Msgr Kurzaj Homily

A visitor pointed me to an on line video of the OLA Latin mass from January 29, here. Msgr Kurzaj's homily begins at about the 14:00 point. "When we humble ourselves, God's wisdom can come to us."

Yet More On Membership

A regular visitor with a strong avocational interest in canon law comments,

Canons 111 and 112 of the Codex Juris Canonici (Code of Canon Law), which pertains to the Roman Rite, and the parallel provisions of the Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium for the sui juris ritual churches are quite explicit as to the church to which a person belongs. Basically, these norms stipulate that each person belongs to the ritual church in which he or she was baptized, and that transfer from one ritual church to another is permitted only (1) by consent of the Holy See (usually granted only if both the respective diocesan bishops of both ritual churches approve), (2) to the ritual church of one’s spouse, or (3) back to one’s previous ritual church upon the end of a marriage in which one transferred to the ritual church of one’s spouse. In addition, children under the age of fourteen whose parent transfers to another ritual church transfer automatically with their parent, but acquire the right to return to their previous ritual church after reaching the age of fourteen. I think that the process that you quoted in today’s post is pretty much what’s necessary to obtain the permission of the Holy See, but it does have to go to the Vatican for formal approval. Note, BTW, that a transfer from one sui juris ritual church to another works in substantially the same way.

Note, also, the stipulations of Canon 107 (same web page) that each person ordinarily acquires a bishop and a pastor — that is, the bishop and pastor of the territorial diocese and parish, mission or chaplaincy — by his or her domicile or quasi-domicile. Thus, membership in a personal parish has always required formal enrollment therein, and formal disenrollment was always necessary to revert back to the territorial parish. The only significant exception to this was in the case of members of the armed forces and their dependents, who automatically come under the jurisdiction of the military ordinariate of the respective country (or the Archdiocese for the Military Services here in the States) and revert back to diocesan jurisdiction upon separation from the service (with a few nuances pertaining to persons in the care of the Veterans’ Administration). Historically, most personal parishes here in the States were so-called “national parishes” originally established to provide services to immigrants from various other countries and their descendants in their native tongues.

The stipulations in Anglicanorum coetibus pertaining to membership in the ordinariate are substantially parallel to this: one must (1) be of Anglican heritage, (2) receive some or all of the sacraments of initiation within the jurisdiction of the ordinariate, or (3) be part of an ordinariate family. Also, one must formally enroll in the ordinariate in writing.

There is another interesting question pertaining to any potential transfer of the Parish of Our Lady of the Atonement to the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter. It’s entirely possible that the decree by which Bishop Flores canonically erected the Parish of Our Lady of the Atonement might not bar any member of the diocese who wishes to transfer to that parish from doing so. In the Catholic canonical tradition, permissive laws are always construed broadly. Thus, the reference to “lay faithful of the Anglican tradition” in Article 5, Section 1, of the Complementary Norms for the Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum Coetibus should be construed to encompass all registered parishioners of the parish whenever the parish actually makes the transfer.

Also, what you quoted pertaining to validity of marriage is wholly correct. According to Canon 1109 and 1110 of the Codex Juris Canonici , a marriage that takes place before a territorial pastor or ordinary is valid if either of the parties is of Latin Rite while a marriage that takes place before a personal pastor or ordinary is valid only if one of the parties is a member (subject) of the respective jurisdiction. In addition, any of these individuals can delegate others to act in this capacity. Here in the States, I think that most bishops now give general delegations to all clergy within their diocese to witness marriages throughout the diocese as part of the normal faculties for ministry. Again, the Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium contains parallel provisions for marriages celebrated in any of the sui juris ritual churches.

Note, also, that marriages that suffer from such a defect of form, which results in pro forma approval of a decree of nullity as discussed in today’s post, nevertheless enjoy a canonical presumption of validity until there’s a determination otherwise. The motu proprio Mitis Iudex Dominus Iesus promulgated by Pope Francis on 15 August 2015 provides an expedited process for such cases — they no longer have to go through the full tribunal process.

So it appears that formally enrolling in the Ordinariate in writing is what's done via the on line application, although since the Anglican ordinariates are Latin rite, it's still difficult to see exactly what's accomplished by doing this, except to say that Bp Lopes or his successor is my bishop and not Bp _____. But if I'm outside of Texas, I'm probably going to get the sacraments from territorial priests.

A visitor from San Antonio who sometimes attends Our Lady of the Atonement comments,

I always loved Archbishop.

I have never gotten the idea that Atonement was not part of the Church. They hold all kinds of seminars. Really good stuff. I know tons of people who go there some who work for the archdiocese.

The School is rigorous and Orthodox. The kids learn Latin! Daily Mass. They come out knowing Catholic teaching.

I know tons of cradle Catholics who attend there.

Look Atonement is one of the only parishes that has really stately beautiful done Masses in San Antonio.

The issue is not the current Mass because I have seen it beautifully done in other Dioceses. And Atonement has a Latin version of it.

People are starving for beauty and so they flock to it.

This is not a criticism of lifeteen or Marachi masses to each their own. But I know there are folks who don't want to lose one of the few places that offers beauty.

The statements from the archdiocese suggest that it does not intend to change the masses that are celebrated at OLA. Again, I think this is primarily a succession issue, with key people in the parish believing they'll be better off with a Fr Featherstonehaugh preferred by Fr Phillips and appointed by Bp Lopes instead of Fr ________ appointed by Abp Garcia-Siller, but the concrete issues of day-to-day parish life and worship would not change for people like the visitor here -- unless, of course, angry key parishioners elect to poison the atmosphere, which happened at St Mary of the Angels.

I'm convinced this is basically inside baseball stuff that the parishioners and other irresponsible commentators have inflated into a scandal.

More On Membership

A visitor sent me more extensive information on the question of membership in Eastern rite churches and the problem of canonically transferring between rites.

Since the 1960s, all it takes to "qualify" (in the "diaspora," that is, outside the original "canonical territory" of these ecclesiae sui juris) is that either (1) a person have one parent who is a member of (to use your examples) the Melkite Catholic Church or the Ukrainian Catholic Church (before the 1960s, IIRC, it had, in "their diasporas," to be both parents; if one parent was a Latin Catholic, and the other a member of one of the Eastern ecclesiae sui juris, the children were "ascribed" to the Latin Church [although this was sometimes ignored in practice]), or (2) a Latin Catholic layman wishing to have a "transfer of rite" (to use the technical term) to, for example, the Ukrainian Catholic Church (without any "qualifying family connection" to that church), has to write a letter giving his reasons for wishing to do so and procure a letter from the pastor of the Ukrainian Catholic parish that person has been attending giving a "testimonial" in favor of the request. The letters, in such a case, then have to go to the bishop into whose jurisdiction one wishes to transfer (in the example I postulated, the Ukrainian Catholic Ordinary) and then, upon his endorsement of the request, to the bishop from whose jurisdiction one wishes to exit (in the example I postulated, the Latin Catholic Ordinary). If the latter gives his approval, then that completes the "transfer of rite" and the transfer should be entered in the records of both the Latin Catholic parish of which the individual so transferred had previously been a member, and in the records of the Ukrainian Catholic parish of which he has become a member.

However, as the Melkite bishop explained yesterday, there is no need to transfer between rites for a Latin Catholic simply to attend mass regularly or simply register at an Eastern parish. My visitor does, however, point out a gotcha:

{R]egistration without membership can possibly, if relatively infrequently, lead to a world of trouble. Take the case of a Ukrainian Catholic family that attends and "registers" in a Latin Catholic parish, either because there's no Ukrainian Catholic parish within reasonable distance of them, or because they want to get away from "the ethnic thing" and be "real American Catholics." Years pass, one of their children gets engaged and then married in their Latin Catholic parish church. The Latin Catholic pastor, had he done his due diligence in checking the church records, etc., assuming - a big assumption - the matter would have been properly recorded way back when the parents first registered, would discover that the-person-to-be-married in his church is not a member of the Latin Church, and that in order to witness the marriage he would have to get a "delegation of faculties" from the local Ukrainian Ordinary in order canonically to witness the marriage. Otherwise, the marriage would be invalid. My priest, a canon lawyer who has served on the Ukrainian Catholic Philadelphia marriage tribunal, has told me that in such cases, once it has been ascertained that the priest witnessing the marriage had no jurisdiction to do so, an annulment is granted automatically, without any further inquiry into the circumstances. He also said that a fair number of priests, both Latin and Ukrainian Catholics alike, make no such inquiries, seemingly assuming that if X or Y has been attending their church for years, how can there possibly be a problem with their getting married in their church?

But since the Anglican Ordinariates are jurisdictions within the Latin Catholic Church (just as its Ordinariate Missal is a variant of the Roman Rite into which various matter of Anglican origin has been filleted) I don't think that sort of problem can arise in that context.

