« On Pius XII as seen by his Jewish contemporaries | Main | Kinlaw's "Jesus" »
June 11, 2006
Rowan Over George
Something should be said for Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, in response to the speech reported by The Sunday Telegraph in Church has fallen apart since I was in charge, says Carey. Williams' predecessor George Carey has just declared:
"When I left office at the end of 2002 I felt the Anglican communion was in good heart," he said. "It is difficult to say in what way we are now a communion. Bitterness, hostility, misunderstanding and strife now separate provinces from one another and divide individual provinces."
. . . In a speech at Virginia Theological Seminary seen by The Sunday Telegraph, he expressed his anxiety at Dr Williams's impotence in the face of the American Church's refusal to heed his pleas to refrain from confirming Canon Robinson as the bishop of New Hampshire.
Oh, hmm, yeah, right. This is all quite unfair, even leaving aside Carey's misreading of the state of Anglicanism at the end of his tenure at Canterbury.
Does Carey think his own protests would have been any more effective? Does he not remember that the Episcopal Church developed upon the trajectory that led to its approval of Canon Robinson during the time he was archbishop? Could he have prevented the Episcopal Church from promoting Canon Robinson to bishop? Did he have any noticeable effect upon the Episcopal Church during those long years? (The answers to these questions are: Apparently, as illusory as the idea is; apparently not; no; and no.)
One does not need to review the man's career as archbishop to suggest that he ought not to be throwing stones at his successor. There was, for example, the time he refused to be the patron of the Church's Ministry Among Jewish People, a rather un-p.c. ministry but one expressing the Evangelicalism he himself claimed, with some blather about being archbishop of all the people and the implied charge (rather disingenuosly made indirectly) that the ministry acted badly and made itself unpatronizable.
All this despite the fact that a century's worth of archbishops had been the group's patron, and those archbishops included his liberal predecessor Robert Runcie. He directed a blow against orthodox Christianity in the Church of England, for no clear reason, though "the archbishop of all the people" line suggests one.
Carey does get quite exercised about homosexuality, on which his position is substantially more orthodox than Williams':
Lord Carey said that the Bible was "unequivocal in its condemnation of practising homosexuality. It cannot be dismissed as having no consequence for us today''.
One can't applaud this too much, however, for Carey does not see that the innovation he so hates proceeded logically and directly from the innovation, the ordination of women, he so ardently promoted. (Readers may remember that he went so far as to accuse opponents of ordaining women — men like, oh, Pope John Paul II — of holding a very serious heresy.)
His contorted reading of Scripture, and disregard for the traditional reading, established the precedent for the homosexualist's. The homosexualist who finds the Pauline condemnations of homosexuality a temporary accomodation to culture trumped by Jesus' message of inclusive love is only using the argument pioneered by the man (George Carey for one) who found the Pauline teaching on headship a temporary accomodation to culture trumped by Jesus' message of equality.
Carey really shouldn't complain about his disciples. A man who has driven his car off a cliff and boasts of his success ought not to condemn the man who in imitation gets in the car and drives it off the same cliff.
Rowan Williams is a serious and thoughtful man, with much to say that any traditional Christian will find agreeable, and indeed helpful and stimulating. (And he would never accuse an opponent of ordaining women of heresy, because he understands the arguments against.) I rarely read anything of his that doesn't help me see something I didn't see, or see something again I had forgotten.
And oddly enough, that thoughtfulness is revealed in the treatment of homosexuality to which both I and George Carey object. Williams wrote at the end of an essay titled "The Body's Grace," collected in Theology and Sexuality (edited by Eugene Rogers and published by Blackwells in 2002) that:
In a church that accepts the legitimacy of contraception, the absolute condemnation of same-sex relations of intimacy must rely either on an abstract fundamentalist deployment of a number of very ambiguous biblical texts, or on a problematic and nonscriptural theory about natural complementarity, applied narrowly and crudely to physical differentiation without regard to psychological structures.
I would put this differently, but I think the insight is exactly right, and it is an insight beyond Williams' critical predecessor. Williams has thought deeply about the meaning of sexuality and gone back to a principle both he and Carey share, though Carey does not realize it, and figured out what that principle requires.
Traditionally orthodox Christians will say that Williams has started in the wrong place, while Carey condemns him for finishing the journey they both started. On this matter (though a Catholic would say, not on others), Carey is closer to us than Williams, but only because he stopped halfway on the journey he began, for no very good reason. Ironically, perhaps, the fact that Williams, having completed the journey, is farther away from us is a reason that we should take him more seriously, and respect his thinking more deeply.
* * * * * * * * * *
Readers may also be intersted in another story from the ST: Talks on women bishops fail, in which some of the women seeking mitres and their supporters prove that nothing but total victory is acceptable, mainly, as far as one can tell, because letting anyone who doubts their orders escape their control hurts their feelings.
I say so not only because of the quotes in the article but from my having attended meetings with such people, in which they spent an embarassing amount of time complaining about those awful people who "deny my orders" and "demean me as a person" and the like. The fact that they felt demeaned was sufficient reason for outlawing the position. It would have been quite sad, were these not people in positions of power playing the victim to get yet more power.
Posted by David Mills at 11:53 PM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c5ee953ef00d834c94e6c69e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Rowan Over George:
Comments
In regard to women citing feelings over reason, I recall several years ago reading J. I. Packer's Christianity Today article, "Let's Stop Making Women Elders" (the only article I have ever seen CT apologize for in advance). It garnered a huge amount of reader feedback. To a man, all the men who disagreed ultimately argued scripture, tradition, logic. To a person, every woman respondent cited her own sorrow, hurt feelings, anger at denial of her personhood, with nary a scriptural citation among them. I found it all rather instructive.
