THE ANGELUS ENGLISH-LANGUAGE ARTICLE REPRINT

Let your speech be “Yes, yes: no, no”; whatever is beyond these comes from the evil one. (Mt. 5:37)

●

April 2010

Reprint #91

”
O
I
S
U
F
N
O
C
M
U
R
O
N
A
C
I
L
“ANG
Some Initial Reflections on
the Apostolic Constitution
Anglicanorum Cœtibus

It is still too soon to evaluate the recent institution of Personal Ordinariates
by the Holy See in order to welcome groups from the Anglican Church who
no longer feel at home in their original denomination because of the blessing
of homosexual unions and the administration of the [purported] sacrament of
orders to declared homosexuals and women.1 Our intention is not to address
all the problems raised by the Apostolic Constitution; however, the delicate
question of ecclesiastical celibacy inevitably springs to mind as well as the
repercussions the situation could have even though it is presented as transitory.
Also, we think that it would be unjust to pass over or to minimize because
of related problems an indubitably positive aspect: the quest for union with
Rome by a significant portion of the Anglican Church.

The Canterbury Cross–
Symbol of the Anglican
Use Society.
“Anglican Use” has two meanings. First, it refers to former
congregations of the Anglican Communion who have
joined the Catholic Church
(Latin Rite in par ticular)
while maintaining some of
the features of Anglicanism.
These parishes were formerly
members of the Episcopal
Church in the United States
of America and were allowed
to join the Catholic Church
under the Pastoral Provision
of 1980 issued by Pope John
Paul II. Anglican Use parishes
currently exist only in the
United States. Many Anglican
Use priests are former clergy
of the Episcopal Church and
most are married. (www.
wikipedia. org)
19

THE ANGELUS ENGLISH-LANGUAGE ARTICLE REPRINT

It is about this last fact that we should like
to reflect and say a few words. This event is not,
technically speaking, the fruit of ecumenism, which
does not aim at conversion, and has given rise
to a certain uneasiness among the great icons of
interreligious dialogue: Cardinal Kasper, for example,
hastened to interpret what has happened in light of
freedom of conscience and not in light of the need for
non-Catholics to return to Catholic unity. It involves
a typically ecumenical reading, about which we shall
say more before concluding.
However, before developing this point, we should
like to reflect on the ecclesiological presuppositions
that make up the dogmatic and spiritual baggage of
Anglicans and on the ecclesiological premises of those
who receive them: the affair seems a bit confused and
raises some unavoidable questions.

A Strange Tradition
That gay marriages, women priests, or the
ordination of homosexuals can be shocking even in
England and in the Anglican communion, we can
readily understand; nor are we surprised by the fact
that over the centuries a church could have strayed
further and further away from the right path and
from the Gospel, which only the Catholic Church
keeps in its entirety. However, to be Catholic, it is
not enough merely to flee these aberrations. The
Anglican Church was born as a national Church and
developed around–and under–the British crown,
forging and conveying over the centuries a resolutely
anti-Roman, caesaropapist, autocephalous tradition. If
over the course of the last few decades its dependence
on the British sovereign has become more and more
virtual (what’s more, this dependence practically
does not exist outside the United Kingdom), the same
cannot be said of the autocephalous and anti-Roman
character proper to the Anglican tradition.
We ought therefore to wonder what part of this
ecclesiology, which is not only the fruit of theological
errors but also the expression of a fundamental
attitude that can scarcely be corrected by flight from
the accidental aberrations evoked above, has really
been denied. In other words, one may legitimately
wonder whether the “flight” far from the most
extreme aberrations of contemporary Anglicanism
has contributed sufficiently to remedy an inherent,
structural ecclesiological deformation that is the
ancestral patrimony of the Anglican tradition.
It is true that the “High Church” has outwardly
kept a considerable resemblance with Roman liturgy
and externals. But it would be erroneous to attribute
this to a theological and ecclesiological tradition
substantially different from other groups within the