While the distinction between Latin and Ordinariate rites can be problematic in such cases, "membership" for a Latin Catholic in an Ordinariate is not, so there isn't even that complexity if a Latin cradle Catholic or a Latin Catholic who came, say, from the Baptists registers in an Ordinariate parish. So what's the use? My visitor points out,

I think that there is "an analogy" to the situation of Anglican Use parishes/congregations, although their situation is not identical. Back in ca. 2003 (IIRC) those with Anglican/Episcopalian backgrounds or family/marital conncetions amounted to only 47% or 48% of those who worshipped regularly at Our Lady of the Atonement, and this may be part of the "case" against their transfer to the Ordinariate. On the other hand, I have likewise been told that the majority of those who worship regularly at the Houston and Arlington Ordinariate parishes are likewise of "non-Episcopalian/Anglican" background, and in neither case did this stop the local Catholic archbishop (Houston) or bishop (Fort Worth) from releasing these churches from their dioceses into the Ordinariate.

In other words, if the Anglican Use parishes were "continuers", there's a good chance they wouldn't have voted themselves into the OCSP, an interesting point. My regular correspondent adds,

If the Ordinariates had been prepared to accept married candidates for the priesthood who had not been previously ordained as Anglican clergy I can see that it would have been important to ensure that garden-variety married Latin Rite Catholics were not using Ordinariate membership as a back door to ordination. But since that possibility is now forever off the table, what difference does it make whether a given parishioner is a member or not? Or whether a former Anglican living just about anywhere in the US except Texas and unable to attend an Ordinariate church locally nevertheless chooses to enrol as an OCSP member? Well, I guess the latter is about being on the mailing list for the second collections. But the former?

Except right up to 2016, Bp Lopes and Msgr Steenson have approved ordaining married candidates who, strictly speaking, would not have qualified for ordination as Anglican Use in any case.

Mars Needs Women!

A visitor took exception to a recent post:

Now then, what do you mean you never had the opportunity to join the Ordinariate?

FILL OUT THIS FORM and you’re in! I’m sure you have several “qualifiers.”

I love the way that it goes through all the pedigree stuff and then at the end simply says, basically, if all else fails you can still register as a parishioner anyway so come on. After all, “Mars needs women,” as they say.

This reminds me of my late mother's lifelong but unfulfilled ambition to qualify as a Daughter of the American Revolution. Does anyone know if you need to qualify in some way to become a "member" of Ukrainian or Melkite Catholicism?

Or do Ordinariate members get a sword, cape, and hat with a plume?

UPDATE: My regular correspondent sends me a link to this site:

Question:

What is the procedure one must follow to become a member of the Melkite Catholic Church? I really feel blessed to be able to attend such a wonderful church in Atlanta. Thank you so much for your help.

Bishop John’s Answer:

Please realize that there really is no need to obtain a “change of rite” in order to be a full-time parishioner. The beauty of all the Traditions of the Eastern and Latin Catholic Churches are a common patrimony and heritage belonging equally to all Catholics. Should there be some need in the future to obtain a canonical transfer, the procedure is facilitated by the parish priest who could help you with the details. Basically it involves a formal petition on your part. This is forwarded to the Melkite Bishop. The Chancery then seeks the opinion/consent of the Latin Bishop. If both Bishops are in agreement, the “transfer” is granted, signed by the petitioner in the presence of witnesses and entered into the registry of the Melkite parish.

It sounds like all these distinctions are sort of fuzzy. But in any case, it doesn't appear that the Eastern Rite churches ask you to fill out an application form, nor to get a reference from Uncle Vlad or something. On the other hand, maybe I wouldn't get a sword, cape, or hat with a plume. i'm scratching my head about this Ordinariate membership business.

The OLA Controversy Reaches Virtue Online

My regular correspondent pointed me to this lengthy piece by the pseudonymous Mary Ann Mueller at Virtue Online. I think it's even-handed regarding the facts, one of her best, and a departure from the usual VOL knee-jerk anti-Catholic stance. Here are some central points:

Our Lady of the Atonement, as a Pastoral Provision parish with a strong interest in going in to the Ordinariate, is under the auspices of the Congregation of Doctrine and the Faith (CDF) in Rome. The CDF is a curial office. Not much can happen with a Pastoral Provision or an Ordinariate parish without the CDF's approval. Ultimately, the CDF will have to rule on Archbishop García-Siller's actions, since Our Lady of the Atonement is under papal authority and both sides, including priest and Archbishop, will have to abide by the ruling -- whatever it is.

The Ordinariate's Bishop Lopes was the personal aide to William Cardinal Levada then Prefect for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith when Anglicanorum Coetibus was first released calling for the creation of "personal ordinariates" to satisfy the needs of Anglicans seeking unity with the See of Peter while keeping their Anglican accent. Cardinal Levada's successor is Gerhard Cardinal Müller and, as a former CDF staff member, Bishop Lopes has Cardinal Müller's ear and it is known that the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith is involved in the developing problem at Our Lady of the Atonement.

It sounds as though she's gotten good input from Houston, or someone close to Houston, here. Also,

When Fr. Phillips was ordained by Archbishop Flores on Aug. 15, 1983, he promised obedience to Archbishop Flores and to all of his successors. Archbishop García-Siller is a successor, so Fr. Phillips is in humble obedience to him and, as such, he is in now incommunicado while he goes into prayer and reflection as requested by his Archbishop.

Nothing can be better for this case than to get the facts out. Frankly, as a few others have observed in other forums, we don't know all the facts now, and for that matter, Fr Phillips made his case in 2012 while leaving several pertinent facts out of the record. I suspect something like that is the case in 2017, so I am waiting to see what else develops.

Meanwhile, the tone of comments on Fr Hunwicke's and other sites, quite a bit of it reflecting anti-Mexican or anti-Latino bias, is disgraceful. VOL is a shining exception. It continues to be a disgrace in my eyes that Msgr Newton has not ordered Fr Hunwicke to delete his own clearly anti-Latino rant on his site.

All the more reason I'm happy I never had the opportunity to join an ordinariate.

Counterproductive?

Mr Wilson, in his letter to the OLA parishioners and others, says (emphasis his):

Any individual action such as writing to the archbishop or demonstrating at the chancery could be counter-productive. Please use common sense. Many parishioners have expressed their desire to send letters to various dicasteries of the Holy See and I fully support their right to do so. Abusive or intemperate letters would, of course, do great harm.

Yet the same Mr Wilson effectively endorses Fr Hunwicke's intemperate rant here. Other OLA members appear to be joining in the comment section as well. Some commenters call Abp Garcia-Siller a "Peronist" and accuse him of blasphemy. Note that Fr Hunwicke moderates comments and has approved these and others.

My regular correspondent says,

Whatever the merit or otherwise of Abp Garcia's latest move I certainly agree that the response is not how things are done in the Catholic church and exposes the lack of assimilation of Catholic diocesan values on the part of those in opposition. Looking at many of the websites reporting on the situation I see that they are hotbeds of traditionalist, "more Catholic than the Pope" thinking, exactly the approach that led to "continuing" Anglicanism and its endless fracturing.

My correspondent also pointed me to Fr Stainbrook's Facebook page (I don't do Facebook and can't link to it), wherein Fr Stainbrook originally linked to or reprinted the somewhat inflammatory report by Church Militant on the case, but today the link has been deleted -- my correspondent speculates with some good reason that it was probably at Houston's instruction.

This sort of thing is damaging Houston's case, whether or not it has merit. I assume Fr Hunwicke is beyond Msgr Newton's control, although if I were his ordinary, this could become an issue. If Fr Hunwicke feels he can get away with this sort of thing and approve abusive comments on his site, no wonder he sympathizes with OLA.

Fr Hunwicke Weighs In!

Well, Fr Featherstonehaugh's spiritual mentor, Fr Hunwicke, has entered the fray! Rule Britannia, Good Queen Bess, 1066 and all that!

The said prelate acknowledges the strengths and excellences of the Atonement set-up, although the letter he sent to the parishioners deftly contrives to suggest that everything was built up by his own predecessor (who died recently) and makes no mention that Fr Phillips might have had anything whatsoever to do with it all. The Archbishop professes to intend to maintain the Parish's Anglican Patrimony for those who come from Anglicanism; suggesting by this sinister qualification that he does not think it right that the large numbers of cradle Catholics (including many Latinos) who worship there should be exposed to the perils of the Anglican Patrimony and the enormities of Anglican-style liturgy.

Why? Any Catholic of any Rite is entitled to worship in any Catholic Church and Rite he desires. Why is it necessary to discourage Latin Catholics of that diocese from attending Ukrainian Rite or Anglican Use or Melkite Rite or Extraordinary Form liturgy? Is the Archbishop afraid that they might discover something he would rather they did not know? Or a spirituality by which he would rather they were not fed? Or a culture which makes him feel threatened?

Otherwise, he makes vague and unspecific comments about the Parish being out of sync with the Diocese. If this man had an Anglo-Saxon sense of Natural Justice he would be man enough to let it be made public what his case against the Pastor is, so that the parishioners had the materials to form mature and adult judgements. All that stuff about Discernment and the Sacrosanctity of Conscience appears to have flown out of some window.

I fear the suggestion that only Anglo-Saxons are "man enough" to release confidential personnel files doesn't play well. If there are allegations, the archbishop has a duty to investigate them and determine canonically their veracity, but releasing them without doing so exposes him to liability and the priest to damage beyond what has occurred. (But notice he feels it's up to the parishioners to render the verdict!)

