The Pastoral Issue -- II

Over the past few days I've had an e-mail exchange with a fellow who seems, in a friendly way, to be trying to steer me off the course I intend in the next several posts, perhaps because he's perceptive enough to see my direction. I think his points are worth addressing, so I'm going to paraphrase them here and then give my best answers.

1. You seem concerned that people like Mrs Bush and other dissidents might want to return to the parish if the elected vestry prevails in the legal action. But if that happens, it might well join the Ordinariate. Why would people who opposed the parish joining in 2012 want to join a Catholic parish now?

   It's worth keeping in mind that, based on past experience, we're not dealing with people whose agendas are transparent, or who can be expected to behave reasonably. St Mary's has been described in past years as more an exclusive social club than a church. Some of the dissidents are long-time members, or wannabes, whose perception of themselves is not necessarily based on denomination -- and I very much doubt that Mrs Bush or any of her associates is any more capable of naming the seven sacraments without a crib sheet than their current pastor, Mr Williams. Most of the core dissidents did in fact attend the catechism sessions in 2011, although I doubt if it took. Nevertheless, this suggests that many would theoretically be eligible to become Catholic with the parish, and they may have wished to retain that option. Based on my exposure to them, they are fully capable of exploiting the sacraments of initiation for their own purposes, should this be necessary. Their interests are not denominational, and specifics of the Roman religion would not affect them much either way.

2. You've mentioned things like burglary, assault, vehicle sabotage, and mail tampering. These are serious crimes. If you think they're so important, why haven't they been reported?

   First, it seems that however it may have happened, the Los Angeles Police Department is at some level aware of and interested in the case. There are numerous posts, like this one in the Armchair Detective section of the Freedom for St Mary blog (with which I have no involvement) that strongly suggest that LAPD is at least watching developments and may increase its attention if clearer evidence emerges. But not every reported crime results in a trial or conviction. Serious as some of the things that seem to have taken place may be -- deliberate non-payment of withholding, for instance, and removal of IRS notices from incoming mail -- there probably is not now, and may never be, enough evidence to cause an investigation. Various actions can nevertheless be taken for misconduct short of criminal trials, of course, and I believe Houston should want to assure itself that no current Ordinariate clergy was involved in, or had knowledge of, these actions when they occurred. I will return to this.

3. There appears to be some issue of "bad blood" between the elected vestry and Fr Bartus, now at the Bl Newman mission in Orange County, CA. Shouldn't something be done to resolve this? I doubt if, in any case, the Ordinariate would name Fr Bartus as pastor of St Mary's -- but there might be joint events between the two, so you ought to patch things up.

   I've heard conflicting versions of Bartus's intentions and the Ordinariate's plans. A former Episcopal priest who had remained close to Bartus as of a year ago relayed to me that, in Bartus's view, there was no place for St Mary's in the Ordinariate, and that any further group admissions in the Los Angeles area would be under Bartus's purview. Apparently this view is not shared by Archbishop Gomez or Msgr Stetson, but the lack of full clarity is disturbing, as my impression is that, from his reported statement, Bartus feels entitled to speak for the Ordinary. This is a matter on which I believe Houston should act to be sure no misunderstanding can take place. It also suggests that the problem of "bad blood" is by no means one-sided. I will discuss this more fully.