This is a full transcript, in the original English, of my interview with Monsignor Keith Newton, of the Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham, who was recently in Portugal. The news report, in Portuguese, can be read here.
Esta é uma transcrição integral, no inglês original, da minha entrevista com Monsenhor Keith Newton, do Ordinariato de Nossa Senhora de Walsingham, que esteve recentemente em Portugal. A reportagem, em português, pode ser lida aqui.
What numbers are we talking about nowadays,
both in terms of Our Lady of Walsingham and of the three ordinariates together?
Is this within what you expected when Anglicanorum Coetibus was announced?
There
are currently three ordinariates, one in America, one in Australia and one in
the UK. And the one in the UK is still a very small structure. We have 90
priests, but only a couple of thousand lay people, altogether, and they are
divided over about 40 groups of varying sizes around the country.
So that
is the size of it. But of course some diocesan Catholics often come and worship
us because they quite like the community and the feel of the liturgy, so there
are a number where that happens, and there are a couple of parishes which we are
looking after in which the Ordinariate group and the local diocesan Catholic
group worship together, so it’s difficult to say what the actual numbers are
worshiping with Ordinariate priests, but the actual registered number is about
2000.
So that is 90 priests including the six former
bishops?
Yes.
How about worldwide?
I think
there are probably a bit less in America, because they started a year after us,
so I think there are about 60 or 70 priests in America and about 20 in
Australia. I don't know about the numbers in the USA, they are probably a bit
bigger than ours, but not enormously bigger.
Obviously, all this has very much to do with
internal strife in the Anglican Communion, which you as a bishop experienced
first-hand, and which I imagine you still follow closely. The Episcopal Church
was recently suspended from the communion, what do you have to say on that?
I don't
think they were suspended from the communion, what they have decided to do is
not to allow the Episcopal Church to send any representation to any major
dialogue or any commission within the Anglican Communion, so they have not
actually been suspended from it, and it’s only a temporary arrangement for
three years. And they have done this before, actually, so it is not unusual. I
think the Archbishop of Canterbury… I understand he is desperate to keep the
communion together, but whether he can achieve this, I rather doubt it because
you've got two groups which are going in very, very different directions.
We know that many of the more disgruntled and
conservative minded Anglicans are from the African churches. But there has been
no enthusiasm from Africa for the Ordinariate… Why is this?
Because
most of the people in Africa and some parts of Asia who are particularly upset
about the direction of the Anglican Communion do not come from an
Anglo-Catholic background. They come from a very Evangelical background. So
although they would agree with the Catholic Church on many questions of morals,
attitudes to marriage and sexuality, generally, and they would agree with the
Catholic Church in terms of what we say in the Nicene Creed, their ecclesiology
would be very different and their sacramental life would be very different, so
I don't think they would naturally move towards the Catholic Church.
Having said that I think there are some who see that the Catholic Church may be
the only place in the long run which will actually defend the faith of the
apostles.
So should we expect more ordinariates in the
future?
I don't
know. There has been some interest, I know, from some Lutheran countries which
want something very similar, with small groups of Lutheran Christians. I
suppose that another ordinariate could be erected in some parts of Africa, like
South Africa, or India, but not that I know of at the moment.
Having established the ordinariates, is there
not a danger that within a few generations these will be assimilated into regular
Latin Catholic communities?
Well
that is certainly a danger, but that was not the vision of Pope Benedict. I
think the vision that he had was that there should be a structure within the
Catholic Church which would value and recognize legitimate patrimony, so long
as it was compatible with the faith of the Church, which could enrich the life
of the Church.
Now,
we've already got that in the Catholic Church, within the Eastern rites, which
are quite separate jurisdictions. This is the first time it’s happened in the
Latin Church, so it could be very easy for that to happen, but I think it’s
very important that Ordinariate priests and people realise that we have two
things to do. One is to try and maintain a distinctiveness, because if there
isn't a distinctiveness, what's the point of the Ordinariate?
They've
got to maintain that distinctiveness while also cooperating and being fully
part of the wider Catholic Church. Now that is a balance we have to work at,
and who knows, in God's time, what will actually happen, but the vision, I
think, is a vision for unity. We talk about unity, we have lots of commissions
and meetings and documents produced, but this is an opportunity to show what
realized ecumenism is, the ecumenism which has actually taken concrete form,
could be like. Where people are in communion with each other, they believe the
same faith, they share each other's sacraments, you can go to mass at one place
or another, but it shows there is a recognition of the gifts that other
ecclesial communities have brought to the wider Catholic Church. Now I think
that is a great vision, and it’s a great hope for unity, so we have a big job
to do. So, what will happen in the future? I don't know, I'm not prophetic in
that sort of way.
