Let's Look At Evangelization and Anglicanorum Coetibus

Bp Lopes and others connected to the North American ordinariate now and then make happy talk about how Anglicanorum coetibus is part of the New Evangelization. But the more I look at what evangelization is, the less I think the ordinariate has much of anything to do with it. The USCCB has a remarkably good set of web pages on what evangelization means. For instance,

10. The simplest way to say what evangelization means is to follow Pope Paul VI, whose message Evangelii Nuntiandi (On Evangelization in the Modern World) has inspired so much recent thought and activity in the Church. We can rephrase his words to say that evangelizing means bringing the Good News of Jesus into every human situation and seeking to convert individuals and society by the divine power of the Gospel itself. . . .

12. Conversion is the change of our lives that comes about through the power of the Holy Spirit. All who accept the Gospel undergo change as we continually put on the mind of Christ by rejecting sin and becoming more faithful disciples in his Church. Unless we undergo conversion, we have not truly accepted the Gospel. . . .

14. This is crucial: we must be converted—and we must continue to be converted! We must let the Holy Spirit change our lives! We must respond to Jesus Christ. And we must be open to the transforming power of the Holy Spirit who will continue to convert us as we follow Christ. If our faith is alive, it will be aroused again and again as we mature as disciples.

What I find somewhat disquieting behind the whole process outlined in Anglicanorum coetibus and the Complementary Norms is the definite implication that if you're Anglican, you're somehow so close to Catholic that only perfunctory moves (though perhaps a denominational purity check) toward "membership" are required. But there's no equivalent recognition of Lutherans, who are in fact considerably closer to Catholicism than Anglicans, since the XXXIX Articles specifically reject the Real Presence, while Lutherans believe it. At best, Anglicans are in an environment were credal belief is unenforceable, so that individuals who claim to believe in the Real Presence have been tolerated.

So why are Anglicans a special case? An additional question is the lack of emphasis on personal conversion, when even as a onetime secular observer of Christianity, I fully agreed with the Augustinian model of conversion as interpreted by William James in The Varieties of Religious Experience: the "sick soul" discovers that a "healthy-minded" secularism is simply not working for him and spends a certain amount of time in turmoil as the soul's natural seeking after the Almighty works its way through his life, and he converts.

The assumption behind Anglicanorum coetibus seems to be that in the case of Anglicans, this turmoil of the "sick soul" has already taken place in some significant way, so the Anglicans get a special dispensation that allows them to become Catholic in a body. But on the other hand, upscale Episcopalians do not regard emotional conversions, or conversions like St Augustine, where he's open about his past sins, as being in especially good taste. It wouldn't be far from someone opening up to his neighbor at the peace and blurting, "I have moderate to severe plaque psoriasis."

But as the USCCB says,

We know that people experience conversion in many ways. Some experience a sudden, shattering insight that brings rapid transformation. Some experience a gradual growth over many years.

Why the emphasis on receiving Anglicans as existing groups, when there's simply no assurance that any of these people has been doing anything but going through the motions, however tastefully? In fact, I would say that the actual experience of transitioning to become a Catholic prelature has been traumatizing for a great many people, not in a good way, and definitely not leading the truly converted into the Church. As my regular correspondent puts it,

Whatever the flawed thinking behind Anglicanorum coetibus, its rollout did separate the men from the boys when it came to putting personal ambition aside. There was an initial assumption by many in the Traditonal Anglican Communion that their leadership role, particularly that of bishop, would continue under a new “partnership” with Rome, and when that proved to be a myth, they lost interest.

Others, like Louis Campese and David Moyer, accepted the price they would have to pay. Of course most leaders in the “continuing” world, not being under the sway of the misguided but charismatic John Hepworth, could exercise enough judgement to see that any arrangement with Rome would be entirely on Rome’s terms and mean the end of their little fiefdom, so they did not give the offer even preliminary consideration.

As you point out, changing one’s Christian denomination is a personal decision, made by tens of thousands of people annually for a host of reasons. Trying to capitalise on the defection of a particular group showed complete misunderstanding of this process.

The problem is that in all such cases, laity as well as clergy, actual conversion of the ongoing sort, true amendment of life, wasn't even on the radar. What was being done wasn't evangelization as recognized in a Catholic, or even universal Christian, context, and the result after ten years is an essentially corrupt organization that is not healing its festering sores.