Posted by: Mark B, Hanson | Jun 12, 2006 5:23:16 AM
Thank you, David, for reminding us of Lord Carey's rather inglorious history of responding to ECUSA's innovations and aberrations. Having read the transcript of the Archbishop's remarks at VTS, I found myself shaking my head and asking who is he to criticize what he perceives to be the lack of courage in another? His chummy relationship with the present Presiding Bishop of ECUSA prevented him from rebuking him for Griswold's deeds and words. His public statements about the gathering gay crusade before and after Lambeth 98 were, to put it charitably, so lacking in substance as to be ignored - which they were. Perhaps the politicians who selected him as Archbishop of Catnerbury knew precisely the man they were getting - his "evangelical" credentials nothwithstanding.
Posted by: Dan Crawford | Jun 12, 2006 8:37:48 AM
David,
It is probably just me, but I am missing the insight in this statement:
"In a church that accepts the legitimacy of contraception, the absolute condemnation of same-sex relations of intimacy must rely either on an abstract fundamentalist deployment of a number of very ambiguous biblical texts, or on a problematic and nonscriptural theory about natural complementarity, applied narrowly and crudely to physical differentiation without regard to psychological structures."
I've read this several times and still can't figure it out.
Posted by: Douglas | Jun 12, 2006 9:52:55 AM
Douglas, I can figure it out well enough. It's a powerful argument that makes this Presbyterian say, "chalk one up for Rome, or at least for Humanae Vitae." Not Williams' intention, I know. I join you in wanting to see the argument spelled out more, particularly from Mills' perspective. (Since I am not a regular reader, knowing Mills' confessional affiliation would also help.) I would also like to see Protestant or E. Orthodox responses on the matter of the alleged "ambiguity" or "abstractness" of the relevant Bible verses.
Posted by: Carl | Jun 12, 2006 11:43:21 AM
Mark, very interesting observation.
I also suspect that the emotionalism of the women was a function of their general philosophical leanings (with a little attempt at manipulation thrown in, as well). Feminism, whether of the men-and-women-are-identical variety or of the women-are-a-lot-better-than-men variety, is very emotionalistic and does not withstand rigorous analysis.
I suspect that "traditional" women who favor male-only spiritual leadership would be considerably less emotional in defending their position.
That said, the women's responses may also have been more emotional because they were the ones being "attacked" rather than their male defenders. I wonder whether there would be such a gender gap if the Packer article had said that members of a given ethnic group were not qualified to be elders. My guess is that a lot of men in the given ethnic group might also react very emotionally to such an article. (Though perhaps in the "You stupid SOB!" vein rather than the "You aren't validating me (sob!)" vein.)
Posted by: Miss Robin | Jun 12, 2006 12:13:07 PM
Carl,
I believe Williams means, in summary, that a church that accepts contraception has no principled basis for rejecting homosexuality. However, like you, I am puzzled over where Williams finds this "ambiguity" or "abstractness" in the Scriptural prohibitions against homosexuality.
As to what Williams means by the latter clause in the quoted sentence, I am completely stumped.
Posted by: Douglas | Jun 12, 2006 12:15:43 PM
Dear Carl,
David Mills is a former Anglican/Episcopalian who went over to Rome a fews years ago.
When he was first elevated to Canterbury, I thought George Carey had come straight out of the Monty Python "upper class twit contest" routine. Everything he has said and done since has only confirmed that view.
I join Douglas in asking for Mr. Mills to spell out Archbp. Williams' statement more clearly. I for one do not see why support for the use of contraception while also opposing homosexual relations must necessarily rest "on a problematic and nonscriptural theory about natural complementarity, applied narrowly and crudely to physical differentiation without regard to psychological structures." I have seen defenders of the moral licitness of contraception argue theories of natural complemetarity that are quite Scriptural, and encompass both physical differentiation and a corresponding psychological differentiation.
This is not to defend contraception. I personally have increasingly grave doubts about its licitness (though still undecided about certain exceptional circumstances). But I find Humanae Vitae a poorly reasoned and argued document at several points, though it comes out to the right conclusion almost in spite of itself. Perhaps the main obstacle that has kept me from opposing opposition to contraception without reservation has been some incredibly vituperative comments made by opponents about those Christians who, however wrongly, use contraception (e.g. that they are "raping" or "masturbating" each other). It certainly does not apply to one Christian couple I know which does use contraception (and to whom I have expressed my serious reservations).
When someone has to resort to personal abuse instead of logic in an argument, then they are telling me they don't have a case. This is of course is precisely the problem with the women "priests" who appeal to feeling "demeaned" and "abused" by those who won't recognize their orders. Appeals to empty emotionalism played a major part in my early adult theological formation in moving me from being undecided on to absolutely opposing the ordination of women to sacramental functions.
Posted by: James A. Altena | Jun 12, 2006 1:50:20 PM
Douglas, Carl:
It is, I think, all of a piece. The church who fails to condemn contraception has little ground from which to deploy the natural complementarity argument. They would be "crude" and "narrow" because, if I'm reading it right, such strictures would naturally apply equally to contraceptive hetero-sex, which the church has already given a pass. Williams is certainly wrong regarding the ambiguity of Scripture concerning sodomitic same sex practices, but (if I'm reading him right) he implies correctly that a church's teaching on sexuality should be a coherent whole. The Anglican acceptance of contraception shattered this coherence. The rest continues an exercise to the reader... or private autonomous rights extender... as the case may be.
Mills is RC as far as I know...
Cheers!
