Operación San Lorenzo

The Chilean mine rescue completed yesterday has caused me to think about Anglicanorum coetibus and the rescue of Anglo-Catholics. There are many parallels. It is a good idea for those of us who are involved with the Anglican rescue effort as well as those who are being rescued to consider now the elements that went into the successful rescue in San José, Chile.

The miners, trapped since August 5 and thought dead, were out of touch with the surface for a number of weeks and survived on the very small amount of food they had in the mine. Fortunately they were able to find water. But until contact was made with the surface they began to despair that anyone would try to find them. They understood only too well the difficulty. But the 33 miners kept their heads and used their mining skill to assure that they would survive long enough. They had faith, they were organized, and united.

The Anglo-Catholics who have left the Episcopal Church and other Anglican provinces over the years are like the miners trapped beneath the surface. They have lost meaningful communication with the their own church and have not established communication with the Catholic Church. They have despaired of ever being rescued. They suffer from disunity. So comparing them with the analogy of the Chilean miners, these Anglicans have kept the faith, but they are in a state of disarray perhaps due to their despair.

But a rescue operation named after St. Lawrence, the patron of miners was underway without them knowing it. Assisted by NASA scientists, the Chileans developed a careful plan for the rescue. When a small borehole was introduced from the surface to the mine, communication was restored. The miners again had hope that they might be rescued, although they were only too aware of the difficulty of the operation. A feeding tube was inserted and the miners were given at first a carefully concocted nutrient as well as needed medications for those with serious health problems. If they had been fed normal food immediately, they probably would have died. So they were at first denied food that they might have wanted in order to save their lives.

Is there an analogy here? The small borehole could be the first communication between Anglo-Catholics and the Vatican. The Anglicans asked for intercommunion. The result was a denial of that request but instead the Vatican offered a process leading to full organic union. Although the Anglo-Catholics, trapped as it were by their circumstances, would not immediately be in full communion, they would be in a very real sense in partial communion leading to full communion.

Meanwhile the Chileans were beginning three larger boreholes, plan A, plan B, and plan C. They didn't know which one would be successful. As it was, the one with a new innovative hammering bit was the one that broke through first.

Perhaps we could say that ARCIC was the first borehole, and the Pastoral Provision for Anglicans, which allowed married Anglican priests to become Catholic priests was the second. The Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum Coetibus looks like the breakthrough. But what does it mean?

In the actual Chilean mine rescue, one of the first things to happen was to prepare the borehole to make sure it was safe, so that it wouldn't cave in. This took a number of days. The miners themselves had to prepare things on their end. There had to be a good deal of communication and coordination.

The analogy here would be the promulgation of the Apostolic Constitution and the setting up by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith of channels of communication and the development of a plan for the ordinariates. Then it must be assured that the plan is safe, so Bishop Wuerl, for example, has been asked to be a facilitator and set up an office to receive inquiries and to assist Anglicans who wish to form the Ordinariate in the United States. It would not be good for the plan to go of half cocked and end up in disaster. On the Anglican side, there needs to be careful preparation too, and this is made difficult by the fact of disunity among the "Continuing Anglicans".

After they had lined the borehole to stabilize it, the chilean rescuers used a bullet shaped cage named Phoenix II that was lowered on a steel cable operated by a power windless. Some rescuers first descended into the mine to help prepare the miners to be rescued. One of the first concerns was the psychological condition of the trapped miners. Throughout the operation the rescuers maintained a fantastic esprit de corps like a soccer team complete with shouts and cheers. The discipline of the miners themselves was one of the things that made it all possible.

Perhaps the preparation of Anglo-Catholics to be rescued is the most critical part of what is going on. Some have deep misgivings. Some think the whole thing will cave in. Some may be thinking, "out of the frying pan into the fire" and thoughts like that. A tremendous amount of sensitivity and patience is needed here.

The rescue operation could not happen all at once. It was only possible to bring out one miner at a time in an operation that seemed to take about 40 minutes each. Each miner had to be prepared with medical equipment to constantly monitor his vital signs as he was brought to the surface. Decisions had to be made about the order of rescue. Family members had to be prepared at the other end. On-site medical facilities had to be prepared to handle 33 or more patients. The President of Chile and even the President of Bolivia had to be there to welcome the miners and to lend to the effort.

