Fr Barker's History -- III

Fr Barker's account hints that even as the basic form of Anglican Use was being worked out, the US Catholic bishops weren't completely on board with the idea. He notes their objection to a "personal prelature", which is easy to understand: it means priests and parishes in their territory that aren't under their control. It was a departure from the diocesan system that had been developed in the wake of the Council of Trent. What could possibly go wrong? There's also the basic problem, still noted on the Anglican Use website, that it can be seen as a potential back door to a general married priesthood.

The real problems began to manifest themselves as St Mary of the Angels applied to become an Anglican Use parish in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles. There used to be several detailed accounts of what happened on the web, written by both Fr Barker and Charles Coulombe, but they have since been deleted. If anyone has kept copies or knows where they might still be found on the web, I would very much appreciate the information.

In general, based on my recollection of the on line accounts, there were two stages of failure in the process. The first stage was under Cardinal Timothy Manning:

It is well to note that the ecumenical relations committee [of the LA Archdiocese] was adamantly opposed to the erection of a pastoral provision parish. It has been subsequently demonstrated that this policy has perdured in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, for no parish of the pastoral provision has ever been erected for that area despite the fact that the group of laity there was the largest of any of those in the nation which had been received in other dioceses. It was in October 1984 that Bishop Ward, in behalf of cardinal Manning, reported to PDSAC clergy in Los Angeles that no parish of the pastoral provision would be allowed in the archdiocese and that both clergy and laity would have to be received into the Catholic Church on a strictly individual basis through their local latin rite parish.

Fr Barker continues in a footnote:

No reason was given by the Archdiocese for its negative decision after such a long period of time, but it has been suggested that ecumenical relations must figure prominently; in addition, the press had branded the clergy leaders as rebels, and the parishes had been involved in civil litigation with the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles over real property, a lawsuit which the diocese ultimately lost and which may have been an embarrassment to Catholic officials.

Following Cardinal Manning's retirement in 1985, the negative decision was reiterated by his successor, Roger Mahony. Mahony based his rejection, as I recall accounts, more specifically on the characterization of the parish as rebellious. A former pariahioner e-mailed me:

I was there when Bishop Law attended St. Mary's [July 14—16, 1981] and believe that he was political along with several others, implying St. Mary's and St. Matthias would be part of the Pastoral Provision. . . . I also know that a TEC priest. . . and a Catholic priest, who I knew who were the ecumenical committee between the two had much to do to ruin St. Mary's chance to become Catholic. The TEC priest could not stand Fr. Barker.

However, the former parishioner notes another issue that hasn't been adequately taken into consideration elsewhere:

The parish split three ways, those in my opinion who loved the building wouldn't leave, some followed Fr. Trigg to the Orthodox and those who followed Fr. Barker to the Catholic Church.

The parish was apparently never unanimous in its desire to become Anglican Use, as it was not unanimous in its desire to join the US-Canadian Ordinariate. The problem was addressed during 2010-11 by none other than Anthony Morello, who asked at a synod what provision would be made for pastoral care of those who did not wish to become Catholic. This question has never been adequately addressed during any proposals for corporate reunion.