Legal Strategies Are Confidential

I have no knowledge of what the ACA intends in its various legal actions against Fr Kelley and the elected vestry of St Mary of the Angels. Nor, for that matter, do I have any special knowledge of what Fr Kelley and the elected vestry intend, other than what they have deemed appropriate to discuss with friends and supporters. On the other hand, my wife is a retired attorney, so we've been able to watch developments with some understanding of how the game is played.

The ACA, as I've mentioned here, has brought several actions against Fr Kelley, basically alleging that he stole money from the parish. In one action, it alleged that Fr Kelley forged the senior warden's signature (as well as, presumably, the signature of a second authorized signer) on a check. This was quickly resolved when the senior warden testified that the signature was in fact his; the court found in Fr Kelley's favor, and that action is no longer pending.

A civil suit is still pending against Fr Kelley, alleging that he stole money from the parish. It's worth pointing out that, despite brave words from Anthony Morello in 2012, no criminal charges have emerged from these allegations. The reason is presumably that a criminal case must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to a unanimous jury, and if the ACA ever chose to bring its evidence before the district attorney, the DA would not have felt there was a case. A civil case, on the other hand, requires only a jury majority of nine out of twelve, based on the preponderance of evidence.

Even so, the ACA's case is going to be weak-to-nonexistent. As I've already said here, my first-hand experience of the parish's finances was that it was breaking even on authorized salaries and other expenditures. The parish was paying clergy and staff, paying heat and air conditioning, dealing with plumbing emergencies, buying candles and incense, and chasing away pests and termites, all proper and reasonable expenditures, all known to and approved by the vestry. There wasn't any surplus.

Quite simply, there was nothing there to steal. As interim treasurer in 2011, I saw no evidence that anyone was even trying. An accountant engaged to do an audit in early 2012 said the same thing. My current surmise, perhaps similar to the surmise at the Freedom for St Mary blog, is that the parish dissidents have been lying to the ACA and the attorneys about the real state of affairs. (That, of course, puts the best possible face on the actions of the ACA and its attorneys.)

In a puzzling strategy, though, the ACA brought a civil suit against Fr Kelley and then made a motion for summary judgment in its favor. My wife points out that a motion for summary judgment is normally a defense strategy -- in other words, the plaintiff brings the suit, the defense then asks the judge to rule that the plaintiff doesn't have a case. Here, though, the ACA asked the court to rule that its case was so strong that there shouldn't even be a trial.

Just recently, the court ruled the ACA's case wasn't that strong, there was going to have to be a trial. This is regarded as a defeat for the ACA. The feeling among Fr Kelley's friends and supporters is that the ACA simply has no evidence, which is why it wanted a summary judgment. Unfortunately, the rules for civil discovery in California make it impractical to move for discovery of the ACA's evidence until just before trial; at any earlier time, the plaintiff can simply say he doesn't have anything, and the defense's one shot at discovery is wasted. It's nevertheless hard not to surmise that the ACA simply has no evidence to support its case.

William Lancaster's record as an attorney is not good, with a well-publicized malpractice case against him that led to his leaving a prestige law firm. We'll have to see if handsome is continues to be as handsome does. The ACA, it seems to me, is doubling down on its future as well.

Who Is The Rt Rev John Vaughan? -- V

The Lakeview Ledger article has turned out to be a fascinating treasure trove -- there are lots of names in it, and whenever I google one, something new turns up. At the time the article was written, for instance, Vaughan was said to be "completing a year of Anglican studies with the Rev Richard Bowman, Episcopal priest in Apopka [FL]". The Rev Richard Bowman of Apopka, it turns out, is listed, along with some very liberal figures in The Episcopal Church, as a signer of the Religious Declaration on Sexual Morality, Justice and Healing. Among his fellow signers was Bishop of Pennsylvania Charles Bennison Jr, a major bête noire of conservative Anglicans, but there is no shortage of other liberal signers.

Just a part of this declaration reads as follows:

We are called today to see, hear and respond to the suffering caused by sexual abuse and violence against women and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) persons, the HIV pandemic, unsustainable population growth and over-consumption, and the commercial exploitation of sexuality.

Faith communities must therefore be truth-seeking, courageous and just. We call for:

• Theological reflection that integrates the wisdom of excluded, often silenced peoples, and insights about sexuality from medicine, social science, the arts and humanities.
• Full inclusion of women and LGBT persons in congregational life, including their ordination and marriage equality.
• Sexuality counseling and education throughout the lifespan from trained religious leaders.
• Support for those who challenge sexual oppression and who work for justice within their congregations and denominations.

Bowman's name also appears on a web page featuring "Pro Gay Pastors, Churches, & Chaplains." He appears at various times as a spokesman in the largely conservative Episcopal Diocese of Central Florida for pro-gay issues in TEC.

This is the guy who tutored Vaughan for a year in "Anglican studies" in connection with his ordination as an Episcopal priest? I certainly don't mean to imply that signing a statement says anything about one's personal conduct, but these "Anglican studies" must certainly have covered Cranmer, Laud, Andrewes, Pusey, and Keble less than Spong, Moore, Boyd, and Harris.

So let's recap. Vaughan left the Roman Catholic priesthood due to some number of unspecified reservations about doctrine. (There are Catholic priests, of course, who would ask how he got into seminary in the fist place.) Once he left the priesthood, though while still a nominal Catholic, he appears to have disregarded other key teachings about marriage and the family. Then he discovered Episcopalianism, and his systematic introduction to that denomination appears to have been the standard product of the 1990s -- and he was, by his account in 1996, happy about it, just one big, happy, extended, non-traditional family.

Yet by 2005, it appears that Vaughan had discovered the virtues of the 1928 BCP, the error involved in ordaining women, and quite possibly had discovered his own reservations at the consecration of Gene Robinson. Indeed, as of October 14, 2012, Vaughan was presumably part of the ACA House of Bishops when it unanimously endorsed the following statement:

Our Creator made us male and female, with the result that the physical union in marriage is a reality. Male and female really unite in a way that is impossible for members of the same sex, and that union is open to the possibility of procreation in a way that no “same-sex union” could possibly be.

So we know he had reservations about Catholic doctrine, and disregarded it as it suited him. Maybe he had reservations about the standard Episcopalian doctrine of the 1990s, too -- we don't know. Now he's a bishop in the theologically [sorta-kinda] conservative ACA. Does he have reservations about any of that? Did he sign the 2012 statement on gay marriage with any reservations?

I think the answer is it doesn't matter, at least not to his colleagues in the ACA House of Bishops. It's more important that he's utterly reliable. Let's recall one more time that David Moyer, a man who, despite his flaws, comes across as someone with integrity, was purged from that same House of Bishops at precisely the same time Vaughan was elevated to it. Moyer, with backbone, was unreliable. Vaughan, with secrets, is at least reliable.

Who Is The Rt Rev John Vaughan? -- IV

If you check the Lakeville Ledger piece, you'll see a picture of Fr Vaughan as of 1996, a newly ordained Episcopal deacon posing beneath a stained glass window, wearing a Roman collar, doing his very best imitation of Bing Crosby in Going My Way.

All that's missing is the straw hat! But by then, of course, Vaughan had left the Catholic priesthood, and despite the collar, he was no more a Catholic priest than Bing Crosby.

Other details given in the story are puzzling in light of the record. It says, for instance, that Vaughan's wife, Rebecca, had been "an Episcopalian for 15 years". However, the obituary for her first husband says he was a Presbyterian. Her second husband, Louis Ira Fein, may have come from a Jewish family. Her fourth husband, Amr Darwish, has a Muslim name. If Rebecca was or is Episcopalian, she appears to be an Episcopalian of a certain sort.

The Ledger piece reflects a certain optimism and desire to get ahead on Fr Vaughan's part. Praising the rector and the permanent deacon there, he is reported to have said "the three of them work as a team." He's described in the piece as a transitional deacon and curate; it looks like there was some expectation at the time that he would go on staff there as an assistant.

This didn't happen. As I reported last year, according to both St Paul's Winter Haven and the Episcopal Diocese of Central Florida, he served as an interim priest there for only a short time. The only other reference I have to that period is a wedding there at which he officiated in 1998. Indeed, the tone of the replies I got to my inquiries last year verged on the defensive: well, yeah, he was a priest here, but not for very long. What happened?

The only other assignment Vaughan had in The Episcopal Church, according to the Diocese of Central Florida, was as vicar of a failing mission, St Joseph's Orlando. We don't know when he started there, but by several accounts, he left in 2005. We now know that as of early January 2006, he'd sold his interest in a house to Rebecca, presumably by now his ex-wife. According to the ACA, "In 2005 he began his service in the Anglican Church in America at St. Patrick's Church in Port St. John, Florida[.]"

In other words, his service in The Episcopal Church, by TEC's account marginal, ended at roughly the time of his divorce. The index of priests on the Episcopal Diocese of Central Florida's web site no longer carries any reference to John Vaughan. There's still a great deal we don't know.

Who Is The Rt Rev John Vaughan? -- III

I don't mean to be the Grinch who stole Christmas here, but Vaughan, while he'd left the Catholic priesthood, still considered himself a Catholic. According to the Lakeland Ledger piece, he "attended St Joseph's Catholic Church" in Lakeland after he and his new wife moved there.

For a Catholic to marry a divorced person whose spouse is still living is, of course, problematic. One Catholic explanation goes as follows:

[I]f your spouse was previously married and has not received an Decree of Invalidity from a Tribunal, there is a problem. In such circumstances, you may not partake of the sacraments, including the reception of Holy Communion. We respect all marriages, even those which have ended in a civil divorce. Every prior marriage must be examined, since each is presumed to be valid with a lasting and lifelong commitment. Until it is shown otherwise through the ministry of the Tribunal, no person is free to enter into another marriage without the appearance or occasion of serious sin.

