ARCIC, that is the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission, has, for some folk, ceased to generate the interest and excitement that it commanded when first established some fifty years ago. For many Anglicans one reason for this phenomenon, has been the decision of an ever increasing number of Anglican provinces to ordain women to the priesthood and then to the episcopate. The failure of the Roman Catholic Church to endorse such innovations has seen Anglicans of our tradition fear that any meaningful progress was now far away. At the same time many other Anglicans who welcomed the ordination of women both to the priesthood and to the episcopate have seen no immediate hope of reunion with Rome while it remains opposed to such changes. Both approaches, while understandable as emotional responses, are, to my mind, mistaken. The once romantic hopes of Anglicans and Roman Catholics being able to achieve an agreement over sharing the Eucharist within a relatively few years, following the publishing of some of ARCIC’s early papers, have now proved to be unfounded. A number of insightful reports leading to closer understanding on such issues as where authority is to be found within the Church and also a remarkable document which produced a great degree of mutual understanding of the role of the Blessed Virgin Mary within the life of the Church. Not surprisingly the latter encountered a great deal of questioning and disagreement from many Anglicans. That alone ought to be an encouragement to Catholic minded Anglicans to take more notice of ARCIC documents. Too often we hear cries of all being lost now that so many Anglican churches ordain women to the priesthood even after warnings that such a move would serve to create yet one more obstacle to be overcome on the pathway to reconciliation of our two Communions.
The present ARCIC discussions should be of particular interest to Catholic Anglicans, The topic under discussion is that of how the Church changes its mind. Many of us will be aware of what is known as the Vincentian Canon, that is S Vincent of Lerin’s statement that the Catholic Faith is bound by what has been believed everywhere, always and by all. That Canon was often quoted by Anglo-Catholics at the time of the many debates concerning the Ordination of Women. What is often overlooked is S Vincent was writing just two years after the Council of Ephesus when Our lady had been defined as Theotokos, in the Greek text translated at God-bearer and, when translated from the Latin text, Mother of God . It is interesting to know that shortly after writing what has become known as his Canon, S Vincent goes on to add that there can be development of doctrine as truths are explored with the benefit of a more mature understanding. S Vincent writes:
Progress must be made according to its own type, that is in accord with the same doctrine, in the same meaning, in the same judgement.
S Vincent goes on to illustrate his thought by stating that a seed may grow into a plant but, in doing so, it does not change its species, Some fifteen centuries later, of course, Cardinal Newman was to take this thought further as he wrote of six criteria by which developments in the Church’s doctrine could be judged. Time forbids that we should look at all six this morning. Suffice it to say that one of Newman’s criteria is essentially that of S Vincent, I have a particular warmth for one of Newman’s criteria. Newman insisted that the Church’s doctrine must remain of the same type. My own illustration of Newman’s meaning is that however delightful we might find a puppy and, also, a fully grown elephant, we can never claim that any creature could change its species and so grow into another kind of animal.
Back to the present ARCIC discussions. How does the Church change its mind? The talks are beginning with two case studies. One concerns slavery; the other contraception. Slavery was the social norm in the time of Christ and of the early Church. The Church’s teaching was about the fair way to treat slaves rather than about the abolition of slavery. As we see in Paul’s Letter to Philemon, both slave and master could be communicants within the same Church. Eventually the implications of Christ’s teaching on the dignity of human beings were grasped by Christians and then implemented. It was to be a long and not always consistent journey towards abolition. Five hundred years before Wilberforce, for instance the saintly Bishop Wulfstan of Worcester was making regular visits to Bristol, then within his diocese, to challenge the slave trade that was being operated from that city. As recently as the early twentieth century, many Baptists and Roman Catholics in the Southern States of America were involved in the Ku Klux Clan and Rome eventually invoked excommunication on Catholics who chose to be involved in such activities.
The debate in the Roman Catholic Church concerning contraception still continues, not least among lay folk, When Pope Paul VI issued Humanae Vitae some argued that there was within his teaching some development of traditional teaching. Pope Paul VI approved the use of what is called ‘the safe period’ as a method of family planning. This, apparently, had not previously been official teaching though the development had been hinted at in an address delivered by Pius XI and subsequently one given given by Pius XII.
I referred, previously, to Cardinal Newman’s thinking on development of doctrine. Newman observed that, for a teaching to be held as binding, it must also have the consent of the faithful. Newman argued that during the time of the early disputes over the nature of Christ, most of the bishops sided with the heretical teaching of Arius. It was only the refusal of lay folk to embrace the heresy, which eventually won the bishops back to orthodox belief in the two natures of Christ, It seems that consent of all the faithful within the Roman Catholic Church in regard to its teaching on the morality of contraception as yet to be attained. In the Church of England’s consideration of the matter Bishop Kirk of Oxford, arguably the greatest Anglican moral theologian of his day, and very much within the Catholic wing of the Church of England, argued, strongly at first against approving of the use of artificial contraception. Bishop Kirk eventually came to change his position when he found that the consensus of the faithful was lacking in support for his teaching.
All of this, of course, raises many questions. It is neither my task today nor within my competence to answer them. I notice, for instance, that ARCIC is bravely addressing these issues, but that its focus is on two ethical concerns. Christian ethics are, of course, ultimately worked out from the implications of doctrine. What we believe should be the basis for how we behave, It is interesting, too, to set ARCIC’s work against the background of the current Synod in Rome. To this observer it appears that similar questions are around there. Regular letters to The Tablet argue the case for something either to be a much desired change or that the implementing of that very same change would be a denial of unchangeable Catholic doctrine.
We Catholic Anglicans have lived with this tension for many years. In recent times the tension has been most felt over matters concerning the ordination of women. For some of us that is theologically impossible. For others of us who can be admitted to Holy Orders is a matter for the whole Church. Even were we to have some sympathy towards the arguments for change, we could not countenance it without the consent of Catholic Christendom to whom we look. All in all the present work of ARCIC could lead us to a better way both of understanding and of processing the difficult disagreements within our church. Catholic Anglicans, and that, of course, includes the membership of the Church Union, need to be pay careful attention to ARCIC’s work, especially to the present conversations about how the Church has and can change its mind. Such discussions could and should clarify our own thinking. To give more attention to the ARCIC process, however slowly it might seem to be progressing, is to be faithful to one of the stated aims of the Church Union, namely to promote work that contributes towards the goal of Christian Unity.
Bishop Martyn Jarrett