The Catholic Ecumenical Directory deals sensibly and straightforwardly withe the question of sacramental sharing between Catholics and non-Catholics. I do not propose to look at the norms concerning such sharing between Catholics and members of those Churches whose sacraments are accepted as valid by the Church. Nor at the rules concerning Catholics and the sacramental celebrations of ecclesial bodies where the Church does not discern sacramental validity; but simply at the admission of non-Catholics to Catholic sacraments. I have in mind particularly the Mission and Apostolate, in terms of its own specific charism, of the English Ordinariate.
I will not repeat all the provisions of Canon 844, or of Directory Paragraphs 129ff., nor of the 1998 document of the (English, Welsh, Scottish, Irish) Hierarchy One Bread One Body. I will start with the following: the Church "recognises that in certain circumstances, by way of exception, and under certain conditions, access to these sacraments [of the Eucharist, Penance, and Unction] may be permitted, or even commended, for Christians of other Churches and ecclesial bodies"[my italics]. The conditions "are that the person be unable to have recourse for the sacrament desired to a minister of his or her own Church or ecclesial Community, ask for the sacrament of his or her own initiative, manifest Catholic faith in the sacrament, and be properly disposed".
The Directory urges ordinaries to establish norms concerning "grave and pressing need", and leaves it to individual ministers to judge according to the norms of the Directory when an ordinary has not done so. When an ordinary has done so, the individual minister acts in accordance with that ordinary's norms.
One Bread one Body cites the phrase "unable to have recourse" and comments "In our countries, occasions when such fellow Christians cannot physically find a minister of their own community will be rare". This was true in 1998; but a very much more complex situation holds true today. True, there are still quite a lot of Anglican clergy scattered around England; but, for Anglican Catholics, most of them are not much use. Some Anglican clergy may be women, and the layperson concerned may not be able to discern that they truly are prests. Even where a local Anglican priest may be male, a thoughtful and conscientious layperson may be unable to accept his ministrations (except in articulo mortis) if he acts as an alternate sacramentally with a woman priest, or is under the sacramental care of a bishop who accepts women into his presbyterium. There are already vast swathes of the country where such devout laypersons are in effect unchurched.
It would be quite improper to suggest that Canon Law should be flouted ... and I am not even suggesting that CIC needs to be changed. I do not think that it does. Its provisions seem to me to be thoroughly well-judged. But there could be quite a gulf between a narrowly restrictive interpretation of what Canon Law says; and a pastorally sensitive deployment of the permissions and possibilities which it envisages. I myself benefited, in Ireland, from just such a pastorally sensitive approach on the part of an Irish diocesan bishop, and I would like to feel that the English Ordinariate will be no less pastorally sensitive and generous than the Catholic hierarchy of Ireland.
How this particular detail is played out will, I suspect, provide a litmus test of whether the English Ordinariate is going to be able to have a growing and significant role in gathering increasing numbers of Anglicans into Full Communion with the Holy See - as a major player in the context of the on-going disintegration of the Catholic Movement in the Church of England.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
I can sympathise with the plight of those catholicising Anglicans who doubt the validity of their female priests and hence the Sacraments administered by them, and who might wish to receive the sacraments from a Roman priest. The provisions however were originally intended for Eastern Orthodox, who, ironically, are not allowed by their own Churches to make use of them. The conditions ''that the person be unable to have recourse for the sacrament desired to a minister of his or her own Church or ecclesial Community, ask for the sacrament of his or her own initiative, manifest Catholic faith in the sacrament, and be properly disposed", would seem to exclude all except the Eastern Orthodox, for which other Christian Churches except them manifest Catholic faith in the Sacraments, and can become properly disposed through Confession and Absolution? With the ORthodox one can presume catholic faith because of the faith of the Church to which they belong, but with Anglicans such Catholic faith is subjective. The Catholic priest would have to ask the Anglican wanting to receive a Catholic Sacrament explicitly whaat he believes regarding the Sacraments, and whether he believes that he is in the state of grace. In the country in which i live, the provision to grant the Catholic Sacraments under the four above-named conditions to non-Catholic christians has been so widely interpreted (there are almost no Anglicans living here, and few orthodox, so the provisions is meant mainly for Old Catholics), that Catholic priests are known to give the Holy Communion to all present, urging Calvinists, Hindoes, Moslims and agnostics to come forawrd and receive. At funerals and weddings i have even heard the priest (or lay pastoral worker...) say : All who feel a bond with the deceased (or the bride and groom) may now come forward to receive the Bread and Wine. (sic!) The other Sacraments -Confession , Extreme Unction - are practically non-existant here, so there is little danger that non-Catholics would find themselves in a postiion to be urged to receive them...