Posted by: Steve Nicoloso | Jun 12, 2006 2:00:46 PM
The “ambiguity” of the Scriptural passages re sodomitic practices may be understood by applying the present-day Anglican/Episcopalian heumaneutic: if the Biblical passage calls for a reformation of social obligations, it is clear and unambiguous; if, on the other hand, it calls for a reformation of one’s own morals, it is unclear and ambiguous.
Posted by: Bill R | Jun 12, 2006 4:24:09 PM
Dear Steve,
Your post does not really clarify the issue for Douglas, Carl, or myself. Summarized briefly (and admittedly too simply, given the document's complexity), one basic argument of Humane Vitae as I understand it is that the natural complementarity of male and female is grounded in the natural potential capacity to procreate. The problem is that heterosexual unitive acts that do not have this natural capacity (e.g. due to post-menopausal age or other infertility) are still unitive in the sense of making "one flesh." (I would reject as fallacious a claim that such acts should be considered to have potential procreative capacity by appeal to miraculous intervention, previous procreative potential in youth, the general capacity of the species as distinct from the particular couple in question, etc., since in order to oppose contraception the proposition is and must be asserted of each and every particular unitive act per se.) St. Paul points out that a man becomes "one flesh" even with a harlot; he does not limit that by adding "but only if contraception is not used." Thus it is not clear that argument advanced by Humane Vitae here is sufficient. It would seem instead that natural complementarity does not rest upon the potential to procreate, but rather that the potential to procreate is rather the highest expression of natural complementarity. In that case, natural complementarity is grounded in something other than potential procreative capacity per se, and the proposed slippery slope from licitness of contraception to licitness of homosexuality breaks down. (There is similarly the question as to whether homosexual genital acts also result in "one flesh", albeit of an unnatural kind in an unnatural way. I would suspect probably not, but I could see an argument for it.)
The problem thus lies is in unpacking exactly all of what St. Paul means by the making of man and woman into "one flesh." That does not mean that there are not other arguments against contraception (e.g. ascetical discipline); but it does mean that a Christian could (even if erroneously) accept contraception and oppose homosexual intercourse without his argument being "crude" and "narrow." A wrong argument is not "crude" and "narrow" simply by virtue of being wrong.
Posted by: James A. Altena | Jun 13, 2006 6:54:40 AM
Hmmm... to deal with last point first, it is I think not necessarily up to us to "unpack" St. Paul's meaning. The RCC claims for itself supreme authority to so unpack and has almost continually done so on this issue for about 1900 years. I think (I'm no Anglican, classical or otherwise) that the Church of England also claims, or at least once claimed, this authority for it-self. From the time of the C of E's founding (either with the Apostles or Henry VIII as the case may be) to 1930 it said one thing about contraception as part of a comprehensive (more or less) teaching on human nature and human sexuality. After that time it began to say another, which was arguably incoherent with what had previously always and everywhere been taught.
Rightly or wrongly, this seems to me to be what Archbishop Williams is alluding to. I.e., that once you admit intentionally infecund acts are perfectly licit for married couples, then (at least from the perspective of natural law) there is no justification from proscribing such acts (i.e., of mere pleasuring) among any consenting adults. A reading of scripture that allows contraception but prohibits infertile sexual acts between those of the same sex would (in Williams' view) be a "fundamentalist" reading, in that it may conform to the letter of what Scripture says, but have no comprehensive, universal philosophy underneath it. This is probably what he would mean by "fundamentalist", and assuming this his point, I would agree. The law should be obeyed, but not merely obeyed, rather also loved, meditated upon, understood... and yes... obeyed. Whether "fundamentalist" is the best and most descriptive adjective to use, well, that's a different question.
As to the licitness of sexual activity between infertile (by age, accident, or infirmity) married couples vis-a-vis contraceptive sex. The difference lies in the essence of the act. Acts that are infertile through no fault, action, or intent of the couple engaging in them are in essence fertile acts. They are, by form and intention, sacramentally (if I may) connected to actual fertile acts, and differ from them only as it were by accident--not different in essence from a fertile couple having conjugal relations during a particularly infertile time of the woman's cycle. The same cannot be said for intentionally infertile acts, however loving and self-giving they seem to be.
Posted by: Steve Nicoloso | Jun 13, 2006 8:42:45 AM
Dear Steve,
Thank you for your thoughtful post. I have several problems with it, however.
First, it is self-evidently necessary to "unpack" what St. Paul means by becoming "one flesh" -- that is after all the heart of the discussion. In essence you claim that the RCC has already done that. Fine, if you believe that as an RC -- but that still means it is (was) necessary to do so. And for those to whom it may not be fully clear, it is always necessary to unpack it again in each generation, just as it is with the Trinity, Incarnation, etc. (Let me be clear that to "unpack" means to explain anew, not to change, the teaching.)
Second, the Church of England has never claimed that kind of authority, and you are in error to suggest that it ever has. It does not claim to be exclusively THE one sole true visible expression of the Church Catholic, as does Rome (and also as does Eastern Orthodoxy). Rather, it claims to me one particular visible expression of the Church Catholic. While the Church was visibly one ontologically at it founding, and will be such again eschatologically at the Parousia, it has in the meantime been rent visibly asunder by human sin. The disagreement between Rome and Orthodoxy on the one hand, and Anglicanism on the other, is whether visible impairment of sacramental communion has a one-on-one correspondence to catholicity such that one visible body must be essentially catholic and the others not, or whether more than one can lay claim to being essentially catholic (in orders, sacraments, the Creeds, etc.), but each accidentally flawed and variously differ in visible manifestation. Or to put it more briefly, whether schism by definition is only from the church catholic, or whether it can also occur within the church catholic. Anglicans believe that a close reading of I Cor. supports the latter view, and that the former view wrongly conflates "one" and "catholic" definitionally. This of course does not lessen the obligation of ecumenicism to heal and abolish the visible divisions.