It seems highly unlikely that Vaughan and his wife applied to have her previous marriages declared invalid, since the process normally takes at least two years, and one would assume that it could take at least that long or longer if two marriages were involved. But they married within eighteen months of meeting. In addition, tribunals do in fact examine the circumstances of prior marriages carefully, and the decrees are by no means a sure thing. One might expect the process to be riskier if two marriages were involved.

This must be another of the several unspecified reservations Vaughan had about Catholic doctrine while he was in seminary and in the priesthood. Er, where did the reservations stop? After he became an Episcopalian, which many former Catholics do following divorces and remarriages, we might think his wife's marital history would be less of a problem, although simply as a matter of good judgment, I would still question marrying a two-time divorcee -- I married late in life, I dated some of those ladies myself, and I can tell you, they have issues. That's why they got two divorces. The Catholic Church here is looking out for its faithful.

The question also arises: what is Vaughan's actual view of marriage -- indeed, what is his view of the sacraments? Holy orders are a sacrament as well, equivalent in the Catholic Church to marriage. Did Vaughan take his orders seriously? Well, he had reservations. By his account, he had them all along. The priesthood got him to the US, of course. It got him to the Archdiocese of Miami, an anything-goes sort of place by all accounts. Was Vaughan using holy orders for his own purposes, quitting the priesthood as soon as it suited him to do so?

By the same token, it's interesting that in the minimal information Brian Marsh provided at Vaughan's consecration, the ACA saw fit to mention, "He is a resident of Titusville, Florida and has one son." This of course is a tacit way of saying that Vaughan, by the time of his consecration, was divorced, although the marriage had been blessed with issue. And that, too, is a tacit way of reassuring anyone who might be uncertain about it that Vaughan is not, no way, can't happen, that bugbear of conservative Anglicans, a gay bishop.

Florida real estate records show that the house at 3295 Timucua Circle, Hunters Creek, FL 32837 was sold by John Vaughan on January 6, 2006, to Rebecca Vaughan, and sold again on September 22, 2006 by Rebecca Vaughan to Rebecca Vaughan and Amr Darwish. Rebecca Vaughan had had a career since 1980 as a speech therapist; Amr Darwish is a physical therapist whose business is located at that address. They were presumably colleagues prior to their marriage. The former Mrs Vaughan now styles herself Becky Vaughan-Darwish.

The marriage to John Vaughan was just one of four. What does that say about Rebecca's view of marriage? What does that say about the marriage overall? What does that say about Vaughan's view of marriage as a sacrament? If it seems possible that he used the sacrament of holy orders for his own purposes, could he have used the sacrament of marriage for the same, perhaps as a beard of respectability?

I ask this as a Catholic, of course, where that marriage seems to have involved serious sin. But even as a sorta-kinda Episcopal or Anglican priest, people would be going to Vaughan for marriage counseling. What kind of counseling would he be equipped to provide?

I note, too, that Vaughan's ACA home parish now calls itself St Patrick's Anglican Catholic Church. Catholic indeed.

Who Is The Rt Rev John Vaughan? -- II

Although the ACA has maintained strict radio silence about the biographical information on its two most recent bishops, it did in fact release the following about John Vaughan last year, when he was consecrated suffragan bishop of the Diocese of the Eastern US:

In 1985 Bp. Vaughan was ordained to the [Roman Catholic] priesthood at St. Michael's Church Upper Glanmire County Cork Ireland. Shortly after Ordination he left Ireland and relocated to the United States to serve the people of the Roman Catholic archdiocese of Miami Florida and the Episcopal Diocese of Florida. In 2005 he began his service in the Anglican Church in America at St. Patrick's Church in Port St. John, Florida until being appointed Vicar General of the Diocese of the Eastern United States in 2011. He is a resident of Titusville, Florida and has one son.

As I observed a year ago, this thumbnail is sketchy and notable for its omissions. I've recently had reason to go back and check Bishop Vaughan's biography in greater detail, and I will add some additional material to the record in this and subsequent posts.

Pope Francis is recently reported to have acknowledged, at least informally, that there is in fact a gay mafia in the Roman Catholic Church:

[In} the Curia, there are also holy people, really, there are holy people. But there also is a stream of corruption, there is that as well, it is true... The "gay lobby" is mentioned, and it is true, it is there... We need to see what we can do...

The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami is frequently mentioned as a center for gay mafia activity in the US. This is often suggested as a reason for the premature removal of Archbishop John C. Favalora prior to his mandatory retirement at age 75. Although he was installed as Archbishop of Miami in 1994, discussions of the scandals in the Miami Archdiocese indicate that the problems there had existed for decades prior to his arrival.

Priests speak, too, about the culture of "sex-driven favoritism" at St. John Vianney College Seminary—a kind of gay Hogwarts with palm trees, located out in the flat suburban wastes of southwest Dade County. . . . One seminarian who dropped out in disgust in the 1980s recalls a miserable year being bullied by gay faculty, and the rector, Robert Lynch, fawning over his favorite seminarian: an attractive upper-classman named Steven O'Hala.

It's worth pointing out that the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami was also the place where the "Father Oprah" scandal took place, wherein Alberto Cutie, a Catholic priest well-known for his media appearances, was forced to leave the Catholic priesthood after publication of pictures in which he was shown kissing Ruhama Buni Canellis at a public beach. (He later married Ms Buni Canellis and became an Episcopal priest.)

There is no record of what John Vaughan's activities may or may not have been in the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami during the time he was a priest there. According to this article in the Lakeland, FL Ledger, Vaughan had disagreed with Catholic doctrine while in seminary, and after transferring to the Miami archdiocese in 1985, by 1990 reached a decision that he could not continue as a Catholic priest. The "doctrines" with which he disagreed, according to the article, included, but apparently were not limited to, the requirement of priestly celibacy. (Priestly celibacy, however, is a "discipline", not a "doctrine"; Vaughan, who has a Master's degree in theology, was presumably aware of this.)

However, although Vaughan disagreed with not fully specified Catholic doctrines, he had not met anyone whom he might have considered marriage material before he left the Catholic priesthood. This would change.

According to the Florida Department of Health, John Vaughan married Rebecca Susan Fein in Miami on 22 June 1991. The Lakeland Ledger story indicates that Rebecca Fein's parents are Leslie and Ellen Spoor of Winter Haven, FL. According to the Florida Department of Health, Rebecca Susan Spoor married Beatty Scott Blanton III on 31 August 1974. According to the Florida Department of Health, Rebecca Susan Blanton had another marriage, to Louis Ira Fein, on 15 October 1983. A third marriage for Rebecca Susan Spoor is listed for 22 June 1991, which is presumably the marriage of Rebecca Susan Fein to John Vaughan, her third.

The story, though, doesn't end here.

Do I See A Pattern Here?

The Rt Rev James Hiles is just the most recent example of what I think is a distressing pattern in the ACA, even more so than in "continuing Anglicanism" generally -- jurisdiction hopping among the highest leadership in order to escape from either formal deposition in The Episcopal Church (the case with Louis Falk and James Hiles) or what appears to be less formal edging-out, which appears to be the situation with the late Anthony Morello and the Rt Rev John Vaughan. (Morello's rapid promotion in the ACA, from newcomer assistant priest in 2010 to vicar general in 2012, suggests he would almost certainly have become a bishop if he'd lived a year longer.)

It's worth noting that Hiles had never expressed objection, at least in any sort of record, to the 1979 Book of Common Prayer, the ordination of women, or the election of the first woman suffragan in his own Episcopal diocese, over the two-decade period when these developments took place before TEC threw him out. This apparently more mainstream position might have made him a good candidate for the ACNA after 2007, and we can only speculate why he either did not choose to take his parish into the ACNA during the jurisdiction-shopping he must have done then, or why the ACNA may not have found him suitable.

Stephen Strawn and Brian Marsh were never ordained in The Episcopal Church, unlike those above -- Strawn attended an unaccredited seminary, while Marsh, despite becoming a postulant and then a candidate for holy orders in the Episcopal Diocese of Massachusetts, for whatever reason was apparently not deemed suitable for eventual ordination there. As I said earlier this week, the fact that we know absolutely nothing of the Rt Rev Owen Rhys Williams is a matter for serious concern.

I'll next be addressing further information on the Rt Rev John Vaughan.

My wife and I pray daily for the people of the Anglican Church in America.

Who Is The Rt Rev James Randall Hiles?

I didn't originally intend to post on this subject, but I wandered into it yesterday, and the more I looked, the more I saw. Hiles was consecrated a suffragan bishop in the ACA Diocese of the Northeast on April 27, 2013. There are two things I gathered from the photo below:

One is that it appears to have been quite a do, with even the assistant principal from South Africa, the Rt Rev Michael Gill, on the scene. The other is that Bishop Hiles, seated at the center among the smarmy smiles around him, appears to be quite elderly. Checking, I found that he was ordained to the Episcopal priesthood in 1958. If we make the optimistic assumption that he was 25 at the time of his ordination, this would give a birth year of 1933, and that would make him 80 in 2013. If his ordination was later -- as it frequently is for Episcopal priests -- this would of course make him older.

The mandatory retirement age for an Episcopal bishop is 72. A Roman Catholic bishop must submit his resignation at age 75, although the Pope may delay mandatory retirement in individual cases. Hiles's age suggests several things. First, Presiding Bishop Marsh, a dilettante part-timer, does not want threats to his position, so he allows only bishops who can't credibly challenge him, something we'll eventually get to in the case of John Vaughan. An octogenarian can hardly aspire to higher office. Second, Hiles's rise to the episcopacy, especially in light of his age, is largely honorary, although I suspect it's also a quid pro quo.