I have an instinctive sense that Fr Hunwicke is rallying to the cause of an old stalwart of Anglo-Catholicism without recognizing what a failure Anglo-Catholicism has turned out to be overall in recent decades, except among those "affirming" parishes remaining in The Episcopal Church and half a dozen parishes in the OCSP. But beyond that, his implicit suggestion that Abp Garcia-Siller is somehow catering to lesser breeds, who are free to go to lesser rites, is deeply disturbing. This isn't far from the parishioners who complain about Abp Garcia-Siller and "mariachi masses".

He's taking a view that some of my correspondents continue to have, that basically because the parish is made up of Anglo-Saxons (or wannabes), the archbishop should have the good grace and generosity to let it go off and join other, like-minded Anglo-Saxons in their own new jurisdiction. This idea is uncomfortably close to the "continuing" formula, which leads to continued schism and fairly rapid failure.

In that context, a visitor strongly objected when I quoted from Fr Phillips's 2012 letters but omitted his first point:

1. The archbishop is NOT preventing the parish from seeking entrance into the Ordinariate at this time, or at some future time. He was clear about that, and is very respectful of our right to make that request any time.

Let's think this through. The best information we have is that Fr Phillips led the OLA parish to change its mind over the OCSP for reasons he doesn't reveal in his 2012 letter, to wit, that Msgr Steenson had apparently negotiated unfavorable terms for transfer of the property and planned to force Fr Phillips into retirement. In other words, a good part of his motivation was to continue his career, which he's done for another five years, and he's used personal loyalty toward him by the parish to accomplish this -- apparently there are people here who belong to Fr Phillips and have for some time.

I agree with the visitor I quoted yesterday who sees Episcopalian congregationalism alive and well in the OCSP: if the parish wants it, it should happen. This, beyond the idea that these parishioners are good solid Anglo-Saxons, seems to be at the basis of Fr Hunwicke's argument. But the situation in Fr Phillips's 2012 letters isn't quite this.

The parish needs a bishop. In the first wave of optimism about Anglicanorum coetibus, it wanted to jump right in -- except that the reality, even after just a few months, was turning out to be different. A clique of opportunists and careerists from the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth was running the show, and Fr Phillips, not a member of the clique and likely to be blackballed, backed out. His only option was to retreat behind the folds of the archbishop's cassock, which the archbishop generously allowed him to do.

He said in 2012 that the archbishop wouldn't stand in the way of the parish seeking to go into the OCSP at some future time -- although this was in 2012. Over the subsequent five years -- when the parish, by its request, continued under his supervision -- the archbishop noted expressions that suggested the parish was trying to be separate from, rather than unique within, the archdiocese. (Sounds credible to me; isn't it trying to formalize the arrangement now?) My visitor who provided the canonical background to the OLA case suggested a few days ago that the archbishop's concerns must have been formed over a fairly long period, and he probably had raised them with Fr Phillips more than once.

I would stress one more time that the parish has continued under the archbishop's jurisdiction at its specific request, when it considered the OCSP to be a worse alternative. This has lasted five years. Quite possibly the parish expected the archbishop would simply leave it alone until it decided to go its own way again. I would submit things don't work that way. The parish, whatever application it may have renewed, remains under the archbishop.

One analogy strikes me here that Fr Hunwicke's interpretation tends to support: I think of blended families where, as sometimes happens, the children of one spouse get significantly better treatment than the children of the other. Mom's kids get their own rooms; Dad's have to double up. When circumstances change and more rooms must be shared, the reaction is, "Share a room with Susie? Eeeew!" Some kids are more equal than others.

In Fr Hunwicke's view, this goes for some rites as well. Apropos of this, my regular correspondent comments,

Regarding Fr Featherstonehaugh, I would reiterate that if the diocese of San Antonio does indeed have "mariachi masses," they are probably not conducted by priests named Fr Doyle or Fr Nguyen. I don't see anything wrong with cultural expression per se.

But the BDW is special. Latinos? Eeeeew!

I Belong To Fr Phillips?

I was hunting around last week for the passage in Paul's epistles where he mentions that various people belong to Cephas or whomever. By coincidence, last Sunday's reading was just that: I Corinthians 1:10-13-17, in part

For it has been reported to me about you, my brothers and sisters, by Chloe's people, that there are rivalries among you. I mean that each of you is saying, "I belong to Paul," or "I belong to Apollos," or "I belong to Cephas," or "I belong to Christ." Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

A number of people have written to me saying they trust Fr Phillips and that there's something wrong with mistrusting his version of events. Sorry, I don't know Fr Phillips, and I don't belong to him.

On top of that, I have a basic problem with anyone who tries to stir people up against bishops. I think Catholic laity have a duty to hold bishops to account, but it needs to be done with reference to specific instances and well-documented, leaving room for interpretation and recognizing that the bishop and the diocese have an obligation to keep personnel matters confidential.

Further, I make no secret and make no apologies for a view that the Catholic Anglican ecumenism project has turned out in practice to be something of a con. It was founded on two false assumptions:

• The erroneous idea that Anglicanism and Catholicism are doctrinally close. Informed scholarly opinion in recent decades has been that Anglicanism is a Reformed denomination -- we should take the XXXIX Articles seriously -- that adopted a mannered but largely superficial Catholic style only in the last 150 years.
• The erroneous idea that US Episcopalians would leave the denomination in large numbers after it revised its prayer book and ordained women in the 1970s, and these dissidents would become Catholic. In fact, the "continuers" were far fewer than projected, and the majority of these were low-church who would never consider becoming Catholic.

People are free to disagree on these points. However, it's worth noting that blogs that might have supported the OCSP in its apparent disagreement with the Archdiocese of San Antonio disappeared a number of years ago. In my view, this reflects a demoralization among those who once had higher hopes for the Anglican ecumenism project. I would note that even the most long-lived cheerleading blog, Ordinariate News, has not covered the developments over Fr Phillips.

I'm writing this blog from a personal perspective that began with a fascination over 1970s reports in Los Angeles media covering St Mary of the Angels. Due to various factors, I moved from a high-church "affirming" Episcopalian parish to St Mary of the Angels in early 2011 just in time to experience first-hand the disorganization and incompetence surrounding the establishment of OCSP. I came away with an overwhelming impression that the OCSP was implemented for the benefit of opportunists and careerists.

Others, who often haven't had my first-hand experience, will disagree. Interestingly, two of my correspondents who disagree with me most strongly and who support Fr Phillips most fiercely, are Orthodox and have no dog in this fight. I respect and have continued goodwill and friendship for those who disagree.

On balance, I continue to give the benefit of the doubt to all Catholic bishops and support their authority over their priests. I also tend to agree with another ex-Episcopalian now-Catholic correspondent who said

This stuff about Atonement is so wrong-minded, using canon law against the diocese and whatnot. What a waste of time and energy. I believe that the PP served a good purpose. But the Ordinariate is the result of the Catholic Church running 50 mph through a stop sign. I well recall the Episcopal norm of infighting and hatred that accrue when pastoral personality becomes overridingly important. [Yes, this is typical Episcopalian congregationalism at work.]

I promised myself when I came over in 2005 that I would never engage in that in my new home, and that promise has served me well. What else could be expected, erecting a structure so different than normal Catholic ceremony and practice. Big pendulous smoky masses, fussiness, veils, NIV (or RSV, whatever it is) readings, a different calendar, etc. All elitism and puffed up pride.

I have to say Cardinal Mahony was right on: he kept a mile away from that, refusing to stick his foot in it. Any Catholic can go to any Catholic Church they want, and if you don't like one, it's on you to go to another, as you and your wife have documented. It's not okay to say we are independent of the bishop and we're going to fight him, by God. That's exactly what countless congregational churches in the South do, and it's Protestantism, not Catholicism. I am very disappointed in what I'm reading about Atonement parish. I think the professed longing for coming home to the Catholic Church (by some) has been fully exposed as fraud.

I'm doing my best to cover the news in an even-handed way -- Ordinariate News ain't doing it! -- but I reserve my right to express my own views.

Fr Phillips In 2012

A visitor sent me this link to a post on Fr Phillips's blog from 2012, in which he reprints two pastoral letters explaining the parish's decision to reverse itself on joining the OCSP. The first thing I would say is that they are not entirely ingenuous -- the information I've had over the course of the past year suggests the issue was much more specific disagreement over Msgr Steenson's plans for Phillips and the parish property.

That said, here's one version for 2012 public consumption:

All of us desired to do what is best for the people of Our Lady of the Atonement Church, and it was in a spirit of cooperation that it became evident to me that for the sake of the continued stability and unity of our parish community, the best course of action at this time is to withdraw our request to enter the Ordinariate and to remain in our present status as a Personal Parish of the Anglican Common Identity, as is stated clearly in the Decree of Erection by which we were founded in 1983.

The archbishop recalled his recent visit to the parish, commenting on how impressed he was with the Academy students, with our facility, and with the sense of the sacred found here. He expressed his respect for the fruitful and particular ministry of our parish, and he looks forward to strengthening our bond of communion, as do we.

What does this mean in practical terms? Our liturgical and devotional life does not change, our patrimony remains intact, and our clergy and people remain together as one parish family.