The bringing of Anglo-Catholics over to Rome, even groups, can not realistically be done all at once because conversion is an individual choice. So in the Pastoral Provision, and in the Ordinariate as perceived, individuals make their own profession of faith in the Catholic Church. Then if they wish they are reunited again in a community that preserves their Anglican patrimony. But while the operation is going on, there needs to be a tremendous esprit de corps as there was in the Chilean mining rescue situation. Catholics must express and show their solidarity with their Anglo-Catholic brethren. The hearty shout down the tube as a miner is still 15 or 20 meters below the surface, "¿Compañero, Cómo te encuentras?" and the hearty "abrazos" as he emerges from the cage is emblematic of the solidarity between miners and rescuers, and should be the mark of the enthusiastic welcome Catholics offer to Anglo-Catholics who are coming home. This may be difficult in a Catholic Church today that seems ambivalent about its own identity and is full of many Catholics who distrust Anglicans for various reasons.

So one by one the miners stepped out of their cage wearing dark glasses so they would not be blinded immediately by the light. Some knelt and prayed. One held up a bible that had been forced down the small tube. Some brought up rocks and presented them as souvenirs. One made it a point to show he could still kick a soccer ball. Others received their hugs in apparent bewilderment, and all were taken on a gurney to triage for evaluation and medical treatment. Few could hold back their tears as those feared lost were restored to their families. It was like lazarus being brought up from the dead.

Any Anglo-Catholic who joins the Roman Catholic Church, no matter in what way, will experience bewilderment. After the small confining situation of being a "Continuing Anglican", stepping out into the larger Catholic Church can be an overpowering experience. I can tell you it is true because I have done it. The first impulse is to kneel down and thank God. Perhaps another impulse is to try to show people that you can still run and leap about. Bringing in some token of the past may be a natural and worthy effort. But the biggest thing is to adjust to the new reality. Post traumatic stress disorder is well identified in the case of service men and women returning from combat. Far less understood, perhaps is the stress of becoming a Catholic. This may particularly be a problem in the case of Anglican priests. I guess I would say I am one who is still trying to be faithful to my vocation as a priest even in circumstances where I can not easily do it. I pray that my brothers who are coming in now will find it easier.

The final act of the rescue operation, after the last rescuer left the mine, leaving the lights on, by the way, was for the president of Chile to give a speech thanking the rescuers and all involved and placing an iron lid over the top of the rescue hole and placing a rock upon it. The rescue operation was a complete success. Not a single life was lost, and the mine was officially closed with the promise that there would not only be safety reforms in the mining industry in Chile, but in its fisheries and agriculture as well.

How I wish for the day when the cap can be placed on the borehole that has been funneling Anglicans into the Catholic Church for many years! But realistically we know that the rescue operation is still going on. There may even be the need to bore further holes deep into Anglican territory.

I feel compelled to weigh in on The Anglican Communion Covenant, a document proposed to forge a greater unity between constituent churches in the Anglican Communion. In essence, it is a Constitution, something the Anglican Communion has not had up until now. Obviously it is a reaction to the state of impaired communion resulting from the election and consecration of the Bishop of New Hampshire and other similar sources of tension within the communion, although no specific issues of this kind are mentioned in the Covenant itself.

I read it with a sense of empathy because of course I was once in the Anglican Communion and I still consider myself Anglican in orientation, even as a member of the Catholic Church. Since this Covenant is intended to broadly clarify who is in the Anglican Communion and who isn't, I read it with the idea in mind to check myself to see how far I have drifted away from contemporary Anglicanism or how far it has drifted away from me. Certainly the need to maintain unity in an ecclesial body is very important and although I find myself outside the communion I was once a part of, I deeply sympathize with their need to try to hold it all together. So the idea of proposing a Covenant for the Anglican Communion is clearly a good thing.

One of the things that first struck me was the curious use of the word "covenant" as a verb. It is clear that the English language is flexible enough to give license to such usage, but I wondered as I read it if this was indicative of some kind of innovative attitude that lies behind the writing of this document. The second thing that I found myself asking was whether it was necessary to have something as as lengthy as this document is. Given the fact that churches within the Anglican Communion will be asked to ratify it, the nine pages of text, as noble as it seems at first sight, may offer too much opportunity to quibble over things.

One thing the Covenant is not, however, is a "confession". It is not a doctrinal statement, although it presumably incorporates Anglican doctrinal statements by reference. The Anglican Church can be contrasted with many other Protestant denominations in not being a confessional church. In other words there is no one comprehensive outline of the faith that all adhere to. Some would like to make the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion into such a confessional statement and require more than mere assent to them, but that idea has never been universally popular in Anglicanism since the 39 Articles relate primarily to issues of the Reformation period of history. There is in the covenant a clear reaffirmation of the famous Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral in section 1.1, but adds two more points, vague though they may be: shared patterns of liturgy and shared mission. Given the fact that these two points are added to the four of the quadrilateral means that they are especially significant.