There's the question of Hiles's sudden arrival in the Anglican Church in America at all. Yesterday I noted a Virtue Online story that had him and his breakaway parish in the Anglican Mission in America as of 2007. In the years after 2007, the AMIA grew steadily more erratic in its affiliations, essentially disintegrating by 2011. ACA Diocese of the Northeast newsletters place Hiles as a "special guest" at the 2011 diocesan synod; by March 2012, St Paul's Anglican Brockton was listed as an “associated Anglican parish”. In other words, Hiles had left a sinking ship and hopped jurisdictions -- no doubt, I would guess, shopping around among more than one; the ACA finally offered him the best deal. St Paul's Brockton sorta-kinda joins the ACA in 2012; a year later, Hiles, in an unrelated move, becomes a bishop.

But wait a moment. Isn't Hiles some kind of a hero to the "continuing Anglican" movement? Isn't it some kind of feather in the ACA's cap to have the guy at all? All those other smarmy bishops in the picture certainly suggest that's the case. I mean, Pope Emeritus Benedict might be an octogenarian as well, but wouldn't it be a feather in the ACA's cap to make him a suffragan, too?

Let's look at Hiles's case. As of 1995, Hiles, an Episcopal priest, had two posts: one was Rector of St Paul's Episcopal Church, a full-fledged parish in Brockton, MA, and one as Vicar of the Church of Our Saviour, a mission church in Milton, MA. A parish has a vestry that calls a rector with the assent of a bishop; a parish is financially self-supporting. A mission runs a deficit, receives financial support from the diocese, and has a vicar who is appointed directly by the bishop -- the bishop directly controls the mission's finances as well.

According to the court case I cited yesterday, Hiles's problem arose when, in 1990, a parishioner bequeathed approximately $2 million to the Church of Our Saviour. The Episcopal diocese and Hiles disagreed as to which entity was entitled to the bequest -- the church or the diocese. From the facts as outlined in the case, since the bequest was to the mission, the bishop had a definite case for a claim on that money, since he controlled the mission's finances. Hiles somehow thought the money should go to St Paul's Episcopal Brockton, a different entity.

One thing that strikes me is that this dispute had nothing to do with any developments in The Episcopal Church regarding prayer books or women priests. It was an argument over money, and it could as easily have happened over exactly the same issues in 1795 or 1895. The bishop had a strong argument, and beyond that, the bishop was the boss, especially over Hiles in his capacity as vicar. The record shows the bishop was angry indeed with Hiles (as quite possibly I would have been in the same circumstances), to the extent that he came as close as a bishop might to cussing Hiles out, and threw a pen at him in the bargain.

At no point in this dispute did Hiles ever say, "Well, Bishop, not only are you trying to steal our rightful bequest, but you're using the 1979 Book of Common Prayer! And not only that, but you are tolerating a suffragan of the female persuasion!!" Indeed, since this dispute took place in 1995, we may assume that Fr Hiles had been saying mass from the 1979 BCP without complaint for over 15 years. Hiles's dispute had nothing visibly connected with any liberal-conservative church divide -- unlike, for instance, the dispute between David Moyer and his bishop, Charles Bennison Jr. Moyer had a credible reason to join a "continuing Anglican" denomination; Hiles did not, except as a way to avoid disgrace and keep getting a paycheck.

Next, let's look at the charges on which Hiles was then inhibited and deposed, an alleged adulterous relationship with a parishioner. It's sad on one hand that The Episcopal Church does not appear to be consistent in how it enforces ethical standards in matters like these. On the other hand, the Massachusetts Supreme Court eventually ruled in 2002 that The Episcopal Church was entirely within its rights to enforce the standards it did enforce in Hiles's case -- Hiles was inhibited and deposed following an ecclesiastical trial, for an adulterous affair with a parishioner. In the court's view, that trial and any subsequent canonical appeals were all Hiles was entitled to. Hiles knew this when he became a priest.

Hiles's legal and public position at the time and since has been that the allegations of the affair, while untrue to start with, were the result of the dispute over money. At no point did the 1979 BCP or women priests and bishops enter into this dispute -- the whole discussion was over (a) money, and (b) sex -- and beyond that, one gets the sense that if The Episcopal Church had worked out a settlement that allowed Hiles to keep his well-paid, prestigious job as a rector in that denomination, he would have been perfectly happy.

How on earth does any of this make him some kind of hero to "continuing Anglicanism"? When you think about it, David Moyer had a dispute with Episcopal Bishop Bennison involving Bennison's broken promise to allow conservative parishes to be supervised by a sympathetic bishop. Bennison was much more clearly in the wrong. Moyer's dispute had no side issues involving money or sex. Yet Moyer is more or less in disgrace in the "continuing Anglican" movement, even though he actually did good work as a bishop once he went to the ACA, yet the ACA simply purged him as a bishop in 2012. In 2013, though, it made Hiles a bishop at age 80, with duties that strongly reek of sinecure.

Why are all those bishops smiling?

Who Is The Rt Rev Owen Rhys Williams? -- I

The Very Rev Owen Rhys Williams was consecrated suffragan bishop in the ACA Diocese of the Northeast on April 25, 2013. Subsequently, on August 8, ACA Presiding Bishop Brian Marsh designated Williams episcopal visitor to the Diocese of the West, which has not had a bishop since the sudden retirement of Daren Williams (presumably no relation) in late 2010. As is simply not unusual with the ACA, no biographical information was given on Williams at the time of his consecration. In the announcement to the Diocese of the West, Marsh said, "Bishop Owen Williams is known to most of the diocese from his years at Saint Mark’s in Portland, Oregon."

Curious, I e-mailed a former ACA DOW priest, who left the DOW/ACA with the Patrimony of the Primate but who had been in the diocese since Robin Connor was rector of St Mark's Portland, if he knew anything about Owen Rhys Williams. He replied, "I have never heard of the man." It's worth pointing out I've sent an e-mail to another former ACA/DOW priest, with the diocese since the early 1990s, but haven't had a reply.

Williams is also Rector/Dean of Trinity Anglican Pro-Cathedral in Rochester, NH. However, there is no bio of Williams on that web site, nor on the web site of the ACA Diocese of the Northeast. And this is simply all we know about him -- repeated efforts in Google turn up only the announcement of his consecration as suffragan, parroted on the usual "continuing Anglican" cheerleader sites. Period.

Normally, bishops have a photo and bio on their diocesan web sites -- in fact, respectable rectors have such things on parish web sites. For example, the web site of the ACNA Diocese of New England, which would be their equivalent of the ACA DONE, carries this full page, with photo, of its current bishop. On that page, we learn, among many other things, that "Fr. Bill holds a B.S. from the University of New Hampshire and a Master of Divinity from Gordon-Conwell College. He has read for Holy Orders in the Diocese of Massachusetts and was ordained to the priesthood in May 1986."

Shouldn't communicants in the ACA feel entitled to equivalent information on one of their bishops? Where, in fact, did Bp Williams do his undergraduate work? Where did he receive his priestly formation? What was his ecclesiastical career prior to his rectorship at Trinity Anglican? I would say that not to provide this information to communicants and the public at large verges on a sin of omission, and by sin I mean a sin.

By the way, a Google search on The Rev James Randall Hiles, also recently consecrated a DONE suffragan, quickly turns up Hiles v Episcopal Diocese of Massachusetts, which covers some salacious material indeed:

[T]he Right Reverend M. Thomas Shaw, III, Bishop of the [Episcopal] Diocese of Massachusetts (Shaw), summoned Hiles to his office, accused him of being stubborn, a bully, and a liar, and struck him with a "missile" (i.e., a pen) [Note 5]. Shaw threatened to remove Hiles from his position as vicar of the Church of Our Saviour. Hiles, apparently, was unyielding [Note 6]. The complaint continues with an account of additional events. Hiles, a married man, met the defendant Hastie (then unmarried) in the late 1960's. Hastie had accepted Hiles's invitation to perform certain work for the Church of Our Saviour. Her subsequent romantic advances to Hiles, it is alleged, were rejected.

Shortly prior to March 27, 1996, Hastie wrote a letter to the defendant Shaw accusing Hiles of having had an adulterous relationship with her that continued from the Spring of 1970 until the Fall of 1975, and stating that on December 4, 1975, she terminated a pregnancy, aborting the fetus fathered by Hiles. The complaint alleges that Hastie's letter "was the culmination of several prior contacts between her and employees of the Diocese in which these employees and agents urged her to write the letter. Defendants Shaw and the Diocese knew or reasonably should have known that the allegations contained in the letter were . . . false.["]

The Episcopal Church did in fact inhibit and depose Hiles, and most of his parish left TEC with him, although not for the ACA. The link indicates St Paul's Anglican had been with the Anglican Mission in America and the Province of Rwanda since 1999 -- apparently this has changed since the 2007 link, so Hiles must be a fairly recent arrival in the ACA, quickly promoted. As with so many other things connected with St Mary of the Angels, the ACA, and various individuals in this tangled story, we seem to be looking at just the tip of an iceberg.

These are people with secrets.

So What's The Big Deal About The Parish "Rededication"?

Trying to figure out who's going to be at the St Mary of the Angels "rededication" on November 16, I come up with this speculation: I'm assured that Presiding Bishop Marsh will be there. Bishop Vaughan of the Diocese of the Eastern US has it on his calendar. I assume that the designated episcopal visitor, Owen Williams, will be there, although I have no assurance of the latter two. I assume the nominal "rector", Frederick W. Rivers, will be there, although he is technically a "priest in charge", not having been called by an elected vestry and simply appointed by the Presiding Bishop. I assume the current guy who says mass, Fr Bayles, will be there.