(Thus, figures such as Dr. Peter Toon refer to "the Anglican Way" rather than to "Anglicanism" -- a method or pattern, not a system. I should also make clear that those such as myself who refer to ourselves as classical Anglicans define ourselves substantively, with reference to the traditional Book of Common Prayer and classical 16th - 19th c. Anglican divines, and not nominally, with mere reference to the C. of E. and Canterbury. Or to be somewhat paradoxical, figures such as Carey and Williams may hold Anglican ecclesial titles in name, but in substance they are not true Anglicans but heretics.)
I agree with the point about inconsistency -- but again, inconsistnecy and error do not have to be intrisically "crude" and "narrow", which was the point at issue. They can be sophisticated and broad instead.
I think that you are probably right about the underlying rationale for Williams' argument, but I and many others simply do not find it convincing, primarily because the allegation that an "intentionally infecund" is inherently done for "mere pleasuring" is a question-begging logical non sequitur. Your have to prove that point, not just assert it. A big part of unpacking what St. Paul means by "becoming one flesh" is whether and how that necessarily relates to procreation. (I think it does, but not as just a simple one-on-one correspondence.) And it does not necessarily follow from this that an intentionally infecund act is done for mere pleasuring. There could be other, more laudable, motives, even if those too are misconceived and in error. (It is this sort of gratuitous accusation about the motives of those who resort, however wrongly, to contraception that I find objectionable and uncharitable, as giving rise to ugly accusations of husbands and wives "raping" and "masturbating" each other.)
The argument of your final paragraph is also not convincing. To claim that an act that is intrinsically infertile because of the material nature of the participants is yet somehow formally "in essence fertile" strikes me as logically dubious -- though it points up some of the problems inherent in Aristotle's concepts of essence and substance. (I have two fully written chapters of an uncompleted Ph.D. dissertation devoted to Aristotle's doctrines of substance, essence, nature, etc., so I think I have a good sense of what I'm talking about here.) It is in part this kind of tendentiously artificial reasoning that makes Humanae Vitae a flawed document. (Another problem is its problematic, even dubious, invocation of "natural law" for the cycle of female fertility, which as far as I can tell does not fulfill the definitional criteria for what constitutes natural law. However, unpacking these problems would take a full-scale academic essay and cannot be done within the compass of a blog site.)
I wish to repeat that I am not presenting a defense of contraception. I am only trying to establish the narrower logical point that a defense of its licitness, however wrong, is not inherently "narrow" and "crude." I think charity behooves us not to characterize so easily in negative terms the motives of those we believe are wrong, since only God can look fully into their minds and hearts. We should keep in mind G. K. Chesteron here: "A bigot is not someone who beleives that he is right. Every sensible man believes that. A bigot is someone who cannot conceive of how the other fellow came to be wrong."
Posted by: James A. Altena | Jun 14, 2006 7:27:28 AM
Well, James, thanks to you for keeping it civil also. This is certainly not the best venue for rehashing the whole contraception debate, tho' I'm sure this has been tried before. I would agree that Humana Vitae (which I have read and now attempt to obey) is not the best or ablest expression of the Church's teaching on the matter. Many say (tho' I've not yet read it) that JPII's Theology of the Body is a more complete extension of Humana Vitae (which was itself an extension of innumerable earlier statements, both dogmatic and pastoral, of the belief and discipline of the Church).
I would agree that is our business to "unpack" St. Paul's meaning insofar as we unpack it with the Church. I.e., it is certainly better to obey with understanding, or as the Psalmist proclaims "How I love thy law", with a complete devotion, than it is merely to obey. But of course to obey is better than sacrifice.
Al Kimel's, the Pontificator's Ninth Law suggests:
If a Catholic cannot name at least one article of faith that he believes principally on the basis of the authoritative teaching of the Magisterium, he’s either a saint or a Protestant.
Which I've taken to mean that sometimes and in certain cases it is not possible to be thorougly convinced intellectually of the logic or rightness of the rational arguments supporting a particular doctrine. Please note "religious assent of the intellect" (to which the faithful are called, Can. 752) is a slightly different thing than considering the arguments in support of that doctrine a slam dunk. The difference being roughly equivalent to that between saying, "I disagree, therefore I'll not obey" and "I'll obey, but I don't understand (the problem must be with me and not the teaching)". In fact, if this were true, that one be intellectually convinced by every dogma, faith would be reduced to a mere intellectual exercise, and only the smart could be saved. On the contrary, the reverse, if anything, is probably true. I think it comes down to an act of obedience to the truth, or living life as if certain propositions were true, more than being intellectually convinced of the airtightness of the arguments in support of those propositions.
All of which of course offers no defense for the RC position on the matter, nor in particular sheds any light on +Williams' apparent (and shocking) agreement that admission of the licitness contraception is separated only by degree and not in essence from the admission of the licitness of sodomitic acts between any set of adult consenting partners. (This of course leads him to the opposite conclusion, viz., that since we've allowed contraception, homosexual acts must be fine... but that is a different matter.)
It seems to me that while Paul's "one flesh" terminology is absolutely central to any Christian's understaning of human sexuality, I think there is a risk in making too much of his example about taking the members of Christ and unity them with a harlot. In fact, I once argued that homoerotic acts might be considered uniative, but merely not procreative. I only later found that the best Catholic minds (of which I've been aware) disagree and say that an act can only be uniative if it is procreative (or at least follows the procreative form). I have to say that we may here be witnessing the down side of the scholastic penchant in Roman Catholicism (for which our Eastern so often criticize us), i.e., that of overanalysis, and finding ourselves on a very implausible and distant limb.
