Is there a role for an established or national church?

[EmilyAlexandra]

Thoughts arising from a visit to an English town: in the town centre there is a Catholic cathedral and an Anglican church. I was struck by the very different welcomes we received.

At the cathedral, there were three people manning the entrance. They were not welcoming; they seemed to be eyeing us with suspicion. Nobody spoke to us or asked if we had come to visit. My friend, who is Catholic, was taking some photos of the outside of the cathedral and its grounds, and she they were looking at her disapprovingly.

Not feeling welcome at the cathedral, we continued to the Anglican church, where we feared a similar reception. On arrival, a woman sitting just inside the church gestured for us to come in. We explained that we were curious to look around, and she said we were welcome to. It was a fine Victorian building with traditional High Church furnishings. South of the altar were a Union Flag and Scout and Guide flags. At the west end, we found out about activities for children and elderly people and the three church schools (unlike church schools in the US, these are free and for the whole community). As we were leaving, we had a long conversation with the woman who had greeted us at the entrance. She told us that the church had live streamed a service every day followed by a virtual coffee morning. The parish had even undertaken to provide internet access for anyone in the parish who didn’t already have it.

I felt that the warm welcome that we received, despite the fact that none of us were Anglicans, was a good example of how the Church of England aims to be available for all without demanding any belief or commitment.

Another example would be marriage. In England and Wales, everybody is legally entitled to be married in an Anglican church if they live in the parish or regularly attend services there or if they or their parents have at any time lived or worshipped in the parish for at least six months, if they were baptised or prepared for confirmation there, or if their parents or grandparents were married there. It is also possible to be married in another church or in a school, college, or university chapel with a licence from the archbishop of Canterbury. In many cases, this is granted routinely, e.g. to current and former staff and students, and children of staff members. My husband and I had an Anglican wedding.

Similarly, everyone in England is entitled to have a Church of England funeral, including ongoing care for the bereaved.

In universities, the Anglican chaplaincy serves those of all faiths and no faith. When I was at university, I benefited from the care of our chaplain, even though I am not an Anglican and expressed no interest in becoming one. The other chaplaincies, on the other hand, have a remit to serve members or future members of a specific denomination.

The Church of England also provides a focus for marking events of local or national significance, e.g. Remembrance Sunday, funerals of public figures, etc.

I wonder whether anybody else agrees that there can be a role for an established or national church. I also wonder how this works in other countries, e.g. Luxembourg, where the Catholic Church is established.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I wonder whether anybody else agrees that there can be a role for an established or national church.

No. An “established or national church” is the last thing I want. It sounds very much like the sort of European idea that I for one am happy to leave back in Europe where it belongs (and good riddance to it.).

When the US started out, some of the states had churches that were established in that state, with extremely unpleasant results, as in being run out of town or killed, for those who espoused a different church. Fortunately, a state opened up where religions that weren’t welcome elsewhere could come and practice in relative comfort and safety.

I also fail to see anything positive in a church that’s open to all without requiring belief or commitment. A church is a church. It’s not a town hall. It’s not a museum. The Anglican cathedrals I’ve visited seemed more like some sort of politically correct museums/ memorials than places for people to worship.

 

[twf]

I’m sure local mileage varies, but that’s how I feel here in Vancouver. Pre-Covid, the Catholic cathedral had 4 daily Masses, confessions twice daily (always with a line), and 7 Masses on Sunday. A thriving living house of worship attracting a wide range of people. The Anglican cathedral down the street has one or two daily services, but the one time I visited I got much more of a “museum” feeling. It may also have been a one off thing, but the congregation seemed very tiny compared to the daily Masses at the Catholic cathedral.

 

[ATraveller]

There is a role but that’s conditional on the population.
Sweden had an established Lutheran church. But it got disestablished in 2000 since the population was pretty much non-religious by that point. Everyone talks about how secular England is but Sweden is even more secular.
It’s only a matter of time the C of E will get disestablished. There are more people in non-C of E churches on an average Sunday than those in C of E ones in England. And I’ve heard some elements within the C of E want it disestablished in order to be more inclusive.