Should be quite an altar party for, what, 20 parishioners, plus a security guard? This would be the approximate number Mrs Bush gave the local paper in July. What's the big deal here?

The only conclusion I can draw is it's the money. But how much money are we actually talking about? For the short time I was interim treasurer, in late 2011, I got a picture of what was involved. I prepared a budget plan before the dissidents threw me out, so here's what the money looked like as of 2012: Total monthly income was about $28,000. However, this included pledge and plate of about $6,000, which can't possibly be the same with the purge in membership after 2012, as well as maybe $400 from hall rental to 12-step and other groups, which were thrown out by the dissidents. So we're down to maybe $22,000 a month rental from Citibank for the corner lot belonging to the parish.

Total monthly expenses at the time I put together the budget were in the $24,000 range, so without pledge and plate and hall rental, the parish would not have been able to remain in the black after the 2012 problems, all other things being equal. However, the competing vestries, elected and unelected, have both promised money to two competing sets of attorneys for ongoing legal expenses. All things simply are not equal now. The parish's resources are going to be largely dissipated in lawsuits, which haven't ended, and for which attorneys have yet to be paid.

In addition, the building is 80 years old. A windfall payment in 2011 allowed some deferred maintenance to be undertaken, but the building has continuing plumbing and termite issues, and it will still need to be maintained.

Without attending the November 16 festivities (if I tried, I assume Mrs Bush would summon the police, with Marsh et al pretending this wasn't happening), I could probably write for Bp Marsh and the others something much like the empty verbiage and happy talk they'll deliver in their homilies and little speeches at the reception. New beginning! Great new things! Bright new future for the ACA! Let us move forward in a spirit of (I hate to write this, but I'm sure it will be said) RECONCILIATION!! The security guard will be watching the door and will not applaud, of course.

The money, though, is what this has all been about, and the money isn't there. The church was barely in the black before the troubles began; now everything and more is certainly spoken for. The ACA is not going to get any money out of St Mary of the Angels, and it will likely lose money net-net on all the travel expenses for the bishops to attend the rededication. What happened?

I'm still intrigued at yesterday's comment at the Freedom for St Mary's blog, to the effect that the dissidents lied to Messrs Lancaster and Anastasia about the legal status of the agreements that the elected vestry had executed with the Catholic Church. I'm less interested in the legal specifics, which can be argued (that's what courtrooms are for), than in the assumption that the dissidents lied. In my experience, they've made so many statements that I know to be false that I've got to say this is a most reasonable assumption.

So many lies were being told in that place that more than one person familiar with the parish's history has sighed and said, half in jest, "That place needs an exorcism". As a Catholic, I believe in the existence of both angels and demons as a matter of faith, as outlined in the Catechism. Indeed, Fr Kelley conducted the 2011 Lenten study group on C.S.Lewis's The Screwtape Letters. At the time, I thought they were a little too cute and far-fetched; now I think Fr Kelley was on to something.

The Tempter and his assistants approach us through our weaknesses. Greed is one of the seven weaknesses that can lead us to sin, according to traditional theology. Our weaknesses also interfere with the spiritual discernment that lets us know if people are, among other things, telling lies. As the Orthodox priest Fr Zosima said in The Brothers Karamazov, if you lie to yourself, you'll never be able to tell if other people are lying to you.

The parish dissidents, I suspect, have been lying to the ACA all along about the money they can get out of St Mary of the Angels. They must certainly have been supported in this by the late Canon Anthony Morello, who appears to have gained the trust of the bishops by suggesting he could get that money for them. The ACA hierarchy, a group of people with character flaws and secrets, has never been in a position to discern whether they're being lied to. Beyond that, greed is something that works out of all proportion to reality: true crime programs on cable are full of stories about people who will kill for a few thousand dollars insurance, money they'd run though in a matter of weeks. But they'll kill for it. Something like that, I'm convinced, is what's working in the little minds that run the ACA.

Indeed, the glimmer of understanding that the money isn't really there is what's driving the continuing lawsuits against Fr Kelley -- if it isn't there, he must have stolen it! The fact is, though, that the money was never there.

The money and the ACA's deluded expectations are what this "rededication" is all about.

A Meditation For Guy Fawkes Day

It's worth pointing out that the rededication of the St Mary of the Angels parish hall, scheduled for November 16, is drawing ever closer. Per the announcement, the "bishops of the diocese" will attend. As I noted yesterday, exactly who those bishops are is by no means clear: on August 8, 2013, ACA Presiding Bishop Marsh designated the Rt Rev Owen Rhys Williams, a suffragan bishop of the Diocese of the Northeast, as episcopal visitor to the Diocese of the West. However, Bishop John Vaughan's calendar showed him making an episcopal visit to St Mary's on October 27.

When I checked Bishop Vaughan's calendar on the ACA Diocese of the Eastern United States website yesterday, it showed him attending the November 16 rededication at St Mary's as well. However, when I checked this site again this morning, it appears to be having intermittent problems. Meanwhile, the ACA main web page is also still down, having been down since late last week. (Guy Fawkes, I assure you, did not do this, and neither did I.) UPDATE: as of about 9:00 AM Pacific time, it appears to be back up, with no apparent change.

Curious, I e-mailed a knowledgeable party, who replied that he was sure Presiding Bishop Marsh would be attending the rededication, but he couldn't speak for anyone else. So there we are, it sounds as though one or more bishops will be attending, but exactly which of those is a bishop of the diocese is still an open question, and it's becoming more open as we speak. I've actually sent about half a dozen e-mails to various parties in authority at the ACA, from Bishop Vaughan himself, to Canon Rivers, who is nominally in charge at St Mary's, to Bishop Vaughn's vicar general at DEUS, to Suffragan Bishop Williams, among others. Here's what I sent Bishop Williams,

I was checking the calendar of Bishop John Vaughan of the DEUS, and it indicated that he had made an episcopal visit to St Mary of the Angels Hollywood on October 27. However, the Diocese of the West web site says that Bishop Williams is now the episcopal visitor for the Diocese of the West. Did Bishop Vaughan in fact make an episcopal visit to St Mary of the Angels, and can you provide any clarification regarding Bishop Vaughan’s current status?

Many thanks.

However, neither Bishop Williams nor anyone else has replied. I have some reason to think Bishop Vaughan's status may have changed in very recent days. Nobody, though, has answered my e-mails, and the ACA web site is still down.

Interesting Comment At The Freedom For St Mary Blog

Regarding my comment there and my subsequent post here about William Lancaster, freedomforstmary offers this insight. While I can't really speculate on Mr Lancaster's motives (who would want to?), the commenter's perspective is that the St Mary's dissidents didn't tell Messrs Lancaster and Anastasia the whole story:

More than likely, their clients did not tell them that all the charges were made up, falsities, nor that a valid commitment already existed prior to the commencement of legal actions, a contract by agreement and conduct excluding from the Corporation of St Mary of the Angels those very same “authorities” their clients claimed as their own.

I suspect, though, that Mr Lancaster's response would be that since this matter involves a first-amendment issue, however remote, the court simply can't get involved. My concern about that argument, and Judge Linfield's acceptance of it last year, is where does the first amendment stop? If my sect says I'm a heretic and must be burned at the stake, are the courts allowed to interfere? There's no question that the St Mary's dissidents, backed up by the ACA and assisted by an attorney with a reputation less than stellar, have taken us into a sort of legal twilight zone.

A New Episcopal Visitor For St Mary of the Angels?

I was checking the calendar for The Rt Rev John Vaughan, Bishop of the ACA Diocese of the Eastern US, which placed him at St Mary of the Angels this past October 27 for an episcopal visit. (To update the information about Vaughan I provided last year on this blog, he was consecrated diocesan bishop of the Eastern US on February 20, 2013. Because this blog has had some traffic searching for information on Vaughan in the past week, I should stress that he is not a Roman Catholic bishop, he is, at least as of October 30, a bishop in the tiny Protestant Anglican Church in America. As I noted last year, he left the Roman Catholic priesthood in 1990.)

However, on August 8, 2013, Presiding Bishop Marsh announced on the ACA Diocese of the West home page,

On August 8, 2013 Bishop Brian R. Marsh, President of the ACA House of Bishops, with the approval of the House, appointed The Ven. Canon Frederick Rivers, Vicar General and ecclesiastical authority of the Diocese of the West. Canon Rivers has been a clergyman in the diocese for 30 years and has held numerous positions in the administration thereof. Bishop Marsh also announced the appointment of The Rt. Rev. Owen Williams as Episcopal Visitor to our diocese, and in that capacity he will be available for Episcopal acts such as confirmations and ordinations. Bishop Owen Williams is known to most of the diocese from his years at Saint Mark’s in Portland, Oregon.

The ACA home page has been down at least since October 31, so good luck trying to find any good information there. So far, e-mails I've sent to various parties, including Bishop Vaughan himself, regarding the specific role the bishop is playing, and his current status in the ACA, have gone without answer.

Who Is William H.Lancaster?

A friend was updating me on the status of the various legal actions against Fr Kelley the other day, and as a result, I was curious enough to google the lead attorney representing the Anglican Church in America and the St Mary of the Angels dissidents, William H. Lancaster. Mr Lancaster, it turns out, is well matched with his clients. (In court, when asked exactly which client he represents, he's answered the ACA, although he appears to work closely with the unelected St Mary's vestry, whose interests are not necessarily the same as those of the ACA.)

By far the most notable event in Mr Lancaster's professional history appears to be a malpractice lawsuit brought against him and his then-firm, Seyfarth Shaw, and a subsequent lawsuit Mr Lancaster brought against Seyfarth Shaw alleging demotion as a result of the malpractice suit. The pertinent details appear here, among other places.