The really central and constitutional aspect of the Covenant is the focus on the instruments of unity: The Archbishop of Canterbury, The Lambeth Conference, the Anglican Consultative Council, and the Primates Meeting. These four instruments of unity are the way the Anglican Communion works through consultation, mutual responsibility, and interdependence. Put another way, if your church is not represented in these groups, you are not in the Anglican Communion.

The document anticipates the need to maintain the Covenant and to resolve disputes, and it gives authority to The Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion to monitor things, ask churches to postpone or forego some impending controversial actions they are contemplating and generally keeping an eye on what churches are loyal to the Covenant and what churches may be going astray. It will be interesting to see how this operates in practice.

Of course the big question is whether or not the Episcopal Church can or will adopt this Covenant. My guess is that they will ratify it and continue to do pretty much what they have been doing all along, which is to excuse their innovations with the claim, "The Holy Spirit made us do it." Of course it is precisely this arrogant go-it-alone attitude that the Covenant is intended to address. We shall see. Does the Covenant have teeth in it enough for the Anglican Communion to be able to say that The Episcopal Church has failed to live up to the agreement? I tend to doubt it.

Does it come too late? I think so. Anglicanism has already "spilled out" of the Anglican Communion. The "Continuing Anglican Churches" stemming from the St. Louis Congress of 1977, the Western Rite Orthodox parishes and the Anglican Use Roman Catholic parishes have just as legitimate a claim on Anglicanism as do the churches in communion with the Church of England. They are unlikely to see the covenant as a way back to being in communion either together or with the See of Canterbury. If these groups form the fringe just to the right of the Anglican Communion, it is just as likely that there will be former members of the Communion forming groups on the left. The Australians who favor lay presidency at the Eucharist come to mind along with some Evangelical groups that have a claim to Anglican heritage.

While I may not be the only person to say this is too little, too late, it is clearly the way toward the future for the Anglican Communion. The failure to do something like this will certainly and inevitably lead to more fragmentation, but it will not end the current situation of a tragically divided and alienated ecclesial body. I feel the sense that I am crying over spilt milk, and in a sense I am. It is just that the Anglican Communion before it became so divided showed so much promise in its missionary and ecumenical endeavors. Inevitably many more people, like myself, will be compelled to seek to fulfill their Christian vocation and ministry outside of that fellowship. Thank God for the generosity of the Catholic Church in making a place for Anglicans with the Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum coetibus.

The Apostolic Constitution "Anglicanorum coetibus" has been promulgated by the Pope on November 4th, memorial of St. Charles Borromeo. This may be seen as the culmination of much hard work and prayer on the part of many Anglicans and Roman Catholics who have made this possible. I only wish some of the people I have known had lived to see this day. Particularly I can think of Canon Albert DuBois, Father W. T. St. John Brown, and Father Joseph Crookston, OSF. They and many others, too numerous to mention, worked and prayed for the day when Anglicans and Roman Catholics could be in full communion with each other.

Of course this will not be for all Anglicans. Many will say. "Thanks, but no thanks." because some of the standards maintained by the Catholic Church are inconvenient for them. Others still think incomprehensibly that Anglicanism can be rescued from falling into apostasy and heresy. But the Vatican has given the signal that we can no longer wait for Anglicanism to straighten itself out, and the pastoral need of those seeking unity with the Holy See has a priority over cordial ecumenical relations with Canterbury.

It is now time for the Anglicans who for many years have said they want to be reunited with the Holy See to come home. There isn't likely to be a better moment than this, and the scruples that some may have are far outweighed by the opportunity to be again united in mission and to be excused from the moral folly that seems to be the mark of Anglicanism in recent years. Now is the time to get on with the commission God has given us.

I am sensitive to the fact that the Forward in Faith Movement in England wants to continue the fight to head off the acceptance of female bishops in the Church of England and to insure a place for Anglo-Catholics in the C of E. My friends, that battle is lost. It was lost when other churches in the Anglican Communion ordained women and when the Church of England eventually accepted it. There were eloquent speeches at the recent Forward in Faith Conference urging people to hold firm and to continue to work to uphold the catholic faith in the C of E. I have seen this all before. When the Episcopal Church voted to ordain women to the priesthood, there was a strong group that said, "Do not leave, but continue to work from within." They were wrong; the battle was lost, and they failed to realize it. I fear Forward in Faith in England is making the same mistake.

