|
Is the Anglican realignment movement in North America analogous to ancient Donatism? Is the American Anglican Council a new schismatic group for the 21st century? Is Bishop Duncan the new Donatus? Many in the Episcopal Church have recently said "yes," the American Anglican Council and other reform groups are modern day Donatists, seeking separation from the catholic Church. In fact one priest from England recently said this very thing here. First, let me provide a brief introduction to Donatism. Donatists were schismatics in Africa that insisted the Church must remain "holy," as they defined it of course. The whole affair started over the consecration of a traditor bishop. A traditor was one who surrendered the Scriptures to the secular authorities when the Scriptures were banned under Emperor Diocletian. Around AD 311 Caecilian was appointed bishop of Carthage. One of Caecilian's consecrators, Felix of Aptunga, was thought to be a traditor. Because they considered Felix morally unworthy, other African bishops consecrated a rival bishop in the place of Caecilian. Donatus was eventually consecrated as bishop in this "pure" line. Hence the name of this rigorist group became "Donatists." The Church at Rome, the Council of Arles (314), and the emperor (316) rejected the Donatists' consecrations and affirmed the catholic position. The Donatists soon separated from the catholic Church. They insisted that the moral worthiness of a minister affected the validity of the sacraments he administered. Thus, they said, the Eucharist given by a traditor was invalid. The catholic Church, led by Sts. Augustine and Optatus, insisted the moral worthiness of a presbyter did not negate the effects of the sacrament, since God is the one acting in the sacrament, not the minister. Sacraments are thus effective ex opere operato, i.e. effective on the grounds of the action done, not on the personal quality of the minister. The catholics also asserted that there will always be a mix of the faithful and unfaithful within the catholic Church, and who is faithful will not ultimately be known until the end (Cross and Livingstone 499-500, 1636; Chadwick 220; Kelly 409-412; Pelikan, 313). So at first glance, it does seem that those wishing to separate themselves from the Episcopal Church are indeed Donatists seeking the impossible "pure" Church. However, the comparison is not entirely fair. In fact, I actually see parallels between the Donatists and the Episcopal Church, seeing that both entities are willing to break fellowship with the rest of the Church because of their definition of morality. In other words, both the Donatists and the Episcopal Church have maintained that a small regional church has the right to determine the standards of holiness against the consensus of the entire church. For the Donatists this was puritan rigorism, for ECUSA, this is politically correct rigorism. Either way, both groups assert the stubborn correctness of their narrow definition of morality against the wider Catholic consensus. I have outlined a few important points to consider in this debate. 1. The Donatists Were a Schismatic Body, So is ECUSA While morality played a key part in the Donatist schism, the concept of catholicity also played an important role. The Donatists refused to accept the decisions of the rest of the Christian world, in regard to the selection of bishops and morality. They refused to accept the decision at Arles and later at Carthage in 411, preferring to "go it alone" based on their understanding of morality. Even Augustine admitted that while the moral worthiness of a minister does not affect the validity of sacraments, he said that the baptism of a person in a schismatic body was not valid until the recipient was reconciled with the catholic Church (Chadwick 221-222). In other words, Augustine understood that those in a schismatic body who go against the consensus of the wider Church are in some ways sacramentally deficient. |
|
Report Offensive Ad Privacy Policy |
So Augustine, while believing the church consisted of both the faithful and unfaithful, could not fathom how a regional church could claim it somehow held the universal truth. In this context Augustine wrote against the Donatist bishop Parmenianus, securus iudicat orbis terrarum, meaning "the whole world judges securely." Thus, the claim that a small regional church has the truth, while the universal church does not, struck Augustine as absurd (Hall 203). Thus in the end, it is questionable whether St. Augustine would consider the sacraments of the Episcopal Church valid since they have vocally deviated from "the whole world." Realigning Anglicans in North America are actively fleeing schism (and heresy) to be aligned more closely with the "whole world," in order to no longer be confined to a regional province that regularly acts contrary to catholic and Anglican consensus.
2. The Catholic Church Has Always Held Clergy to High Standards, Despite Rejecting Donatism
Theologian Thomas Oden correctly states that never in the history of the catholic Church have the sexual activities of the clergy been unimportant (Oden 182-183). Many in ECUSA brag about how Gene Robinson is the first openly gay bishop, demonstrating that bishops in gay relationships have never been officially permitted. Augustine himself was no modern day sexual liberationist, nor was he "inclusive" as even a basic reading of his works shows. With regard to upholding clerical moral standards, Augustine once even dismissed a priest for betraying a vow to divest himself of personal property after death. Augustine made it very clear that neither he nor a thousand Church councils would allow the defrocked priest to be reinstated (Wills). While the Donatists accused the catholics of clerical laxity, in Answers to The Letters of Petilian the Donatist Augustine pointed to the great number of clerical excommunications in the catholic Church as proof the catholics still had high ethical standards. One bishop it seems was excommunicated for the "sin of Sodom" (Schaff and Wace, NPNF First Series, volume IV, 614; Pelikan 310). Thus Augustine vigorously advocated for disciplining immoral clergy, but he maintained that immoral clergy did not corrupt God's Church, because no human being was able to corrupt what was God's.
Also, while the Donatist controversy was raging, St. Basil, a catholic, laid out the canons for penance in a letter to Amphilochius, giving time periods of excommunication for various sins. According to Basil, fornication makes one ineligible to receive the sacrament for seven years, while practicing homosexuals and adulterers both are to be excluded for 15 years. These canons show the high moral standards required for clergy and laity (Schaff and Wace, NPNF Second Series, volume VIII, 256). In AD 692 The Eastern Quinisext Synod also laid out clear sexual norms for clergy, including restricting those from the priesthood who have been with prostitutes (Schaff and Wace, NPNF Second Series, volume XIV, 363).