A demoted Seyfarth Shaw LLP partner has sued the firm for allegedly forcing him from an equity partnership position, claiming that executives used the attorney's purportedly poor handling of a case involving Tae Bo creator Billy Blanks as an excuse to de-equitize.

Seyfarth partner William H. Lancaster, who is still employed at the firm, filed suit against the firm and several members of its executive committee on Nov. 25 [2009] in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles.

According to the complaint, greedy executives jumped on a now-reversed $31 million malpractice verdict stemming from Lancaster's casework with Blanks as an excuse to demote him.

After Lancaster's representation of Blanks led to the malpractice verdict against Seyfarth, firm executives publicly backed him, the suit states.

“Defendants publicly pronounced with confident [sic] that the verdict was wrong, that no error or malfeasance existed and that the verdict would be reversed on appeal," Lancaster said. [I'm a little concerned about the apparent error in that quote, of course.]

In private, however, executives cited his performance on that case as the reason behind their efforts to strip Lancaster of his equity partnership, the complaint alleges.

Executive compensation committee members allegedly promised to make life at Seyfarth “very difficult” for Lancaster if he didn't accept a demotion to a nonequity position, according to the suit.

The details of the malpractice suit are also revealing:

The decision in Blanks v. Seyfarth Shaw, No. B183426, stems from a case that Blanks brought against an accountant who acted as his agent -- even though he did not have an agent's license -- in violation of the Talent Agencies Act. Blanks was represented in that action by Seyfarth Shaw attorney William H. Lancaster, a partner in its Los Angeles office.

In March 2002, the California labor commissioner dismissed the case against the accountant, finding that Lancaster, acting on behalf of Blanks, had not met the deadline for filing it with Labor Commissioner. In addition, the California state court dismissed the case because it was not filed on time with the Labor commissioner.

Blanks then filed a legal malpractice lawsuit against Seyfarth Shaw and Lancaster, alleging that the attorney's failure to file the action on time before the labor commissioner caused Blanks to lose millions. In addition, Blanks asserted that Lancaster purposely delayed filing in order to generate fees.

After a six-week trial, a jury found the law firm liable on all causes of action and ordered it to pay Blanks $15 million in punitive damages, in addition to about $15 million in compensatory damages.

My wife, a retired attorney, suggests that a simple error like failure to file on time is highly unusual for a partner in a prestige law firm -- Lancaster presumably had a great deal of support from associates and paralegals at Seyfarth to handle such details, and it is extremely puzzling that he could have missed something so simple. The $30 million verdict against him was dismissed on a technicality, but it appears that Seyfarth Shaw had already made a determination on Lancaster's suitability.

The timeline here is intriguing.

Lancaster became an equity partner in April 2000 and was demoted to nonequity status six years later.

However, by August 2000, Lancaster missed the Aug. 2, 2000 deadline to file a petition despite the Court of Appeal’s prominent discussion of the commissioner’s exclusive original jurisdiction and the one-year statute of limitations in a case earlier that year. In other words, within four months of becoming a partner, Lancaster was, at least as suggested by the record, screwing up big time. The disappointed plaintiff, Blanks, then filed a malpractice suit in 2003 against Lancaster and his firm.

It doesn't seem to task the intelligence greatly to conclude that Seyfarth's initial opinion of Lancaster changed. In addition,

After the $30 million malpractice verdict was issued in the Blanks case, Seyfarth’s malpractice insurer required another partner to supervise Lancaster’s work in another major case.

So,

It was in this atmosphere, the suit says, that [managing partner Stephen] Poor “brusquely interrupted” Lancaster during a 2005 preliminary compensation review. Poor told Lancaster he was a liability for the firm and the executive committee believed it would be best if he looked for work elsewhere. “Plaintiff was shocked by Poor’s attitude and words,” the suit says. Lancaster had a productive practice, yet Poor asserted he would not be able to get work from clients, the suit says. He was asked to leave again in a 2006 compensation meeting.

On May 20, 2009, the California Supreme Court refused to review an appeals court decision that threw out the $30 million judgment against Lancaster and Seyfarth Shaw on a technicality. Not long afterward, Lancaster turned around and sued Seyfarth.

My own experience as a sometime writer of corporate policies and procedures was that it's pretty typical for a corporate policy to say that any employee who sues his employer is subject to immediate termination -- of course. Lancaster, however, continued to work for Seyfarth for some period after filing his suit, something that clearly raised the eyebrows of several commentators on blogs and journals. We must assume that at some time after filing his suit in 2009, Seyfarth settled the case and Lancaster left the firm -- apparently taking another partner there, Damon Anastasia, with him. The resume in the link says that Anastasia became Lancaster's partner in a new firm, Lancaster & Anastasia LLP, in 2010. There's no equivalent specificity in Mr. Lancaster's professional profiles on the web.

We know nothing of the circumstances under which Mr Anastasia left Seyfarth Shaw, except that the professional histories of both men suggest they'd worked together at previous law firms. Neither can be said to have been on any sort of fast track -- according to my wife, a lawyer should expect to be named partner at a law firm within seven years of being hired; both Lancaster and Anastasia appear to have jumped around at various firms before making partner later in their careers. But then Lancaster seems to have had an unhappy time at Seyfarth, finally leaving amid controversy, with Anastasia, possibly a Lancaster protégé, leaving at roughly the same time.

Details in the various commentaries on these cases suggest that a partner at Seyfarth could expect to earn a little over $500,000 per year. Lancaster, following his demotion, was down to about $260,000, with tuition payments for half a dozen kids and a lifestyle to support. We don't know what Anastasia was making. Clearly Lancaster had no choice but to leave Seyfarth, but it's hard not to think Anastasia was unlikely to clear anything like either amount leaving that firm for a new one born in controversy following a botched malpractice suit.

As my wife says, we're probably looking at just the tip of an iceberg here. All we can be pretty sure of is that Lancaster & Anastasia LLP has been working a series of rather farfetched, nickel-and-dime lawsuits against Fr Kelley for well over a year at this point. They must really need the money.

Los Feliz Ledger Article

The local controlled-circulation weekly, the Los Feliz Ledger, published an article today on the St Mary of the Angels situation. There's not much new.

In a press release, the Ordinariate wrote that St. Mary’s was barred from joining the Catholic Church because of issues with the clergy, management and corporate structure. The Ordinariate did not return phone calls seeking comment.

That apparently refers to this release, dated May 5, 2012:

The rector, wardens, and vestry of the Church of St. Mary of the Angels, Hollywood, CA, have previously expressed a desire to become a part of the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter within the Catholic Church. However, a number of issues relating to the parish's corporate structure, the Catholic formation of its clergy and members, and the resolution of some management concerns have yet to be resolved. The Ordinariate thus has no jurisdiction over St. Mary of the Angels; however, individual parishioners are welcome to join the Ordinariate if they wish to do so. The gift of full communion requires a spirit of reconciliation and the healing of relationships, and to this end, the Ordinary, Msgr. Jeffrey Steenson, offers his prayers for all involved.

Strictly speaking, the release doesn't say "barred", it says "yet to be resolved". And it's worth pointing out that I'm not aware of any communication from the Ordinariate regarding how anyone would join it as an individual. (Would you receive the Sacrament over the web?) I have, however, received a somewhat snotty semi-official statement from a knowledgeable party that any Ordinariate group in Los Angeles would be, on one hand, headed by Andrew Bartus, but on the other, would have no connection with St Mary of the Angels.

Huh? Wasn't Bartus a highly unsatisfactory curate at -- where was it? -- St Mary of the Angels? That's a non-starter, Msgr Steenson. If the Ordinariate wished to start a totally new group not related to anything from the past, it would quite simply need to lose Bartus as part of that equation. How difficult is that to understand, Bill?

The other quote worth noting is:

St. Mary’s continues to operate with dwindling parishioners and minimal services.

According to Vestry member [Marilyn] Bush the church once had about 60 attendees at Sunday mass during Kelley’s tenure. The number of regular parishioners today, she said, has shrunk by about 2/3rds.

Currently, a priest who is the head of the Anglican Diocese of the West—based out of Arizona—holds services on the first Sunday of every month, according to Bush. Other clergy conduct Sunday mass the rest of the month, but weekday evening services have halted.

I Came Here For The Waters -- IV

Where have we seen this before? Interest in a new Anglican initiative is wildly overestimated, but in practice its numbers fall short of even the most lowball predictions. The result is an organization with membership in the very low four digits, parishes in two digits, though the great majority are iffy missions that don't even have their own buildings.

In other words, the Ordinariate of the Chair of St Peter is little more than a clone of half a dozen tiny, corrupt "continuing Anglican" denominations. The US Ordinariate is inarguably tiny. But with allegations of cronyism, careerism, old-boyism, this-is-our-policy-except-when-it-isn't, I think a serious case can be made that it's corrupt as well. A good thing, it would be my guess, that Pope Francis has far more important matters to occupy his time.

Trying to see this thing in context, it seems to me that Jeffrey Steenson is in precisely the same league with James Mote, Louis Falk, John Hepworth, or David Moyer, much less a visionary than an opportunist. That the US Ordinariate, touted as a historic development, a generous gesture by the Holy Father, would turn into something so trivial raises serious questions about Steenson's discernment. He spent his career for this?

I've done this blog as an investigation into what my other options might be, once the option of this historic development, this generous gesture, went down the tube, and how this state of affairs came about. I think the following conclusions are inescapable:

• Even if it were practically possible for my wife and me to participate in an Ordinariate parish, it would not be good stewardship of our time, talent, and treasure.
• Since it isn't possible for us to attend an Ordinariate mass within a reasonable distance, that's not an option anyhow, especially when there are scores of Catholic parishes closer at hand.
• Even if we chose to attend an Ordinariate mass out of curiosity, while traveling for instance, there are so few such parishes anywhere, and indeed most in places like Baltimore or Indianapolis, that this isn't an option, either.
• At least an Ordinariate mass, said according to approved liturgy and with a Catholic priest, is a valid sacrament. A "continuing Anglican" mass doesn't even have that advantage.
• Participation in any "continuing Anglican" denomination was never a serious option for my wife and me in any case.