And another:

I know the decision to withdraw our parish request to enter the Ordinariate is unexpected, and some of you might be perplexed. As you know, I have been very excited about the prospect of being in the Ordinariate, but I had to weigh every aspect of this, and decide what would be truly best for us. The stability of our parish is something I know you would not want to discard lightly, and this decision provides us with the best and safest way to continue to “preserve, nurture and share” our Anglican patrimony, as we have done for the past twenty-nine years.

As we have opportunities to deepen our communion with our Father-in-God, Archbishop Gustavo Garcia-Siller, let’s make the most of them. He was genuinely moved to learn that we will be remaining in his jurisdiction for now, and he looks forward (as do we) to strengthening our ties with the archdiocese which has been our home for so long.

The time may come when we are prepared to enter the Ordinariate, and when the Ordinariate will be in a better position to receive us as we are. We can be grateful that God has used our parish, in some small way, to prepare the ground for the establishment of the Ordinariate in this country. As strange as it seems for us not to be part of it from the very beginning, the time is not yet right.

So, while acknowledging for public consumption in 2012 that the ties of communion with the archdiocese were important and the stability of the parish was primary, it's clear that something changed. Realistically speaking, the one thing that changed was Steenson's departure and Phillips's prospects for continuity (or now reinstatement) as pastor, presumably with the ability to influence the choice of his successor. But in 2017, Phillips seems to have brought about a situation that threatens the very parish stability he championed in 2012 and, by the archbishop's words, threatens the parish's communion with the archdiocese.

My impression continues to be that this is a succession problem: Phillips, I think, may have convinced his key parishioners that they'd rather have a Fr Featherstonehaugh appointed by Bp Lopes than a Msgr Kurzaj appointed by Apb Garcia-Siller, notwithstanding Fr Featherstonehaugh went to seminary where he learned nothing of Catholic moral theology, had no preparation to hear confessions, and had these deficiencies remedied in a perfunctory webinar.

A visitor reports,

I notice that confirmation is scheduled at Atonement for Feb. 21. I assume the Abp. will celebrate the confirmation. Would like to be a fly on the wall for that one!

I'm glad I won't be there; I'd be having a one-man standing ovation in the back row.

The Money

Yesterday's commentator came to a conclusion very close to what many other observers on social media have drawn:

This whole to-do also could be about money. The archbishop might want some compensation for the loss of income from the parish’s cathedraticum, or even some payback for whatever sum he thinks that the archdiocese may have invested in the erection of the parish over thirty years ago (I doubt that it was much since the parish, a distinct legal corporation from the archdiocese, purchased its own land and paid the full cost of construction of its buildings on its own).

My regular correspondent had this observation:

Whatever we do or don't think about the OCSP, its existence is not the archbishop's call. Holding on to the parish as a diocesan asset seems small-minded when Fr Phillips built it literally from scratch. St Mary the Virgin, Arlington was sold to the OCSP for a symbolic $10, I gather. This is very bad news from Bp Lopes' perspective---not only the (apparently) failed negotiations and public squabble, but the membership and the revenue which OLA would provide, which I'm sure has been part of the plan.

A different interpretation, toward which I'm inclined to lean, is that Fr Phillips did build the parish and school, but he had the diocesan Catholic franchise going for him. You can start a burger joint, which may or may not succeed, but if you can call it McDonald's, it has a much better chance. McDonald's clearly sees a value in its franchise -- it doesn't give away the use of its name, or indeed its recipes and practices, for free.

One thing we simply don't know is the exact terms under which the OLA parish is now proposed to move to the OCSP. A visitor suggested to me that the terms Msgr. Steenson originally negotiated with the archdiocese in early 2012 allowed the parish property to remain with the archdiocese while supposedly guaranteeing the right of the Ordinariate to have perpetual use of the church for at least one Sunday Mass. This apparently wasn't communicated to Fr Phillips and was one of the reasons the parish reversed itself on going into the OCSP at that time.

Social media protests by OLA parishioners suggest that some element of the archdiocese's plan for the parish involves a renewed attempt to limit the BDW liturgy to one mass per week. It appears to me that the terms of the transfer might have been under continued negotiation. While one might ideally expect any diocese to be generous in transferring property to the OCSP, in other cases like Bridgeport and Scranton, the properties involved have been deteriorated and otherwise unused and in fact a potential liability to the diocese. This is not the case in San Antonio.

(Note as well the Scranton instance where the diocese sold a downtown building that previously housed a Catholic bookstore. The diocese saw enough continued value in the Catholic bookstore franchise that it apparently included a restriction forbidding the purchaser from reopening a Catholic bookstore there. Generosity must be tempered with prudence.)

Certainly the archbishop might have felt that canonical moves to transfer the parish, without the financial terms of the transfer being fully negotiated, could be premature and could even be construed as being in bad faith. My main concern here is that the OLA parish has been of significant value to the diocese, and the diocese is under no obligation give away valuable property and a valuable franchise for free -- indeed, it has a fiduciary obligation and its spiritual equivalent to give it proper financial value.

The premature publicity over this has clearly caused a mess. The archdiocese may have been partly responsible, but I certainly agree with my commentator that the social-media agitation from the OLA parishioners has been unhelpful, will potentially limit a satisfactory solution, and could destroy the parish and school.

As another visitor has noted, these people are out of control.

Updates And Commentary

The Our Lady Of The Atonement controversy has begun to reach the media. Church Militant has now picked up the story, and its reaction is, unfortunately, predictable. There is a more even-handed story in the San Antonio Express-News. Apparently the Save Atonement! website is being updated, and a revised version of the Wilson letter reappears here. A traditional Catholic forum has picked up the news and has predictable anti-Garcia-Siller views, not all of which are fully informed. I do note an annoucement there:

There will be a meeting at 7:00 p.m. on Thursday, January 26, 2017 in the ballroom at The Embassy Suites of San Antonio. Sponsored and presented by the St. Joseph Foundation, speakers will include Founder Charles Wilson, M.T.S., and President Philip C.L. Gray, J.C.L.. Although specifically to provide information to the parishioners about the situation involving their church and pastor, it is open to the public.

A regular visitor who has a very strong avocational interest in canon law has provided a comprehensive analysis of the situation, as far as we can understand it from a public perspective. I am deeply grateful for this and am quoting it here in its entirety.

Canonically, all three ordinariates are directly subject to the Holy See. Thus, no diocesan bishop has any official jurisdiction whatsoever over any of them. If the Archbishop of San Antonio does not like action undertaken by the Ordinary of the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter, he can ask the Vatican to intervene — and that is about the limit of his canonical authority.

Now, the question of how many members of the parish have enrolled in the ordinariate is particularly critical. Note the provision of the first section of Title VIII of the apostolic constitution Anglicanorum coetibus:

VIII. § 1. The Ordinary, according to the norm of law, after having heard the opinion of the Diocesan Bishop of the place, may erect, with the consent of the Holy See, personal parishes for the faithful who belong to the Ordinariate.

This provision is particularly nuanced: it requires the ordinary to ask the opinion of the diocesan bishop, but not necessarily to follow it. Thus, the ordinary canonically may erect an ordinariate parish in San Antonio even if the Archbishop of San Antonio objects thereto. Of course, the ordinariate cannot confiscate the property of a diocesan parish for a parish of its own to use, so it would have to make some other arrangement. But if the overwhelming majority of the parishioners of Our Lady of the Atonement have joined the ordinariate and they decide to abandon that parish in favor of a parish erected by the ordinariate in that city, the archbishop will be left with few options. The most likely outcome would be closure of the present parish and sale of its property.

The Archbishop of San Antonio also has no canonical jurisdiction over any members of the ordinariate who might reside in that archdiocese, except as it pertains to their participation in diocesan events, programs, and parish life. Thus, the Archbishop of San Antonio would not be able to prevent members of the ordinariate from going to an ordinariate mass somewhere in the city if the ordinary were to erect a parish or a mission there. But as long as Our Lady of the Atonement remains a diocesan parish, the parish and all aspects of parish life remain subject to the Archbishop of San Antonio. The Ordinary of the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter has no canonical jurisdiction whatsoever over that parish, regardless of how many ordinariate members worship there, send their children to its parochial school, or otherwise participate in parish life.

Now, the apostolic constitution obviously envisions a collaborative working relationship between the diocesan bishop and the ordinary and between the clergy of an ordinariate parish and the clergy of the diocese within which that parish is located. The first piece of that collaborative relationship seems to have broken down. In this instance, the Archbishop of San Antonio appears to have misplayed his hand since Bishop Lopes is clearly the Vatican’s hand-picked Ordinary and is very well connected within the relevant dicasteries of the Roman curia.

That said, the “Save Atonement!” web site and Mr. Wilson’s letter are quite interesting in several regards.