There was much debate at the time of Anglicanorum Coetibus about the ecumenical implications. In hindsight, do you think it aided
ecumenism or made it more difficult? Or was it perhaps a way of saying that
ecumenism, with a goal to full reunion, with the Anglican churches is no longer
seen as possible?
I think that is absolutely true. I don't think anybody would say that the
hopes and dreams of the original ARCIC meetings, which began with Michael
Ramsey going to see Paul VI in 1966, have actually borne fruit. The dream of a
united church, of corporate union, has not been fulfilled.
But I
think that is what Our Lord prayed for and I think everybody recognizes that
the ARCIC, which still meets, has a much more limited goal now. We want to try
and understand each other, and there is nothing wrong with that, to understand
how the Church governs, how it comes to decisions and all that sort of thing,
but I don't think anybody thinks it’s likely that union is around the corner.
Now that may the long term goal, but we are talking about a long, long, long,
way in advance.
I think
the Ordinariate happened because of those conversations, I think they are a
fruit of that, and wouldn't have happened without them, but they are also a
pointer to what is possible in the future, for other people to look at. One of
the interesting things about the Ordinariate, is that people may have been
suspicious about it, but it has forced those who are still Anglicans to ask the
question "what is our Anglican patrimony? What is it we would like to
preserve within a united Church? What is important and significant?”
At the time we kept hearing about waves of
Anglicans who might be ready to join the Ordinariate. There was a first which
came in immediately, there were others who seemed to be waiting to see what the
arrangements would be and came in later... Do you think there are still people
waiting in the wings?
I think
there are, but I think that now it will be more of a trickle. I think when it
was something new, there were 1.000 in the first year and about 500 in the second
year, and so forth. But it is much more difficult now for an Anglican priest
who wants to explore this to do so publicly.
The
Church of England bishops, for the most part, when we spoke to them and said
some of us were thinking of doing this, may not have been happy, but they
allowed it to happen. I think that now if an Anglican priest went to his local
bishop and said he wanted to have meetings in his parish about joining the
Ordinariate, I think he would be very unhappy. So it is very difficult for
priests to actually bring a group together now, five years later.
The norms of the Ordinariate say that the
ordinary “may also petition the Roman Pontiff, as a derogation from can. 277,
§1, for the admission of married men to the order of presbyter on a case by
case basis, according to objective criteria approved by the Holy See”. What
criteria are these?
Well, we
haven't got any at the moment. One priest was ordained, who hadn't been
previously an Anglican priest, and that was because when Anglicanorum Coetibus
was published he was in his final year of seminary training for ordination and
was already married, with two children, so we petitioned for his ordination,
and we sent him to seminary for two years, he had already completed his
training for the Church of England, at the College of the Resurrection in
Mirfield, then we sent him on to Wonersh for two years and petitioned the Holy
See and Pope Benedict signed his dispensation, and allowed the ordination to go
forward.
So that
was just one, there haven't been any others, we haven't worked out any criteria
and I think at the moment it is unlikely we will be able to do that, but it is
still part of the norms.
 |
Ordenação de três ex-bispos anglicanos
na Igreja Católica |
Do you see married clergy in the long term
future of the Ordinariate?
Well, to
be honest I don't know the answer to that.
It's
true to say that married clergy are part of the Anglican patrimony, I think
everybody sees that. But I think if we had married clergy in part of the Latin
Church, which the Ordinariate is, I think it would raise all sorts of questions
for the whole of the Latin Church which are probably not ready to be answered
at the moment.
The Holy
Father has talked about opening this question. I think if the question was
opened we'd have a contribution to make. But I don't think it is for us to
raise the question.
Married clergy is one of the big and more
divisive issues within the Catholic Church, with opinions usually split along
conservative/liberal lines. In this debate you and other former Anglican
priests are a bit of an anomaly, as you tend to be more conservative or
traditional, theologically and liturgically, yet you are living examples of how
a priest can exercise his ministry faithfully, yet have a family at the same
time. What is it like to be in that position?
It's a
bit odd...
I was
talking the other night at a meeting here in Lisbon about Anglicanorum Coetibus,
and I think that I was the first ever married ordinary in the Catholic Church.
