Another sitting Episcopal bishop has announced he is heading Rome-ward. It is Bishop Steenson of the Diocese of Rio Grande, which appears to cover al of New Mexico and a bit of Texas.
His letter and a very interesting comments section at Stand Firm. The letter is a bit vague, but it has been confirmed that he is, indeed, coming into the Catholic Church. Do read the comments of William Tighe, in particular.
The reason for this decision is that my conscience is deeply troubled about where the Episcopal Church is heading, and this has become a crisis for me because of my ordination vow to uphold its doctrine, discipline, and worship. An effective leader cannot be so conflicted about the guiding principles of the Church he serves. It concerns me that this has affected my ability to lead this diocese with a clear and hopeful vision for its mission. I also have sensed how important it is for those of us in this position to model a gracious way to leave the Episcopal Church in a manner respectful of its laws.
I believe that God’s call to us is always positive, always a to and not a from. At the clergy conference next week I hope to be able to share something of this. Many of you already know of my love for the Catholic Church and my conviction that this is the true home of Anglicanism. I will not dwell on this, however, so as not to lose sight of my responsibility to help lay a good foundation for the transition that you must now lead.
Pray for him, his family, and pray that he receives a prayerful, joyous and supportive welcome in the Catholic Church.
(Which has not always been the case with previous similar examples, but we can hope and pray that is changing…)
This is very good news for us, and I hope that Bishop Steenson is willing to go through the pastoral provision process of Catholic ordination. He wrote an interesting address on Donatism and the current Anglican troubles. When one reads it, one sees his sympathies for a universal church and also that, in the end, he would not join those Anglicans who want to re-align and rebuild Anglicanism from the outside. He distrusted schism based on the sexual practices of the clergy “and the Church’s willingness to tolerate or even encourage them,” while at the same time holding the traditional viewpoint on sexual matters. His argument, as it is, points towards Rome and Catholic unity.
http://www.dioceserg.org/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=90
Welcome aboard, Jeffrey Steenson.
Such good news to hear on this the (transferred) patronal feast day of our Anglican Usage parish, Our Lady of Walsingham. I wonder if it was Bishop Steenson who dropped in on a Mass at OLOW when the bishops were at their Camp Allen meeting–I have heard that one TEC bishop did so.
I also solicit the prayers of all for the Anglican Usage pilgrimage to Roma going on now, under the leadership of Archbishop Myers and Fr. William Stetson, of the Pastoral provision office.
How is he coming in, do you know? As a layman? I would guess so. Does he expect to become a priest?
All Anglican clergy (inc. bishops) enter the Church as laypeople! Whether or not they seek ordination in the Church is a question for after they are received.
It’s possible, depending on who participated in his ordination as deacon, priest and bishop, that the Episcopal bishop Steenson may have been validly ordained, because the episcopacy of groups in schism with valid orders — Orthodox, Old Catholic, Polish National Catholic, etc. — have been known to participate in ordinations of Episcopal clergy.
I don’t know the technical details, but if his orders are valid through these schismatic routes — someone on the web site that Amy’s post points to called this the “Dutch touch,” referring to one of the branches of the Old Catholics — then he could be entering our church as a member of the clergy.
Although PNCC bishops once participated in Episcopal consecrations, their participation consisted only by laying their hands on the new bishop with all the other participating bishops. AFAIK, the Episcopal Church never tried to merge the Prayer Book “form of episcopal consecration with what was (or was believed to be) the Catholic “form” of the sacrament of orders. The mere participation of PNCC bishops in a consecration ceremony is not enough to moot Rome’s condemnation of Anglican Orders. On the other hand, the Church of England in the 1930s attempted this end-run around Rome’s condemnation of Catholic orders with better, but mixed results. The then-Archbishop of Canterbury (Cosmo Lang?) combined what was believed to be the Catholic form of consecration as found in the Roman Pontifical (by Old Catholic bishops) with the Anglican form as found in the Prayer Book (by the Anglican bishops), and executed documents explaining their intentions in consecrating these men to the Catholic episcopate as understood by both the Anglicans and the Old Catholics. This process was somewhat botched for reasons that are too complicated to explain here. Thanks to the kindness of one of our regular commenters, I have some articles and documents about this amazing story – though not at my desk. Botched as the attempt was, the attempt was sufficiently satisfactory enough to Rome to allow Graham Leonard to be conditionally ordained to the Catholic priesthood.
