A glitch or a gulf? Canterbury, Rome & reunion.

The relationship between the Anglican Communion and the Roman Catholic church can now be most accurately described as R.I.P., meaning:

* Rest In Peace.

* Running In Place.

* Rich In Possibility. (Check One.)

Certainly the next millennium's historians will consider December 1991-December 1992 a critical year in Anglican-Roman Catholic relations. In December 1991 the long-awaited Vatican response to the 1982 final report of the first Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission (ARCIC I) was published. Unlike the Anglican bishops at Lambeth in 1988, the Vatican did not endorse the commission's claim to have reached substantial agreement on the Eucharist and ordained ministry, as well as a convergence on the issue of authority in the church. Instead, the Vatican found only "progress toward consensus." In 1991, ARCIC I's work was deemed mistaken. It had not discovered a unity of faith after all.

The shock waves from the Vatican's response had hardly subsided when the second blow fell. On November 11, 1992, the mother church of the Anglican Communion, the Church of England, voted by a narrow margin to ordain women to the priesthood. The Vatican's reaction to the decision was swift and brutally frank: "This decision by the Anglican Communion constitutes a new and grave obstacle to the entire process of reconciliation."

Understandably, these events have led some to pronounce a "Rest In Peace" over efforts at reunification. At this juncture, what realistic hope for future progress can there be? Shouldn't the talent on both sides be expended in more promising and productive ways?

Others feel that Rome and Canterbury have been reduced to "Running In Place." The formal international and national dialogues will continue, but only to save face. Neither side wants to bear history's blame for walking away from the table. But, these conversations will be an expensive and elaborate charade since the Vatican's response to the final report and the Anglican ordination vote have killed any realistic hopes for reunion.

Still, there are reasons for thinking that the correct R.I.P. to be pronounced here is"Rich In Possibility."Although the Vatican reaction to the ordination vote seems harsh and uncompromising, it is not surprising. Indeed, it is nearly identical to Pope Paul VI's reaction seventeen years ago when Donald Coggan, then archbi shop of Canterbury, had written to him about the prospect of ordaining women in the Anglican Communion. Paul VI responded that this would create an "element of grave difficulty." A year later, in another letter to Coggan, the pope referred to the initiative as "so grave a new obstacle and threat." In each letter, however, Paul VI concluded that this decision by the Anglicans would not destroy the relationship nor hinder the commitment to work toward reunion. More recently, in May 1992, Pope John Paul II reiterated the same position to Archbishop Carey, but also agreed on the necessity for further study of this question. Roma locuta est--sed causa nonfinita.

In other words, Rome's recent reaction signals no change in the status quo which has held since 1975. For seventeen years, this "grave obstacle" has not prevented progress on other fronts (e.g., ARCIC II's 1991 statement, "Church as Communion," the 1990 study of ARC-USA on Anglican orders) and there is no reason to think that it might do so now.

Admittedly, the official Vatican response to the final report increases difficulties. Even Archbishop Carey worried about the possibility of further progress if the Vatican did not abandoned its present methodology. While there is room for concern, there are al so reasons to think that the impact of the Vatican's response to the final report will be minor and brief. It is the result of collaboration between the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF). The procedures established in the apostolic constitution of 1988, Pastor bonus, made the CDF the dominant partner in this work because it has final responsibility in doctrinal matters. I would argue, however, that the CDF either does not understand or does not accept the methodology used by ARCIC I. John Paul II himself summarized those methods in addressing the commission in 1980: "Your method has been to go behind the habit of thought and expression born and nourished in enmity and controversy, to scrutinize together the great common treasure, to clothe it in a language at once traditional and expressive of the insights of an age which no longer glories in strife but seeks to come together in listening to the quiet voice of the Spirit."

Francis Sullivan, S.J. (Bulletin of the Centropro Unione, Fall-Spring 1991-92), argues that ARCIC I was inspired by Pope John XXIII in his opening speech to Vatican II: "The substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another," and the implication that "various theological formulations are often to be considered complementary rather than conflicting" (see "Decree on Ecumenism," Unitatis redintegratio, 17).