Albertus,
As Fr. H quoted, the Sacraments under discussion are not just Eucharist, but also Penance and Unction. Someone who manifested Catholic faith would doubtless want to be shriven before being communicated; and in the case of Unction, especially if in extremis, would not a confession on the lips suffice to manifest such faith?
Albertus,
I would like to point out two things:
1. The use of the phrase "ecclesial Community" suggests that not only the Orthodox are intended. The Orthodox Churches are real Churches, but the protestant "churches" are really ecclesial (church-like) communities.
2. It is not necessary or intended that the Church or ecclesial Community in question manifests Catholic faith. It is the individual Christian who must manifest Catholic faith in the sacraments.
I would venture to suggest that anybody who feels that way about the orders and sacraments of the Church of England should not be reckoning himself or herself as a part of it, but joining some other part of Christ's Church where he or she can feel comfortable.
So, a "pastorally sensitive deployment of the permissions", would be one whereby the Ordinariate offers the sacraments to Catholic-minded Anglicans who can't find an ABC church nearby?
I see several problems with this. Firstly, in the condition that "the person be unable to have recourse for the sacrament desired to a minister of his or her own Church or ecclesial Community", what exactly is meant by "minister of his or her own Church..."? Does it mean a minister recognised by the official church, or one recognised by the person asking for the sacrament? If it means the former, then the discussion is over, because women priests are recognised by the C of E, so the permission would not apply. If it means the latter, then it would lead to a free-for-all, whereby anybody who didn't like the local vicar could ask for RC sacraments instead.
Does "unable to have recourse" mean physically unable i.e. no Anglican churches within reasonable distance, (which is unlikely in England), or does it just mean unwilling, i.e unwilling to drive or take a bus to the next village/town?
Your image of "vast swathes of the country where such devout laypersons are in effect unchurched" seems to me a gross exaggeration. A quick perusal of the Forward in Faith website shows few areas of the country where Catholic Anglicans would be unable to find a sympathetic Anglican church.
If the Ordinariate did give such permission it could also lead to a pick'n'mix attitude to the sacraments. People could share all the benefits of the Catholic church, i.e the sacraments, whilst having no intention of ever coming into full communion.
Any such policy would also surely need the agreement of the diocesan bishops. Otherwise, you could have the ludicrous situation where an Anglican is refused communion by the local diocesan priest, because that's his bishop's policy, so they simply go along instead to the Ordinariate mass in the same church where different rules apply! I can't believe the bishops would stand for this, and if they can't reach a collective decision on it, there seems little point in the Ordinary having a seat on the Bishops' Conference.
I know of a priest in full and visible communion with the Holy See who is far happier administering Holy Communion to people (such as Traditional Anglo-Catholics) who hold a belief in the Real Presence but are "separated Brethren" than to those who are "on paper" Catholics but for whom the Real Presence is of little value.
A noble sentiment no doubt but far too problematic in practice (and even to a degree in principle) for it to ever be a possibility as far as I can see.
As an aside knowing what I do of the "quality" of the Irish hierarchy, bar one or two exceptions, I wouldn't be surprised if that bishop had rightly communicated you but for the wrong reasons. One particular fool (it won't be hard to guess who for those in the know) has pretty much trademarked the word "pastoral" he uses it so often to described his episcopal reign. Too often in Ireland (and elsewhere, of course) such hospitality is down to post-Vatican II softheadedness than principled oeconomia.
Forgive me Fr Hunwicke for the snarkiness, I'm in a foul mood and if you feel the tone of this post too negative feel free to delete it.
It strikes me that whatever is a correctly "pastorally sensitive" application of the Canons, it would never be a published, one-size fits all policy. Pastoral should mean that an application of the canons is decided on within a pastoral relationship between a Christian and a pastor of the Church who is mindful of the Faith and the faith of the Christian coming to him for ministrations.
As an example, the fasting rules among Eastern Christians, as I'm sure anyone reading this blog knows, are fairly strict. Yet they do not bind the laity under penalty of sin; the canons are pastorally applied, and it is expected that a Christian will have recourse to a spiritual father to hash out God's will in his particular situation.
It seems to me that part of what has been called the "Anglican Patrimony" has been a tradition of such pastoral relationships. One of the tragedies among the Canterbury Communion has been the exaggeration of this tradition so that it has become a policy of always giving way to any difficulty, no matter how superficial, and ultimately, doing away with pastoral relationships.
It's a well-known adage that difficult situations make for bad law; but that does not mean that the difficult situations are not dealt with.
Post a Comment