Top College News Subscribe to the Newsletter

Neitzsche is Dead: Vatican, Catholic priests should stop being politicians

Opinion Editor

Published: Saturday, October 31, 2009

Updated: Sunday, November 1, 2009 22:11

vatican

AP Photo

Cardinal William Levada, right, the Vatican's chief doctrinal official, flanked by Archbishop Joseph Augustine Di Noia, Secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, speaks at a news conference at the Vatican, Tuesday, Oct. 20, 2009.

A back-room deal is in the works.


The conservative faction, seeking to boost its numbers, is working to steal disenchanted members of the competition. The rules are simple — these people will keep many of their same beliefs, but they will switch their allegiance to the new faction in protest of the policies they protest.


Sound like the Republican Party picking Sarah Palin to steal Democratic women in 2008? Maybe, but it more recently fits the description of the Catholic Church, which is cutting a deal to convert dissatisfied Anglicans to bolster their ranks.


The Anglican Church ­— and its American branch, the Episcopal Church ­— has recently been rocked by a highly divisive controversy over its policies concerning gays in the church. The church's more liberal wing has been pushing to not only allow pastors to bless homosexual marriages, but also to appoint gay pastors and bishops.

These efforts have caused widespread outrage among the more conservative members of the church and has created tensions in recent years that threaten to rend the entire denomination in two.


The Catholic Church has apparently been watching the debate closely. The Vatican announced a few weeks ago it would make it easier for incensed Anglicans to switch to Catholicism.


Progressive policies within churches often result in some of the faithful changing denominations, but this move is unprecedented, primarily because it relaxes some doctrines deeply held by Catholics. The Vatican says Anglicans making the switch will be allowed to keep some of their unique worship traditions, such as mass rites. It has even provided for married Anglican bishops to be ordained as Catholic priests — a startling compromise, especially for traditional Catholic clergy, who must remain celibate.


It's true Catholicism and Anglicanism are strikingly similar — the more cynical might call Anglicanism "Catholicism lite," — but bending the rules to allow this transition is reprehensible for both those who made the deal and those who choose to accept it. The Vatican claims it is merely "adding to the Church's spiritual diversity," but it is obviously just making a side deal to increase its membership. In fact, under the current conditions, the new Catholics wouldn't even answer to their regional Catholic bishop, instead following a "personal ordinariate" who would report to the Vatican directly.


In other words, these ex-Anglicans would be off-shoot Catholics, instead of members of the Church proper.


But even as the Vatican is merely trying to add more numbers, Anglicans who accept the deal would be sacrificing some important ideals. Primarily, Anglicans who switch to Catholicism would have to acknowledge the authority of the Pope — and disagreement with that important principle is the primary reason Anglicanism even exists in the first place.

What's saddest about this maneuver is the badly political overtones. As previously stated, it sounds eerily similar to 2008, when Republicans attempted to steal female voters angry with the party's nomination of Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton.

Separation of church and state is a good idea, as much for the church's sake as for the state's. When a church starts to throw itself into the cutthroat game of compromise and maneuvering that is politics, it starts to lose its spiritual and theological value. And when churches start employing tactics almost identical to those employed by political parties, they risk sacrificing important ideals just to grab more votes — I mean members.

I hope Anglicans — like Democratic women in 2008 — will recognize this ploy for what it is, that they are not so obsessed with a single issue that they are willing to give up their ideals and change their spiritual identity.


Catholic leaders should stop trying to be politicians. Instead, they should be dealing with their own flock and making sure real Catholics continue to act out the faith they believe in.


Matthew Albright is a 21-year-old mass communication junior from Baton Rouge. Follow him on Twitter @TDR_malbright.