 

[EmilyAlexandra]

Yes, the only countries that retain an established or national church are England and Scotland, most of the Nordic countries, Greece, and some small countries that retain Catholicism as a national religion.

One has to understand that England, Scotland, and the Nordic countries are to all intents and purposes secular countries, and their established or national churches represent moderate forms of Christianity that are tolerant of diversity and open to ecumenism. There is no religious persecution in our region of Europe. 10 years ago, the pope took part in an ecumenical service at Westminster Abbey with the archbishop of Canterbury and representatives of the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists, United Reformed Church, and Free Churches. Many Church of England cathedrals now appoint ecumenical canons. E.g., the canons of Christ Church include a Melkite Greek Catholic priest, two Methodist ministers and a URC minister, and a Salvationist. Canons emeriti include a Baptist minister, an Eastern Orthodox lector, and a Catholic layman.

For about 1 million people in England, Anglicanism is a serious religious commitment. These are the people who are believing Christians who attend church weekly and live according to the teachings of their faith. So it is not as if one cannot be a seriously committed Anglican. However, the Church of England also provides for the spiritual and pastoral needs of anybody who would not otherwise have a church to belong to.

In the public sphere, it’s interesting that the UK, which has both an established church and a national church, is an essentially secular country, whereas the US, where religion and the state are strictly separated, is by far one of the most religious countries in the western world. Prayers are read each day by a priest in the House of Common and a bishop in the House of Lords, but we do not have anything like the National Prayer Breakfast. Our prayers in Parliament are little more than a pleasant tradition (“O Lord our heavenly Father, high and mighty, King of kings, Lord of lords, the only Ruler of princes, who dost from thy throne behold all the dwellers upon earth; most heartily we beseech thee with thy favour to behold our most Gracious Sovereign Lady Queen Elizabeth” etc). The National Prayer Breakfast, on the other hand, seems to me to be a significant intrusion of religion into the sphere of politics.

I think another advantage of an established church is that the public profile of spiritual leaders is determined by their office rather than by individual personality. For example, the ceremony held at the Cenotaph on Remembrance Sunday is always led by the bishop of London. In the US, it seems that there is always a risk that spiritual leadership will be exercised by individuals who are often rather extreme or shady, such as Franklin Graham, Paula White, Douglas Coe, and his son-in-law Douglas Burleigh. I think it seems to work quite well for us when the most prominent spiritual leaders are people like the archbishops of Canterbury and York, the bishop of London, and the deans of Westminster, St Paul’s, Windsor, and sometimes Southwark.

 

[EmilyAlexandra]

The Anglican cathedrals I’ve visited seemed more like some sort of politically correct museums/ memorials than places for people to worship.

I’m sure local mileage varies, but that’s how I feel here in Vancouver. Pre-Covid, the Catholic cathedral had 4 daily Masses, confessions twice daily (always with a line), and 7 Masses on Sunday. A thriving living house of worship attracting a wide range of people. The Anglican cathedral down the street has one or two daily services, but the one time I visited I got much more of a “museum” feeling. It may also have been a one off thing, but the congregation seemed very tiny compared to the daily Masses at the Catholic cathedral.

That has not been my experience of Anglican cathedrals in England. There are two Anglican cathedrals in London, each of which hold at least four or five services daily. Typically that includes Morning and Evening Prayer, one or two celebrations of Holy Communion, and sometimes a midday prayer service and/or Compline in the evening. Confessions are usually held by appointment, but I know of at least one Anglican cathedral that has confessions routinely scheduled. My local cathedral is generally filled to capacity for the choral Eucharist and choral Evensong on a Sunday. I have been to weekday Evensong, which is generally not very well attended, but I believe their explanation is that they worship God in the Daily Office and it doesn’t particularly matter how many people are there to hear it. I think the congregation is mostly a handful of regulars and people who work locally who pop in when they can.

(For comparison, there are two Catholic cathedrals in London. One of them offers fewer services than either of the Anglican cathedrals. Westminster Cathedral also offers four services daily and six on Sundays.)