I Came Here For The Waters -- III

Where, exactly, does the US Ordinariate stand? As of today, there are now 27 groups or parishes listed on the Ordinariate's communities page, up from 25 at my last visit. However, the exact status of the groups, and whether some are "ordinariate" groups not listed, is as hard to determine as ever. It's worth pointing out that the Ordinariate office never replied to my e-mail asking which of the 36 communities they've claimed in press releases are not listed on the communities page.

As far as I can tell, the following parishes listed on the communities page actually have their own buildings:

Church of the Holy Nativity: Payson, AZ

Parish of the Incarnation: Orlando, FL

St. James: St. Augustine, FL

Mount Calvary Church: Baltimore, MD

Saint Luke's Church: Bladensburg, MD

Christ the King Church: Towson, MD

St. Thomas More Catholic Community: Scranton, PA

Our Lady of Walsingham Church, The Principal Church of the Ordinariate: Houston, TX

Saint Timothy's Church: Fort Worth, TX

As of today, St Mary the Virgin in Arlington, TX, while it says it's an Ordinariate parish on its own web site, is not listed on the Ordinariate's communities page. (This may have to do with the complexities of transferring its jurisdiction from Anglican Use.) By my count, this is nine eight seven parishes with their own buildings, leaving St Mary the Virgin out. The rest are groups or sodalities meeting between Roman masses at Roman parishes or other facilities.

Because there is no authoritative source for this information, and because no other "Anglo-Catholic" blogger seems to care, I will welcome updates and corrections here. (My wife and I discussed it the other week, and we consider ourselves mainstream Vatican II Catholics, not Anglo-Catholics.) I'll add to or remove items from this list here as I receive them, so please help!

On June 15, 2011, Cardinal Wuerl estimated an initial total of 2,000 parishioners and 100 priests for the Ordinariate. The actual number of priests appears to have fallen well short of 100 -- as of late 2012, the number in press releases was put at 29. The number of parishioners in the same press releases is given at 1,600 among 36 parishes.

Since the Ordinariate has not, for whatever reason, identified all 36 of the parishes it claims, I am going to estimate the actual total of parishioners in proportion to the number of communities listed on the Ordinariate web site: 27 is 75% of 36. 75% of 1,600 is 1,200. My own completely intuitive guesstimate of the Ordinariate's actual size is 1,000, but for now, I'll say 1,200.

Eighteen months after the erection of the Ordinariate, its totals are well short of the estimate from Cardinal Wuerl. I assume, by the way, that since Msgr Steenson was so closely associated with the initial planning, these numbers would have come from him, and if he'd had any sense, he'd have made an estimate that would allow him to look good by over-delivering. Didn't happen.

Let's not even talk about the 250,000 that Bishop Clarence Pope gave Cardinal Ratzinger in 1993.

I Came Here For The Waters -- II

The next question I've been working through as part of this journey has been, "What, exactly, is the thing that's so great about an Ordinariate?" This is related to the question a visitor e-mailed me wondering why anyone would need the inducement of an Ordinariate to become Catholic. Certainly when I began attending St Mary's and heard the initial discussions, I couldn't help but think this was a historic development, a generous gesture, and so forth.

The problem, though, became twofold. First, it wasn't going to be as easy as anyone may have thought actually go get into an Ordinariate, and I've discussed here the ways in which Msgr William Stetson may have misled parishioners about this himself -- and Stetson, effectively the vicar general for Anglican Use on behalf of Cardinal Law, was no stranger to these exact issues. By making the reported remark that he didn't check passports at the communion rail, he clearly gave the impression that parishioners who may have had obstacles to becoming Catholic, or who simply did not wish to do so, would have these matters finessed.

This wasn't going to happen, and it was certainly one factor (though by no means the only one) that led to problems in the parish over entry to the Ordinariate. Clearly there were similar problems elsewhere, such as the reversal at St Aidan's Des Moines when parishioners learned that Anglican annulments wouldn't be recognized by the Catholic Church, and the Vatican really meant what it said about Freemasonry.

On the other hand, as things began to fall out, the Ordinariate itself wasn't inclined to exert itself overmuch over parishioners who had no obstacles and who did sincerely want to become Catholic, and in our case, the Chancellor simply misled my wife and me, advising us to stick with the process via St Mary's, as it would take much longer to back out of the St Mary's process and go through RCIA.

I never trusted that advice; we wanted to become Catholic, we didn't have the time in our lives to dilly-dally, and RCIA was clearly the only possible route once things fell apart at St Mary's. Frankly, the implicit message I take away from this is that the Chancellor, and by implication the Ordinary, simply didn't care. I'll come back to this later.

But once we finally did become Catholic via RCIA, no thanks to anyone connected with the Ordinariate, my almost immediate reaction was, "But there's so much more to eat here!" I don't know how else to put this. Bl John Henry Newman is one thing -- St Thomas Aquinas is another thing entirely.

I Came Here For The Waters -- I

I would never drop the Annie Dillard epigraph that I have for this blog, but a second choice, in hindsight, might be this dialogue from Casablanca:

Capt. Louis Renault: What on earth brought you to Casablanca?
Rick Blaine: My health. I came to Casablanca for the waters.
Capt. Louis Renault: The waters? What waters? We're in the desert.
Rick Blaine: I was misinformed.

The first item of business I have, which will almost certainly be a process of wrapping up this journey, is this: were Cardinals Manning and Mahony, at the time Archbishops of Los Angeles, justified in turning down St Mary of the Angels in its effort to become a Roman Catholic Anglican Use parish in the mid-1980s?

I think they were. In the process of becoming Catholic at Our Mother of Good Counsel, the parish a few blocks away from St Mary's, I discovered that it had gone through its own period of angry dissent in the 1970s. I don't know all the details, although there are people there, including Fr Mott, who lived through that time and have vivid memories (Fr Mott has said that it provoked a crisis for him over his own vocation). The most I can say, subject to correction from those more knowledgeable, is that it was basically over Vatican II, that the senior priest at the time barricaded himself in the rectory, that parishioners were picketing, and that Cardinal Manning finally had to get involved and put a stop to it.

By the time St Mary's left The Episcopal Church and entered its first set of lawsuits, the business at Our Mother of Good Counsel would still have been vivid recent history for the Archdiocese of Los Angeles. Leaving the question of women's ordination aside, liturgical modernization would have been basically the same issue that provoked the controversies at both parishes. I have a feeling that, although Cardinals Manning and Mahony were both liberals, the question of church authority would have been paramount: St Mary's, if admitted as an Anglican Use parish, could potentially have become a locus of anti-Vatican II dissent just a few blocks away from a parish where this had already been a sore point. Indeed, liturgical conservatives like Charles Coulombe were following St Mary's application to join the Ordinariate in 2012; while I'm sure they meant no overall harm, the liturgical issues were still present and still the same. If I'm correct, turning St Mary's down in the mid-1980s would have been a no-brainer.

While we were on vacation, my wife and I went to mass at a Catholic parish where problems had come up due to the appointment of two new priests with Spanish surnames: pledges and receipts were down 20%, with parishioners leaving on the basis that the diocese was going to "turn it into a Mexican parish". I suppose this is one thing bishops are for; he has my sympathy in this matter. I would also guess that this sort of thing has been going on since before St Paul's epistles. But why would any bishop want to admit a new parish that was already going through this sort of thing?

So, in hindsight, that's my answer to the first question I began asking when I started going to St Mary's.

On Vacation

Time for a break. Back in a week or so, but it may be time to wrap this thing up.

I Had A Call Yesterday

from the local controlled-circulation weekly, the Los Feliz Ledger, wanting my views on the St Mary of the Angels controversy. The Ledger hasn't been friendly to the majority parishioners or Fr Kelley, so I'm not at all sure how much good it did for me to talk with the guy -- all I could do was give an honest assessment (the legal process is ongoing but not particularly hopeful; the parish has been seized by a tiny splinter denomination with only a few other California parishes, all small).

I also pointed out that I was speaking only for myself, and that my wife and I had begun attending the parish only on the basis that it was planning to enter the Catholic Church. Once that possibility receded, we became Catholic via another route and are no longer members there, although we continue to support Fr Kelley and the majority parishioners. The reporter then brought up the local Catholic parish, Our Mother of Good Counsel. "I had a story about them just a week ago," he said. "It was about how they participated in Get On The Bus."

"Exactly," I said. "That's a real church with a real program. It couldn't be more different from all these other little bodies." This goes to the first big lesson I've learned from my two-plus years involvement with St Mary of the Angels: "continuing Anglicanism", "Anglican realignment", whatever else you choose to call it, it's poor stewardship. All the money goes into lawsuits; all the energy is drained in fights.

A real denomination with adult supervision is a different matter entirely.

I Was Able To Order Another Book

that mentions the 1993 meeting between the Texas Episcopalians, including Jeffrey Steenson, and Cardinal Ratzinger, William Oddie's The Roman Option. (Luckily, I found mine for about $0.50 plus postage, which is what it's worth.) Beginning on page 178, it contains the most complete published account of the meeting. The book was published in 1997, so it naturally can't continue the story to Anglicanorum coetibus, although I don't believe subsequent developments support Oddie's optimism that the Catholic Church can play a major role in either Anglican realignment or continuing Anglicanism, overrated movements in any case.