20

Anglican communion, that is to say, more papist and
pro-Roman.
These premises having been laid, one remains
perplexed by the intention expressed by the Vatican
to keep alive the Anglican tradition, which is even
treated as an enrichment for the Roman Church and
as a gift to be shared, notwithstanding the request that
they adhere to the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Here is how Fr. Gianfranco Ghirlanda, S.J., Rector of
the Pontifical Gregorian University, expressed it in
the Holy See’s official bulletin:
It is clear from a careful reading of the Apostolic Constitution and of the Complementary Norms published by the
Apostolic See that the provision of erecting Personal Ordinariates is intended to respond to two needs: on the one hand
the need “to maintain the liturgical, spiritual and pastoral
traditions of the Anglican Communion within the Catholic
Church, as a precious gift nourishing the faith of the members
of the Ordinariate and as a treasure to be shared” (Ap. Cons.
III); on the other hand the need to fully integrate into the
life of the Catholic Church groups of faithful, or individuals,
coming from Anglicanism.
The enrichment is mutual: the faithful coming from Anglicanism and entering into full Catholic communion receive
the richness of the spiritual, liturgical and pastoral tradition
of the Latin Roman Church in order to integrate it into their
own tradition, which integration will in itself enrich the Latin
Roman Church. On the other hand, exactly this Anglican tradition–which will be received in its authenticity in the Latin
Roman Church–has constituted within Anglicanism precisely
one of those gifts of the Church of Christ, which has moved
these faithful towards Catholic unity.2

Then follows a list of seven points detailing how the
Vatican intends to protect the Anglican tradition.3
Henry VIII himself would probably have been
perplexed by them.
Fr. Ghirlanda’s reasoning is nothing else than
the application of the typically conciliar theological
schema according to which all the Christian elements
present in non-Catholic churches would be elements
of the Church of Christ (an entity transcending all
the churches, including the Catholic Church) and
propelling them towards the fullness which only the
Catholic Church possesses. In reality, the Christian
things that historical Anglicanism, for example,
possesses belong, rather, to the Catholic Church,
from which they were taken and thanks to which and
upon which a schismatic national church was built.
The Jesuit’s reasoning is exactly opposite, and it is
only comprehensible in light of the ecclesiological
dynamics of the Council, to which subject we shall
return below.
As regards the specific nature of the Anglican
tradition, confusion reigns. It is hard to understand
how a schismatic tradition qua schismatic can be an
enrichment for the Catholic Church and why as
such it ought to be preserved. Indeed, we are not
dealing with a tradition belonging to the common
patrimony of the Catholic Church, as would be
the Ambrosian tradition; we are dealing with a
THE ANGELUS • April 2010 www.angeluspress.org

False
Ecumenism and
True Charity

O

n September 22, Cardinal
Bagnasco, president of the
Italian Bishops’ Conference,
met with the rabbis Giuseppe Laras,
president of the Italian Rabbinical
Assembly, and Riccardo Di Segni, chief
rabbi of the Roman Jewish community.
He declared that “there is absolutely no
change in the attitude the Church has
developed toward the Jews, especially
since Vatican II,” and “the Church does
not intend to work actively for the
conversion of Jews” (SIR Agency, Sept.
22, 2009).
Cardinal Bagnasco’s statements are
extremely grave and contradict the
words of Jesus, who categorically stated:
“No man comes to the Father, but by
me” (Jn. 14:6); “I am the door. By me,
if any man enter in, he shall be saved”
(Jn. 10:9). All of the Tradition of the
Church has transmitted this doctrine
to us, taught and defined infallibly by its

Teaching Authority [Magisterium]: no
one can be saved without belief in Jesus
Christ and without belonging to His
Church, which continues His work of
evangelization.
The intention not “to work actively
for the conversion” of our neighbor
means discriminating unjustly against
him and culpably depriving him of the
helps necessary for his salvation and
thus exposing him to eternal damnation.
It means the loss of the natural
desire every man of good will has of
sharing with his neighbor the greatest
Good.
It means being unfaithful to the
mandate given by Jesus to His apostles
and, therefore, to His Church: “Go
ye into the whole world and preach
the gospel to every creature. He that
believeth and is baptized shall be saved:
but he that believeth not shall be
condemned” (Mk. 16:15-16).
Where, then, is the true charity that
should urge us to desire the greatest
good for our neighbor, which is the
salvation of his soul?
All of that makes us think of the
parable of the Good Samaritan. The
priest, the Levite, the cardinal, pass by
without bothering to help the man

tradition that was born and developed as schismatic
and that, historically, posed as an alternative to
Catholicism. The historical fact that this tradition
has conserved some Catholic elements, such as
baptism, does not mean that the “healthy” core
within the Anglican tradition somehow legitimizes
Anglicanism itself, but it simply attests to the fact
that this tradition originated by its separation from
the Catholic Church, from which it “borrowed”
something that did not belong to it specifically. To
say, consequently, that the Anglican tradition qua
Anglican can be an enrichment for the Catholic
Church, or that it led to unity and that it thus
ought to be maintained as such in the bosom of the
Catholic Church, to which it never belonged and of
which it has always been the enemy, is an absurdity
that is incomprehensible except through a conciliar
optic, and, more exactly, in light of Lumen Gentium.