I have to say, I often find the tone on CAF to be rather hostile when people are discussing Europe (with the exceptions of Ireland and Russia), especially the UK, and even more especially the Anglican Church.

It’s only a matter of time the C of E will get disestablished. There are more people in non-C of E churches on an average Sunday than those in C of E ones in England. And I’ve heard some elements within the C of E want it disestablished in order to be more inclusive.

Yes, I suspect that disestablishment will be on the table after the death of the Queen. I don’t think anyone would give it serious consideration during her lifetime. I can well imagine that many in the Church of England will welcome disestablishment, as it would free the Church from being ultimately controlled by Parliament and having many of its most senior clergy appointed by the monarch. I suspect it will also lead to the promotion of more extreme positions on all sides (evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics and conservatives and liberals), as these factions are currently kept somewhat under control by the fact that the Church is a part of the apparatus of the state.

 

[phil19034]

I’m sorry, but I really don’t understand what you are asking?

You mention these three people manning the entrance of the Catholic Church, but you don’t indicate what their job was or if they were even employees of the Church. They may have been hired security guards not greeters. Or they may not have had any official role at all & were simply waiting for someone. If they were truly greeters, I’m sure they would have been greeting people.

As far as weddings are concerned, your description of the Anglican Church’s requirements are almost 100% exactly the same as the Catholic Church. The only difference (I think) is that the Catholic Church requires Pre-Cana. Except for the people who are divorced and remarried without annulment, 90% of the time when I learn of Catholics who didn’t get married in the Church it’s because they either didn’t want to do Pre-Cana or a non-Catholic spouse refused to be married inside the Catholic Church. The other 10% are “Catholics” who simply refused to marry in the Church for some other reason.

 

[EmilyAlexandra]

You mention these three people manning the entrance of the Catholic Church, but you don’t indicate what their job was or if they were even employees of the Church. They may have been hired security guards not greeters. Or they may not have had any official role at all & were simply waiting for someone. If they were truly greeters, I’m sure they would have been greeting people.

They were not security guards, because security guards wear a Security Industry Authority licence. It was obvious that their role was to control access to the cathedral, ensuring that people entering were wearing PPE and using hand sanitiser. This was obvious from the fact that they were gathered around a table with supplies of hand sanitiser. I could not tell you whether they were actually employed by the cathedral. My guess is that they would be volunteers. They obviously were not waiting for someone. It was absolutely obvious that they were people designated by the cathedral to restrict access and check PPE and sanitiser. They did not, however, appear to fit the description of “greeters”. I did not see them greet anyone. I very much got the impression, as did the other people I was with, that they seemed to view members of the public with suspicion. They didn’t gesture or say anything. They just stared in our direction as if to discourage us from going in.

As far as weddings are concerned, your description of the Anglican Church’s requirements are almost 100% exactly the same as the Catholic Church. The only difference (I think) is that the Catholic Church requires Pre-Cana. Except for the people who are divorced and remarried without annulment, 90% of the time when I learn of Catholics who didn’t get married in the Church it’s because they either didn’t want to do Pre-Cana or a non-Catholic spouse refused to be married inside the Catholic Church. The other 10% are “Catholics” who simply refused to marry in the Church for some other reason.

My understanding is that that is not accurate. I am sure that I have read that to get married in the Catholic Church it is a requirement that at least one of the people getting married has to be a baptised Catholic. I honestly do not believe that two atheists or an atheist and a Muslim or a Baptist and a Quaker can simply go to a Catholic parish church and demand to be married there. In the Church of England, divorced people can now generally get married, but individual ministers can refuse to conduct the service, so, yes, that is one exception, but the general rule is that anyone can be married in an Anglican parish church if certain criteria are fulfilled (and there are so many criteria that a couple can probably ask to be married in any of at least a dozen different parishes). My apologies if I have misunderstood, bu I honestly think that at least one person has to be Catholic to get married in a Catholic church. I don’t think you can just demand to be married in a Catholic church if you have no connection to the Catholic Church.

