I've Had A Second Contact From Out-Of Town Clergy

about St Mary's in a little over a week. I simply don't know if they're related, nor whether there's a common cause for them, but both (perhaps as clergy might in any circumstance) have asked pretty detailed questions on what's going on, and what the possibilities might be for reconciliation.

So, asked this question in a serious context, I've given it some more thought. Here's what I think is the situation.

1. Roughly 80% of the parish voted in four separate elections during 2011 and 2012 to join the Patrimony of the Primate (which the ACA itself interpreted as leaving the ACA), to join the US Catholic Ordinariate, and again in the summer of 2012 to leave the ACA, which despite two previous statements, claimed it still had control of the parish.
2. These votes were all in accordance with canon law and the parish bylaws. You simply can't ignore them.
3. The parish had a long-standing intent to become Catholic, dating from its early involvement in setting up the Anglican Use provision in the late 1970s, predating the ACA or its ACC predecessor. The ACA also needs to respect this.
4. For those in the parish who did not wish to become Catholic, or for whatever reason were unable to become Catholic, they would nevertheless still be regarded as members and eligible to receive communion once the parish went into the Catholic Ordinariate. (UPDATE: While this promise was made to a parish meeting I attended, I'm told it may not be a valid canonical position in the Catholic Church. As I receive more information, I'll provide clarification.)

As a result, I simply don't see how the ACA can split the difference. If the ACA retains control of the parish, it will be against the wish of a supermajority of the parish as of 2012. While Protestant denominations will generally offer communion to all baptized Christians, only Catholics may receive communion at a Catholic mass, and they may not receive communion at a Protestant mass. There is no way an ACA priest can offer communion to Catholics. By retaining control of the parish, the ACA denies the parish the ability to receive Catholic communion. It's no different from recognizing that by stealing my car, you deny me the ability to drive my car. Singing kumbaya doesn't fix this.

It's worth pointing out that two other parishes that had been in the Patrimony or the equivalent Pro-Diocese of the Holy Family, the Church of the Nativity in Payson, AZ, and the Church of the Incarnation in Orlando, FL, went into the Ordinariate without obstacle from the ACA. The ACA clearly understands that some parishes wished to become Catholic. It is difficult to understand why it chose to seize St Mary of the Angels and not Holy Nativity or Church of the Incarnation.

Any ACA clergy, or other Anglican clergy engaged by the ACA, will have a job that seems to me utterly impossible if he thinks he can reconcile Protestant with Catholic, especially when 80% of the parish had expressed a specific wish to leave the ACA and become Catholic. Under the Ordinariate, there would have been a provision for existing members who chose not to become Catholic to continue to receive pastoral care. There is no way, however, that those who became Catholic in accordance with the parish's intent from the 1970s onward would wish to receive communion from ACA clergy, who would likely be marginal in any case.

UPDATE: Due to the question that was raised over whether non-Catholic members, particularly those with irregular marriage situations, could receive communion once St Mary's entered the Ordinariate, I conveyed my uncertainty to knowledgeable parties. Their response was that it would never have been their intention to drive any members away from the parish as a result of the Ordinariate, and that Msgr Steenson was sensitive to this. While exactly what provision might be made for their pastoral care was not definitely specified, it was everyone’s understanding all along that some provision for the pastoral care of those who did not wish to become, or had obstacles to their becoming, Catholic would be made. Whatever the specific wording of what may have been said in the parish meeting, this was unquestionably the intent. It’s worth pointing out that the 2012 controversy over a priest’s denial of communion to an avowed lesbian in Washington, DC brought out the fact that actually denying anyone communion is not a matter to be taken lightly in the real world, and in the minds of bishops, there may be solutions to these questions that escape laypeople.

It does appear to me that the ACA has got something like a tar baby on its hands here, and tomorrow I will propose a way the ACA can extricate itself.