactly what the Sacred Liturgy is supposed to do!  The parish has the full complement of active laity: a permanent deacon, religious education coordinators, Eucharistic ministers, lectors, musicians, nurses, both junior and senior ministers of hospitality, dancers.  Everyone has an active role in worship!  Most impressive and to the heart of Saint Teresa’s is that over the doors of the Church when you leave are the words “Servants’ Entrance” reminding us that we go forth from the Eucharist into the world to serve. 
This sort of experience was not available to us before Vatican II.  I remember the old Tridentine Solemn Mass—it was lovely, but then too that last scene of the first act of Tosca is lovely with incense and candles and canopy in procession of the Blessed Sacrament.  What the old liturgy did not do was to bring the scriptures home to daily life and call forth a response in faith.  What the old liturgy did not do was call us into community, into being the Body of Christ.  What the old liturgy did not do was to confront us with the call to service, the “vocation” given to each of us in Baptism.  In traditional Catholicism the clergy were there to minister and the rest of us were there to be ministered to.  And that simply is not the Church which Jesus established. 
I was growing increasingly afraid over the past fifteen or more years that we were sliding back into this pre-conciliar Catholicism, this dead Church with its dead faith.  I saw an increased emphasis—a disturbingly increased emphasis—on a (questionable) “orthodoxy” with little or no concern for the orthopraxis of the Catholic social gospel.  I saw a reviving clericalism, a ghoulish revival of a clerical caste where “Father” was the only one whose opinion mattered.  I saw a return to the triumphalism of the past where “we” had it all and everyone else—from the Archbishop of Canterbury to the Dali Lama to that old Baptist lady down the street was in some benighted ignorance with nothing of worth to contribute and no Eternal Life to which to look forward.  I saw bishops start to drag (deliberate choice of verb) out the princely regalia abandoned by Paul VI and I saw parish priests rooting around the attic for lace albs and old maniples.  Unhappy and twisted souls felt they had a mission to go around from parish to parish registering what they perceived to be “liturgical abuses” for report to Rome or local chanceries.  Voices like “Father Z” and Michael Voris and self-appointed canon law guru Ed Peters had their blogs and their you-tubes to reshape Catholicism in the image and likeness of their own eccentricities.  I realized that one little blog wasn’t going to make a difference but I also knew that if one looks at the history of the Church one would see that the 1950 Cardinal Spellman Catholicism that was being pushed as our authentic apostolic faith did not in fact represent our two thousand years of tradition.  It’s a small effort and it makes little if any difference other than being one voice calling out in the night.  But I must say that the election of Pope Francis has been a breath of fresh air—it is like seeing the end of the storm appearing on the horizon and knowing that the Church is steering back on the gospel track.   And I am happy to hear from time to time from readers who find that it gives them some hope too. 

Dissent Is Not Always Dissent

Archbishop Allen Vigneron of Detroit has come out and said that Catholics who support same-sex marriage should refrain from coming to Holy Communion.  I am searching for the Archbishop’s statement so that I can quote it exactly, but from news reports the Archbishop’s point is that Reception of the Holy Eucharist signifies acceptance of Catholic Church teaching and as the Catholic Church teaches that Marriage is a bond between one man and one woman, dissent from that teaching makes receiving Holy Communion something “akin to perjury.”  Archbishop Vigneron seems to be taking his guidance from Canon Lawyer, Edward Peters who teaches at the Detroit Seminary and who for a long time has argued against pro-choice Catholic politicians being given Holy Communion.
There is one fatal flaw in the Archbishop’s argument.  Church teaching, at least binding Church teaching, concerns the Sacrament of Matrimony (or Marriage) not the reality of Marriage in Civil Law.  The Church may have strong preferences about what the civil law should say but it can’t bind the Catholic faithful to agree.  The Church can say that such and such is contrary to our moral principles; it can even declare something to be unjust or inherently wrong.  To that we must agree.  That is what the doctrine is. The Church can—and should—remind us that the civil law must be just.  But that we Catholics have to concur that the civil law must reflect Church doctrine is beyond the authority of a bishop, of a conference of bishops, or even of the Holy See itself.  It exceeds the definitive authority of the Church which extends to matters of faith and morals.  To say that a Catholic should seriously examine himself or herself before coming to Holy Communion and give serious thought to refraining from the Eucharist if they disagree with Church teaching is legitimate.  To say that a Catholic who disagrees with Church teaching in matters of faith or morals should refrain from Holy Communion is legitimate.  But to say that a Catholic who disagrees with the opinion of a Churchman, even their own bishop, on a matter of civil law is going way too far and to deny such a Catholic Holy Communion would be a serious—and I believe sinful—abuse of ecclesiastical power.  Now as far as I can determine, Archbishop Vigneron did not say that those who differ from his opinion on civil law should be denied Holy Communion.  It seems that the Archbishop left the final decision to the communicant to act responsibly and in good faith.   Nevertheless, I don’t believe the Archbishop is acting in good faith—or at least with the grave discretion such matters require.  I say that because the Archbishop does not suggest that the civil law should bar others whom the Catholic Church declares are not eligible to enter into true marriage from marrying civilly.  Once the Catholic Church recognized the civil reality of divorce and the subsequent civil marriage of divorced people, it lost its ability to say that others whom the Church deems ineligible for marriage should not be granted the legal benefits to marriage offered by the civil law.  Had the Church stood fast against civil divorce in the nineteenth century, it would be in a better position to argue against legality of same-sex marriage in the twenty-first century.  In Catholic teaching partners of the same sex cannot contract a valid marriage.  No problem.  But Catholic teaching also says that a man and a woman, one or both of whom have been previously married and have a surviving spouse, cannot enter a valid marriage and yet treats their marriages as a legal reality.  There is no logical reason to grant the benefits of civil marriage to one religiously ineligible couple but not to the other.   There is the matter of homophobia—but as homophobia is a blind prejudice directed against individuals with no culpability for their situation that is something that hopefully is beneath the holiness of a pastor of the flock.