 

[Bithynian]

even more especially the Anglican Church.

Most of the users are based in the USA, and generally their exposure to Anglicanism is that of the Episcopal Church, which veered into such bizarre avenues of heterodoxy that even Anglican bishops are boycotting Lambeth should the Episcopalian Primate be invited.

 

[phil19034]

Got it regarding the people at the door. I would not judge the 1 billion Catholics by people (most likely volunteers) manning COVID-19. I would not give it much thought if I were you. Volunteers rarely have much training & in my experience many (not most or all) volunteers often get a power trip from such volunteer jobs - esp when they don’t consider the role to be evangelistic.

In regards to marriage, yes, priests typically will only marry Catholics. I’m not sure if there are ever exceptions in some nations (due to secular law), but generally speaking at least the bride or groom must be Catholic.

But with all honestly, I SERIOUSLY doubt many non-Catholic couples would ever wish to be married in the Catholic Church. Maybe in countries like Poland & Italy, but I seriously doubt it.

For a Protestant, getting married in any Protestant Church is usually not a problem. They will simply pick a Protestant church they love or a minister they like. But very few Protestant couples would willing get married in a Catholic Church. Each of us most likely could count those people on one hand.

 

[MNathaniel]

I honestly do not believe that two atheists or an atheist and a Muslim or a Baptist and a Quaker can simply go to a Catholic parish church and demand to be married there.

What exactly do you want?

With respect, reading through all the posts on this thread, I honestly don’t understand exactly what you want.

You don’t identify with any religion at all, right? (Your profile says: “Religion: None.”).

So what exactly do you want a “national church” for?

It sounds like you’re sort of envisioning a vague state department of non-denominational religion that staffs attractive buildings with non denominational staff that don’t really mind what you believe or what you practice, but are available to facilitate whatever rituals you prefer, in their attractive buildings with free wifi staffed by government-paid workers?

Or do you actually want some specific religion to have its identity co-opted by the government, so it becomes a shell of its former self by having a label like ‘Anglican’ or ‘Catholic’ still plastered on the sign, while it hosts these ceremonies you think “atheists” should be able to “demand” there?

Sorry if that all sounds rough. I’m just genuinely off-kilter and not understanding, here.

I’m honestly baffled about why you’d think Catholics should be interested in imitating the Anglican model of church mixed with state. It doesn’t sound like state religion has helped you become more of a practicing Anglican, has it? Rather, you identify as a religious ‘None’ who occasionally likes to look at the attractive buildings and you prefer the ones with virtual coffee and wifi where the church is:

available for all without demanding any belief or commitment.

I just don’t see the point.

Warmth and better greeters and coffee, yes yes yes. I’m not defending unwelcoming environments (and I’ve been to very welcoming Catholic parishes so I know it’s case-by-case, not a state church versus not state church thing). I am 100% in favour of improving a welcoming environment in all Catholic churches.

At the same time, sorry, I’m just not following what the point would be of a national church, and am completely baffled about why a national church is being advocated for by someone who self-identifies as having no religion.

 

[Dovekin]

I’m honestly baffled about why you’d think Catholics should be interested in imitating the Anglican model of church mixed with state.

Doesn’t the Syllabus of Errors call for the Catholic Church to be the state religion in every country? There always seem to be people around here who think that is still binding when discussing religious liberty.

I can well imagine that many in the Church of England will welcome disestablishment, as it would free the Church from being ultimately controlled by Parliament and having many of its most senior clergy appointed by the monarch.

I can imagine antidisestablishmentarianism will still be strong for years to come. I don’t really know, but I thought this might be my only chance to ever actually use that word. Next up is supercalifragilisticexpealidcious!

 

[PickyPicky]

Thank you for this post. I have no religion, but I am an admirer of the Church of England. You mention cathedrals: I live in a village, and the Anglican parish church is one of the essential centres of village life. I would be strongly opposed to any move by the state to disestablish the CofE.