1. The fact that a “Save Atonement!” web site even exists shows that there is, at best, a very strong distrust, and probably a high degree of animosity, between the parishioners who are behind it and the Archbishop of San Antonio. This is extremely unfortunate, to say the least, and it will not be received very well within the Vatican.
2. If Mr. Wilson’s statements regarding the Archbishop of San Antonio initiating a penalty process to remove Fr. Phillips permanently are well-founded, that’s significant news that probably was not intended to become public — and the fact that it is public undoubtedly is not constructive.
3. Mr. Wilson’s counsel of caution in protest is also very well-founded. The Vatican does take notice of public protests, and inevitably rejects what they seek as a matter of policy. The same is generally true of abusive or intemperate communications that do not reflect a spirit of Christian charity to those involved in a disagreement.
4. I’m not persuaded that Our Lady of the Atonement would become a territorial parish, partly because its physical location is within a territorial parish (most likely either St. Francis of Assisi, located a few blocks to the east, or Our Lady of Guadalupe, located a few blocks to the west) and partly because there is nothing that prevents the archbishop from designating the current parish as a territorial parish as well as a personal parish for the so-called “pastoral provision,” or even from erecting a distinct territorial parish with a separate pastor that would share the same premises for worship and spiritual formation, if he deems it appropriate to do so.
5. The fact that the status of the parish is “before the competent dicastery of the Holy See right now” is major news that probably was not intended to become public information yet. This may be what is fueling the archbishop’s apparent ire, especially if he is not fully behind a possible transfer of the parish to the ordinariate.
6. This whole to-do also could be about money. The archbishop might want some compensation for the loss of income from the parish’s cathedraticum, or even some payback for whatever sum he thinks that the archdiocese may have invested in the erection of the parish over thirty years ago (I doubt that it was much since the parish, a distinct legal corporation from the archdiocese, purchased its own land and paid the full cost of construction of its buildings on its own).

Your question triggered me to do some investigating that turned up another very interesting fact. If you use the parish search feature on the web site of the Archdiocese of San Antonio , the Parish of Our Lady of the Atonement does not turn up — even if you inaugurate the search by selecting that parish’s zip code (78255)! If the parish is indeed part of the archdiocese, one wonders why it does not appear in the parish search feature even though other personal parishes do appear. In fact, the web site of the first parish in the list that appears when you inaugurate a search with this zip code is entirely in Vietnamese! So when it comes to fostering the idea that the parish is “within but not part of” the archdiocese, the archbishop and his staff need to take a bloody good look in a mirror before pointing fingers at the pastor and the parishioners.

Incidentally, Fr. Phillips is continuing to publish daily articles on his blog, none of which say anything whatsoever about this. One that caught my eye, however, is that of 14 January 2017, showing a new main entrance to one of the parish’s buildings that’s part of an expansion to accommodate the parish’s continuing growth. Does the archbishop perceive this growth to be an embarrassment to the rest of the archdiocese?

On a separate note, I think that it was precisely the experience of the personal parishes that persuaded the Vatican of the need for a separate jurisdiction equivalent to a diocese, and that ultimately gave rise to the erection of the present ordinariates for former Anglicans. The problem was that it was too easy for a diocesan bishop to reject a congregation, as happened with [St Mary] of the Angels, or to dissolve a parish that he did not wish to staff, as happened in Las Vegas. The ordinariate structure takes this out of the hands of the diocesan bishop permanently.

Again, I'm enormously grateful for this contribution, and for now, although I have additional input from visitors, this post is long enough.

Church Militant TV Still Silent

In today's news headlines, Church Militant TV has remained silent on the question of the Atonement parish, although my guess is that parishioners have contacted all possible outlets. Publicity over this, while possibly bad for Bp Garcia-Siller, would be just as bad, if not worse, for Bp Lopes and the OCSP -- this is not about traditional Catholic values, it's about not working with the bishop.

St Mary Of The Angels Redux

Well, the San Antonio parishioners now have a website, Save Atonement!, and they've gotten themselves into the paper. Where have we seen this before? And the efforts in Hollywood, now at four decades and three rounds of litigation, sure have been successful, right? Look, this is a scandal, it's destructive, and nobody is going to come out of this well.

A letter to parishioners from Charles Wilson, a founding member of the parish, was posted on the Save Atonement! website, but now seems to have been taken down. It indicated that canonical proceedings had been begun to defend Fr Phillips, who according to the letter and to other social media is in fact in the process of being removed as the parish's pastor. However, Fr Z has pointed out in the context of all the priests he mentioned the other day, "Some of the priests have had successful recourse to Rome, but the damage to those priests is done."

I would suggest that the damage to the parish is already done as well. There are two issues here: one is that the whole Anglican ecumenism project was begun under flawed assumptions. The Pastoral Provision began in the context of the 1977 Congress of St Louis. Let's keep in mind that Cardinal Law and his representatives fostered and encouraged the idea at that time that St Mary of the Angels should leave The Episcopal Church, with inchoate and unenforceable assurances that it could in some way become Catholic. We know how that one turned out.

In 1993, the same Cardinal Law put through a new effort at a do-over with what we might characterize as a new set of Episcopalian patsies. Bishop Clarence Pope and Fr Jeffrey Steenson met with then-Cardinal Ratzinger and drafted the proposal for Anglicanorum coetibus. The rationale this time was that a quarter million disaffected Episcopalians were champing at the bit to come over, complete with their priests and parishes. We know how that one turned out: by land large, Bishop Iker of Fort Worth was happy to see the clique of bunglers behind the move leave. (Bishop Pope eventually became unstable in the wake of his failed attempt to become a Catholic bishop and at various times clearly felt betrayed in the proceedings.)

And this leads to the second issue: even after replacing the lead bungler and all the assistant bunglers of the original Fort Worth group, the San Antonio move has clearly been bungled by the new team as well, though it seems to me as though Fr Phillips may have brought these problems on himself, possibly by giving his parishioners the impression that they'd get a better deal on his replacement from Bp Lopes. I've got to think that the parish and Bp Lopes made canonical moves before they made sure Abp Garcia-Siller was aware of their intentions and on board with them, which is an unforgivable sin just about anywhere.

The Wilson letter posted and now apparently withdrawn from the Save Atonement! site pretty clearly ties Houston and Bp Lopes to this fiasco -- quite possibly that's why it's been taken down. A comment here carries a quote from that letter:

The Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of Peter was erected with Our Lady of the Atonement in mind. The Ordinariate wants us to become a parish and we want to join, just as diocesan parishes in Houston, Fort Worth, Scranton, Omaha and elsewhere have done.

The full text is in another comment here. Posting stuff and then pulling it down again in a panic is another sign of the amateurishness involved here. This is an enormous black eye for Lopes. I'm beginning to think the CDF should be moving to put this whole project out of its misery.

Let's Try To Parse Out The San Antonio Case

with reference to my perennial question, "What problem are we trying to solve?" Each player has a problem to solve here. Let's look at them individually.

A puzzle for me is that the parish and its people should actually have no problem at all. Whether in the archdiocese or the OCSP, they keep their BDW liturgy, their music program, and their fellowship. What the bishops do is above their paygrade, and the essence of Catholicism is obedience. The difficulty is that the social media agitation -- and it's there; copies of the archbishop's letter have clearly been sent out to lots of people -- is coming from parishioners.

Their problem is what could happen after Fr Phillips retires, and this could come soon. A regular visitor says,

Fr. Phillips was born in 1949, so he will reach the normal retirement age for Catholic clergy in just seven years. It would be exceedingly problematic if the archbishop appoints a new pastor for the parish and the overwhelming majority of the parishioners reject both the new pastor and the archbishop’s authority to make the appointment upon Fr. Phillips’s retirement. The bishop probably raised his concern to Fr. Phillips a while ago and determined the situation has not improved to his satisfaction (and actually might have grown worse). It sounds like the archbishop is attempting to determine whether, and to what extent, Fr. Phillips might be part of the problem and a change in pastoral leadership might be necessary to solve it. Msgr. Kurzaj undoubtedly has the task to assess this over the next several months.

In other words, the parishioners may feel they'd get a better deal from Bp Lopes. I question that: I would put Fr Bartus, who is from Texas and has thoroughly ingratiated himself with Fr Phillips, at the head of the line for the preferment on Fr Phillips's retirement if Bp Lopes has the choice.

There's another issue: normally Catholic pastors rotate among parishes, I believe on six or twelve-year terms. A diocese would not normally have a pastor staying with one parish for over 35 years. This adds to the problem of congregationalism, which is actually at the root of the whole Anglican ecumenism project: both the Pastoral Provision and Anglicanorum coetibus were set up on the idea that dissident Episcopalian congregations would vote themselves Catholic, simply following the "continuing" model.

One problem I noted as St Mary of the Angels wrestled with going into the Ordinariate in early 2012 was that indeed, it would need to revise its bylaws to drop the idea that it could simply vote itself out of the Catholic Church again. I'm not sure if Our Lady of the Atonement ever quite grasped the issue here: it was not going to be able simply to vote itself into another jurisdiction. Think of what would happen if Fr O'Connor thought to lead his St Athanasius parish down the road into becoming Lutheran --- I assume you'd have a result not much different from what's happened at Our Lady of the Atonement.

So for Bp Garcia-Siller, you have a problem of syncretism and obedience, although I suspect other issues were involved, not least that he simply may have been surprised at some point -- I'll deal with that below.