Contact Matthew Albright at malbright@lsureveille.com

 

Recommended: Articles that may interest you

15 comments

Blaise
Wed Nov 4 2009 00:16
I saw in a N.Y. Times Almanac that the only Christian Church listed as being founded by Jesus was the Catholic Church and the date is stated as 33 A. D. The next Christian religion listed was started by Luther out of protest in the 1530's. The Catholic Church teaches that only the Catholic Church has the fullness of Christian truth- not to say other Christian churches don't have much truth. So when other Christians want come to the Catholic Church (which is not conservative or liberal- just truthful) and follow Catholic teaching and embrace the sacraments, are you saying the Christian thing to do is for the Catholic Church to go against her evangelical call to share with others the truth, and instead shun those people and reject them? You don't get it do you? These Anglicans want to embrace Catholic teaching- adding to the faith they already have. That is their choice. Why do you have to butt into an area you're clearly uneducated about? Please quit using your column for libelous hate speech. What gives with your anti-Catholic bigotry anyhow?
Your name
Mon Nov 2 2009 20:02
The author needs a better sense of the history involved here. His portrayal that the Roman church is suddenly "cutting a deal" doesn't fit the facts and is a tempest in a teacup. This is part of a progression of steps which began in 1980 (the so called "pastoral provision") to minister to people clamoring to worship somewhere besides the Episcopal church (1976 - ordination of women.) The October 20th statement of the Episcopal Church itself says it best: "The announcement reflects what the Roman Catholic Church, through its acceptance of Anglican rite parishes, has been doing for some years more informally."
Tom
Mon Nov 2 2009 18:22
Mr. Albright-

Eastern Rite Catholics have had married clergy and their own unique traditions for centuries while still being in Communion with the Holy See. This provision merely allows for Anglicans who requested entry into the Church to share the same benefits. Your bitter tone suggests a deeper resentment toward the Church that goes beyond your distaste for Church "politicking". Also, you fail to explain how the Church opening it's doors to converts displeased with the theological decisions of their current church counts as "entering the cutthroat world of politics".

Ann
Mon Nov 2 2009 17:27
To assume the Catholic Church is trying to gain numbers is ridiculous. As a writer myself I suggest that you become more open-minded. If you actually tried to look at the real story here you would see that the Catholic Church was reaching out to Anglicans who are torn within their own denomination. Just because you might have a selfish way of thinking does not mean everyone else does too, including the Church.
Phil
Mon Nov 2 2009 15:25
Mr. Albright stated:
"The Vatican claims it is merely 'adding to the Church’s spiritual diversity,'"

So I googled his quote that he claims came from the Vatican, and the only result was his article. I'm curious what is his source for this Vatican quote.

As the other comments have pointed out, Mr. Albright is incorrect on the Church practices (i.e., married priests), Church doctrine (we cannot "relax" doctrines), and current events (the Anglican requests over the past few years and the existence of the Traditional Anglican Communion).

Courtlind Hidalgo
Mon Nov 2 2009 14:55
Hey Albright,

Learn to spell Nietzsche for once. Seriously. Every column of yours has a new holistic way of spelling the man's name. Either get a German major to correct your spelling every week or pick a new name for your column.

charles
Mon Nov 2 2009 12:29
It doesn't even take being a Christian to understand what is going on here. It just takes a little research. The writer is embarrassingly uninformed.
Father Thomas Dowd
Mon Nov 2 2009 10:59
What Mr. Albright does not seem to realise is that the Vatican was actually responding to a request made by a large number of disaffected Anglicans, who said "we want in". For example, the Wikipedia entry for the Traditional Anglican Communion mentions them making such a request back in 2007. So this is far from being a sinister plot hatched in Rome to take advantage of Anglicanism in its weakened state - one could argue that Rome actually took its time before giving its answer. And given that these requests were coming from all over the world, it is quite normal that they were handled at a universal (i.e. papal) level.

Mr. Albright portrays this as a plot to gain numbers for the Catholic Church. This argument is not credible: even if 500,000 people were to come over under this provision, that represents less than 1% of of the global anglican population, and 0.05% of the global Roman Catholic population. Not much of a growth curve there.

