Both Ven Sheen and Bp Barron say that a big thing the well represents in this story is concupiscence, which in the traditional Catholic view works through the tendencies in the seven deadly sins, although Bp Barron adds the dimension of marriage to the image of the well. Toward the end of the story, the woman leaves the well and forgets her pitcher, which in the view of both implies that she is leaving concupiscence behind, in response to the demand Our Lord makes. It is a story in which the woman becomes Catholic -- in fact, I would say specifically Catholic, and both Ven Sheen and Bp Barron provide far more detail and insight into the story than I ever heard in a TEC homily.
Indeed, fairly late in my TEC time, I went to an adult forum where a TEC priest -- significantly, a Nashotah House alum who is very free to advertise this about himself -- explained that "the seven deadly sins are neither here nor there". I'm not sure if he ever quite got around to explaining what is in fact here or there. At the time, his view certainly matched my own impression of Anglicanism, a via media compromise that had a basic advantage of not being as demanding as Catholicism. A big point Bp Barron makes about the woman at the well is that divine mercy is, however, demanding.
This strikes me as the big difference between Catholicism and Protestantism. Both Calvin and Luther have variations on a view that human nature is entirely depraved, and we can't help ourselves. Thus Protestant divine mercy is something that saves us completely independently of our own efforts, which are unavailing in any case. The Catholic view, as I understand it at this point, is that reason can discipline the will with the help of the sacraments and lead us to greater holiness, and our efforts are availing.
This is at the root of the personal decision I had to make in becoming Catholic. I'm increasingly convinced that particular points of Anglican liturgy -- which Bp Lopes has said are the Anglican spiritual patrimony -- are neither here nor there, especially in the context of Our Lord's demands as expressed in traditional Catholic thought. Indeed, I get the feeling that a great deal that's taught at Nashotah House is at best a distraction, and the point is repeatedly made that it busily ordains women and openly same-sex attracted people.
Yet in the US-Canadian Ordinariate, Nashotah House has up to very recently been thought to be a prestigious place. How much of the idea behind Ordinariates -- which originated, after all, in large part from the seriously compromised Jeffrey Steenson's original draft of the Anglican personal prelature -- is a distraction from the real demands of divine mercy?