What problem is Bp Lopes trying to solve? That seems pretty simple. The OCSP's growth has stalled, and it isn't thriving. His current efforts at publicizing himself -- the recent press releases come with big photos, after all -- show a need to demonstrate success, but there's little concrete to point to. The best possibility would be for Our Lady of the Atonement, a prestige parish with a well-known pastor and several thousand members, to come into the OCSP. It's generally understood that it stayed out in 2012 due to Jeffrey Steenson; for it to come in in 2017 would be a feather in Bp Lopes's mitre. We could expect further big pictures of himself in the NCRand elsewhere.

So what happened? A visitor passed on to me that canonical application was made in Rome for the parish to transfer to the OCSP last summer, and the result was likely to be in the parish's favor. However, although Abp Garcia-Siller had previously assured the parish in 2012 that he would not stand in the way of a later reconsideration, when he heard of the new attempt, he apparently lost his temper, and the suspension of Fr Phillips was the outcome.

The difficulty I see with this interpretation is that for Fr Phillips, where the parish goes is simply above his paygrade. This is for the bishops to work out. And I assume that bishops have sufficient collegiality to do this -- after all, Fr Phillips has a dotted line to Bp Vann, the delegate for the Pastoral Provision, as well as a direct report to Abp Garcia-Siller. Shouldn't they and Bp Lopes have worked this out (or not) among themselves?

So I've got to think something was bungled here -- quite possibly a canonical move was made without taking the trouble to get the archbishop on board with it. But then you have the whole ambiguity of giving Anglican congregations, whether Ordinariate or Anglican Use, a special status in the Catholic Church. Note the awkwardness with which commenters try to grasp that "Anglican rite" is sorta-kinda Roman Rite, but of course not quite, but also not Eastern Rite. This was never thought through from the start, and the price is being paid.

Not to mention what will happen when a pastor with a good Anglo name is replaced by a Fr Estrella or a Fr Smuczyinski. As I've said before, I'm not sure whether, if an OCSP group-in-formation folds, the members would ever go to a diocesan parish.

I'm Sure There's Backstory

to what's going on in San Antonio, but I'm far away from there and can't easily judge. One interesting aspect is that Fr Z hasn't mentioned it on his blog, although he tends to stay away from any specifics relating to Anglicanorum coetibus other than the occasional link to Fr Hunwicke. (UPDATE: He mentions it briefly here, anonymously in the context of several other priests suspended for no apparent cause.) There is no mention of it in yesterday's daily news on Church Militant TV. Both have been quick to note adverse developments relating to traditionalist parishes like Holy Innocents Manhattan, and I would be surprised if either hasn't been sent a copy of the archbishop's letter.

Apparently there have been occasional comments on Facebook relating to "gustavo and his social justice/mariachi mass cronies" and describing the new priest-in-charge as a "radical environmentalist." However, Abp Garcia-Siller, as far as I can tell, doesn't top the list of liberal bishops least friendly to traditionalists. In 2013, he celebrated a BDW mass ad orientem at Our Lady of the Atonement, and a comment there notes a "generational shift to the newer, younger bishops, who are much more tradition-friendly".

I also checked on the new parish administrator, Msgr Kurzaj, who is from Poland and was interviewed in 2014 at the time of St John Paul's canonization.

[H]e credits the late pope for constructing new alliances between the Catholic Church and other religions, inspiring youth to embrace their faith in deeper ways, contributing to the downfall of communism in Eastern European and the rise of liberation theology. He also traveled worldwide to connect to Catholics more broadly than his predecessors.

i believe this should read that John Paul contributed to the downfall of liberation theology, not the rise of the downfall. It appears from the article and from the archbishop's letter that Msgr Kurzaj is close to the archbishop. Polish Catholics, however, are generally regarded as conservative. So I have a hard time thinking that the issue here is a mariachi-mass Mexican liberal stifling a victimized but right-thinking Anglican Use parish.

This blog links to my post from yesterday and has comments on both sides of the issue. I don't see how putting in a new parish administrator who is a great admirer of St John Paul and his work in Poland and elsewhere is evidence of an anti-John Paul agenda.

The comments note that I'm an Anglicanorum coetibus skeptic. I would have to say that as far as I've been made aware, a number of factors, certainly including disagreements with Msgr Steenson, led to Our Lady of the Atonement's reversal on the OCSP in 2012. A question I have, and a question I'd rather forcefully ask if I were the archbishop, would be why the presence or absence of one individual would make such a difference in the parish's decision -- "no" in 2012, "yes" in 2016 solely because someone else is now in charge.

The archbishop supported Fr Phillips in 2012, but I'm not sure why he should automatically change his mind four years later just because Fr Phillips did. As Fr Z puts it, a bishop's job is to say "no". We'll;have to see if Fr Z or Michael Voris weighs in -- but if they don't weigh in, that's significant as well.

News From San Antonio

Thanks to a visitor for providing a copy of this letter from Archbishop of San Antonio Gustavo Garcia-Siller to the Our Lady of the Atonement parish.

Several months ago I heard that there was some difference between Fr Phillips and the Archbishop over whether Our Lady of the Atonement would leave the Archdiocese to join the OCSP. If Fr Phillips were still an Anglican, I assume this letter would be equivalent to a notice of inhibition. This is probably not good news for Fr Phillips, nor indeed for the OCSP or Bp Lopes.

My inclination is to support the authority of diocesan bishops.

What's The Audience?

Houston has recently sent out two glossy brochure-like publications, the 2016 Year In Review and the Pastoral Letter A Pledged Troth. Along with the press release written by Mr Jesserer Smith, this clearly represents a new approach in OCSP communications.

My regular correspondent attributes this to Ms Faber, the recent Vice-Chancellor and Director of Communications and Strategic Planning, and suggests that the prior house organ, the Ordinariate Observer, has gone by the board. I've observed already that glossy brochures aren't a new-media approach to publicity and don't seem to be consonant with such successful current Catholic efforts as those from Michael Voris or Fr Z.

However, my correspondent notes that the Pledged Troth letter has excited quite a bit of old-media notice, in The Catholic Herald, where Bp Lopes's face smiles out at us grandly upstaging Msgr Newton, in the NCR, in Crux, and via the Catholic News Agency.

Our best estimate, published many times here, is that OCSP membership is somewhere in the low four figures, and as of this year, the total number of parishes, quasi-parishes, and groups-in-formation is declining. So Bp Lopes is clearly playing to an audience outside the OCSP, and much bigger. At what point will he simply leave the OCSP behind? On the other hand, glossy brochures and press releases authored by old-media hacks are not the way to build a name for oneself in a contemporary environment.

A Visitor On Fussy Liturgy

Regarding yesterday's post, a visitor notes,

I was at a funeral for an old friend in his Episcopal parish on Saturday, and, priestess notwithstanding, the ceremony with full Eucharist was beautifully done, with BCP '79 Rite II liturgy, organ hymns, A Mighty Fortress Is Our God, Onward Christian Soldiers, etc. It was so nice that my very Episcopal-skeptic wife approached the altar for a blessing, even. In regards to the OCSP liturgy, I have said for some time that if they had made it so that it felt just like Episcopal church used to in the days before the world went crazy, I'd love going there. But they didn't and I don't.

Multiplying Entities

My regular correspondent sent me a link to Bp Lopes's new pastoral letter giving the OCSP's guidelines on Amoris Laetitia. Over the latter, as a new Catholic, I take no position, although authorities suggest that it is ambiguous enough to make taking a position difficult under any circumstances. However, the letter quotes extensively from the BDW, and since the BDW is largely not available online, I found the quotes interesting.

On page 1, the epigraph quotes from the BDW

I take thee, to [sic] my wedded Wife, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death us do part, according to God's holy ordinance; and thereto I plight thee my troth.

I don't know if there has been any additional redaction over the "to my wedded wife" part, but otherwise this appears to have been lifted verbatim from the Church of England 1662 Book of Common Prayer. The US 1928 BCP is similar. The preferred version in the TEC 1979 BCP is

In the Name of God, I, N., take you, N., to be my (wife) (husband), to have and to hold from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, until we are parted by death. This is my solemn vow.

These are the vows my wife and I took, which the Catholic Church recognizes, and which, frankly, as an English major with further graduate work in the area, I like much better. The Catholic version is

In the United States, couples can choose from two different versions of the Catholic wedding vows (The Order of Celebrating Matrimony #62). The standard version goes like this:

Priest (or deacon): Since it is your intention to enter the convenant of Holy Matrimony, join your right hands and declare your consent before God and his Church.

Groom: I, (name), take you, (name), to be my wife. I promise to be faithful to you in good times and in bad, in sickness and in health, to love you and to honor you all the days of my life.

Bride: I, (name), take you, (name), to be my husband. I promise to be faithful to you in good times and in bad, in sickness and in health, to love you and to honor you all the days of my life.

The alternative version is:

Groom: I, (name), take you, (name), for my lawful wife, to have and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death do us part.

Bride: I, (name), take you, (name), for my lawful husband, to have and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death do us part.

I have a very serious reservation about "thereto I plight thee my troth". Let's face it, the only other time a normal person in the 21st century is going to talk this way is in a high school Shakespeare production -- and, of course, in doing that, they're play-acting, using language specifically reserved for play-acting.

Alternatively, if you're convenient to Kissimmee, FL, Buena Park, CA, Schaumburg, IL., Hanover, MD., Lyndhurst, NJ, Myrtle Beach, SC, Dallas, TX, Lawrenceville, GA., or Toronto, ON, you can attend a Medieval Times tournament complete with four-course dinner, where I assume such language or something like it is also on display.

20 Years ago, I saw a good example of the Precious Spiritual Treasures of the Anglican Patrimony: here's a wedding party boarding the Napa Valley Wine Train complete with fully vested Episcopal priestess. At least nobody will plight their troth on this thing -- but I wonder if that marriage has lasted.

Or, come to think of it, you can plight your troth at an OCSP parish.

Obviously, a wedding celebrated with contemporary but serious and elevated language is just as valid as one where people plight their troth -- but the more, in these times, we can focus clearly on what's actually being done and what it really means, the better.

On the other hand, I assume that so very few marriages are witnessed in OCSP parishes that the whole issue is moot.

Anglo-Catholicism And New Media

I was looking at commentary covering President-Elect Trump's radical understanding of media -- Twitter just a part of it -- and it occurred to me that my own media consumption changed during 2016. After we retired, my wife and I subscribed to cable and got Fox News, which took us off 25 years of PBS. But over the past year, I get less and less news from Fox, which called the November election as badly as anyone else in legacy media. I now rely much more on YouTube commentators, some of whom were very close in calling Trump's performance in places like Wisconsin and Michigan.

This led me to ask whether Anglo-Catholics are succeeding at all with new media. Interestingly, there are numerous traditionalist Catholic outlets on YouTube, for instance Michael Voris and Sensus Fidelium. On blogs, Edward Feser's latest post links to about a dozen posts elsewhere on the dubia concerning Amoris. Fr Z's blog is immensely popular.

Anglo-Catholics? Essentially zilch -- I have no urge to look at either Fr Hunwicke or Mr Chadwick, both of whom strike me as peculiarly English in their stuffiness and self-reference. The others have basically given up. A bad sign, it seems to me. That goes as well for the incredibly lame 2016 Year in Review from Houston.

A Question That Won't Go Away

I was thinking about recent news analysis concerning a major non-profit foundation, and one issue struck me that might be applicable to the St Mary's situation. As best anyone can determine, the Bush group drained all the bank accounts belonging to St Mary of the Angels (including the funds derived from the apparently fraudulent 2014 mortgage) before being evicted from the property. We don't know what happened to those funds -- the best we can surmise is that members of the group were advised to make checks for future donations payable to something called the Perseverance Mission.

There are numerous implications of what may have happened here, but the one that sticks is that the Bush group appears to have taken funds from a tax-deductible entity -- the bank accounts belonging to the St Mary of the Angels parish -- and put them into some sort of entity that, as far as I can see, is not tax deductible. I'm not sure what the effect would be of reporting this to the IRS -- it could result in problems for the continuing corporation and its vestry, after all. However, there are certainly issues with what happened to funds amounting close to $1 million which have disappeared with no accounting.

I do see in the December 2016 Northeast Anglican of the ACA Diocese of the Northeast, in its report of the diocesan synod,

Chancellor Jones reported that he submitted his recommendations to the Diocese of the West for changes in their diocesan canons.

So clearly the DONE, and presumably by extension Bp Marsh, continue to concern themselves with legal issues in the Diocese of the West. (Interestingly, the moribund DOW has its own Chancellor, but he seems to be subordinate to Mr Jones. For that matter, it's been pointed out to me that Owen Williams, canonically just the episcopal visitor, is subject to removal by Marsh. Doesn't seem like Marsh trusts anyone in the DOW.) I would guess that the unspecified changes in the diocesan canons of the DOW relate in some way to closing the St Mary of the Angels barn door after the horse has left.

But if Belchertown is concerning itself with DOW legalities, wouldn't it be a better idea to work out a strategy for disengaging from the legal liabilities inherent in the St Mary of the Angels case? Just for starters, what about payments made to Owen Williams by the Bush group, which could at minimum include living and automobile expenses for what amounts to a non-deductible purpose? Shouldn't the ACA and the DONE be looking to protect itself from contingencies here? Doesn't sound to me like any glib assurances from Mr Lancaster should suffice, either.

OCSP 2016 Year In Review

For what it's worth, a puff piece called the OCSP 2016 Year In Review has been made public here. My reaction is that it's a lot of soft-focus and fancy calligraphy, but almost no substance.

I'm glad I'm not an OCSP member and thus don't have an urge to defend it.

So How Are Things In The UK?

My regular correspondnet reports,

Reading between the lines of this assessment written by a regular contributor to the OOLW's monthly magazine, Ordinariate Portal, the situation in the UK is even more fragile than that of the OCSP. Two of the five churches she mentions as bright lights are actually diocesan parishes to which an OCSP priest has been appointed as pastor or administrator.

The prejudice, class-based I'm sure, which prevents Catholics from accepting former Anglicans as "real Catholics" and Anglicans from accepting the Catholic church as a personal option is blamed for the lack of growth, and one has heard this so frequently from OOLW sources that it must be a genuine obstacle to its success.

The final reference to the good liturgy and music found in the Ordinariate is of course a reminder that accusations of classism in the Ordinariate project are not unmerited. And if AC cannot be an effective tool of evangelisation in a country where at least a third of the citizens are baptised Anglicans, what are its chances in the US, where the figure is closer to 1%?

Further,

Have just spent some time looking at Mrs Bogle's internet footprint and while I see that she has a reputation as a spirited spokeswoman, not to say pit bull, for conservative Catholic positions, her personal blog, "Auntie Joanna Writes," more than lives up to its name. Religion there is a cosy tea-party, where the privileged are kept safe, warm, and happy by keeping their gaze firmly fixed on the rear-view mirror. "More of these excellent sandwiches? And do have one of the cakes." Self-parodic, IMHO.

One more time: What problem are we trying to solve? A half-a$$ed attempt at relieving the shortage of Catholic priests by letting in a club of favored candidates? Certainly it can't have much to do with appealing to any sort of laity.

What's Become Of The "Continuum"?

Partly, I think, because the Anglo-Catholic blog archive is now gone, my regular correspondent pointed me to this entry on the surviving blog The Continuum. (It still has entries, but they seem to be mainly homilies by one cleric, not comments on current events.)

The link is a pretty angry discussion of 2010 statements by Abp Hepworth in the wake of Anglicanorum coetibus. The group in this blog seems to be pretty low-church and members of fringier "continuing" denominations -- but no "continuing" denomination, including the ACA, ever unanimously accepted Anglicanorum coetibus. These guys refer to it as the "Coeti bus", which gives an idea of where they come from.

The problem, though, is that in the wake of Anglicanorum coetibus, the "continuum" denominations without exception have been shrinking and losing credibility. Here is a summary of the bloggers' views on the impact:

They requested various things which they placed under the heading "full corporate communion." They have stated a desire for different things at different times, ranging from a "Uniat" status to "inter-communion." All of these things imply a specific identity as at least Anglican-ish, in some way. They requested a way to have their own structure and a degree of self-determination.

To that request, with its variations, Anglicanorum Coetibus is really an answer of "no," with a different offer in return. The ordinariates will protect the former Anglicans from their new bishops (a problem with Catholic order in and of itself) in the event that any bishop is not eager to play by the new rules, that is, never saying no to Pastoral Provisions and some sort of so-called Anglican Use. But, the Canon Law and specific statements of the Constitution and Norms do not give any assurance of self-determination for the former Anglicans, not even to remain sort of Anglican-ish.

This is in fact an accurate reading of the constitution's effect, but my own view is that it was a "put up or shut up" gesture as well. It has damaged the prestige of the "continuers" irreparably.

Developments In Irvine (or Not)

My regular correspondent reports,

I note that Bp Lopes will be visiting [Blessed John Henry Newman], Irvine on January 22, which will give him a chance to assess first-hand the group's eligibility for parish status. The flurry of new activity which we noted on the revamped website last year seems to have died down; no updates on the school or the Inland Empire Ordinariate Group, for example. The Pasadena group is advertising its third Evensong on February 5.

I wonder if Fr Bartus includes St Augustine, Del Mar in his stats? The St Augustine's page remains part of the BJHN site, although the information on it is now out of date since the group celebrated its first mass in its new location last Sunday. The St Augustine's Facebook page, which is otherwise equally outdated, has added 28 pictures of the first mass in the new location. The congregation seems to number the usual dozen, however, so it cannot be adding a great deal to the statistical picture.

I have expressed before my sense that the daily mass times posted on the BJHN website, offered at the Queen of Life Chapel in the OF by priests unconnected with the OCSP, plus the Santiago Retreat Center link, create the impression that BJHN is a bigger operation than it in fact is. The 2017 schedules for Theology on Tap, Theology on Perk, and the King's Cross Society are meanwhile unavailable. No "League of Ordinary Gentlemen" whiskey and cigar get-togethers either. Only events are the Marrieds Group potluck and of course, the Charles, King and Martyr wing-ding.

The last I saw, by the way, was that Fr Barker, who had briefly been with the Irvine group, left it to perform other duties in the Diocese of San Bernardino last summer. He was supposed to return to Irvine in December, based on what I read last summer. Has this happened? UPDATE: I'm told Fr Barker is listed as the officiant for the January Ordinariate Evensong in Pasadena, also the one upcoming February 5.

