Tolerance or Compromise?

Yesterday, I participated in an ecumenical service at a prominent church. As we processed in, the local priest in charge of the service informed us that because the imam who was part of the service wouldn't bow to the altar, we were not to bow either.

I found this unduly accommodating to the imam. Would the local mosque have been so tolerant of our Christian sensibilities? For that matter, non-Christian speakers at funerals in my own church have never objected to bowing to the altar. --J. Douglas Ousley

Love or Marriage?

The Church of England recently called for special sermons and prayers for Christian marriage on Valentine's Day, which this year falls on a Sunday.

While uncharacteristically topical, the mandate still misses the point of greatest cultural interest. Valentine's Day is popular because it raises the much larger issue of romantic relationships, which may or may not be confined to traditional marriage. Genuine affection, true romance, Christian love: these are the proper subjects for prayers and sermons on February 14. --J. Douglas Ousley

Freedom Trail

In 1908, the Fifth Lambeth Conference of all the bishops of the Anglican Communion issued an encyclical letter. The letter states that to be an Anglican was to be a member of "the Church of free men, educating them into a knowledge of the liberty wherewith Christ hath made them free."

One-hundred-and-two years later, we may wonder whether we have been true to this vision of our branch of Christendom. Few official documents today herald the liberty of our understanding of the Gospel--the freedom we have to choose radically different styles of worship and diverse theological presentations of the message of Jesus. Maybe this is where traditionalists ought now to look for inspiration. --J. Douglas Ousley

Coming in Second

The election of a lesbian suffragan (assistant) bishop in the Diocese of Los Angeles has unleashed the predictable firestorm of protest. Yet Mother Glasspool will be the second out-of-the-closet and partnered homosexual bishop—and surely the second in this case will be much less consequential than the first. In other words, the gay flag has already been flown.

Granted, there are two differences in the situation now. First, the Bishop of Los Angeles has launched a pre-emptive strike against anyone who would dare to oppose this election—including standing committees of the various American dioceses who must assent to the election for it to be valid. Bishop Jon Bruno has said he will file presentments against them—a kind of legal lawsuit—should they dare to challenge what he believes has become the new dogma in the Episcopal Church.

Second, if these committees consent, they will know how much their action will be resented in many quarters in the Anglican Communion. When Bishop Gene Robinson was confirmed in 2003, many of us thought the storm would blow over quickly. After all, there have long been practicing homosexual bishops in the Anglican Communion. Now we know that being public with one’s sexual preference and life causes scandal worldwide.

Nevertheless, while I resent the arrogant, in-your-face attitude of Bishop Bruno and other partisans of immediate change, I can’t see that the election of Mother Glasspool will make much difference, one way or the other. It was Bishop Robinson who broke through the barrier; the protest after his election notwithstanding, there is no barrier left for gay bishops in America. –J. Douglas Ousley

Rome and Canterbury, Enough for Now

Last week, the Vatican issued the formal requirements for receiving Anglican clergy, laypeople, and parishes into the Roman Catholic Church. Little was said in this "Apostolic Constitution and Complementary Norms" that wasn't hinted at in earlier press releases and conferences.

The responses continue to pour in from throughout the Anglican Communion, and they have been so varied that they are impossible to summarize. The Episcopal Church's ecumenical officer offered one of the more cogent, if critical comments. It remains hard to regard this papal initiative as a move forward in ecumenical relations.

Very few clergy or bishops or splinter groups have yet said they will apply for membership under the new regulations. Those who have are identified with extreme Anglo-Catholic positions, leading one observer to comment that Anglicans who used Roman rites and customs in the Church of England would end up following Anglican rites and customs in the Church of Rome.

Unless there are further developments, it may be time to move on to other topics. --J. Douglas Ousley

Rome and Canterbury, Continued

The Rev. George Rutler, Pastor of Incarnation's sister Roman Catholic parish, the Church of Our Saviour recently issued a scathing series of comments on the upcoming Vatican plan to receive Anglican clergy and laity. Father Rutler sees the plan as just the latest sign of the disintegration of the branch of Christianity of which he himself was once a prominent priest.

More temperate are the remarks of the Episcopal Bishop of New York, the Rt. Rev. Mark Sisk, who notes that there has long been movement back and forth between Roman Catholic and Anglican churches.

At the moment, my only additional thought is to wonder whether the controversy has become such big news only because there seemed that such a close relationship between the churches had been established in recent decades. Those who resent that relationship--especially converts to Catholicism--appear to be the people who are most excited about the prospect of an Anglican subculture within the Roman Mother Church. --J. Douglas Ousley

Vatican to Anglicans: Drop Dead?

From 1978 to 1985, I was fortunate to serve Episcopal Churches in Paris and Rome. During that time, I had numerous ecumenical contacts with Roman Catholics, ranging from shared baptisms at the high altar of Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris, to addresses to French bishops and communion from their hands, to audiences with Pope John Paul II. Such contacts have continued since my return to this country.

What is interesting is that at no time when I was in Europe did I hear anything like the recent proposal from the Vatican to receive Anglicans into the Roman Catholic Church on what appear to be very generous terms, including allowing married Anglican priests to stay married.

The heads of the Church of England and of English Catholics immediately issued a response that is breathtakingly bland and unenthusiastic. Even Anglican conservatives have expressed some distaste for what the NY Times observes may be an attempt to revivify a declining Catholic Church in Europe.

Admittedly, Vatican authorities may resent the fact ath disaffected Roman Catholics have been joining the Anglican Communion in large numbers ever since the 1960's. Our church offers a similar liturgy and structure and the same sacraments while providing more freedom of biblical interpretation and ethical behavior. The jibe that we are "Catholic lite" is partly true.

Even so, we have never publicly endorsed sheep-stealing, nor have we gone out of our way to entice Roman Catholics toward Anglo-catholicism. The new Vatican policy is an affront--very nearly, a declaration of war. --J. Douglas Ousley