 

[27lw]

Back when I was a questioning agnostic, it was striking to me the different reception I got at Catholic church vs Lutheran churches (and other Protestant churches).
The Protestants were all over me, register for this, welcome, here’s a name tag! Come back and visit us! One nice Lutheran Church even delivered home-baked bread in a basket the same day!
As opposed to Catholic Church, where I think we all know what the outreach / welcome is like.
I prefer the Catholic approach in general, but I think we could make it easier for visitors. Even just some material in the vestibule with a large sign for “Visitors”, and then maybe something where they could follow along at Mass (and explain to them not to take Communion).

However, tourist sites seem to be a different animal. Maybe just a training issue? Bad volunteers?

 

[Genesis315]

Doesn’t the Syllabus of Errors call for the Catholic Church to be the state religion in every country?

No, it doesn’t, at least in the sense of “establishment.” But the Catholic faith does call on all societies and public authorities to have their vision of the common good be inspired by and consonant with the true religion, since that is man’s highest good, and for their laws, structures, customs, etc. to be in accord with that vision (see CCC pars. 898-899, 2105, 2244, etc.) The state should not be separated from the true and the good.

Whether the Church is juridically established may or may not be expedient toward that end, depending on the circumstances. The Syllabus points to two texts of Pius IX addressing this issue in numbers 55 and 77 (The Syllabus is not a standalone document, it is a kind of index of important texts). Neither of those texts are universal in scope requiring it to be the case in all places or all times. The first (55) is a consistorial address by the Pope concerning the situation at the time in New Grenada. There you had a completely Catholic population where the government became anti-clerical, persecuted the Church, and encouraged other sects to come in and displace Catholics to break up the influence of the Church there. In a situation where you have a country unified in the Catholic faith, forcing the dissolution of that unity and the abandonment of those unified principles is contrary to the common good. The second (77) deals similarly with Spain violating its concordat. What we can conclude from both cases is that juridic establishment is sometimes a good thing–it is definitely not something that can be ruled out altogether. But neither must it be done always and everywhere no matter what.

This is a distinct, but related question to religious liberty. How much is granted depends on the needs of the common good (which, again, includes man’s true supernatural end). See CCC 2109.

 

[EmilyAlexandra]

Most of the users are based in the USA, and generally their exposure to Anglicanism is that of the Episcopal Church

Interesting. Being based in the UK, Katharine Jefferts Schori, Michael Curry, John Spong, and Gene Robinson are all familiar names. I can’t say that the British media keeps me up to date with news from the Anglican Communion everywhere in the world, but we do hear about events in the US, Canada, the Diocese of Sydney, and some of the African provinces such as Nigeria, Uganda, and Southern Africa. Perhaps this isn’t surprising, as the British media does cover US and Commonwealth news quite extensively. As for the Anglican Communion, perhaps we follow it more closely for historical and cultural reasons. That said, however, we do also get quite a lot of news about the Catholic Church.

But with all honestly, I SERIOUSLY doubt many non-Catholic couples would ever wish to be married in the Catholic Church. Maybe in countries like Poland & Italy, but I seriously doubt it.

That’s an interesting point about Poland and Italy (and I guess also Malta among others). In England, getting married in an Anglican church for many people just the norm. I wonder whether in countries where Catholicism is simply a part of the fabric of society there is also an expectation that a Catholic church is the natural place to get married. It may be that in reality the question wouldn’t arise, as the vast majority of people in those countries are baptised Catholics, even if they are not practising. If they are not baptised Catholics, there is presumably a good reason for it. E.g., in Poland, they would probably be Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran, Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc, and hence very unlikely to want to marry in a Catholic church.

Doesn’t the Syllabus of Errors call for the Catholic Church to be the state religion in every country? There always seem to be people around here who think that is still binding when discussing religious liberty.

I have certainly seen posts from some very conservative Catholics who apparently aspire to a medieval model of the relationship of Church and state.