stripped and wounded by bandits. Only
the Good Samaritan stoops down to
help him and save his life.
The Catholic Church has always
wanted to be the Good Samaritan to
all men that are far from the Faith by
preaching the Faith and proposing it
to them for the sake of their eternal
salvation. This has nothing in common
with the principles of false ecumenism
of Vatican II, which are echoed in the
assertions of Cardinal Bagnasco…for
the greatest spiritual ruin of souls.
It is a shame that the Italian bishops,
as was foreseeable, did not rend their
garments before this episcopal outrage
given to the Redemption of our Lord
and to the mission of His Church; only
Msgr. Luigi Negri spoke up on this
question in the pages of Il Timone, No.
87, November 2009.
Let us pray that the Church and
her ministers rediscover the missionary
fire that generates missionaries ready
and willing to give their lives for the
preaching of the Gospel and the
salvation of souls that depends on it.
—Don Pierpaolo Petrucci, La Tradizione
Cattolica, No. 4, 2009.

The Problem
of Priestly Celibacy
Among the elements proper to the Anglican
tradition being safeguarded by the Apostolic
Constitution is “the concession that those who were
married Anglican ministers, including bishops, may
be ordained priests.”4 It is true that in the past the
Church has already granted ad casum this permission
to Anglican ministers who converted to Catholicism.
However, the practice was justified in the name of
the tolerance due to the particular circumstances
of these individual cases. Presently, what was once
conceded on a case by case basis is being inserted as
one of the specific elements of the Anglican tradition
which the Church welcomes and engages itself to
conserve as an enrichment and a gift to be shared.

THE ANGELUS ENGLISH-LANGUAGE ARTICLE REPRINT
www.angeluspress.org

THE ANGELUS • April 2010

21

THE ANGELUS ENGLISH-LANGUAGE ARTICLE REPRINT

The two perspectives are not only different, but also
resolutely irreconcilable. Consequently, and here
things worsen:
The safeguarding and nourishing of the Anglican tradition
is guaranteed…4 by the possibility that, following a process of
discernment based on objective criteria and the needs of the
Ordinariate (CN Art. 6 § 1), the Ordinary may also petition
the Roman Pontiff, on a case by case basis, to admit married
men to the priesthood as a derogation of CIC can. 277, § 1,
although the general norm of the Ordinariate will be to admit
only celibate men (Ap. Cons. VI § 2).5

The provision immediately brings to mind,
without exaggeration or preconceived ideas, the
Trojan horse. Even if the possibility described
above is foreseen ad casum, it has already been
institutionalized in black and white: it concerns not
only the ministers who are converting now, but it
opens a new prospect for the future, that is to say, for
candidates to the priesthood who shall come forward
in the future.
Considering that the desire to abolish
ecclesiastical celibacy is far from dead in the Catholic
world, and that the concession granted to Anglicans
as an element of their tradition is defined as “a
precious gift” and “a treasure to be shared,” one has
to wonder whether “the enrichment is mutual,” as
Father Ghirlanda suggests.
The emerging situation strikes us as inimical
to the preservation of ecclesiastical celibacy: this
would not be the first time that the modification of a
common and universal praxis began by a concession
of apparently limited scope, but potentially of the
direst consequences.

The Risk of Private Judgment
The assimilation of the Anglican tradition in
the terms described by the Apostolic Constitution
and by Fr. Ghirlanda immediately conjures up the
multiple possibilities of which this proceeding could
be the prototype. Why not include in similar fashion
the Lutheran, Calvinist, Waldensian, or Adventist
traditions? The method used and useable again in the
future seems extremely dangerous to us for a very
specific reason: The Vatican restricted itself to asking
of the Anglicans their adherence to a written text: the
Catechism of the Catholic Church.
But we should not forget that the Protestant world,
to which the Anglicans belong, has private judgment
as its universal criterion of interpretation, which it
applies to a written text: the Bible. Consequently, to
do nothing more than to provide Protestants with a
written text and ask them to subscribe to it is to risk
creating an extremely equivocal situation. The reason
is this: For a Catholic, the Catechism is a document
he must receive insofar as, through it, he is receiving