Yet the Vatican's response never refers to the method of "going behind...expression[s]...nourished in enmity and controversy." Instead, it faults the report for ambiguities. These ambiguities have to be clarified not by developing a more precise common language but, apparently, by using Roman Catholic terminology like "propitiatory sacrifice," "substantial change," and "the character of priestly ordination." This approach has obvious, if not fatal limitations. Indeed, the response fails to answer the question of whether the ARCIC agreements are "consonant with the faith of the Catholic church?' Instead, it merely demonstrates the obvious: specifically Roman Catholic (or Anglican, for that matter) language is not used to express the agreements which ARCIC I discovered.

And there are other oversights. When the final report was issued in 1982, a worldwide process of assessment began in the Anglican Communion. Cardinal Johannes Willebrands, then president of the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity, also asked Roman Catholic episcopal conferences to evaluate it. But there is little evidence in the response that the bishops' work was heeded or used. Such a consultation was not required and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith's failure to draw upon it does not invalidate the response as the church's present official position. Still, how influential and persuasive can it be when it ignores the thinking and sentiment of the bishops? How much credibility can it have when it sets aside the wisdom of the bishops of England and Wales who are most familiar with Anglicans?

Worse, the authors of the response themselves seem to lack first-hand familiarity with Anglican life and worship. This is a serious deficiency. Words and deeds, not words alone, reveal what Anglicans--and all other Christians, too--believe about the Eucharist, ordained ministry, and church authority. Sadly, Rome now conveys little longing for reunion, little sorrow over the continuing division. Its gratitude for ARCIC I's work is perfunctory. It takes an unnecessarily negative tone by underlining remaining differences, which the commission had already noted. It even insinuates that there are far more massive roadblocks on the journey than previously envisioned.

The response repeatedly finds the final report tailing short of "Catholic doctrine" or "Catholic faith," but it does not exploit the fact that even doctrinal differences need not stand in the way of unity. It ignores Vatican II's injunction: "In comparing doctrines, let them [Catholic theologians] remember the existence of the order or 'hierarchy' of truths of Catholic doctrine, since they vary with respect to their connection to the foundation of Christian faith" ("Decree on Ecumenism," Unitatis redintegratio, 11). How influential can an "official response" of the Roman Catholic church hope to be when it overlooks precisely what Vatican II mandated its theologians to take into account?

Finally, Francis Sullivan's discovery that the response quotes the final report inaccurately no less than seventeen times makes the anomaly inescapable. What is presented as the official position of the Roman Catholic church may actually express a minority position within the church. We might be able to gauge the long-range impact of the Vatican's response by comparing it to Inter insigniores (1976), the "Declaration on the Question of the Admission of Women to the Ministerial Priesthood." The defects of Inter insigniores became apparent soon after it appeared. While it still holds a strong official position, most theologians, nevertheless, consider it intellectually shoddy and unconvincing. Even bishops have declared publicly that its arguments are not persuasive. Not only did it fail to squelch discussion of the ordination of women within the Roman Catholic church, but today the issue is more alive than ever. As a former archbishop of Canterbury said, the ordination of women is not an issue between our two churches but within them. Just as Inter insigniores has not controlled the discussion about ordaining women, neither will the response to the final report control, much less derail, the Anglican-Roman Catholic journey to reunion.

Obviously, this past year has been a stressful one for Anglicans and Roman Catholics eager for the day when their churches embrace one another again. John Henry Newman, who belongs to us both, said that a thousand difficulties do not make a doubt. We can still say that two, ten, and even a hundred obstacles do not obliterate the possibilities that still constitute our common task and hope. Canterbury and Rome? R.I.P. ( Rich In Possibility-Still !) JON NILSON

John Nilson teaches in the theology department at Loyola University of Chicago.