It includes Bishop Clarence Pope's estimate of 250,000 Episcopalians likely to come into a US Catholic Anglican personal prelature, and I think this is important, because I simply can't imagine the Vatican troubling itself over the actual numbers we've seen. Let's keep in mind that the Ordinariates were implemented based almost entirely on the proposal drafted by Steenson via Pope in 1994, so we should reasonably expect them to meet the 250,000 estimated to come over from TEC -- and if the actuality is only 0.6% of that, we should be asking serious questions.

The account of the meeting is clearly based on the minutes authored by Dr Wayne Hankey, who was present. However, the book's account of the subsequent inaction by the Vatican is incomplete. Oddie presumably got his copy of the minutes from Bishop Pope, since Dr Hankey, following the book's publication, wrote a letter to the editor of The Tablet strongly disagreeing with Oddie's premise and also suggesting the record on which the account was based was incomplete.

Oddie's account of Pope's disillusionment with his reception by the Catholic Church stresses the unwillingness of the Catholic clergy in the Louisiana diocese to which Pope retired to agree to his ordination as a married Catholic priest. The book mentions, however, that Cardinal Law then offered to ordain Pope himself, but Pope, according to Oddie, complained that this would take place only in a chapel, not in a cathedral! Pope, by his own admission, had become unstable by this point due to cancer treatments.

Other accounts, which seem to stem at least in part from Pope as well, suggest that Pope's disillusionment also stemmed from the Vatican's unwillingness either to recognize his Anglican orders as a bishop, or to re-ordain him as a bishop, so Oddie's version isn't necessarily the only one, even from Pope, and it strikes me as more likely that Pope would have objected to not getting the bishop sweetener as part of the deal.

A final detail in Oddie's account concerns Jack Iker's reaction to Pope's announcement, on his retirement as an Episcopal bishop, that he would become a Catholic. Iker had become Pope's bishop coadjutor, and when Pope told Iker of the decision, Iker threw him out of his office! This lends additional perspective to Iker's own positions regarding Catholic realignment.

Our Beloved Dog Is A Rescue Mutt

The outcome of her genetic roulette produced a smallish German shepherd-looking creature with oversize paws. When we walk her, strangers who pass by often pause and ask, "What a beautiful dog! Is she a puppy?" We explain that she's a mutt, she's seven years old, and this is as big as she's going to get.

It occurred to me not long ago that these remarks might apply as well to the Ordinariates. As of last fall, for instance, the Ordinariate Expats blog had concluded that all the former TAC parishes that were going to go into the US Ordinariate had done so, and it seems to me that as of now, any further parishes or groups that come in from anywhere will be like the last few pops in a batch of popcorn: barring some major change, the Ordinariates are about as big as they're going to get.

So let's take a look. For the purposes of this post only, I'll grant the US Ordinariate's claim of 1,600 members. The UK Ordinariate entry on Wikipedia gives 1,500 members. The Australian Ordinariate doesn’t currently give statistics – let’s give them 500, based on the numbers I saw from the ACCA. So we’re talking, at best, 3,600 worldwide.

According to the National Catholic Reporter, the average size of a US Catholic parish of the non-Ordinariate persuasion is about 3,000 members. So we're talking, worldwide, not just in the US, of a group not much larger than a single US Catholic parish. A Wikipedia entry on the shortage of Catholic priests says

With the Catholic population formerly increasing steadily (according to some estimates) and the number of priests declining, the number of laypeople per priest has climbed from 875:1 in 1981 to 1,113:1 in 1991 and 1,429:1 in 2001 (a 63 percent increase).

This confirms my anecdotal observation as a new Catholic that an average-size parish with 3,000 members is lucky to have two priests.

But let's look at the Ordinariates: does the worldwide total justify 3 ordinaries, 3 vicars general, 3 chancellors, 3 principal churches, 3 chanceries, 3 governing councils, etc etc etc, when that average 3,000 member US parish is lucky to have 2 priests?

We can argue that many of the prebendaries, as well as the various support staff like secretaries, press reps, and so forth, are unpaid and working part-time. On the other hand, nothing is free: in the US, Msgr Steenson and Fr Hurd appear to travel with some frequency, appearing at conferences as well as making parish visits. I assume someone is picking up their expenses. The Ordinariate's press rep, from all I can gather, is a paid employee, but one searches in vain for updates to the Ordinariate's News page on its website.

Even functionaries who are unpaid, like the Ordinariate's Chancellor, must be looked at on the principle that nothing is free: she's a canon lawyer and licensed attorney; my wife, herself a retired attorney, has never been impressed with what she's seen of the Chancellor's work. Either the Ordinariate is getting what it's paying for, or the pro bono work isn't getting the attention it needs.

And the other day, we saw that there's been a donation of US$5 million toward an Ordinariate chancery. This is $5 million that might have found a better use in the Church at large -- the Ordinariate is clearly competing with other, probably more worthy, causes in the Catholic arena.

This is neither charity nor efficacious cure of souls.

As Long As We're Speaking Of The Holy Father,

we may as well deal with the informal remarks he made to Anglican Communion Archbishop of the Southern Cone Gregory Venables, a good friend:

In Bishop Venables' words as published by the Anglican Communion News Service, "he called me to have breakfast with him one morning and told me very clearly that the Ordinariate was quite unnecessary and that the Church needs us as Anglicans."

Bishop Venables told the BBC News website that the quotation of him was accurate, but had not been meant for publication and had appeared on the Anglican Communion website without his consent.

He said he had merely made some remarks to some friends which he had not circulated widely, and added that he did not believe the remarks would reflect the future position of the Catholic Church.

On the other hand, I'm not quite sure what to make of the reactions from either the UK or the US Ordinaries, which are similar. Msgr Steenson posted this on the Ordinariate website on March 15, though it's not linked from the News page:

We have received a number of inquiries from those who are concerned about what our new Pope’s attitude may be toward the Ordinariates, occasioned by an anecdotal report from an Anglican bishop in Argentina. It is important to remember that our Ordinariates were created by an apostolic constitution, thereby giving them real permanence and stability.

In other words, he's saying something to the effect of don't worry, he can't touch us! I'm not sure if this is the message I'd want to be sending here.

And it's definitely worth pointing out that the Ordinariates were a special project of Pope Benedict XVI, as was mentioned once again in the BBC article cited above. We've seen that the idea was shepherded by Cardinal Law, leading up to a meeting with Benedict as Cardinal Ratzinger in 1993; its implementation, however, was delayed until Ratzinger became Pope. Cardinal Law is, of course, a highly controversial figure, and I'm not sure if it's the best thing for the Ordinariates to have been so closely associated with him.

The record indicates, as I discussed the other week, that the estimate that Episcopal Bishop Clarence Pope, with Steenson in the room, gave Cardinal Ratzinger for the number anticipated to come into the US Ordinariate was 250,000. It seems to me that if the most optimistic actual number of those coming in as of 2013, 1600, is only about one half of one percent of the estimate, the Vatican may have eventual reason to reassess its position.

In addition, if we look at the Anglican Ordinariates as a Vatican response to the perceived split in the Anglican Communion represented by "continuing Anglicanism", it seems to me that it may have fallen victim to the wild miscalculation and overestimate of how many disaffected Anglicans are actually out there that we've seen throughout the history of the "Continuum". The only people who benefit from this are the bishops and prebendaries who are able to make careers for themselves in the ecclesial entities they're able to create.

Isn't this precisely the sort of thing that Pope Francis has been speaking against? Time will tell. If I were attached to the Ordinariates in some inordinate way, though, I'd be nervous, too.

The Photo From Yesterday

showing the spelling skills of the stalwart dissidents at St Mary's expresses, I think, the dilemma in which the faithful parishioners there find themselves. The core group of 8-12 dissidents show themselves, quite simply, over and over as little more than a bunch of yahoos. The other side of the coin appears to be that the Ordinariate has decided that the parish as a whole has been tainted by the behavior of the nut jobs, and even if control of the property is eventually returned to the faithful parishioners on appeal, I'm not sure if they'll have anywhere to go.

Certainly they won't return to the ACA. Nor would they seek out the APA, which is on the verge of merging with the ACA. So, what are they going to do? Go in with any of the other tiny, corrupt "continuing Anglican" splinter groups? Indeed, the Ordinariate itself looks less and less like a good option, even assuming it would eventually accept the parish. I've been told, and not even in confidence, that any Ordinariate group that got started in Los Angeles would now be entirely new and separate from St Mary of the Angels, and it would be under the supervision of Andrew Bartus, pastor of his white people's group out in Orange County.

I believe this is largely because Bartus, despite his immaturity and lack of pastoral experience, is a member of the Fort Worth in-group that travels first class in Ordinariate circles, so he's assured preferment. On the other hand, the faithful St Mary's parishioners have made it clear that, given their history with Bartus and their knowledge of his character, they would never accept him as a pastor. So there you are, at least the Ordinariate in-group has a grasp of one reality -- whether they think they can find a whole new flock of docile Anglo-Catholics in Hollywood is something else.

This goes in turn to the question someone e-mailed me with a few weeks ago: why would people need the inducement of an Ordinariate to become Catholic? I've kept returning to this question, because a version of it pops out of the story of Episcopal Bishop Clarence Pope and the 13-year delay in Anglicanorum coetibus. Bishop Pope was going to become Catholic, but clearly only with a sweetener, which apparently included his appointment as Ordinary. When that fell through, he didn't even stay Catholic. Why indeed would people need the inducement of an Ordinariate to become Catholic, because that's clearly what some people need! Frankly, my opinion is that Steenson is cast from the same Clarence Pope mold, and he wouldn't have gone in without a sweetener, either.

As I said the other week, the message I'm beginning to get from how this journey is turning out is that Anglo-Catholicism in many of its forms is a dead end. "Continuing Anglicanism" is full of opportunists, charlatans, and con artists. The Roman Catholic Ordinariate is currently run by people who don't seem to be getting the message from the new Pontiff, who has been saying over and over words to this effect:

During an assembly in Saint Peter's Basilica in the Vatican on Thursday evening, Pope Francis asked the gathered bishops of Italy to heed to a new pastoral vision. . . .

“We are not the expression of a structure or Organizational necessity," Francis proclaimed. "[But] the sign of the presence and action the Risen Lord,” which requires a kind of “spiritual vigilance.”

“The lack of vigilance … makes the pastor lukewarm; he becomes distracted, forgetful and even impatient; it seduces him with the prospect of a career, the lure of money, and the compromises with the spirit of the world; it makes him lazy, turning him into a functionary, a cleric worried more about himself, about organizations and structures, than about the true good of the People of God,” Francis said.

No Comment Needed

Photo courtesy Kathleen Moon:

Here's A More Complete View Of The Ordinariate's Status

from the mouth of its vicar general, an article in the National Catholic Reporter from January of this year. It cites two matters we looked at yesterday:

As of late December, the ordinariate included 1,600 laypeople, 28 priests and 36 communities. There are 69 additional applications from men who hope to become Catholic priests of the ordinariate.

Deacon Ken Bolin, 38, a West Point graduate and military chaplain who has served in Iraq and Afghanistan, is among those candidates who have already completed their priestly formation and expect to be ordained as Catholic priests through the ordinariate this March.

Currently stationed in Anchorage, Alaska, he hopes to be ordained in March.

Again, I can find no basis for 36 communities. At best, after a couple of days' search and some input from knowledgeable parties, I think there may be two or three communities eligible for listing on the Ordinariate's web page, such as St Mary the Virgin Arlington, TX (though this would cancel out St Peter the Rock with no net change), the Potomac Falls, VA group, and the Charleston, SC group. But I can find nothing like 36, even being generous about other groups in formation. And if you include wannabes and sorta-kindas, I've got to ask if St Mary of the Angels is still on whatever list is out there.

Also, Fr Bolin is included as sort of a trophy ordination, though the article does not point out that he has no associated group of Ordinariate ex-Anglicans, and that he's unlikely to be saying the Anglican mass much as a military chaplain, if at all. In fact, the article mentions another trophy ordination, Fr Larry Gipson, who had retired as Rector of former President George H.W. Bush and First Lady Barbara's Episcopal parish in Houston, and who is now 70 years old. So far, though, I don't find that he has pastoral responsibilities for any Catholic ex-Anglicans anywhere.

In other words, while there are capable and sincere priests who want to serve active groups of sincere Catholic ex-Anglicans, Fr Hurd and Msgr Steenson have been spending time and effort recruiting high-profile priests who will do those real Catholics little good -- and the priests who want to serve them are still waiting for Fr Hurd to return their calls. And Fr Gipson, along with Fr Bolin and Fr Seraiah, is one more exception to the stated policy that an Ordinariate priest must go in with a group. Exceptions are now more than 10% of the total, it would seem.

But there's a cherry on the sundae:

While the ordinariate has spent a lot of energy on establishing a secure foundation, it has been buoyed by many promising developments. Recently, it received an anonymous donation of land to build its first chancery. The donor spent $5 million to purchase five acres adjacent to the ordinariate’s principal church, Our Lady of Walsingham in Houston.

The ordinariate is seeking additional donors for construction of the chancery.

Seems as if a lot of energy is going to go into fundraising for a chancery, whose land alone (five acres?) has cost $5 million. We can argue whether there are 1,000 (my view after some study) or 1,600 (the Ordinariate's official total) souls in Msgr Steenson's see. It's hard for me to imagine how a building on a five-acre site will be needed, now or in the foreseeable future. And that goes to what appears to be Msgr Steenson's sense of priorities.

Something's not right here.

After Some More Checking,

I found several more possible Ordinariate entities that aren't listed on the Communities page of the Ordinariate web site. (Among other things, there's a slightly more complete list on the website of the Anglican Use Society than on the Ordinariate's own website. I should mention as well that I still haven't received a reply to my query from Thursday to the Ordinariate's press maven on which 11 of the 36 groups they claim aren't listed on their Communities page.) These include:

• St. John Fisher Ordinariate Community (Potomac Falls, VA)
• Holy Cross (Sydney, Nova Scotia) however, this may have sputtered out, its web site is for sale
• Charleston Ordinariate Group (Charleston, SC)
• Toronto Ordinariate Group (Toronto, Ontario)

One problem here is that some groups, like St Mary the Virgin in Arlington, TX, seem to be calling themselves "Ordinariate", but apparently are actually still Anglican Use and have not yet been formally received -- this may apply as well to the Toronto group listed above. Others, like Holy Cross Sydney, seem to be following the established "continuing Anglican" pattern of disappearing without fanfare. And being "in formation" or just voting to go in, like St Timothy's Catonsville mentioned yesterday, apparently may or may not qualify a group.

This in turn stems from what appears to be a general loosey-gooseyness about the Ordinariate. For example, I believe that several Anglican clergy who'd applied to become priests in the Ordinariate were told that they were ineligible, since they didn't have an established group going in with them. On the other hand, as I've mentioned here before, Fr Chori Seraiah, who'd taken the position of rector at St Aidan's Des Moines in anticipation of going into the Ordinariate with that group, was cut loose when that parish changed its mind -- but, without a group to go in with, he was still ordained an Ordinariate priest.

Earlier this year, in a largely unpublicized (outside of Anchorage Catholic circles) move, Msgr Steenson witnessed the ordination of former Anglican priest Ken Bolin to the Catholic priesthood in the Ordinariate in Anchorage, AK, a five hour flight from the nearest Ordinariate group.

In November, Msgr. Steenson asked if Archbishop Schwietz would ordain Bolin, first to the diaconate and then to the priesthood. Monsignor Steenson plans to be in Anchorage to witness the ordination.

Bolin only recently entered into full union with the Catholic Church on Nov. 24 at St. Patrick Church in Anchorage. His wife Sharon and their three kids will follow him at the Easter Vigil when Deacon Bolin — then as a new priest — will administer the sacraments as his family joins the Catholic Church. . . . Deacon Bolin is under the jurisdiction of Msgr. Steenson who has directed him to continue serving as a military chaplain after his ordination.

Once ordained to the priesthood Deacon Bolin will be authorized to celebrate both the standard Roman Missal Mass as well as the adapted Anglican Mass. Archbishop Schwietz said he is not opposed to there being a celebration of the Anglican Catholic liturgy in the archdiocese but so far he has not received any requests. [emphasis mine]

So let me see -- Bolin was on a fast track indeed, received only on November 24 of last year, ordained a deacon not long afterward, ordained a priest in March. (Fr Bolin's qualifications, by the way, appear to be outstanding, and I don't mean to disparage him personally in any way.) There are other former Anglican and Episcopal priests who are not, shall we say, exactly on that sort of schedule, and in fact whether they'll ever quite make it in isn't clear at all. And Bolin's going to be an Ordinariate priest in an archdiocese where, so far, there have been no requests for an Anglican Use mass, much less a sodality or whatever for him to go in with.

And of course, you will search in vain for coverage of this wonderful and blessed event on the Ordinariate's own news page. Something's not right.

In The Past Few Days,

while looking for the actual current size of the Ordinariate, I found a puzzling discrepancy: the current Ordinariate Communities web page lists 25 entities (I'm not sure what else to call them) in the US and Canada. However, while poking around the web, I've found two others that claim to be in the Ordinariate, but aren't listed on the web page. St Mary the Virgin of Arlington, TX, formerly Anglican Use (and thus under the jurisdiction of the local Catholic bishop), now says on its website that it's part of the Ordinariate.

However, the Communities page at the Ordinariate site still doesn't list St Mary the Virgin, but lists St Peter the Rock Catholic Community in Arlington, which was meeting somewhere other than at St Mary the Virgin. As of today, St Peter the Rock's site is down (a cached copy is here); when I checked it a few days ago, it said that it was undergoing a transition into St Mary the Virgin. Apparently this is in process, but the Ordinariate web site hasn't been updated -- this is your public face, folks, not a good sign.

Another parish not listed on the Ordinariate Communities page is St Timothy's Church, Catonsville, MD. However, on the web site of Mount Calvary Church, also in Catonsville and part of the Ordinariate, there's a news release from February 2013, indicating St Timothy's vote to leave The Episcopal Church and enter the Ordinariate, though leaving their property behind. There's no equivalent announcement on the Ordinarite web site.

The news release about St Timothy's contains the following statement about the Ordinariate's size:

The Ordinariate (www.usordinariate.org) includes 36 communities, 30 priests and more than 1,600 people in the United States and Canada.

So why does the Communities page on the Ordinariate web site list only 25 communities? I sent the following inquiry to the e-mail address listed for the Ordinariate headquarters in Houston yesterday:

The news release covering St Timothy’s Episcopal Church Catonsville, MD’s entry to the US Ordinariate at http://www.mountcalvary.com/news.php says the Ordinariate has 36 communities. However, only 25 are listed on the website for the Ordinariate itself. Is the number 36 correct? If so, which 11 communities are not listed on the Ordinariate’s web site?

Thanks for any help you may be able to provide.

As yet, I've had no reply. We're back to the same amateur show we've seen in "continuing Anglicanism". I had an e-mail suggesting I may be mistaken in questioning Msgr Steenson's motives, when the problems lie farther down in the organization. A partial answer would be that he clearly tolerates slipshod work -- you wouldn't have this sort of conflict in public statements if he were paying the least attention. If there were problems lower down in the organization, if he had integrity himself, he wouldn't surround himself with people who allow what we're seeing here, though I don't think this is anything like the whole picture.