22

the Church; Protestants, on the contrary, based on
their mindset and ecclesiastical tradition, receive
the written text, but not the superior authority that
governs its interpretation. In other words, Catholics
do not accept a text simply because they accept its
meaning, but because they accept the authority of
God being expressed through the Church. Protestants,
on the contrary, limit themselves to assenting or
not assenting to a text in the measure that they find
it acceptable. This, in the last analysis, is the really
specific characteristic of the Anglican and Protestant
tradition.
And if one considers that the Catholic world
at present also seems to have lost the notion of an
infallible, and hence authoritative, Teaching Authority
[Magisterium] to interpret Revelation, the emerging
situation seems even more chaotic.

The Dynamism of
the Church of Christ
We have already mentioned above the theological
justification for this development, purportedly
prompted by the Holy Spirit leading the Anglicans
into the Church:
Those Anglican faithful who, under the promptings of the
Holy Spirit, have asked to enter into full communion with the
Catholic Church have been moved towards unity by those
elements of the Church of Christ which have always been
present in their personal and communal lives as Christians.
(Ibid.)

The matter merits our full attention.
In the conciliar perspective, this development is
not attributed to the refutation of error and adherence
to truth, but to the fruition of the Anglican tradition
itself, which, possessing certain elements of the
Church of Christ, would have been continuously in
movement towards fuller unity (as, moreover, would
be all the other Christian denominations):
…this Anglican tradition–which will be received in its
authenticity in the Latin Roman Church–has constituted
within Anglicanism precisely one of those gifts of the Church
of Christ, which has moved these faithful towards Catholic
unity. (Ibid.)

For this reason–and it is this, ultimately, which
constitutes the novelty–the Anglican tradition
is preserved and received as a positive element
(“precious gift”) in the bosom of the Catholic Church.
This principle is nothing else than the emblematic
and telling application of the doctrine contained in
the conciliar Constitution Lumen Gentium, which is
quoted by the Constitution Anglicanorum Coetibus:
This single Church of Christ, which we profess in the
Creed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic “subsists in the
Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter
and by the Bishops in communion with him. Nevertheless,
many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside
her visible confines. Since these are gifts properly belonging
to the Church of Christ, they are forces impelling towards

THE ANGELUS • April 2010 www.angeluspress.org

Catholic unity [Dogmatic Constitution Lumen
Gentium §8].

According to this doctrine, the Church
founded by Jesus Christ (the Church of
Christ) no longer simply coincides with the
Catholic Church, but to a larger reality,
elements of which are also present in the
other denominations, even though the
Catholic Church possesses them fully.
Consequently, as we have already shown,
membership in another Church (in virtue
of the material possession of something
Christian) is never seen as separation from
the Catholic Church, but rather, at the
very least, as an element of an imperfect
union with her. In other words, if I am truly
and authentically Anglican, I am virtually
already Catholic, and this would be so not in
the perspective of my giving up my Anglican
confession, but thanks to it: that is why
the Anglican tradition must be maintained
as such; that is why being received into
the Catholic Church no longer means
categorically renouncing Anglicanism.
What seems to be lacking, to employ
traditional terms, is the classical notion of
conversion, which is replaced by a dynamic
process ascribed to the promptings of
the Holy Ghost, who would make use of
membership in a false church as a positive
means of attaining the true. Without entering
into theological considerations, but in
simply staying with the facts, it is obvious
that this reasoning does not stand up: what
propelled the Anglicans “out” of their
communion and “towards” Catholicism
were not positive elements belonging to the
Church of Christ, but aberrations like the
ordination of homosexuals. The ordination
of a gay bishop is not in itself an element
apt to unite churches, but God also makes
use of evil to draw forth good, and over this
we may rejoice. That is all. To derange the
Holy Ghost by wishing to make Him the
engine of the ecumenical process described
in Lumen Gentium and then apply it to the
recent events seems to us a scarcely credible,
strained, ideological interpretation that
simply does not correspond to the reality of
the facts.