Jeffery Steenson was ordained to the Anglican priesthood by Patrick Rodger, Bishop of Oxford. If Bishop Rodger was consecrated by one of the bishops whose orders derive from the botched “Dutch Touch” consecrations, it is possible that Steenson’s priestly ordination was of “doubtful” validity – which is an improvement on “null and void” – the Church’s default position on Anglican Orders.
Re: Welcoming or not
Here’s Commonweal on the news:
Of course, all are welcome. But I find these conversions interesting because 1) they are all from self-styled “orthodox” Christians and 2) they all seem rooted in disaffection and disagreement with the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion.
Certainly ecclesiology is vitally important. But converting to Catholicism because one disagrees with the intra-ecclesial disputes of one’s own church–especially in such a “churchy” church as the Anglican Communion–seems to be only a first step on a pilgrimage rather than the final destination as it is often portrayed. What about their thoughts on, say, the Eucharist, for example? Or a host of other key questions that they had previously disputed–unless, that is, they weren’t being quite forthright all these many years as Episcopal bishops. Orthodoxy would seem to entail a great emphasis on believing the right things for the right reasons. And if these neo-converts think they’re joining a church with no disputations, well, they should check in on this blog.
I of course can’t judge anyone’s conscience. But going by the public comments of these bishops, I have to ask if these are “conversions of convenience”?
Source: http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/post/index/1283/Church-or-Faith
Is Bishop Steenson married with children? Isn’t it a bit ironic that most of the comments discuss his relationship to Catholic orders in a Church that won’t even discuss the relaxation of male celibacy for the priesthood?
Neil,
In fact the Catholic church [i] does[/i] relax male celibacy for the priesthood, but only for converts who are ministers in other Christian churches.
No one has yet ever offered a rational basis for allowing these married men into the priesthood in the face of the long-winded explanations why the sign of celibacy is so essential that married cradle Catholics cannot become priests.
The snarking at Commonweal was illuminating. I’ve never cared much for David Gibson’s writing, as it almost always acts as a sounding board for his deeply rooted antipathy to conservatives. This was no exception.
But his post on the bishop’s conversion reveals a complete incomprehension of the nature and extent of the crisis gripping the Anglican churches in the US. He prefers to reduce it to a label switch and get in a dig at the “orthodox.”
At this point, the crisis is at the creedal level, especially when you consider that PB Schori had Spong training her clergy in Nevada. It simply appears that Bp. Steenson has recognized that the TEC has become the Community of St. Seinfeld: a church about nothing.
Converts who were ministers in another denomination do not come into the Catholic Church expecting to be ordained to the Catholic priesthood, although most no doubt hope that will be the case. These married men have already demonstrated a willingness to committ to both ministry and married life. Despite the rather caustic (and dare I say, ignorant) comments from Commonweal’s blog, most of these converts are of the “Anglo-Catholic” wing of the Episcopal Church, and were among those most hopeful for a reunion of the Catholic and Anglican churches, a reunion that looks more remote daily. I have come to know several of these converts, and their faith in Christ, their beliefs about the Eucharist, the Communion of Saints, are fully Catholic, often long before their reception.
Nevertheless, the Second Vatican Council did speak approvingly of the liturgical piety of the Anglican Communion, and in accepting some of the these converts for ordination, the Church has reappropriated for herself much of that piety. And of course, for those who convert with a group of laity, as has happened in several spots, most recently in Scranton, PA the convert minister is ordained priest for the good of the community.
But I find these conversions interesting because 1) they are all from self-styled “orthodox” Christians and 2) they all seem rooted in disaffection and disagreement with the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion.
And I was one of them. To me, changing denominations two years ago from TEC to the RCC was just a simple denomination change. At least when I started out.
And then … then … a miracle happened. By the time I was done with RCIA, I had converted TO Catholicism, not AWAY from TEC. I know this is so because when I was accepted into the Church, I realized that NOTHING would’ve have kept me in the Anglican Church, even if everything went my way, once I realized what the Roman Catholic Church was. By some happy accident, I had gotten it right. I even had a spiritual experience of “laying down my protestantism,” where I felt the relief of a burden that I hadn’t known I carried.
Never expected it. Didn’t see it coming. Wouldn’t have believed you if you told me in advance. And lots of Anglican converts are saying the same thing … dip a toe in the Tiber, and suddenly you find your up to your ears in the Holy Spirit. So you make a good point, but please have patience with us — some of us may start with bad motives, but God has a way of making the crooked paths straight.