I would be the last to say that what lies ahead will be easy. The erection of ordinariates throughout the world will require hard work and dedication. We may not be popular in some circles, even in Roman Catholic circles, But this is what we must do. Rome has said "Yes." To our request. It would only be the meanest of Anglo-Catholics who would not welcome this invitation and do everything possible to bring it to fruition.

C. David Burt

Pope Benedict XVI's Mass today at the National Stadium in Washington DC was criticized by Father Neuhaus today on EWTN as being very multicultural and perhaps not to the liking of the Pope himself, who has expressed himself frequently as favoring the traditional music of the Catholic Church. Of course the Pope showed no sign of not liking the music. One wouldn't expect that he ever would show any sign of displeasure at something so carefully prepared and presented by so many American musicians. One can say that the occasion was extraordinary in that it brought together thousands of American Catholics in one place for a Mass that surely must have posed many logistical and diplomatic stumbling blocks for the masters of ceremony and protocol who planned it. In my opinion it was very well done indeed, and there was something for everyone.

From a musicological standpoint, there was perhaps more Latin than we would normally find in any Catholic Mass in the United States, but the Latin formed the foundation of the musical texts at many points with other languages interspersed. Gregorian Chant found its expression as the musical basis for many of the musical themes presented as new compositions. The introduction of Latin American and Native American instruments and rhythms during the Communion was entirely appropriate, and, if I were to complain about anything, it would be the fact that Placido Domingo unavoidably upstaged the Pope himself with his rendition of Panis Angelicus. Of course, I am just kidding. It was operatic, but thoroughly appropriate for the occasion, after all, the Pope is the Bishop of Rome, Italy.

The music intended for the congregation to sing was eminently singable. There were none of the sentimental faux-folk tunes that still blight the air in many Catholic parishes. The Sanctus was perhaps the most familiar setting of all, and the people sang it with gusto. At the end, I was greatly gratified with the hymn, "Alleluia, Sing to Jesus" which sounded to me like it was right out of the 1940 Episcopal Hymnal with its wonderfully moving bass line. The people clearly knew this hymn and sang it enthusiastically even though it could be easily dubbed a Protestant hymn.

The Mass was a votive Mass for the Holy Spirit, and the Collect of the Mass made me sit up straight when I heard Pope Benedict read it, for it was none other than the Collect for Purity. Of course Cranmer took this beautiful Latin prayer and made it an invariable introductory prayer to the Communion Service. So here we had a Mass which began with the Collect for Purity and ended with "Alleluia, Sing to Jesus". I doubt if it was an intentional bow to the Anglicans and Anglican converts like myself, but it was certainly appreciated.

So, if Father Neuhaus thinks the Pope didn't like the music, my guess is that the music may not have been exactly what the Pope was expecting, but that he could not fail to have approved of it.

C. David Burt

Rome Pilgrimage

From September 22 to September 29th over 100 people connected with the Anglican Use converged on Rome as pilgrims hailing from such places as Scranton, San Antonio, Arlington, and Houston. I was a happy member of the Scranton contingent led by Father Eric Bergman, the newest of the Anglican Use Pastors. Father Phillips and Deacon Orr of Our Lady of the Atonement, San Antonio, led their group, which included the choir of Atonement Academy. Father Noble and Deacon Barnett of Our Lady of Walsingham in Houston led their group, and there was a group led by Father Hart of Corpus Christi, Texas. Father Hawkins of Arlington, Texas put in an appearance during the pilgrimage. Archbishop John Myers, the Ecclesiastical Delegate for the Pastoral Provision, was already in Rome, and he and his Secretary, Father Stetson met with us and participated in most of the liturgies. Bishop Vann was also there. So all in all, most of the Anglican Use was there in Rome. The Archbishop, Father Stetson, and Bishop Vann stayed at the North American College, and the rest of us were in hotels. Our hotel was about a mile from the Vatican. Joe Blake, the President of the Anglican Use Society flew over to be with us for a couple of days and to hold a meeting of the Anglican Use Society Board of Directors.