At least for centuries. Because every bishop, who are the ordinaries, and there
are not many ordinaries who are not bishops, are all celibates. So it is quite
unusual.
My wife
says she is the Monsignor's wife, which is a bit odd.
But I
have not found, particularly amongst the more traditional minded Catholic
priests, that they find this difficult. They know it is a pastoral exception,
it's the Church opening its arms to the difficulties of people who want to be
in full communion and found themselves in a difficult theological place. The
Church has been warm and generous and I think that many priests have gone along
with that and become our friends and supporters.
But I
don't think they want us to raise the question, generally, about married
clergy.
You were a bishop in the Anglican Church.
Becoming catholic meant being “reduced” to priest and, as far I understand it,
cuts in pension and payment… How easy was it to decide on moving?
Oh that
was easy! The decision was easy.
Once the
Apostolic Constitution was published I could see no reason for not going
forward and exploring this. It had been my prayer and dream, for all my
ministry as an Anglican priest, that there would be corporate unity between
Catholics and Anglicans, and I saw that, over the years of my ordained ministry
in the Church of England, being frustrated in all sorts of ways, so that it was
no longer a realistic hope.
When
Pope Benedict said “you don't simply have to come as an individual, you don't
have to leave your history behind! You can bring that with you into the
Catholic Church, to enrich the whole Catholic Church”, and I couldn't see why
you'd say no to that, it just seemed to be such a generous and incredible
structure that was being offered!
So the
decision wasn't difficult. And I'd been thinking about my future for some
years, I have to be honest, and there were practical difficulties, but then you
just trust in the Lord, I suppose... I remember we went through some fairly
difficult times with my wife and at one point she said: “I don't know why you
are worried about this, we have done this before. We went to Africa, the two of
us”. I was a missionary, and we went with two young children, aged four and
one, and that was pretty challenging, but it all worked out fine. You just have
to trust!
There were practical things, such as where we were going to live, but the
Church has been very generous and has found me somewhere to live, I took a cut
in what I received, so I get paid the same as we pay the Ordinariate priests. I
didn't lose much pension, only the few years I didn't serve in the Church of
England, so I am in a fortunate position. Our younger clergy did not have that,
but nothing was taken away, I have a right to that, so that was not too
sacrificial.
And when
people come to speak to us and ask what will happen to them, I say it won't be
easy, and you go through some difficult patches, but none of our priests have
been homeless, and none of them have been without food. So God provides.
Have any of the priests who came over decided
to go back?
No.
Would you have changed if your wife was not on
board?
Probably.
But she'd have had to agree with it, because part of the dossier you send to
the Holy See is your wife's declaration that she is happy that you will be
ordained a Catholic priest, so whatever happened, she would have needed to
agree to it. One or two of our priest's wives have decided not to become
Catholics, so it had to be her decision, and of course I was delighted when she
did, it's much easier and better that we worship together and she's a Catholic
as well.
It was
probably made easier by the fact that my daughter became Catholic before we
did, so that probably helped a little. So yes, I think I would have done it,
but it wouldn't have been such a happy thing.
How many children do you have?
Three,
and two grandchildren.
Were you ordained or conditionally re-ordained?
I was
ordained absolutely. There have been one or two former Anglicans who
were ordained conditionally, like Graham Leonard, who was bishop of
London. He had to prove that his ordination was probably valid, mainly because
of the Old Catholic bishops taking part in his ordination.
But I
think the question of Anglican orders (Cardinal Kasper said this at a meeting
at the House of Bishops that I was at) might well have been opened and examined
again, but I think once the Anglican Communion started to ordain women to the
priesthood and particularly to the episcopate, I think that was then put on the
back burner. So it was very clear that we were ordained absolutely.
But
nobody asked me to deny that God had worked through my ministry, nobody had
anything negative to say about what I had done.
And how does that make you feel about your
former ministry?
I think
God does work in all sorts of ways through people. So I don't think there was
not grace there, I think there was grace, where people serve him with
integrity.
I look
back at it in a different way. I read John Henry Newman, when he becomes a
Catholic, at the end of his Apologia, he looks back at the Church of England
and you can't help seeing it in a different sort of light. So I do see it in a
different sort of light.
I am a
Catholic because ultimately I do believe this is the Church of Jesus Christ and
I do think that the Petrine ministry is essential to the life of the Church.
 |
| Celebração numa igreja anglo-católica |
Some of us who are not used to Anglican
atmospheres have difficulty understanding the difference between
Anglo-Catholics, and Evangelicals, etc. In your case, you are obviously Anglo-Catholic,
is that a family thing?