Ecumenism:
Cardinal Kasper’s
Difficulty
Naturally, we desire nothing else than
the genuine and serious conversion of
the Anglicans in question, and we can
www.angeluspress.org

THE ANGELUS • April 2010

But we should not forget that the
Protestant world, to which the
Anglicans belong, has private
judgment as its universal criterion
of interpretation, which it applies
to a written text: the Bible.
Consequently, to do nothing more
than to provide Protestants with
a written text and ask them to
subscribe to it is to risk creating
an extremely equivocal situation.
The reason is this: For a Catholic,
the Catechism is a document he
must receive insofar as, through
it, he is receiving the Church;
Protestants, on the contrary, based
on their mindset and ecclesiastical
tradition, receive the written text,
but not the superior authority that
governs its interpretation. In other
words, Catholics do not accept a
text simply because they accept
its meaning, but because they
accept the authority of God being
expressed through the Church.
Protestants, on the contrary, limit
themselves to assenting or not
assenting to a text in the measure
that they find it acceptable. This,
in the last analysis, is the really
specific characteristic of the
Anglican and Protestant tradition.

23

THE ANGELUS ENGLISH-LANGUAGE ARTICLE REPRINT

only rejoice over it. The reservations expressed
are merely linked to the contingent situation at
hand, and especially to the confusion to which the
ecclesiology of Lumen Gentium inevitably gives rise
in cases like this. We rejoice for a simple reason: we
know that God can draw straight with crooked lines,
and thus nothing can prevent a genuine conversion
in spite of a thousand negative or unfavorable
circumstances.
But not everyone thinks this way. The first to
be embarrassed was Cardinal Kasper, the leader of
dialogue with the other Christian confessions. It
is clear that for him, the event of the conversion
to Catholicism of an Anglican group is not
advantageous to the cause of ecumenism. Let us
take a look at why. Two years ago, Kasper had
already succeeded in stopping a request similar
to the current Anglican request. He asked this
group to stay in its own church, promising that
the Vatican would be working to help it within its
own denomination. The reason is clear: if today’s
false ecumenism promotes unity, it never does so
by proposing conversion to Catholicism as the one
sheepfold, but it does so by giving worth to the
common elements present in all the denominations,
which are consequently respected and recognized as
instruments of salvation. In this perspective, unity is
the fruit of dialogue, of understanding, of common
prayer, of sharing, of brotherhood, of exchange, of
mutual enrichment…but never of conversion.
To ask for conversion would be tantamount
to denying the status of legitimacy ascribed to the
other churches, which represents the platform for
dialogue itself. In this sense, ecumenism can only
be “anticonversionist,” otherwise the obligatory
presuppositions enabling it to exist would disappear.
But there is more to the present case.
Since the group that addressed Rome represents
only a part of the Anglican obedience, its reception
into the Church inevitably causes an internal split
within the Anglican Communion for which the
Catholic Church is indirectly responsible. The
matter could seriously compromise the ecumenical
efforts and dialogue with the authorities of
Anglicanism, things which are absolute priorities
for Kasper. In effect, in these conditions an icon
of dialogue like Kasper does not make a good
impression on the Archbishop of Canterbury, who
might feel frustrated and deceived after decades
of dialogue, openings, mutual aid, promises of
support… This explains Kasper’s reluctance of two
years ago.
It especially shows the contradictions of
ecumenism and its incompatibility with Catholic
doctrine, with the missionary nature of the Church,

24

and with is mission to preach the truth to every
creature.
To escape his difficulty, Kasper gave an
interview last November 15 in the columns of
L’Osservatore Romano. The tone of the interview is
of course extremely positive, but a few interesting
things will not escape the notice of those who know
how to read between the lines.
First and foremost, Kasper assures us, with
the emphasis typical of someone who is mortified
and must defend himself, that ecumenism is not
in danger, and his subsequent statements are
marshalled to develop this fundamental idea; every
statement to the contrary would be nothing more
than some journalistic scoop, and the Cardinal is
extremely bothered.
Relations with the Archbishop of Canterbury
would be excellent, according to Kasper’s narrative.
However, the Anglican primate telephoned Kasper
“in the middle of the night” while he was in Cyprus
to ask him for some explanations. Now, for a
reserved English gentleman, who is moreover an
archbishop, to disturb a cardinal in the middle of the
night is at a minimum the sign of a deep malaise that
can scarcely be brushed away, that is to say, by the
repetition of a few stereotyped promises typical of
ecumenical dialogue.
Concerning the causes for the Anglican group’s
approaching the Catholic Church, Kasper tries
by every means to demonstrate that it is not his
fault, nor the fault of ecumenism, as if he had to
justify something negative that no one was able
to avoid. Above all, he breathes a sigh of relief by
underscoring that “Not all of those who disagree
with these novelties want to become Catholics.”
It is as if he said: “We decline any responsibility
in case of conversion,” by demonstrating that
every Anglican acts freely without any preliminary
Catholic persuasion.
Then the Cardinal returns emphatically to the
same idea: he has nothing to do with it, he is not
to blame. Between the lines, his embarrassment
is perceptible. “Let’s stick to the facts. A group of
Anglicans has asked freely and legitimately to enter
the Catholic Church. This is not our initiative.”
Indeed: “This is not our initiative.” During all these
long years of dialogue and meetings, there has
not been the least invitation nor the least allusion
to conversion; only hollow words. The call to
conversion has been replaced by dialogue, and
consequently, when a conversion happens, despite
the omissions on the Catholic side, it is necessary to
justify both the conversion and oneself!
Kasper’s thinking and his difficulty become even
clearer: “If an Anglican, or a group of Anglicans,
wants to enter into full and visible communion
with the Catholic Church, it is impossible for
us to oppose it.” The matter is so obvious that
THE ANGELUS • April 2010 www.angeluspress.org