The Archbishop met us for Mass at St. Peter’s Chains on Sunday shortly after our arrival. I had prepared music for the Masses Sunday through Wednesday, and we had a combined choir of 14 people. On Monday the Anglican Use Mass was at the Venerable English College. On Tuesday it was at the North American College, On Wednesday we went to the Papal Audience where we had preferred seating. Some of the Anglican Use Pastors were able to greet the Pope. In the evening the Novus Ordo Mass was at St. John Lateran. On Thursday the Anglican Use Mass was at St. Susanna with the Atonement Academy Choir singing. In the evening we sang Evensong with Cardinal Law at St. Mary Major, and Friday the Novus Ordo was celebrated by Archbishop Angelo Amato in Latin at St. Peter’s with the Atonement Academy singing.

Aside from Masses, our time was taken up primarily with touring the sights in Rome and eating in restaurants. The favorite dish in Rome seems to be macaroni and cheese with bits of bacon. A plate of that can cost as much as €12.00! I went with the Houston group to the Taverna dei Gracchi, just up the street from our hotel. The waiter asked, “Quanti personi?” and I answered “dieci”. He opened a double sliding door and there was a formal private dining room with a table set for ten. I knew then that we were in trouble. The whole meal cost about €700, and the waiter wasn’t even Italian; he was Greek! From champagne to grappa we were treated with the best meal you can get in Rome.

The high point of the touring for me was the Scavi Tour in the excavations under St. Peter’s. There you may view the relics of St. Peter. The whole Vatican is exceedingly impressive; that goes without saying. But when you cut through all of the pomp and extravagant excess of art, which really makes you tired if you try to see it all in such a short period of time, you realize that what it comes down to is that little box of bones lying only a matter of yards away from where he was crucified upside down. This is the most important thing. The pope is a prisoner in the Vatican, only a few yards away from that famous tomb, and he must have the worst job in the whole Church; everybody wants to greet him personally or to give him a gift or something, but the man cannot possibly greet everyone personally. So he greets and blesses the crowd, and he greets a few in the name of the many. For us, when he greeted some of the priests in our group, we rightly felt that we were being given special recognition. I viewed the tombs of all of the popes who lived during my lifetime, from Pius XI to John Paul II. They are all buried within a few yards of the bones of St. Peter. And the present successor of Peter, except when he is traveling, is always very near this place, and he must know that his bones will soon rest there in the same crypt too. Please pray for Pope Benedict XVI.

An Anglican Covenant

The Draft Anglican Covenant looks like a vanilla version of Anglicanism, but one must observe carefully what it does not say along with what it does say. Most glaring, in my opinion, is the lack of any truly catholic ecumenical perspective; there is no view either toward reunion with Anglicans of the continuing churches or with the great catholic communions of Rome and Orthodoxy.

Would it be too much to hope for some statement, however bland, in favor of maintaining the apostolic ministry of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons in apostolic succession? While the Anglican Communion is certainly split on the issue of homosexuality, it is equally split on the issue of ordination of women. The Windsor Report accepts the ordination of women as a fact of life within Anglicanism and this "covenant" by failing to mention the issue at all does the same thing. I thought that Women's ordination was still being tested and that, hard as it might be to imagine it, the final verdict on the question might still be, "No". A covenant such as this implies the tacit acceptance of WO, and this is out of the question for Anglo-Catholics, Biblically based Evangelicals, and even broad-church Anglicans who yearn for unity with the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church.

So much for what it doesn't say; now for what it does say: By emphasizing the 39 Articles, the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, and the limitation of the sacraments to two only, the covenant alies itself with a certain brand of Anglicanism that seems to be going out of its way to affirm itself as Protestant and not Catholic. I thought that in the light of ARCIC we had moved beyond this. My question is, "Are these touchstones necessary?" Again, the effect is to make Anglo-Catholics extremely uncomfortable.

I am not entirely convinced that the Anglican Communion needs a covenant at all, especially since the purpose seems to be to define who is "in" and who is "out". In any case, this one may unintentionally put people or groups "out" that might better remain "in". A covenant such as this is a dangerous thing. In any case, the people working on it would do well to examine the Affirmation of St. Louis, which is another attempt to define who is truly Anglican and who is not. The effect of the Affirmation of St. Louis was to leave its adherents outside the official Anglican Communion. That was not its intention.

Finally, does the draft covenant actually exclude the people it is intending to exclude? It says that where there are disputes the matters should be submitted to the Primates Meeting, and the Primates will offer guidance and direction. There is no language in the covenant that would compel churches to accept the admonition of the Primates, nor is there any clear language on how a church would be declared to be outside of the covenant relationship. If an unrepentant ECA is to be excluded from the Anglican Communion by this covenant, I would say it won't work.

The Anglican Communion would be better off without a covenant and would be much better off without this one.

C. David Burt