Welcoming Conservative Anglicans

I simply do not understand why Bishops in the Roman Catholic Church are not more aggressive in responding to the very difficult plight of conservative Anglicans and Episcopalians who are trying to hold onto traditional Christian values while vomiting the modernist slime that masquerades as Christ's teaching. Yes, Anglicans can enter the Catholic Church one by one, but why not encourage and welcome a mass crossing of the Tiber?

WHAT DOES THE FUTURE HOLD FOR ANGLICAN CATHOLICS IN ENGLAND? is the January 6, 2009 commentary published by VirtueOnline.org, the Global Voice of Orthodox Anglicanism.

Many of its members [Forward in Faith, a group of conservative Anglicans] have been sustained by the fantasy of a rescue operation from across the Tiber, oblivious to the failure of such dreams in 1992 when women priests became a legal reality. The Roman Catholic hierarchy in England mostly rebuffed those who had hopes of a fresh beginning with the See of Rome, including the Cardinal at the time, Basil Hume OSB, who had hopes of restoring some of the damage done during the English Reformation.

However, nothing has changed since. The English Catholic hierarchy has given many hints of its reluctance to take in Anglicans, for a variety of reasons. For public consumption, they say that opposition to women's ordination is not a sufficient reason to convert. Privately, they are fearful of a large phalanx of conservative clergy, more loyal to the Holy See than many of their own clergy and colleagues, upsetting what has become a remarkably liberal RC ecosystem in England, in which many clergy and bishops privately have no objection to women priests, or for that matter, gay priests, or various kinds of interfaith interface.

Even new Pope Benedict XVI, who has in the past shown himself strongly sympathetic to the cause of orthodox Anglicanism, has studiously avoided making any commitment for fear of straining tenuous relationship ties with Dr. Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury. Rome would prefer Canterbury to work out its own problems internally.

Even the aspirations of some, such as the Bishop of Ebbsfleet, Andrew Burnham, who have explicitly requested a Roman solution to the Anglican problem, have gone nowhere.

Furthermore, there is no sign that the Pastoral Provision being made for United States Anglicans will be extended to England or anywhere else. Despite numerous visits by various bishops and other leaders, including the Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC) archbishop to a number of Vatican secretariats, there is no hint of any alteration to the stone face shown to Anglicans by the Roman authorities in England and in Rome.

Options for Anglican Catholics in England are being closed off steadily as each stage of the Measure draws nearer to the statute book. There is no way out, around or through it. In February, the formal consideration of the worthless Code of Practice by the General Synod will cease, and approval by a large majority will be a foregone conclusion. As one editorial observed, "We need not hold our breath nor sit poised on the edge of our seats." How then will Forward in Faith respond when it meets the following day and looks into a mirror?

More importantly, how will the Roman Catholic Church look when its "stone face" is viewed in the mirror of God? Should the Church not welcome these separated brothers and sisters who cannot accept women and homosexual priests and bishops? Surely, surely, Pope Benedict XVI will have the courage to meet them and personally invite them in.

From what I see, many conservative Anglicans (and Episcopalians) will become far better and more faithful Catholics than current pew-sitters. Shouldn't these Anglicans be diligently pursued, giving them what has been provided at Our Lady of the Atonement in San Antonio, then work to resolve any remaining issues that remain divisive.

With My Evolving Grandchildren

This is my week to deal with the Evolution of Mankind from lower ages to higher. Their parents are on vacation to celebrate almost 20 years of marriage, and I am babysitting for four young people in grade and high schools. Fortunately the oldest one drives and furnishes transportation for the others, so I have stayed home and kept house, including washing lots of clothes. A bad cold means I am generously using the $$ left by the parents to buy dinners rather than make them--although homemade burritos is on tonight's menu.

The grocery store provided an opportunity to pick up a magazine to read. UNTIL I discovered that ALL the articles in the January issue of Scientific American are devoted to "The Most Powerful Idea in Science." At least ten articles promote and defend the theory of the evolution of mankind from lower organisms.

I concluded that the SciAm issue was written in response to the movie, EXPELLED: NO INTELLIGENCE ALLOWED, in which Ben Stein questions both people who believe and disbelieve in the theory of the evolution of man. Stein's subdued, yet penetrating questions and the resulting answers easily show why the theory should be doubted. Most importantly, the documentary demonstrates how scientists who disagree with the theory of evolution--no matter how well qualified, are freqently prohibited from continuing to teach and to publish.

So last night all five of us watched Ben Stein's movie, EXPELLED. The grandkids learned how important it is to question and then listen carefully to the answers from more than one side before believing what scientists say and write. We all laughed as a primary proponent of the evolution of mankind claimed that life could have been 'seeded' on earth by a greater intelligence from some other world--yet that greater intelligence could not be God. The kids were shocked at the demonstrated hatred (of God and imperfect human beings) by some of the proponents of evolution.

The grandkids need to thank their Uncle D who was so generous in buying multiple copies of the video for all his nieces and nephews. The video is an excellent start in training students in justifiable skepticism of scientists who have agendas (funding, political, social, and irreligious) that interfere with honest scientific research.