To simplify, sexual acts that are materially infecund through no fault, act, or intention of the married couple are considered licit by the Church. Sexual acts in which there is intention and a corresponding attempt to circumvent the natural result are proscribed. The two acts differ merely by the intention to circumvent some potential consequences of copulation. It really is as simple as that. Post-menopausal women may freely have sexual intercourse with their husbands in the same way pre-menopausal women might. The natural probability of conception is a non-starter. It tells us nothing about the inherent licitness of the act. Perhaps we've waved the procreative flag to wildly. Perhaps we've bound procreation to closely to the uniative ("one flesh") hip. Does semen actually have to pass into the vagina for two people to become one flesh? Perhaps. But then if I use a condom or have oral (or worse) "sex", do I then manage to fail to become one flesh with her? or him? Can two men become one flesh? I dunno. And even if I did, what does such knowledge change? The teaching of the Church is clear about what is licit and what is not. Perhaps it extends to a comprehensive scholastic theory, or maybe it is itself rather "narrow" and "crude". I don't know. There are far worse things to be called than a fundamentalist... in fact... I'd almost wear it as a badge of honor... coming from the right sources.
And oddly enough (given the subject matter), my wife just called to say her water has broken... Number 6 is on her way.
Cheers!
Posted by: Steve Nicoloso | Jun 14, 2006 10:10:45 AM
I'm a Protestant (Anglican), and I don't see how the Trinity makes logical sense, but I believe it because scripture seems to call for something quite like it and the undivided (and even divided) Church confesses it. This doesn't make me Catholic does it? :-)
Steve,
Congratulations on your new baby! I'm praying that all goes well.
Posted by: Gene Godbold | Jun 14, 2006 10:38:35 AM
A Statement by Lord Carey
June 14th, 2006 posted by admin at 7:28 am
Statement on Sunday Telegraph article by Lord Carey
FOR PUBLICATION
STATEMENT BY LORD CAREY
June 12th 2006
I am dismayed to see a story on the front page of the Sunday Telegraph (Church has fallen apart since I was in charge, says Carey, 11.06.2006). The report was based on a talk I was invited to give at Virginia Theological Seminary six weeks ago reflecting from my perspective as the retired Archbishop of Canterbury on the current crisis of the Anglican Communion. I specifically opened the reflection by stating that I was not a campaigner on this issue.
The gist of my talk about the causes of the divisions within Anglicanism was that although the current crisis was caused by the consecration of a practising homosexual in the United States, there was a crisis of authority within Anglicanism which had been with us for a very long time indeed.
There are no grounds for taking my ‘reflection’ as an attack on the Archbishop of Canterbury. In fact the misleading nature of the Sunday Telegraph report says more about contemporary news values than it does about either myself or Dr Rowan Williams. The speech was supportive of him and his leadership in this current crisis and the Windsor Report.
The Sunday Telegraph selectively quoted from my talk to suggest that I was criticising the ministry of my successor and bringing our relationship to a new low. The quotations they used were an entirely misleading interpretation of my talk. For example, they quoted ‘When I left office at the end of 2002 I felt the Anglican Communion was in good heart.” This gave the impression that I felt all the problems occurred on my successor’s watch and even that they were in fact his fault. Had they quoted the very next clause of the same sentence this impression could never have been sustained by any fair-minded reader. The full quote is: “When I left office at the end of 2002 I felt the Anglican Communion was in good heart, although forbidding black clouds were appearing on the horizon as a result of the decisive outcome of the Lambeth Conference on August 5th 1998 in which the resolution on homosexuality was agreed overwhelmingly by the assembled bishops.”
The Sunday Telegraph chooses to believe that the relationship between myself and my successor is troubled. In fact the relationship between myself and Rowan has always been very warm dating from a great deal of time spent at numerous meetings as fellow Primates of the Anglican Communion. During my time as Archbishop of Canterbury the Anglican Communion benefited enormously from the theological expertise of Rowan Williams.
But what was most troubling of all about this report was the fact that I was denied any right to balance the story or deny the allegations made in the story. In fact, a Sunday Telegraph reporter did indeed ask me to comment on the story. I supplied the Sunday Telegraph with a short statement to bring some balance to the report. They ignored this entirely.
In my statement I reiterated the fact that in my talk I had made no attack on the Archbishop of Canterbury and in fact made clear my support of his initiative, the Windsor Report.
Lord Carey
11 June 2006
Notes:
1. Statement issued on 10.06.2006 to the Sunday Telegraph prior to publication:
“I was recently invited to give a ‘low-key’ reflection on the current Anglican crisis at Virginia Theological Seminary in the United States. My talk was not in any way a criticism of the Archbishop of Canterbury. The problems facing the Anglican Communion are not the fault of any single individual but as my talk suggested arise from a crisis of authority within Anglicanism. These faultlines have been with us for a very long time indeed, although the cause for the immediate crisis was the ordination of a practising homosexual bishop in the United States.
“Rowan Williams has himself recently suggested that the Anglican Communion could split. I agree with his analysis which is why I support his initiative, the Windsor Report, which suggests ways in which reconciliation can take place.
“In my Virginia talk I made clear that I am not a campaigner. The greater part of my energy these days is spent in interfaith work and development. My passion is the mission of the church and sharing the love of God in Jesus Christ with the poor and needy.”
2. My reflection to Virginia Theological Seminary can be found on my website (http://glcarey.co.uk/) by following the links ‘speeches’ and then ‘2006’.
Source
Posted by: PAW | Jun 14, 2006 11:53:50 AM
Steve, perhaps your argument could be boiled down to the simple maxim that it is not the mechanics of the flesh that rule in a thing being sinful or not. Rather, it is the heart and its desire relating to the acts of the flesh that make it sinful.
Hmmm. I think I remember someone saying something like that in the NT.
As regards the logic of the Trinity, Gene; I may agree that it is illogical from the outside, before you accept its truth (though I think it is the only thing that makes logical sense of the entirety of the Scriptural witness). However, once inside, once you believe in then truth of the Trinity, I find it makes perfect sense, limited only by the natural inability of the creature to fully comprehend the Creator.
Posted by: Christopher Hathaway | Jun 14, 2006 12:40:59 PM
"...perhaps your argument could be boiled down to the simple maxim that it is not the mechanics of the flesh that rule in a thing being sinful or not. Rather, it is the heart and its desire relating to the acts of the flesh that make it sinful."
And this is where I see the RC argument as collapsing on itself. After all, there are many homosexual couples in purportedly faithful, loving relationships.
Posted by: Douglas | Jun 14, 2006 2:30:29 PM
Douglas,
"there are many homosexual couples in purportedly faithful, loving relationships"
What percentage are we talking about here? Is this just an anecdotal observation or are we talking peer-reviewed data?
Posted by: Gene Godbold | Jun 14, 2006 2:46:02 PM
Gene,
I have no idea, but it is not necessary to the point I am making. If the sin is only in the intent of the parties and not in the physical mechanics of the sex act, then there is no principled objection to loving, monogamous homosexual "marriages." This is why, as I said, the RC argument equivocating heterosexual contraceptive sex with homosexual sex collapses on itself. The RC argument, taken to its logical conclusion, would also proscribe even fellatio between husband and wife.
Posted by: Douglas | Jun 14, 2006 3:53:57 PM
Not to be too graphic, but that proscription would seem to go against the picture of marital bliss one finds in the Song of Solomon.
Paul is making a complementarity argument (among others) against homosexuality in Romans. It only happens after:
1) A deliberate refusal to give honor to God
2) A deliberate refusal to be grateful
3) This results in their "hearts" losing the light--I'm assuming this is a metaphor for (at least) an ability to reason adequately in this area. So they say they're wise, but they've really become fools.
4) They start worshiping created things (power, money, sex).
Only then does God give "them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves" which included "...vile affections...men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another."
Posted by: Gene Godbold | Jun 14, 2006 4:19:40 PM
"...perhaps your argument could be boiled down to the simple maxim that it is not the mechanics of the flesh that rule in a thing being sinful or not. Rather, it is the heart and its desire relating to the acts of the flesh that make it sinful."
And this is where I see the RC argument as collapsing on itself. After all, there are many homosexual couples in purportedly faithful, loving relationships.
Douglas, faithful to what and to whom? They certainly aren't faithful to God who said that those activities are an abomination. They are sinning against the nature God has given them. How should we describe the desires of their hearts with regard to the flesh when they willfully do with their flesh what God has forbidden and which their own bodies show as being harmful?
Posted by: Christopher Hathaway | Jun 14, 2006 6:14:19 PM
Steve, perhaps your argument could be boiled down to the simple maxim that it is not the mechanics of the flesh that rule in a thing being sinful or not. Rather, it is the heart and its desire relating to the acts of the flesh that make it sinful.
Hmmm. I think I remember someone saying something like that in the NT.
Christopher, no. If anything I've said could be so rendered, then I have either misstated or misleadingly stated what I believe, or been misread. Certain acts (or failures to act) are intrinsically and objectively sinful. Their gravity may often be gauged by the subjective (interior) state of the sinner. Bodies matter. Bodies are just as worthy of redemption as souls, and the resurrection thereof is what we await, if we believe the Apostles' Creed.
The RC argument, taken to its logical conclusion, would also proscribe even fellatio between husband and wife.
Douglas, fellatio that is, how shall I put this... consumated, is in fact proscribed by this very theory. I fail to see how this makes any argument fall in on itself. Fellatio as, how shall I put this... foreplay is not (AFAIK) proscribed by the logic of the very same argument.
I've no doubt that some (however few or many seems irrelevant) homosexuals live in satisfying, committed, "monogamous", and loving relationships. Catholic teaching (in my limited understanding of it) forbids such behavior because such sex acts fail to be both unitive and procreative. Whether or not homosexual acts might be unitive is not an essential point, because for an act to be licit it must be both. Homosexual acts would fail to be licit (in Catholic thinking) by the mere fact that they are not procreative (i.e., that the natural function is, in this case in spades, circumvented). This is precisely the same reason contraception is forbidden.
As I was saying earlier, perhaps there is too much theory (or too little, who knows?) behind the Catholic view. But the various pre- (and pro-) scriptions that arise from it are clear.
BTW, Esther Linda was born earlier today (yesterday I guess now), Flag Day, and mom & baby are doing fine. Interesting story there too. I shared it with my friends over at the New Pantagruel Forum, but since that is now restricted to logins, I might as well post it here for a chuckle. My wife and I had been praying that this child would come naturally (because our last 4 had all been induced) and soon (because our last two were really rather large). So we went to 7am mass this morning... together. (We usually one or the other of us goes, but very rarely us both.) So anyway, my wife goes up and the priest gives her two hosts. She didn't know whether it was simply an accident (the hosts are thin and the priest is old), or done intentionally since she was quite visibly great with child and perhaps "eating for two". At any rate, she shares this with me on the walk home, and we wonder together whether this could be a good omen. Her water broke at 10:30am! A double helping of the Lord's Body, brought on a natural (and relatively smooth) labor. (And a scant 7lb 2oz child!!) Let this be the foundation for a whole new series of Pious Myths for the RC Faithful!
Cheers!
Posted by: Steve Nicoloso | Jun 15, 2006 12:24:43 AM
Dear Steve,
Congratulations and blessings!
I am in agreement with much of what you wrote in your response to my last posting, especially with "religious assent of the intellect" ["faith seeking understanding"], to which I have long subscribed. I do think that one problem inherent in Humane Vitae is scholastic over-rationalization (the same that I also find inherent in the RC doctrine of transubstantiation regarding the "real presence" of Christ's body in the confected Eucharist) -- however laudible the intention behind the effort, it errs in trying to take an irreducible mystery, reduce it to Aristotelian natural categories not designed to encompass the supernatural, and then impose those categories as binding definitions of orthodoxy.
Another major problem I have with Humane Vitae is pointed to by the following statement from you:
". . . sexual acts that are materially infecund through no fault, act, or intention of the married couple are considered licit by the Church. Sexual acts in which there is intention and a corresponding attempt to circumvent the natural result are proscribed. The two acts differ merely by the intention to circumvent some potential consequences of copulation."
The logical trajectory of this argument, and of Humane Vitae as a whole (despite its claim to the contrary near its conlusion), is necessarily to also forbid as immoral the use of "natural family planning" to minimize chances of conception and "space" children, and to adopt St. Augustine's view that the only licit marital intercourse is at periods of peak fertility, with other marital acts constituting a venial sin of lust. RC apologetics here routinely deny that the argument against contraception is based on mechanical instrumentality, and (as the repeated emphasis on intention in your own postings shows) flows instead from the willful intent of the husband and wife regarding the potentional consequences of intimacy. That would mean that contraception is a mtter of intent regardless of the means used -- in which case the use of natural family planning to minimize the chances of conception is just as contraceptive as the use of a condom or diaphragm, and to deny that is logically absurd. RC apologetics try to cricumvent this point by emphasizing the "potentiality" for conception that remains with NFP. This is equally unconvincing since: a) condoms, diaphragms, etc. are not foolproof so said potentilaity equally remains there as well, and b) if a woman is at an infertile period then there is no genuine "potentiality" for conception, except in the strained analogical sense I already rejected in my previous post. What the RC argumeent ultimately reduces to is a claim about instrumentality after all -- i.e., the use of "artificial" or "mechanical" contraceptive means to minimize the chances of conceptions demonstrates a fundamentally different intent than does the use of NFP to the same end. This is thoroughly unconvincing, to say the least. If one remains with a scholastic methodology here (and I don't mean that as a general criticism of the scholastics, who were both brilliant and devout), I don't see how the RCC can avoid embracing St. Augustine's view instead.
Again, none of this is intended as a defense of contraception per se (though as previously stated I wonder about its possible licitness in cetain exceptional circumstances). It is instead to suggest that if we are going to make a case against contraception, we need to formulate our arguments more carefully.
As for fellatio and mutual masturbation between husband and wife -- that would indeed be illicit under the (in some respects problematic) RC understanding of the absolute linkage of the unitive and procreative aspects of sexual intimacy (which again I think as presently formulated logically leads to St. Augustine rather than Humanae Vitae). Again, I lean toward considering it generally illicit if pursued to orgasm (as opposed to foreplay), but wonder about possible occasional excepetions.
(E.g., I know of one devoted Catholic couple that married later in life. The husband had no previous sexual exerience and proved unable to consummate the marriage for some months. Finally, his wife brought him to full arousal and orgasm first with an act of masturbation and then with one of fellatio. After that, with the psychological barrier broken, he was finally able to consummate the marriage; they have not resorted to either act since, and are trying to conceive. Since the intent of those two acts was not to contracept, or to pursue simple physical gratification of lust, but indeed rather to enable conception, did they sin? Their priest thought not, or that at most it was a venial and not mortal sin. I wouldn't want to judge this one.)
Posted by: James A. Altena | Jun 15, 2006 8:08:49 AM
I apparently need to clarify that I regard homosexuality as a particularly abhorrent sin precisely because of the mechanics involved, and regardless of the parties' intentions. A monogamous and, to all appearances, loving and loyal homosexual relationship (I have met at least three such couples) is no less a terrible sin against nature than a homosexual one-night stand. (I also feel constrained to point out that I live in a large city with a substantial homosexual population.)
I am simply taking issue with the equivocation of contraceptive heterosexual sex with homosexual sex. The RC argument collapses on itself because of its untenable attempt to legitimize barren heterosexual sex, given the argument's premises.
In a post-menopausal marriage, the parties know in advance that their coitus will not produce a child so it is simply pleasurable, not procreative. In this regard, the old couple's coitus is no different than the younger couple's use of contraception. The RCC attempts to distinguish the former by urging that it is the parties' intent that controls. But it would then follow that if a homosexual couple practiced fidelity and mutual love, their coitus would be similarly sanctioned. So, I regard the RC equivocation of contraceptive heterosexual sex with homosexual sex (or "rape" or "masturbation") as logically untenable.
Posted by: Douglas | Jun 15, 2006 9:51:48 AM
Dear Douglas,
While I have taken issue with Humane Vitaae at length here, I think you have not properly grasped its argument.
First, HV does not regard post-menopausal intercourse as "simply pleasurable", but (per Steve's comments) holds that it has a properly unitive aspect to it by virtue of the act of heterosexual initmacy being essentially procreative, whereas the infertility of post-menopausal intercourse is an accidental impediment with respect to that essence. You may not find that proposition problematic (as I do, though I agree that it is unitive and not just pleasurable) or unconvincing, but that is not the same as your assertion.
Second, while I believe that the trajectory of HV's arguments logically leads to St. Augustime's view that the only licit acts of intimacy are those with maximal potential to conceive, I think it unfair to dismiss HV's argument as simply an "untenable attempt to legitimize barren heterosexual sex." Its reasoning may be faulty, but that is not its intention.