L

The Primate of
the Anglican
Church’s
Dissatisfaction

ast November 19, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, spoke
at Rome during a symposium organized by the Pontifical Council for
Promoting Christian Unity to celebrate the centenary of the birth of
Cardinal Willebrands (d. 2006), the first president of the Council. Of course,
he could not fail to bring up the Constitution Anglicanorum Cœtibus.
On the one hand, the prelate appreciates the fact that the Apostolic
Constitution “shows some marks of the recognition that diversity of ethos
does not in itself compromise the unity of the Catholic Church, even within
the bounds of the historic Western patriarchate.” Here he is clearly alluding
to a married clergy which, in a way, has also acquired a rightful place in the
West among the Catholic clergy of Latin rite. In short, Williams also sees, as
we do, the Apostolic Constitution as a significant recognition [of a married
clergy] and a definite step forward toward a possible ulterior result. Naturally,
the prospect of a reverse influence, i.e., an enhanced appreciation of clerical
celibacy among Anglicans, does not appear to be of interest to him and was
probably never conveyed in ecumenical dialogue with Cardinal Kasper.
As for the return to the Catholic Church of an Anglican group, Williams
does not see it as a good outcome of interreligious dialogue; rather, it is a sign
that the Catholic Church does not recognize the Anglican Communion’s full
legitimacy, and this does not live up to the expectations that had been held
out for ecumenical dialogue. Williams, like Kasper, has well understood what
ecumenism means. Despite the calm, academic tone of the address, a certain
disappointment is perceptible: for Williams, too, ecumenism has suffered a
blow:
[I]t should be obvious that [Anglicanorum Cœtibus] does not seek to do what
we have been sketching: it does not build in any formal recognition of existing
ministries or units of oversight or methods of independent decision-making, but
remains at the level of spiritual and liturgical culture, as we might say. As such, it is
an imaginative pastoral response to the needs of some; but it does not break any
fresh ecclesiological ground. It remains to be seen whether the flexibility suggested
in the Constitution might ever lead to something less like a “chaplaincy” and more
like a church gathered around a bishop. [Here the scorn is less well concealed.]…
All I have been attempting to say here is that the ecumenical glass is genuinely halffull….6–Don David Pagliarani, La Tradizione Cattolica, No. 4 (2009)

his assertion would be something ridiculous and
inexplicable on the lips of a cardinal if one were
unaware of the underlying unease.
In order to avoid any further misunderstanding,
Kasper adds that not only did he not have anything
to do with it, but neither did ecumenism as such:
“Ecumenism is one thing, conversion another.”
The Cardinal concludes with a solemn promise
not to proselytize, not to resort to “conversionism”
towards anyone, neither in the East nor the West.
According to him, proselytism involves methods that
belong to the past and that are no longer viable for
the present or future.
But then, we wonder, what can justify an
uninvited conversion, which carries the unavoidable
risk of tearing apart the internal unity of the church
of origin and of creating serious misunderstandings?
Here Kasper brings up the panacea to all evils
and contradictions: “We must respect the conscience

www.angeluspress.org

THE ANGELUS • April 2010

and freedom of conscience.” Yes, even if it goes
against ecumenism and good relations with the
Archbishop of Canterbury, unquestioned supremacy
of the conscience is universally recognized and no
one will be able to accuse the Church of actively
working for anyone’s conversion. But here Kasper
demolishes in a single blow the one true foundation
that legitimates conversion: adhesion to the Truth.
In his interview, Kasper never mentions the need
to adhere to the Truth, to the true Church, and to the
true Faith. He does not make the slightest allusion
to the fact that the salvation of the convert’s soul
depends on conversion. His argumentation, with its
socio-political tenor, on one hand demonstrates the

THE ANGELUS ENGLISH-LANGUAGE ARTICLE REPRINT

25

This space left blank for independent mailing purposes.

