Okay so this piece is causing a storm

Pat Archbold’s piece at Creative Minority Report on Church unity specifically as regards the SSPX has been making the rounds, and interestingly was dropped or not run at The National Catholic Register.

Father Z picked up the story yesterday, quoting Archibald with his usual comments in red (at his site, in brackets and bold here):

I have great concern that without the all the generosity that faith allows by the leaders of the Church, that this separation, this wound on the Church, will become permanent. [He is right to be concerned about the SSPX. I think that a lot of the priests would welcome greater manifest unity (and faculties).   But now there are children of SSPX followers growing up who have never known clear union with their local churches.] In fact, without such generosity, I fully expect it. Such permanent separation and feeling of marginalization will likely separate more souls than just those currently associated with the SSPX.   I have also come to believe that Pope Francis’ is exactly the right Pope to do it. In his address to the evangelicals, he makes clear his real concern for unity.  So here is what I am asking. I ask the Pope to apply that wide generosity to the SSPX and to normalize relations and their standing within the Church.  [Is that what got Archbold's post removed?] I am asking the Pope to do this even without the total agreement on the Second Vatican Council[Right!  If the Fr. Feeney and followers could be reconciled, why not the SSPXers?] Whatever their disagreements, surely this can be worked out over time with the SSPX firmly implanted in the Church. I think that the Church needs to be more generous toward unity than to insist upon dogmatic adherence to the interpretation of a non-dogmatic council[Is that what got Archbold's post removed?] The issues are real, but they must be worked out with our brothers at home and not with a locked door.   Further, Pope Francis’ commitment to the aims of the Second Vatican Council is unquestioned. Were he to be generous in such a way, nobody would ever interpret it to be a rejection of the Council. How could it be? This perception may not have been the case in the last pontificate. Pope Francis is uniquely suited to this magnanimous moment.

And Father Hunwicke tells why he’s a little miffed his pieces on the same matter did not get picked up when he was the first to make a number of these points and more.

He writes:

But I feel more miffed that nobody much seemed to take much account of two pieces I wrote a month ago about the reconciliation of the SSPX … arguing that it should be seen as an ecumenical matter and followed with the same charity, urgency, and flexibility as the Holy See employs when dealing with other ‘partners in dialogue’. Uncannily, this is now a headline issue because of the ecumenical outreach of the Holy Father to a Protestant group … followed by an article (Archbold) in an American journal (NCR) arguing precisely the case I argued … followed by the odd removal of that article by the proprietors of the journal concerned.

One rather wonders about that removal. Who leaned on whom? Or who thought that they might be leaned on by whom if they didn’t delete the article first? Of course, there is a real difference between cosying up to evangelical Protestants and considering unity with fellow Catholics, as Anglican Catholics discovered when Benedict XVI had the courage to brave the storms of malevolence and erect the Ordinariates. I suppose there is even more toxicity surrounding the matter of the SSPX. In media and PR terms, suggesting unity with evangelical Protestants is like cuddling a bunny rabbit with soft, silky fur, while advocating overtures towards the SSPX more closely resembles fondling broken glass. This is at least partly because ecumenism is really the pursuit of  internal Church politics by other means. Another thing that I explained quite recently.

I think I did link to his previous articles, which I thought were most perceptive.  Here’s one. Here’s the other.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Okay so this piece is causing a storm

  1. Pingback: Okay so this piece is causing a storm | Catholic Canada

  2. Michael F. says:

    You might want to be aware of this subsequent, clarifying post by Pat Archbold. Miscommunication played a role in the misunderstanding.

    http://www.creativeminorityreport.com/2014/02/the-national-catholic-register-is-not.html

    A person named “Vince” at Fr. Z’s blog also contacted the NCRegister and this is the discussion:

    “I asked the Register why the article was taken down. The Managing Editor said, “The bottom line is that there was one last theological review in order because the post covers a sensitive topic. There was a miscommunication about this and the post went up without that review. Once it went live the situation took on a life of its own. Pat’s call to extend grace for reconciliation is laudable and we certainly have no disagreement with it. As it is, the related challenges that ensued resulted in the perception that we disagreed with Pat’s expressed desire for the healing of the schism, which is not at all the case.” I then asked, “Is it possible that the article will be posted after a satisfactory theological review or has it already went through the theological review and was found lacking? In either event, I believe some sort of public clarification is in order, in my humble opinion.” He stated, “Patrick posted the article on Creative Minority report. So we won’t be posting that particular one. But you can be sure we will have similar pieces from him and others down the road.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s