In short, if we are to disagree with our opponents, we must first take due care to restate their arguments accurately and dispassionately.
Second, may I ask why you find homosexuality "a particulary abhorrent sin"? It is indeed a grave sin, but there are many such. Sins of the spirit are worse than those of the flesh, and we need to take care lest our passions overrule due proportion and right judgment. I would suggest that, objectively speaking, we should find e.g. both adultery and rape far more abhorrent than homosexuality -- the first because it involves violation of a sacred vow of fidelity, the latter because of its profound violation of another person.
My parish priest once put the matter with his usual wisdom, precision, succinctness, and clarity: "We cannot oppose homosexual conduct because we find it personally repugnant (the 'ick' factor) nor because we think it abnormal (abnormality not being sinful pe se). Rather, we must oppose it because God has told us that it is conduct that separates us further from him. It is too easy to condemn as particularly objectionable those sins to which we ourselves are not liable to temptation."
If we approach the homosexual in that spirit, we are in a position to act with charity and work redemptively, separating the sin from the sinner. If we instead approach it in the spirit of finding it particularly abhorrent, we cannot do so.
St. Francis of Assisi once said, "You may be the only gospel your neighbor ever reads." Douglas, the homosexual sinner is also your nieghbor. If he were to read your posting here, if he were to encounter your particular abhorrence of his sin, then how would you be able to witness to him in love regarding the Gospel?
Posted by: James A. Altena | Jun 16, 2006 8:36:47 AM
James,
I really could care less if a homosexual is offended that I find his or her lifestyle particularly abhorrent. Homosexual sex is a gross perversion of one of God's gifts and extremely destructive to a society.
I'll tell you another reason why I find it particularly abhorrent. Some time ago, I heard an interview with Gene Robinson where he was bragging about his involvement with a center for homosexual, "transgendered," and (the latest category) "questioning" teens. Now, if you talk to homosexual men, you will find that most if not all of them share a common experience: sex with an older man when they were around 12 - 14 years old. In other words, homosexuals are reproducing by targeting easily manipulable teenagers in the throes of their nascent sexuality. The homosexual "bishop" Robinson is facilitating criminal behavior.
The fact that we tolerate such people is more our failure than theirs.
Posted by: Douglas | Jun 16, 2006 9:02:16 AM
Douglas,
You apparently missed my point -- which was not about whether homosexuals would be offended in the sense of objecting to anyone finding his conduct immoral. It was about whether the way you speak of and to them would provide an opportunity to witness to them in charity so that an opening -- even just a tiny crack in the door -- would be opened for their repentance and conversion. Truth must always be spoken in charity -- to convert mind and hearts, not to assert our selves.
It is also about humility, in not presuming your sins (or mine) to be any less offensive to God than those of the homosexuals you so abhor. Again, you fail to disitnguish the sinner from his sin. But Christ did not come to abhor sinners, but to save them. He did not excuse their sins, but he also sat down and broke bread with them and loved them and died and rose for them.
Yes, there are some homosexuals who are ephebophiles (more than gay activists will publicly admit) and should face crimminal prosecution. But most are not. Yes, there are some homosexuals who publicly glory in their shame, and if finally unrepentant will face the Supreme Judge at the last hour. But even many of those who now boast of their shame do so as a Potemkin village front, behind which they are drowning in the pain and misery of loneliness an despair, waiting for the kind word of forgiveness and encouragement that could turn them to the Cross and a new life. Having volunteered to work at an HA ministry for awhile some years back in a major city, I have seen and heard those stories first-hand. Homosexual conduct is in its own way as addictive as alcohol, drugs, and gambling, and needs the same kind of intensive and prolonged intervention to break it.
I'm not an RC, but Rome has the right stance on this. Homosexuality is "objectively disordered", but the orientation is not sinful per se (as opposed to specific acts, which are grave sins). It is a neurosis, an emotional disability. Neurotics of any sort, including homosexuals are made, not born (though there may be genetic factors making one person more susceptible than another to environmental factors conducive to developing or sustaining a neurosis). Nor is it a choice, like which flavor of ice cream one likes. It cannot be turned on and off like a light switch by will power alone. It requires prayer and fasting -- not just by the afflicted person himself, but by Christians willing to help him shoulder the cross. Are you willing to help do that and save a suffering sinner's soul, Douglas?
Please consider this, Douglas -- if homosexual conduct is as perverse and repulsive as you find it (and of course it is unnatural), then how much prolonged and subtle psychological deformation must a child have experienced in order to become the adult whose natural inclinations are so disorderd in their object? Healing from that can only come from words of compassion, not condemnation.
P.S. I will be away for three days and not see this blog again until Tuesday.
Posted by: James A. Altena | Jun 17, 2006 3:04:35 AM
Steve, I heartily agree that the body is important. I perhaps miscommunicated myself. I should have said that it is not merely the mechanics of the body which make a thing sinful. So some acts which may be neutral in themselves become sinful by the intent. Some acts are always sinful, regardless of intent, though the intent may intensify the culpability.
I think our generations are bearing the fruit of the sin of contraception, but those who now practice it in the mistaken belief that it is acceptable because they are told that by their churches will not be guilty of as great a sin as those who did the same thing while their church told them it was wrong for a Christian so to do.
Posted by: Christopher Hathaway | Jun 17, 2006 7:51:43 AM
Recent Comments
Bloggers
Popular Threads
Archives
OLD ARCHIVES 2002-2004
From May 2002–December 2004, Mere Comments was published via Blogger.com. Every post is still available at the link above.
Member since 12/2004