 

[EmilyAlexandra]

In my experience, the more evangelical the church, the more enthusiastic the welcome to newcomers. I particularly found this when I was a student. There were probably three main evangelical churches in the city: a conservative evangelical Anglican church, a charismatic (and also conservative) evangelical Anglican church, and a Salt & Light Ministries church. My experience was that they were very good at identifying a first time visitor, getting to know people, getting contact details, and making sure that somebody from the church would be in touch. There would be lunch after the morning service and/or dinner after the evening service. They would issue invitations to courses and midweek events. At the Salt & Light church, members of the regular congregation would actually invite people back to their homes for lunch after the service.

I’m not saying that this is even ideal. I sometimes felt that the warm welcome went a little too far. I actually found the Salt & Light church a little sinister. Somebody admitted to me that every member of the congregation was expected at all times to have a list of people whom they were trying to recruit. They would do this by striking up a friendship, arranging to meet for drinks or meals, even holding out the suggestion of a romantic relationship if the person converted. It seemed that the people they identified as potential converts were often rather vulnerable people who had few friends or had mental health issues. Once somebody did want to join the church, an early stage would be including them in a cell group, a group of maybe four or five people of the same sex who would meet once a week to pray, study the Bible, and socialise. More committed members would then additionally be assigned somebody to whom they had to be “accountable”, which basically meant meeting with an older or more experienced member of the congregation once a week to own up to any sins that they had committed. One friend of mine told me that she had to tell the church her weekly expenditure so that she could give 10% to the church (a form of tithing for somebody who does not actually have an income).

On the other hand, I also attended some services at various middle-of-the-road and High Church Anglican churches, as well as some Catholic churches, and I was a bit like being invisible. I got the impression that they didn’t really have a way of getting to know newcomers at all.

Perhaps one consideration is that few Catholic cathedrals in the UK are viable tourist destinations. Westminster Cathedral would be one, the Metropolitan Cathedral of Christ the King would be another. I’ve been inside Arundel Cathedral, partly because there isn’t much else to do in Arundel, although it is quite nice. But most Catholic cathedrals are just Victorian parish churches. They are also often in places that are not really tourist destinations, e.g. Salford and Middlesbrough rather than Manchester and York. I believe this is partly for historical reasons to do with the restoration of the hierarchy and attempting to avoid duplicating Anglican titles. Also, perhaps, because there were (and still are) more Catholics in some of these less desirable locations.

 

[phil19034]

In my experience, the more evangelical the church, the more enthusiastic the welcome to newcomers. I particularly found this when I was a student.

The honest reason for that is because evangelicals attend the Church like. Catholics traditionally attend the parish they live in.

So when evangelicals see new faces, they are quick to “sell their church” to make sure they keep coming back. Catholics on the other hand often don’t come to Church to make friends because they know many of their fellow Catholics from the neighborhood & community outside of Church (esp if they grew up in the parish).

However, as towns (and parishes) are starting to become more transient instead of filled with adults who have been in the parish since their youth; this is slowly starting to change.

In Personal Parishes (like Latin Mass parishes) people are very friendly because (like evangelicals) they want new people to “pick their church.” And in very transient areas (like retirement communities) there is a lot of outreach because people know that most people in the parish don’t have family in the parish.

But in the old Catholic neighborhoods, people aren’t looking to make new friends at Sunday Mass, esp since many Catholics historically grew up in Catholic neighborhoods & knew everyone outside of Church. Another contributing factor is that Sundays are historically a day spent with family after Mass. Even if the grandkids don’t go to mass, if they still live in the area, Sunday is often family day right after grandparents get home from mass. So grandma needs to get home fast, or mom & dad need to take the kids to grandma’s. There is no time for socializing.

But again, this is changing as more and more people move away from their parents & extended families.

As family’s grow further apart, members of the parish realize the need for more “welcoming” activities.

 

[EmilyAlexandra]

Good point. I have been there and it is very nice indeed. An interesting blend of a very English exterior and a very not English interior. Brown Hart Gardens across the road are always very nice to go up to as well!

 

[brown_bear]

Obviously the facts are facts, unquestionable.

I’m referring to your experience in that city.

But tell me: is this the case all over England? Are Anglicans kind and Catholics rude?

I’m not an ideological type, if so tell me, it’s ok