
Pope Benedict XVI with Archbishop Rowan Williams
When, during the recent visit of Archbishop Rowan Williams to Pope Benedict XVI, a third phase of the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission (ARCIC), I wondered whether there was any point – it all seemed like a very costly exercise that has, historically, achieved little. Despite two rounds of ARCIC, the Churches have continued to drift apart. Indeed, the lines of division between Anglicans and Roman Catholics are now entrenched, and if the secular media is to be believed, the divisions concern such matters as the ordination of women and ethical teachings on human sexuality. I wondered, as many did, if the third phase of ARCIC was merely designed to placate the Archbishop of Canterbury (and the Anglican Communion as a whole) after the public relations disaster that was the release of the Apostolic Constitution, Anglicanorum cœtibus, and the subsequent (thinly veiled) rage of Archbishop Rowan Williams.
Very often, the temptation amongst ecumenists seems to be to focus on the teachings of symbolic documents (for example the 39-Articles of the Anglicans and the Council of Trent for the Catholics) and attempt to find points of agreement, points of misunderstanding, and points of potential reconciliation. The result is that the “cracks” between the theological positions of the various communions are “plastered over” in the hope that they will remain hidden. A favourite tool of the ecumenists has been to claim “terminological divergence”: masterfully deployed in the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification to claim that Lutherans and Catholics utilize the same terms to refer to different theological realities, thereby affirming that the respective condemnations of the reformation era do not anathematize the theological positions of each communion.
Whilst the fruits of such an approach are undoubted – and there is certainly truth in identifying terminological divergence (the Lutheran and Catholic understandings of ‘justification’ as event and process respectively is a notable example) – this approach has left the impression that ecumenical dialogue deals with the branches of theology without tackling the roots, and the health of the vine itself.
It was with some surprise – and considerable pleasure – that I noticed, courtesy of Fr Hunwicke, that the third phase of ARCIC is scheduled to discuss “fundamental questions concerning the Church”, including the relationship between the local Church and the universal Church, and its role – local and universal – in discerning “just moral teachings”. (See the Vatican Bolletino, 28th November 2009).
Firstly, ARCIC is therefore billed to discuss something deeply relevant to the modern Church and not a sixteenth century division that is of historical interest only. An evaluation of the Church’s role in the production of ethical teaching, is a matter of fundamental theology – that is, it questions the very start of the theology: the “how we do theology” – the sources and methods and the role of the Church. It is clear that there are profound differences in Anglican and Catholic ecclesiology that touch on matters such as the Church’s authority as an authentic custodian of truth, and the understanding of the Church as a communion characterized by union and communion. It is these issues of divergence that are most pressing, as they drive much of the theological disagreement about matters of faith and practice. Indeed, it is the Catholic fundamental theology that must be embraced by Anglican converts to Catholicism, not merely the liturgical life and the ethical teaching.
Secondly, ARCIC implicitly acknowledges that this fundamental theology has implications for “just moral teachings”. In short, the discussion of fundamental theology relates directly to the points of divergence between the two communions, and by extension, to the divisions within the Anglican Church (matters such as homosexuality, marriage and family life, contraception, etc). I think “just moral teachings” could also be extended to a consideration of the role of women in ordained ministry, especially given that so many see the Catholic Church as “depriving” women of that opportunity – I suspect, however, that the ordination of women will not be on the agenda, lest the divide between Anglicanism and Catholicism be reduced to the lowest common denominator.
So, in short, my pessimism about ARCIC has been proven incorrect – and I am thrilled. That’s not to say I think ARCIC-III is going to bring about reunification of the Church of England and the Roman Church – nor do I anticipate there to be any immediate implications for believers of either communion. But perhaps the lines of division will be more clearly defined: it would be a great achievement if ARCIC-III explicitly narrated the fact that the division is a deep one, and not one that can simply be attributed (as it is so conveniently, by members of the mainstream press) to the “ordination of women”. This observation, perhaps, would have implications for the formation of those men who were formerly Anglican Clergy who now put themselves forward for service as diocesan priests in the Catholic Church. Indeed, from an ecumenical point of view, the identification of the fundamental theological roots of the divergence will lead to the birth and genesis of a more targeted and proactive theological ecumenism.