In Bishop Steenson’s letter he specifically states that God is calling him TO the Catholic Church and not just AWAY from TEC. He has long held Catholic with a “big C” beliefs on women’s ordination and Eucharist, from what I understand…
Well said IB bill. Thanks for sharing.
RP BURKE wrote: “No one has yet ever offered a rational basis for allowing these married men into the priesthood”
RP,
I claim no expertise in this matter, but perhaps it is fairly simple: the man was married PRIOR to becoming Catholic.
Commonweal’s comment, unfortunately, echoes the comments of the die-hard anti-Catholics and the Episcopal institutionalists on the Stand Firm blog. Those of us who are Anglicans with great sympathy for the sacramental theology and ecclesiology of the Roman church understand the great struggle and personal pain Bishop Steenson has gone through in reaching his decision, and we pray he will have God’s peace “which passes all understanding”. As for the snipers, and judgers, and Catholic and non-Catholic bigots, perhaps they will find their peace in the realization that they are unified in at least one thing: their attitude toward Bishop Steenson.
[i]I claim no expertise in this matter, but perhaps it is fairly simple: the man was married PRIOR to becoming Catholic.[/i]
This is correct. Both East and West have long maintained that Holy Orders is an impediment to Matrimony but not the other way around. That is, a married man may be validly ordained, but a man in orders may not be validly married.
Discipline in the West for the last 1000 years has limited the number of married men who have been ordained primarily to converts and I think, given the history of the West, that this is wise, but there is no need for theological gymnastics to explain why this is so. It’s really no different than the Eastern discipline that limits consecration to the episcopacy to celibate men in orders.
To add to that, in his theology of the body Pope John Paul gave a very rich explanation of the theological meaning of celibacy. It is an eschatological sign–a reminder that this life is not all that there is but we look forward to eternal life where marriage will be transformed into the beatifying vision of God.
While Church discipline in this matter has varied in the centuries and allows for exceptions, in itself it is a valuable witness that the Church needs, especially today in our sex-crazed world.
Those who are curious about the man can get a hint of his quality from a video interview posted on Stand Firm before the news of his resignation broke:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/6151/
He’s a good man, a lover of the Lord, a gentle soul and a scholar. Be happy, and feel some compassion for the abuse he has received from people calling themselves Christian.
In writing to the clergy of his diocese, Bishop Steenson focused on the fact of his resignation, and chose, for the reasons he gave, not to dwell on his personal journey.
His subsequent statement to the Episcopal House of Bishops, however, sets forth quite clearly his reasons for wanting to come home to Peter:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/6305
As a model of charity, humility, and a peaceable spirit, this statement is well worth reading.
Marianne, you are right to point out the distinction between the convert clergy eligible for ordination despite being married and the cradle Catholic men ineligible for ordination because they are married. But no one has been able to give a rational basis for this distinction.
RB Burke wrote:
“Marianne, you are right to point out the distinction between the convert clergy eligible for ordination despite being married and the cradle Catholic men ineligible for ordination because they are married. But no one has been able to give a rational basis for this distinction.”
There is no need for a rational basis. As I understand it, the Church is bending over backwards to offer a courtesy to assist those male clergy who are converting; who are doing so under great personal sacrifice and often courageously.
I think any Catholic man who uses this courtesy to complain about their ineligibility to be ordained is a little bit like the prodigal son’s brother. Stop complaining and rejoice that a brother has been brought home!
The Eastern Rite Catholic Churches in full communion with the Roman See ordain married men to the priesthood, whilst reserving the episcopate to celibates. The current Western pre-occupation with sex and sexuality gives added point to the discipline of celibacy; nevertheless there is nothing to stop a future Pope allowing the priestly ordination of so-called ‘viri probati’, though the timing would have to be carefully thought out and the media would almost certainly distort and misunderstand.
In Defense of Jeffrey Steenson:
http://cantuar.blogspot.com/2007/09/in-defense-of-bishop-jeffrey-steenson.html
Even if an and Anglican priest or bishop can provide proof that he does indeed have the “Dutch touch” and thus might be validly ordained, he will receive “conditional ordination” as was the case for Graham Leonard, former Anglican bishop of London.
By the way, Graham Leonard became a married Catholic priest in 1994 and John Paul II named him as a monsignor (prelate of honor) in 2000.