Moving ahead a bit to the beginning of the second millennium AD, we have Peter Damian. Damian, a Western catholic who actually argued against rigorism like that of the Donatists, in his Book of Gomorrah expresses a view of sexuality that seems similar to classical Anglicanism: homosexual persons may be forgiven in Christ for their behavior, but habitual practicing homosexuals are not to be ordained. He says:
...So from this we clearly gather that any male who falls into sin with a male, into that crime, as we showed above, which is surely to be punished by death in the judgment of the old law, even if he burns with zeal of psalm-singing, and is distinguished in his love of prayer, and leads a full religious life, under a witness of approved reputation, can indeed receive full pardon for offense, but he is never permitted to aspire to ecclesiastical orders (quoted in Oden 183).
My point in quoting all of these Fathers and Councils is to show that during and after the Donatist controversy the catholic Church did not abandon moral standards for clergy or laity, nor cease disciplining clergy for habitual immoral behavior. While catholics opposed the rigorism of Donatism, clergy were still held to very high standards. However, the sacraments of immoral clergy, even unrepentant immoral clergy, are still valid. The validity of sacraments is the main issue of the Donatist controversy, not moral norms for clergy. As I have shown, according to the testimony of Church history, those clergy who are unrepentant are still subject to discipline, and their immoral lifestyles (whether it be heterosexual fornication, greed, abuse of power, etc) are not to be celebrated, even if their sacraments had been valid up to the time of their discipline or excommunication. "Article 26" of the Anglican 39 Articles says the same thing: the sacraments of unrepentant immoral clergy are valid, but once their offenses are discovered, they are to be disciplined or even defrocked.
Even today every major catholic body, while rejecting the rigorism of the Donatists, still holds their clergy to high sexual standards, either marriage with a woman, or celibacy. The Episcopal Church's moral assumptions are the assumptions of a regional minority of the Church. Thus, I believe it is wrong to say that refusing to accept practicing gay bishops is analogous to Donatism. If this is the case, then 99% of all catholic Christians are Donatists, and the Episcopal Church is the true catholic Church. In actuality, realignment Anglicans are leaving the Episcopal Church to be in agreement with the wider catholic Church.
3. Classical Anglicans Do Not Demand a "Pure Church": They want a Church With Consensual Catholic Morality
Classical Anglicans are not seeking an elusive "pure" church. No AAC member has ever said that people baptized by unrepentant clergy need to be re-baptized. Nobody has said that if one has been in a liberal parish for the last 20 years he or she has not received the body and blood of Jesus. Nobody has said any sinner is beyond God's mercy. No, in fact the American Anglican Council and other reform groups have repeatedly said gays and lesbians are welcome in their churches as fellow sinners in need of transformation (which is sometimes a slow process, never fully achieved in this lifetime).
Classical Anglicans are simply insisting that we uphold the standards of the catholic Church, which nobody can ever truly follow apart from Christ. This means we all are practicing sinners of some kind in constant need of divine forgiveness. However, this does not mean we celebrate the sins that we commit, or seek to legitimize our sinful behaviors and lifestyles.
4. The Issue is Not the Issue Anyway
Much of this whole debate is not even about moral purity or homosexuality, and it is a shame it has been cast in this light. This is about a church that has shed its biblical and historical roots in the last 30 years, and has repeatedly ignored the voices of the wider Anglican Communion and catholic Church. This is about a church that, with its de facto open communion policy, has drifted from classical catholic practice. This is about a house of bishops that could not even affirm the basics of Anglican belief. If anything THIS is the most scandalous happening at General Convention 2003. Classical Anglicans in North America have had enough, and rather than founding a pure, regional Church, are seeking to be closer in doctrine and practice to the worldwide catholic Church.
In conclusion, I do not see the connection between classical Anglicans seeking realignment and the Donatists. I will grant that there is a similarity in that both controversies concern morality and catholicity. However, I find it hard to swallow that a group that is attempting to be in agreement with the wider catholic consensus is somehow Donatist. If anything, realignment Anglicans would be analogous to dissenting African catholics in Donatist regions trying to establish a catholic Church there. Unfortunately (and I say unfortunately because three years ago I happily converted into the Episcopal Church), ECUSA is the schismatic group that has acted unilaterally on its strict interpretation of moral convictions without heeding the consensus of the wider catholic Church...just as the Donatists did.
David Bennett, besides being co-editor of ancient-future.net and ChurchYear.Net, is a graduate Ohio University with a BA in Psychology, and a graduate of Emory University with a Master's Degree in Theological Studies. Special thanks to Jonathan Bennett and TMT (aka I'd Rather Not Say) for their observations and insights. [Editor's Note: This article was written when I was Anglican. I am now Catholic, but I have left this article up for the benefit of Anglicans fighting for the gospel faith.]
Works Cited
Chadwick, Henry. The Early Church. New York: Penguin Books, 1993.
Cross, F.L., and Livingstone, E.A., eds. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. New York: Oxford, 1997.
Hall, Stuart. Doctrine and Practice in the Early Church. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdman's, 1992
Kelly, J.N.D. Early Christian Doctrines. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1978.
Oden, Thomas. Classical Pastoral Care: Volume One. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1987.
Pelikan, Jaroslav. The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600). Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971.
Schaff, P., & Wace, H., eds. Nicene & Post Nicene Fathers: 1st Series. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1887.
Schaff, P., & Wace, H., eds. Nicene & Post Nicene Fathers: 2nd Series. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1887.
Wills, Gary. "Lies of the Cardinals." 28 April
2002. The New York Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/28/opinion/28WILL.html