$2.00 per SISINONO reprint. Please specify.
historical failure of ecumenism, and on the other its
inability to join itself with Truth, its unconcern for
the salvation of our neighbor, its anti-missionary
essence, and, once again, its inherent incompatibility
with Catholic faith and praxis.
—Don David Pagliarani, La Tradizione Cattolica, No.
4, 2009.

SHIPPING & HANDLING

5-10 days

2-4 days

Up to $50.00
$50.01 to $100.00
Over $100.00

USA

For eign

$4.00
$6.00
FREE

25% of
subtotal

Up to $50.00
$8.00
$50.01 to $100.00 $10.00
Over $100.00
$8.00

FLAT FEE!

($10.00 minimum)

48 Contiguous
States only.
UPS cannot
ship to
PO Boxes.

Available from:
Benedict XVI, Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum Coetibus, providing
for personal ordinariates for Anglicans entering into full communion with
the Catholic Church, November 4, 2009.
2
Fr. Gianfranco Ghirlanda, S.J., “The Significance of the Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum Coetibus,” Official Bulletin of the Holy See, November
9, 2009.
3
“The safeguarding and nourishing of the Anglican tradition is guaranteed:
1. by the concession to the Ordinariate of the faculty to celebrate the
Eucharist and the other sacraments, the Liturgy of the Hours and other
liturgical celebrations according to the liturgical rites proper to the
Anglican tradition and approved by the Holy See, without, however,
excluding liturgical celebrations according to the Roman Rite (Ap.
Cons. III);
2. by the fact that the Ordinary may determine specific programmes of
formation for seminarians of the Ordinariate living in a diocesan seminary, or may establish a house of formation for them (Ap. Cons. VI §
5; CN Art. 10 § 2); the seminarians must come from a personal parish
of the Ordinariate or from Anglicanism (CN Art. 10 § 4);
3. by the concession that those who were married Anglican ministers,
including bishops, may be ordained priests according to the norms of
the Encyclical Letter of Paul VI Sacerdotalis coelibatus, n. 42 and of
the Declaration In June, while remaining in the married state (Ap. Cons.
VI § 1);
4. by the possibility that, following a process of discernment based on
objective criteria and the needs of the Ordinariate (CN Art. 6 § 1), the
Ordinary may also petition the Roman Pontiff, on a case by case basis,
to admit married men to the priesthood as a derogation of CIC can. 277,
§ 1, although the general norm of the Ordinariate will be to admit only
celibate men (Ap. Cons. VI § 2);
5. by the fact that the Ordinary may erect personal parishes, after having
1

26

ANGELUS PRESS

2915 Forest Ave., Kansas City, MO 64109 USA

Phone: 1-800-966-7337
www.angeluspress.org

consulted with the local Diocesan Bishop and having obtained the
consent of the Holy See (Ap. Cons. VIII § 1);
6. through the capacity to receive into the Ordinariate Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic life coming from Anglicanism,
and of erecting new ones;
7. by the fact that, out of respect for the synodal tradition of Anglicanism:
a) the Ordinary will be appointed by the Roman Pontiff from a terna
of names presented by the Governing Council (CN Art. 4 § 1); b) that
the Pastoral Council will be obligatory (Ap. Cons. X § 2); c) that the
Governing Council, composed of at least six priests, apart from fulfilling
the duties established in the Code of Canon Law for the Presbyteral
Council and the College of Consultors, will also exercise those duties
specified in the Complementary Norms which include in some cases
giving or withholding consent or of expressing a deliberative vote (Ap.
Cons. X § 2; CN Art. 12).” Ibid.
4
Ibid.
5
Ibid.
6
Text of Williams’s speech is online at www.archbishopofcanterbury.org.

THE ANGELUS • April 2010 www.angeluspress.org