- I see the glass as half empty, others may see it as half full. The spaces in the pews in fact represent the parish's potential for growth
- And attendance notwithstanding, the parish is meeting its cathedraticum, as well as a hefty assessment in the Bishop's Appeal. It has paid for, and is maintaining, its building.
My knowledgeable regular correspondent, whose familiarity with the details of the OCSP makes me wonder why neither Bp Lopes nor Msgr Steenson has made greater use of this individual, tells me that my estimate of 100 in the church on November 18 is probably right -- parish bulletins on regular Sundays show attendance considerably lower; 100 would be a really good day.
Nevertheless, my correspondent pointed me to the OCSP's Guide to Parish Development. On Page 5, the minimum size for a parish is listed as 30 families or 100 members. My correspondent feels that this makes the Bridgeport parish eligible to be designated as such, but I think there has to be acknowledgement that it is squeaking by at the bare minimum if it can muster 100 on only the best days.
Stability is another criterion, and naturally, this is especially important if the parish is hovering at the minimum criterion for membership. It's worth pointing out that that capacious nave with so much room for growth must be heated in the winter, and presumably for daily offices. Winter hasn't even started in Philly, and I assume the parking lot has to be plowed as well. What kind of resources are available for emergency organ and furnace repair? My correspondent asks, "The big questions are whether the parish can grow to a size where the disappearance of particular donors will not have a serious impact, and who will be available to replace Fr Ousley."
My correspondent points out as well, "Fr Ousley is a retired TEC clergyman and presumably has pension income. He is 65, the second-oldest of the current OCSP pastors, but he seems to be an active and dynamic leader." This raises two questions. Is the parish getting a bargain in the pastor's salary and benefits if Fr Ousley can rely on his TEC pension and health care? And how does the OCSP plan to replace him five years down the road with its current small crop of seminarians?
Another point neither visitor raised yesterday is the general demographics apparent in the photos of the mass: lots of gray hair, no multigenerational groups. This is a big contrast to my successful diocesan parish, where my wife and I exchange the peace with well-behaved and reverent children and teens every Sunday. And this goes to what I think is a central problem in Anglicanorum coetibus: the account of Bp Pope's and Msgr Steenson's 1993 meeting with Cardinal Ratzinger, as well as Fr Barker's account of the Pastoral Provision, both make the point that the market for the constitution was disaffected US Episcopalians and "continuing" Anglicans.
The size of this group has always been overstated, according to its chief historian, Mr Bess. But people familiar with the movement, like David Virtue, have made the point that it is in fact graying, and whatever appeal "continuing" groups had in the late 20th century has been superseded largely by the low-church ACNA, definitely not a Catholic-friendly market. The visible attendance at the Bridgeport institution was, let's face it, overwhelmingly aging baby boomers, a low birthrate group, and nobody was visible there from their progeny. Period. I won't go into vocations.
So let's back up a little and ask what's going on here. Msgr Steenson was summarily "retired" a year ago at 63, a remarkably unusual occurrence in the Church, where the most underperforming bishops frequently last to 75. I think a reasonable explanation (though possibly not the only one) was simply a failure of the OCSP to thrive, although given the factors working against it, often discussed here, this was a predictable result not necessarily Msgr Steenson's fault.
I've got to think the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith came to some kind of a tipping point: fix this thing or shut it down, and Bp Lopes, I would assume, has got to be under some amount of pressure. As a result, with his one-year performance review looming, he had to show some visible progress, and the Bridgeport institution, somewhat iffy in my view, was a "success" he could point to.
This may also be an explanation for the very recent St Alban's fiasco, whereby a remarkably optimistic message was clearly drafted with Fr Perkins's cooperation (and I would have to think approval) and then sent out as, effectively, a press release. Also, I betcha, with Perkins's approval, if not at his specific instigation. The problem is that it bubbled over about Bp Matano's state of mind and effectively committed Bp Matano to doing things a year from now.
Bad move would be my guess, which Houston then told Rochester to pull back in a hurry, trying to blame it on the bloggers, even though Houston had to be behind it. (Bp Lopes, you want me on your side.) But why would the OCSP hierarchy feel the need to make such an ill-advised announcement? Pressure to succeed, or at least to create the appearance of success next year maybe, would be my surmise.
This is a marginal thing. Even after churning out its whole first generation of managers, it's still running an amateur night. I don't give it a whole lot of future, frankly.