The real interest in this story, one that is much more positive, is that the proposed new structure will mean the formal inclusion of the Anglican spiritual heritage in the wider Roman Catholic family.

David L. Gamaliel
Mon Nov 2 2009 10:27
Matthew Albright is stunningly uninformed to speak so definitively.

The move to create an ordinariate for Anglicans was NOT a Vatican initiative, but a move prompted by a request from a rather large group of Anglicans disenchanted by their church.They made their request of the Pope two years ago to be received in this fashion. The Pope moved very slowly to respond in this case.

Alribright's understanding of this ordinariate as creating "offshoot Catholics" is equally uninformed. Members of the military are under the care of just such an arrangements, precisely so their particular needs can receive special care, not to make them second class.

As for the separation of church and state, what does the constitutional requirement that the government do nothing to establish a religion have to do with Catholics and Anglicans? What "state" is Albright referring to in this agreement?

As for priests trying to be politicians, that was the most absurd claim of all. Albright's suggestion that there is a similarity between Republican actions with Albright and this move to welcome disaffected Anglicancs is smoke and mirrors. In fact, it smacks of ugly, No Nothing anti-Catholic bigotry (look the No Nothings up, Albright).

Albright may be learning communications, but he hasn't apparently taken the course that would suggest that he do research before he writes, and that he strive for at least a modicum of objectivity. This little piece is nothing more than raw bigotry.

Steve Kellmeyer
Mon Nov 2 2009 09:52
About 1% of the American population is Anglican/Episcopalian. Even if every single one of them entered the Catholic Church, it would have less effect on the US Catholic population than the annual Hispanic immigration from across the border.

Why are Protestant and secular sources so upset about such a miniscule event? Perhaps they don't like the fact that the Catholic Church is right, is generous, and is available seven days a week to receive anyone back into the arms of Christ.

Freyr
Mon Nov 2 2009 08:52
"primarily because it relaxes some doctrines deeply held by Catholics"
Actually nothing has been added or subtracted from the faith... the lack of understanding is yours. We have had married priests for years in one form or another.
"When a church starts to throw itself into the cutthroat game of compromise and maneuvering that is politics..."
You are speaking of course about Constantine legalizing Christianity, certainly not about the current situation! Just how long do you think we've been at this? Crack a history book or two before you write...
Your name
Mon Nov 2 2009 00:39
Great preacher!

1. The Catholic Church is not gaining anything by adding more members whereas a political party has many gains.

2. Christ asked "Go and preach up to the cornors of the world to all people" . So does his church.

3. The Church understands the meaning of divine love and is extending it to the souls of a great number of it's own descendants who
a. has "lost its way into the dreary desert sand of dead habits" of anit biblical activities
b. were taken away by cruel and now obselete system of almighty-kings.

4. Whole world understands why vested interests get uneasy at such as act of divine mercy!

John
Mon Nov 2 2009 00:15
Why is it that so many people write about things that they obviously know so little about? The Catholic Church is not looking to "bolster its ranks". The Anglican group came to the Vatican to ask for a way to come into the Church as a group, rather than as individuals--as has been happening for the past 150 years. Cardinal John Henry Newman, Ronald Knox, and Robert Hugh Benson are just a few of the most notable Anglican clergy converts. The Catholic Church already has married priests belonging to Eastern Rites (such as the Ukranians and Chaldeans) as well as many many Lutheran and Anglican priests who have already converted. None of the aforementioned may marry after becoming a priest, which is also true in the Eastern Orthodox Churches.
Andrew
Sun Nov 1 2009 23:31
I wish you would understand this is about eternal salvation not something so insignificant as politics. I pray you will come to repent and beg for God's mercy.
Scott Berger
Sun Nov 1 2009 22:56
It takes a Christian to understand these matters of faith (something this author clearly doesn't understand) rather than cynically assuming that one group is trying to steal members from another.






log out