No.
There is a whole range of traditions within the Church of England. From
Calvinistic Evangelicals to what used to be called Anglo-Papalists. You could
come anywhere on the spectrum.
I was
brought up in a fairly middle of the road Anglican parish. It was sacramental.
We had sung communion every Sunday morning, and the priest wore vestments, but
it wasn't extreme. It wasn't until I went to university that I became much more
Catholic in terms of doctrine.
I was
never an Anglo-Papalist, I liked sacramental traditions and always valued good
worship and ceremonies, and so forth. And when I was ordained I went to what
you would probably call Anglo-Catholic churches, sung mass on Sunday, incense,
statues of Our Lady and so forth. So that is the tradition I was brought up in.
But
there are lots of Anglicans who come from very different traditions. It’s part
of the problem, of course. There is one person who thinks that the Eucharist is
the highest form of worship, that it is a representation of the Sacrifice of
Christ, and within the same Church you've got somebody else who thinks it’s
just a memorial meal.
Most of
us just ignore the other traditions, but sometimes, when you seem them close at
hand, you wonder how can the Church hold such divergent views about things you
find so essential?
And of
course, within the Anglican Church, not only have we got those views about
sacraments, but you've now got a whole group of liberal people who deny basic
Christian doctrines and are still ministering in the Church of England. There
was one group, which seems to have disappeared now, called The Sea of Faith, in
which most of them did not really believe in God in and traditional form that
we might understand.
And you
have a well-known Anglican priest who was denying the Virgin Birth, in the
newspapers over Christmas, so there is a whole range.
The Ordinariate was very much a brainchild of
Pope Benedict and his papacy, and when Pope Francis was elected there was
mention that, as Archbishop of Buenos Aires he had been critical of the idea.
As Pope he has since nominated an ordinary for the US Ordinariate, so he is
obviously not denying the Ordinariate, but what feelings are you getting from
Rome, under Pope Francis?
Well,
under his pontificate the norms have been changed a little bit, to allow the
evangelization to be recognized a bit more within the Ordinariate, he has said
that people who belong to the Ordinariate don't have to come from an Anglican
background, if they have completed the rites of initiation within the
Ordinariate community then they can be registered as members.
So, that
is a very positive thing, and the appointment of a bishop to be Ordinary of the
American Ordinariate, shows that he is not against it.
I think
the comments that were made to the Anglican Archbishop in Argentina, Greg
Venables, were made privately, and I think Greg Venables was quite embarrassed
about them when they came out publicly, in fact I spoke to him.
What you
have to understand is that Pope Francis comes from Argentina. The Anglican
Church in Argentina is extremely Evangelical, therefore he would have found an
ally in Archbishop Venables on moral questions, such as gay marriage, abortion
and sexuality generally.
So it
might have been very different if Pope Francis had been Archbishop of New York
and what he saw of the Episcopal Church had been very different from his
experience of Anglicanism in Argentina.
I think
when you become Pope you have to have a much wider vision of things, so I
suppose he has understood it a bit more, one hope's that is true, he has
definitely not shown any negativity towards us.
 |
O arcebispo anglicano de Buenos Aires com
o então arcebispo Jorge Bergoglio |
How about your comment on the Papacy in
general? There is clearly a very different style. Many of the members of the
Ordinariate would, I imagine, have been very attracted to Benedict XVI's style
in terms of worship for example. Has there been a shock there?
I don't
think so. Every Pope is different!
Benedict
was very different from John Paul II, his style and the way he taught. I think
Benedict was a great teacher and in some years people will look back and
realise just how great a teacher he was. His books are fantastic, his preaching
was magnificent.
You've
got a very different Pope in Francis, he comes from a very different
background, he comes from Latin America. He is much more demonstrative. I think
many of the things people have said that he has done, which have been received
well, were things that actually Pope Benedict did, but nobody really recognized
it when he did it.
I mean,
kissing children, this is not new. Going to the poor, visiting the sick... I
think Pope Benedict did it, but he perhaps didn't do it quite with the panache,
and I think what has happened is that Pope Francis is very popular with
journalists.
I think
every Pope brings something different and something new. Comparing one with
another is not helpful, you have to thank God for what He has given you and the
blessings we receive from that. No doubt the next Pope will be very different
from Pope Francis.
Veja também:
