The Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham has returned a £1 million grant to an Anglo-Catholic charity after the Charity Commission ruled that it was invalid.
The Confraternity of the Blessed Sacrament, founded in 1862, gave the money a year ago to ensure that the ordinariate’s priests would not be left penniless. It represented almost half of the charity’s assets.
The Charity Commission, however, said the grant was invalid because most of the trustees who agreed to it had a “personal financial interest” in it. Five out of six of its trustees had already been ordained as priests in the ordinariate.
The commission also ruled that there was “substantial doubt” over whether use of the money would be consistent with the charity’s objects – ”the advancement of the Catholic faith in the Anglican tradition”.
The ruling contradicts the advice lawyers gave to the charity before it approved the grant.
The Charity Commission concluded: “We have been informed that the grant has been returned in full (with interest) by the ordinariate of its own volition.”
The Confraternity has about 120 priest members in England and 1,500 worldwide. It was founded by the Rev T T Carter, a prominent Anglo-Catholic.
UPDATE: Statement
A grant of funds from the Confraternity of the Blessed Sacrament to the Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham has been returned.
The grant was awarded by the Trustees of the Confraternity of the Blessed Sacrament following extensive legal advice in 2011.
Subsequently the grant was challenged and, as the result of an investigation by the Charity Commissioners, the Ordinariate has returned the funds of its own volition.
Until the conclusion of the investigative process undertaken by the Charity Commissioners, the charitable aims of the Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham precluded the return of the funds.
It is deeply regrettable that this generous benefaction is to be returned, but our sincere hope is that the conclusion of the legal process regarding this grant may now lay this issue to rest.
ENDS
Note: No further comment will be made regarding this statement. For specific enquiries or clarifications, please contact the Communications Officer.
I know someone who is a life-long member of the CBS. According to him, this is the first time EVER that the CBS has given an unrestricted grant. To date, all CBS grants have been for specific purposes, whether that is the purchase of new vestments, or the reordering of a sanctuary, or a supplement for a young priest. Had the CBS made smaller, restricted grants to the Ordinariate, chances are that they would have passed without remark.
As it turned out, all that was accomplished by this ridiculous gesture on the part of the CBS trustees (many, if not most of whom, should have known better) was to put out of joint the noses of many who were hitherto generally supportive of the Ordinariate, and to hand over an unreasonable amount of ammo to those who bore it animosity.
To the credit of the Ordinariate, once the grant was challenged the money was put aside, and the Ordinariate operated on the principle that it was not theirs, and has subsequently been fully repaid without quibble.
But still… what a bloody mess.
It was utterly immoral..no Catholic priest should be a member of a charity promoting eucharistic worship in the Cof E, until the issue of Anglican orders is resolved. I made that observation to teh Charity Commissioners.
I see a problem in Robert’s posting. Are you really suggesting that Anglican women’s “orders” are to be recognised by the Catholic Church? They aren’t recognised by a lot of Anglicans are they or have I got that wrong? Also would he care to expand on this immorality issue
joseph ..the Anglican Archdeacon of St andrews made a superb submission to the Charity Commissioners. here is part of it….
The Papal Bull Apostolicae Curae issued by Pope Leo XII in 1896 declares that Anglican Orders are “absolutely null and utter void”. This teaching is still adhered to. In 1998 the Present Pope, when he was Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, issued a commentary on the Apostolic Letter Ad Tuendam Fidem which listed the teaching on Anglican Orders as one that Roman Catholics must give “firm and definitive assent”. Those who fail to do so would “no longer be in full communion with the Catholic Church”.
Thus a Roman Catholic does not believe that Anglican Bishops, Priests and Deacons are actually ordained (thus are not actually Bishops, Priests or Deacons) or that they are able to celebrate the Sacraments. More to the point in this case, they do not believe that the Mass (Eucharist, Holy Communion) can be validly celebrated by an Anglican. In consequence a Roman Catholic does not recognise the Sacrament (the bread and wine after the Mass has been celebrated which the faithful then believe to be the Body and Blood of Christ) celebrated by an Anglican. Thus five of the six Trustees that made the grant, by nature of their membership in the Ordinariate, did not believe that the aims of the Confraternity were being met by the vast majority of the membership.
Unlike other devotional societies which could happily include members of different denominations united by a particular theological conviction such as the Society of May, the CBS exists (as stated in its Constitution) to promote “3.1.1 the honour due to Jesus Christ in the Blessed Sacrament of his Body and Blood” and 3.1.4 “the reverent and dignified celebration of the Eucharist and the reservation and veneration of the Blessed Sacrament”. However the Superior General and the other CBS members of the Ordinariate deny that Christ is present in the Sacrament as celebrated by the Anglican Communion or that any celebration of the Eucharist even takes place (let alone reverently), not to mention the veneration of the Blessed Sacrament. Thus the very nature of the Confraternity instead of uniting all members in a theological conviction has instead divided the membership and become an issue of deep theological disagreement.
I contend that the aims of the society are unable to be met by the Trustees that have joined the Roman Catholic Church. As a matter of obedience to their church and as a matter of conscience they will no longer be able to award grants to Anglican churches or societies for the furtherance of the society’s aims as they no longer believe that those objectives can be met within the Anglican Church. To continue to do so would be farcical. The Trustees that have joined the Ordinariate are no longer able to fulfil their role as Trustees as they control monies from Anglican sources that will have to be spent solely on Roman Catholics (if they conform to their Church’s teachings).
I would also like to state that what happened was a travesty and I think resulted from the Ordinariate’s flawed ecclesiology. It is a quasi pesbyerian entity.The Pope is suposed to be its bishop..yet he has as much influence as the Queen in Canada does where she is Queen.
I feel Monsignor Newton should resign.
I hope and pray the Pope will not make the same pastoral mistake with the SSPX.
Having been persuaded by your most cogent arguments, I understand that the Holy Father is shortly to become a member of Ian Paisley’s congregation, and Mgr Newton is preparing to self-immolate on a bonfire in Hyde Park.
What utter twaddle. I wonder also what is a pesbyerian (sic) entity? You are talking out a part of your body which I fear I cannot mention
You really are quite insane. Or, are you thinking of becoming a New Atheist with Prof. Dawkins? Alternatively you might consider Islam…
Just who are you referring to as insane?
The original poster, I think. Sometimes it’s not easy to follow the thread of comments.
To J. Golightly – I was referring to Robert Ian Williams.
Fr Anthony – At least we agree to that. Why was the Archdeacon of St Andrews getting involved Is he a member of CBS? Is Williams a member ? And why did Lambeth palace get involved? There are a lot of nasty people involved in this and they have duped the Charity Commission and now we have the regulator defining what Anglican is. Is the Episcopal Church in America Anglican? And would you want to give the Presiding bishop a gift? Not illegal according to the Commission! It’s as Stephen said a bloody mess.
I have no opinion about the affairs of the English Ordinariate or its finances. It seems to me that they have been scrupulously honest. Other than that, I have nothing to say.
Robert Ian Williams made himself known in relation to the liturgy of the Ordinariate, saying that it would be an Anglican rite, and therefore uncatholic. See http://www.amazon.co.uk/Making-Cranmer-Catholic-Critical-Analysis/dp/1901089231 and http://archive.catholicherald.co.uk/article/15th-january-2010/8/the-anglo-catholic-myth
He is a “convert” to Roman Catholicism from low-church Anglicanism. He “line” is therefore that an Anglican becoming a Roman Catholic must entirely renuonce his past and “convert”.
This recent link may be of interest in situating this known troublemaker and crank – http://www.catholictruthscotland.com/blog/2012/05/vendetta-robert-williams-vs-fr-paul-kramer/
He often sends comments to Thinking Anglicans and has written articles in the Catholic Herald.
What is disturbing is the excessive zeal and obsession of this man. This is why I qualified him as “insane” – or at least he has big problems.
Very often, this kind of “religious” person does surprising flip-flops like some of the Jansenists at the end of the 18th century in France who went over to the revolutionary side and persecuted Catholics. This is why I suggested that it would not be surprising if this man becomes a hard-line atheist or goes over to Islam. Who knows?
My booklet on the Anglican Use shows the Protestantism of the BCP…and some leftovers like the prayer of humble access, which the Use have retained The Mass of course is valid because the canon is the Roman canon.
Father Aiden Nichols was very complementary about my booklet.
Its quite ironic.. I get attacked by Catholic traditionalists when I try and show them Vatican Two reform is not Cranmerian.
Then some of the Anglo catholic converts to the Ordinariate, hate it when I show up the Protestantism of the BCP.
I venture to suggest that the best answer might be that posted on the web site of Fr Michael Gollop SSC. After reciting the determination of the Charity Commission Fr Gollop writes:-
“Clearly, it would seem that those who challenged the grant were correct in their legal judgement. I still believe, and for the same reasons cited here, that they are misguided in terms of their motivation. We must hope they have a better use for the money and a more viable and ‘catholic’ strategy for an Anglican future – one they are prepared to impart to us as a matter of urgency. The implications of this decision are wide ranging and profoundly serious in so far as they relate to the future of other Catholic societies and institutions in the Church of England should the eventual passing of the women bishops legislation lead to further division.
So, be careful what you wish for.
The worst possible outcome to all this is that the Ordinariate in the U.K. should fail for lack of financial resources in its purpose of securing a lasting home for the Anglo-Catholic tradition in the Roman Catholic Church, and that any remaining orthodox expression of the Catholic faith be expunged from the Church of England (and the other Anglican provinces in Britain).
Yet there seems to be a danger that this could be precisely where we might be heading, probable but ultimately unavailing synodical delays nothwithstanding.
Who will be rejoicing then, I wonder?”
I believe your poster “Robert Ian Williams” may be the same gentleman who lurks on many websites with an interest in the Ordinariates. He is apparently a rather dotty Catholic. who thinks the Ordinariates are a great mistake.
WHAT!? ORDINARIATES A MISTAKE!? I am, really, so close to having a stroke at the age of 25 at the thought.
Calm yourself, dear boy!
I’m on the verge of my “three score years and ten” and I can assure you that when people join the Catholc Church as adults, they often become quite militant on minutiae. Life-long Catholics often describe them as wanting to be “more Catholic than the Pope”.
There is a story about the late Archbishop Amigo of Southwark – a much loved figure. It is said he was once approached in the street by an extremely “Anglo-Papalist” CofE clergyman who gushed that he regarded the Archbishop as being much more his diocesan than the local CofE bishop. The Archbishop is said to have responded, “Then I suspend you a divinis!” and continued quickly on his way.
Fr Chadwick (whose own canonical position iI do not envy) goes too far when he applies the epithet “insane” to Mr Williams. if you look at Mr Williams’s Catholic Herald article on what he describes as “the Anglo-Catholic Myth”, I would not take issue with anything much – other than the polemical tone.
Mr Williams may be a gadfly, he may be obessive, even something of a troll. So, I do think he is a bit “dotty” But I’m also quite sure that there will be quite a number of Catholics (some in the hierarchy too) who also have reservations about aspects of the Ordinariates including the potential baleful influence of Master Cramner on matters liturgical. Cramner’s English was beautiful but the underlying heresy was not. That is why such care has to be taken over any Ordinariate liturgy.
Or maybe an aneurysm! Lord have mercy upon me! The Ordinariates are one of the great sign of movement and vitality in the Church! The Holy Spirit has not abandoned us, and the fact that these groups of men and women want unity with Rome, is a sign that Christian Unity is NOT a pipe dream reserved for some futuristic science fiction novel! IT IS NOT A POLITICAL POWER GRAB! Christian Unity is NOW! GOD DEMANDS IT! The opposite of Christian unity, division, can only be at the service of Satan, for the Deceiver appeals to the ego and self-worship of individuals who would rather separate themselves from God.
Ioannes, on many occasions I have found myself disagreeing with you (although I think more often due to your choice of words rather than on matters of substance). On this point, however, I am in absolute, unequivocal agreement.
I’m sure that will help you to sleep better at night.
I trust there is more evidence of RIW’s insanity, etc than his opposition to Paul Kramer. His (Fr Kramer’s) views on Pope Benedict’s role in the Third Secret of Fatima Cover-Up, the Great Apostasy, the Consecration of Russia Cover-Up, and other similar conspiracies are not what I would term main stream in orthodox Catholic circles.
Here is an informative statement by those who made the donation.
http://www.confraternity.org.uk/documents/Statement%20by%20Superior-General.pdf
To Mourad 30 June at 05:58:
Fr Chadwick (whose own canonical position iI do not envy)
Thank you for your concern, but there is no ordinariate where I live nor will there ever be one. If I wanted to go to a local diocese here in France to be a layman, I would have done so years ago. So my canonical situation with Rome (the canonical equivalent of not only being on death row but already executed) is of no concern to me.
You are disloyal. Not a good priest I don’t think.. A Church Hopper. Tell us are you TAC or what? Get a grip. On paper you are TAC canonically not Catholic. You hate the RC and never say anything good about the TAC.. a church you are supposed to belong to?
Have you no loyalty? Why don’t you get in your little dingy and go to the Nordic Catholic Church – if they’ll have you.. just leave the TAC, or alternatively come to your ruler Hepworth’s synod down here next week.. A don’t pretend like you don’t know about it. You’re up to your neck in it! He’s already told a good few folk here about you and your involvement.. Yes, we know about you Chadwick..
Good sir, or madam, let us leave judgement for God and proper authority. I do not think that any angry words or any human effort can convince a stubborn person to suddenly change their hearts and minds. If Adam and Eve, who directly interacted with God can still behave as if there was no Authority in the Garden of Eden; If even Judas or the sages of the Temple would turn their backs on a Man who was sent to save us, then we are all susceptible to the same stubbornness that will ultimately work against us.
I tend to be almost always apoplectic in dealing with Non-Catholics, and it requires great effort for me to refrain from dropping civility and even dialogue and just be as cruel as possible. Let’s just say that I’m a poor representative of my religion. But I know what is the right thing to do, even if it is difficult. We might end up pushing the person we are trying to correct on the opposite direction of where we want him to be, and that’s a hundred times worse than being correct. It is not Christian to rejoice when people fall away. But if our own force and will and strength cannot overpower an opposition, we appeal to God, to the Holy Spirit. Without that, we might as well use guns and brute force just like the Bolsheviks and the Nazis. Or, in the more “civilized” manner, lawsuits, injunctions, etc.
What have I just trodden in?
What a peculiar opinion. On one hand, it sounds so much like those rabidly anti-Roman monks of Mount Athos. On the other, those monks will undoubtedly look at you as how you look at Rome; canonically dead. Ah well. If God allows you to exist, along with whatever fringe community you belong to, I suppose He still has some use for you.
I meant to reply to “Hurting ACCA member”. Oh, and by the way, disloyal to what?
I think the weakness of an argument is always found whem the blogger attacks the person rather than the issue. I have been unequivocal from the start… the Ordinariate is not for mainstream Anglicans ..it is for Anglo-catholics….a sub sect of Anglicanism , that never captured the mainstream.The nonsense spoken about the numbers( 400,000 etc) I rejected them from the start. I was very sceptical about Archbishop Hepworth..a twice married apostate Catholic priest.
I showed how the Anglican Use in the USA only attracted less than 0.1 per cent of US Episcopalians.
I do not believe the English Ordinariate will ever exceed 2,000 persons in total.
I find it incredible that a patrimony has to be fabricated..by excising Cranmer of his Protestantism and glorying in his beautiful English.
They can talk about evangelisation, but they will nver win back England to Christ…but they may attract a few cradle Catholics, particularly in the States.
Furthermore there will be no fresh priestly vocatons from married laity within the Ordinariate.
“Furthermore there will be no fresh priestly vocatons from married laity within the Ordinariate.”
You might be surprised.
I… I think I am attracted to the Ordinariate. Even if they reject me, I will support them somehow.
Don’t despair! The Holy Spirit will find a way! You can sow the seeds, and some will land in bad places, but at least the seed is sown, and there will be a harvest.
We can’t judge anything by how small and weak and unlikely it is in the beginning. I mean, did you ever believe that a group of less than 20 Jews would be the first members of a religion that is now 2,000 years old and 2 billion souls strong?
So let us rejoice that the Holy Spirit is with us, because it is HIS Will be done, and we can either reject, accept, act, or don’t.
Robert You sound like a betting man. How much will you personally give to the Ordinariate when its first ordinand starts his training? And how much for the first, lets say 4?
Yes, in 1879 the Watchtower Society consisted of only 30 small study groups. By 1910 over 50,000 people identified themselves as Jehovah’s Witnesses, and of course the rest is history. You can’t judge something by its small and weak beginnings, and you can’t judge something by its worldly success either.
I agree. It’s all about the spiritual fruits, after all! What would it matter if 2 billion were baptized but did not really believe or accept anything taught by Jesus?
I am not against the ordinariate having ordinands..but I state again unequivocally, there will be no married laity becoming priests..maybe deacons as in the Latin rite in general.
See, I’d like to see myself as a traditionalist, so I pray that the Pope would lift the -discipline- of clerical celibacy in general (for lack of better word- celibacy is required if you’re married anyway, from what I gather.). I believe that I can support married clergy, because it is not a doctrine of faith or a dogma that priests should remain unmarried like monks. But I also believe that those married clergy should not and cannot be bishops. Celibacy has a special place in the Church, but it makes it seem as if the rest of us, who are helping make new Catholics by the quiverfull look like chopped liver. No women or gay religious, priests and bishops, I think we’re all in agreement here.
But still, the Holy Father’s word is something I’ll follow if he still hasn’t lifted the ban on married clerics. I might not like it, but there are a lot of things in the world that we need to tolerate.