Poles
apart
Laurence
J Orzell on Old Catholic dissent and disintegration
T
In
1976 the IBC issued a ‘Declaration’ opposing the ordination of women, but a
campaign to overturn that policy soon began within Western Europe. This effort
partially succeeded in 1997, when the IBC, which ostensibly exercises authority
in questions of faith and morals, essentially agreed to disagree. The bishops
recognized that some churches would ordain women, although they did not —
contrary to press reporting both at the time and afterwards — authorize them
to do so. But they also acknowledged that this would cause a break in communion
and decided to resolve the ‘situation’ no later than 2003. The precise
nature of any resolution remained undefined. The PNCC, for its part, indicated
that any attempt to ordain women priests would lead to a break in full
communion.
Rather
than withdraw from the Old Catholic Communion, however, the PNCC chose to
redefine its relationship with those churches that had ordained women priests as
one of ‘a very real, although imperfect, communion.’ This policy, embodied
in a set of ‘Guidelines’ adopted iii 1997, placed several restrictions on
communio in sacris with West European Old Catholics. The IBC initially welcomed
the ‘Guidelines’, and the IBC’ s ‘Statute’ acknowledged that full
communion no longer existed. But this apparent complaisance was deceptive. West
European Old Catholic leaders hoped that the PNCC eventually would succumb to
the modernist Zeitgeist or at least mitigate its policy so that they could claim
that full communion had been restored. This the PNCC stubbornly refused to do,
as the West Europeans forged ahead with other items on the liberal agenda.
Not
surprisingly, the most significant of these was the acceptance of homosexual
conduct as morally good and the blessing of homosexual unions. Despite the fact
that
the
IBC had not sanctioned this radical break with Christian morality, the Austrian
Old Catholic Church formally introduced such blessings, and other West European
churches seem poised to follow suit. In 2001 the West European-dominated
International Old Catholic Theologians’ Conference declared that ‘homosexual
partnerships’ can ‘experience God’s blessing’ and asked the churches to
consider whether the ‘liturgical form’ for the latter ‘should be viewed as
a sacrament’. In 2002 the PNCC’ s General Synod described homosexual
practice as sinful and deplored the blessing of homosexual relationships.
Old
Catholic ecumenical strategy represented another bone of contention. German
Old
Catholics have unilaterally entered into an intercommunion agreement with
Lutherans. Moreover, it is likely that the IBC will establish a formal
relationship with either the Porvoo Communion as a whole or with individual
Lutheran member churches (for example, Sweden). The PNCC, whose dialogue with
the Roman Catholic Church has resulted in an arrangement on limited communio in
sacris (1996), does not support sacramental sharing with ecclesial communities
that do not stand in the Apostolic Succession.
In
theory, however, the ‘situation’ of imperfect communion could have continued
indefinitely. The PNCC’s Prime Bishop, Robert M Nemkovich, presented a
‘Statement’ at Prague that reaffirmed its position on continued membership
in the IBC, despite what he termed ‘new and serious difficulties’ in the
areas of morality and ecumenism. Though he ruled out any immediate restoration
of full communion, he called for mutual respect. Implicit in the ‘Statement’
was the message that responsibility for the PNCC’s future within the Utrecht
Union rested in the hands of the other Old Catholic bishops.
The
West European response to this stance demonstrated that the Utrecht Union has
degenerated into a Teutonic parody of ‘Affirming Catholicism’ that is even
less credible — and more intolerant — than its English model. The West
European bishops made it clear that while they did not require the PNCC to adopt
their innovations, they did expect it to lift virtually all restrictions
on
sacramental sharing. In other words, the touchstone of what it meant to be
‘Old Catholic’ was to be in a nominal relationship of ‘full communion’
rather than to share the same beliefs on faith, order, and morals. The PNCC’s
representatives did not find this argument persuasive.
The
West Europeans thereupon resorted to a sleight of hand in order to rid
themselves of their conservative colleagues. According to the IBC’s
‘Statute,’ the only delicts for which a church can be excluded are serious
errors in faith or morals or violations of the ‘Statute’ itself In light of
their own conduct, the West Europeans realized that they would look ridiculous
if they invoked one or more of these. Instead, they falsely claimed that the
IBCs 1997 decision required a restoration of full communion by 2003. Because the
PNCC refused to do so, they argued, it had created a ‘separation’. When put
to a vote, this position was adopted by a vote of six to four, with one
abstention. Immediately after the vote, the PNCC delegation withdrew from the
conference, and the West Europeans made no effort to encourage its return.
The
post-IBC Press Statement claimed that the ‘effect’ of the decision ‘will
need to be considered over the next few months’. Prime Bishop Nemkovich did
not require much time to conclude that the term ‘separation’ actually meant
‘divorce.’ He pointed out that ‘contrary to the provisions of the IBC’s
“Statute” ... a majority decided ... to remove the PNCC from the Union of
Utrecht.’ While expressing regret, he pointed out that ‘recent innovations
adopted by the West European churches have altered the character of the Utrecht
Union to such an extent that it is no longer the same communion’ that the PNCC
had joined in 1907.
‘Progressive’
Old Catholics would doubtless concur with the latter assessment. With the
expulsion the PNCC from the Union of Utrecht, the latter is now an exclusively
European body, and even that has experienced an embarrassing defection since the
IBC’s meeting in Prague. The Slovak Old Catholic Church broke with the Union
in early 2004 after openly expressing disaffection with the modernist direction
of the West Europeans. Meanwhile, the IBC not only appears uninterested in
mending fences with the PNCC but actually has rendered a reconciliation even
more unlikely. At their 2004 meeting in Switzerland the bishops openly endorsed
a schism within the PNCC’s Canadian Diocese by offering to extend episcopal
care to Canadian Polish National Catholics.
Return to Home Page of This Issue