A bigger question is this: in contrast to the thriving intellectual life we find on the web among traditional mainstream Catholics, there is nothing -- not even a Fr Hunwicke -- in the OCSP. Is Fr Bartus the best it has to offer?

Abp Hepworth At St Mary Of The Angels, January 6, 2017

Abp Hepworth celebrated Epiphany Day mass at St Mary of the Angels on the evening of January 6, 2017. Several things struck me. One was that this was a genuine pastoral visit -- he was not presenting himself as some sort of past Anglo-Catholic celebrity, or perhaps some sort of martyr. He was entirely focused on 2017 and his specific responsibilities as bishop of the parish.

Another is that he is a big man -- about the size of President-Elect Trump, maybe six feet two and hardly emaciated. Another similarity is that his mannerisms and timing command respect. I suspect that, like Trump, he's easily underrated.

I was interested in what he'd say in his homily. Again, it was a pastoral exercise, and it was about Epiphany. He focused on several parts of the gospel narrative: Herod's request of the magi that they tell him where the newborn Christ was located, the massacre of the Holy Innocents, and the flight of the Holy Family into Egypt. He made the repeated point that in these times, it's also become more difficult to be Christian, and it still involves the way of the Cross.

Hepworth clearly has a deep understanding and familiarity with scripture and salvation history, which came out in his homily. He's also focused on the world as it is. Although some visitors here, and other observers elsewhere, have suggested he's something of a con artist, I got nothing like that from his visit.

I came away with the impression, like that of other correspondents here, that Hepworth is a complex man, but I would add to it that he's something of a visionary. He saw a potential in the Portsmouth Petition that simply hasn't been realized. It reminds me of the sense of potential, if not necessarily optimism, that I get whenever I visit the St Mary's parish.

Anglicanorum Coetibus And The Church Of Nice

I don't know if Michael Voris originated the phrase "Church of Nice", but he uses it a lot, and he regards Bp Robert Barron as one of its chief apologists. A good summary of Voris's view on Barron can be found here, with many references and links. This might be an example of Voris's views on how Barron portrays the Church of Nice:

We don't recommend "Catholicism" as a faith formation series. It is certainly educational, and the visual insights into what the Catholic faith has inspired over the centuries are, indeed, stunning. But the series isn't evangelization in any meaningful sense. Unbelievers may come away more enlightened and more informed, believers may come away confirmed in their belief, but no one is likely to be moved to conversion, as the message that conversion to the Catholic faith is necessary for salvation is nowhere present in the series. The Catholic faith did, obviously, inspire magnificent art, architecture, literature and music. Jesus was of course a great teacher with moral insights that are universally applicable. It just isn't obvious, in Fr. Barron's approach, that Jesus was necessarily God who established One True Church on earth. There isn't much here to explain why people would be willing to suffer martyrdom for the Faith.

Barron's much-criticized public view that "there is a realistic hope that Hell is empty" can certainly be seen as misleading and even dangerous to souls. Unfortunately, the "Church of Nice" is well represented in diocesan RCIA programs -- the RCIA class my wife and I took at our former declining parish had many sessions that just played videos from Barron's "Catholicism" series.

It brushed over confession very lightly, and I got the coordinator angry with me when I kept asking exactly what we were supposed to do when we went to confession (i.e, "Bless me, Father. . ."). The expectation appears to have been that there was no need to explain it, since nobody was going to take it seriously. Pretty pictures of cathedrals were enough. (The pastor actually wound up excusing me from attending further RCIA sessions!)

Ever since I began to take the idea of becoming Catholic seriously, I thought there was no sense in going to all the trouble of becoming Catholic if I didn't mean to avail myself of all the sacraments for which I was eligible. The more I look at this, confession is central to being Catholic -- the Protestant view is that the Sermon on the Mount imposes an impossible standard; mortals can never fully measure up, so in effect, there's no sense trying very hard.

The Catholic position is that the Church does not make impossible demands. The Sermon on the Mount is one common standard Catholics use for examination of conscience. If Catholic voices don't stress confession and conscience, they're Protestantizing Catholicism. This is part of Voris's objection to the Church of Nice.

I've got to wonder how much the implementation of Anglicanorum coetibus has become another part of the Church of Nice. I've already expressed my reservations that OCSP priests are not equipped via Catholic training in dogmatic and moral theology to hear confessions. Naturally, a Catholic in danger of death can go to confession with an OCSP priest, but the testimony of one Episcopal seminary graduate that I've published here is that his own seminary training said almost nothing about confession.

My regular correspondent has this take on the Church of Nice, Anglican division:

The implication of AC is that there is or was a significant number of Anglicans who ignored the call of their conscience regarding the claims of the Church because the liturgy was sloppy and the music third rate. "Now that everything is just like dear old St Swithun's we can make our submission." No wonder lifetime Catholics and those who converted long ago find the project offensive.

The only good news is that apparently there were not as many hypocritical liturgy snobs sitting in the pews as was rumoured. The idea that it is a template for the mass reception of those from other, non-liturgical denominations I find risible for several reasons, not the least of which is that so many supposedly Anglican things being brought into the Church are just Catholic artifacts of yesteryear---nothing specifically Anglican about them at all.

I have heard the "recovery of lost treasures" used as another justification of AC, but the addition of these further goals, while they may distract us from the fact that the actual uptake of AC has been negligible, actually weaken the case, IMHO.

Speaking of Michael Voris, I found this soon after I posted this entry. He has a few remarks on Thomas Cranmer. Er, he's right.

Anglicanorum Coetibus And The Church Of Nasty

I had an e-mail exchange with my regular correspondent yesterday, who sent me a link to this article in the Toronto Star from 2015 by a local conservative commentator who adopted more liberal views, left the Catholic Church, and became unhappy that his audience left him. He refers to the Catholic Church now as the "Church of Nasty".

Anyhow, he became an Anglican. I keep wondering why whoever is now Archbishop of Canterbury doesn't make a counter-constitution Catholicorum coetibus or something -- almost certainly more Catholics become Anglican than Anglicans become Catholic, but that doesn't stop the hemorrhage of Anglicans to other denominations or none -- and likely, the Catholics who become Anglican are mainly doing it as a face-saving step as they transition into general loss of faith.

The reason Mr Coren gave in this piece was similar to the reasons ex-Catholics give in other surveys on why they leave -- they disagree with the Church's teachings on The Usual, which I don't even need to mention. I think this reflects what the Church is missing as it addresses ex-Catholics or potential converts, and I think it also reflects some basic errors in thinking behind Anglicanorum coetibus.

Let's get a few things straight. Nobody -- or, nobody other than the insignificant numbers now in Anglican ordinariates -- is becoming Catholic or returning to the fold because they appreciate the Precious Spiritual Treasures of the Anglican Patrimony, a vague term that refers mainly to the faux Cranmerian English of the BDW. This is an Edsel, a New Coke.

The appeal of Anglicanism is not that it has a precious prayer book. The appeal of Anglicanism is that it no longer makes demands on its members. Catholics who don't like demands have found this appealing. In particular, if a denomination is "welcoming to gays" or however you express it, it's sending a message that tells people gee, if that's OK, then whatever else I'm up to must be no big deal, either.

The first issue, it seems to me, is to knock away the excuse that maybe Mahometans, or the same-sex attracted, or adulterers, or whoever else, will not feel welcome at mass. As I was once told in confession, the issue is "not my zoo, not my monkeys". The issue is to examine our own conscience, and this is where the discomfort lies among those leaving the Church. They're unhappy about examining their own consciences and what they find there, not that the Church might make someone else feel uncomfortable.

This is the sort of thing Catholic apologists need to address. Anglicanorum coetibus is completely beside the point. An Anglican who becomes Catholic is going to do it for comprehensive intellectual reasons, and indeed reasons of conscience, and a cutsey-pie prayer book isn't going to do much one way or another. Indeed, an Anglican will become Catholic for the same good reasons a Baptist, a Presbyterian, a Taoist, or a Mahometan will become Catholic -- or indeed, a lapsed Catholic will return to the fold. Bring back Aquinas.

Is The Push On?

My regular correspondent reports,

The OCSP has issued, perhaps in lieu of the Ordinariate Observer, a booklet celebrating the highlights of 2016. It will be available online in a week or two. The ordination of Glenn Baaten is one of the featured items. 'Nuff said. But the production of this puff piece corroborates your hypothesis that there is some pressure to demonstrate that things just couldn't be better at the OCSP.

As I've said before, any Catholic who isn't in danger of death who goes to Fr Baaten for confession is reckless. Bp Lopes is responsible if he holds this guy up as a celebrity of some sort. My correspondent has also had some concern that Bp Lopes has been pushing parishes to acquire property. He found these remarks from the pastor at St Luke's Washington following Bp Lopes's episcopal visit (last page):

Now that we have celebrated our fifth anniversary in the Catholic Church (and what a wonderful celebration it was!), we now turn our attention toward the future. Obviously, our most important mission is the salvation of souls; to help all people grow in the knowledge and love of Jesus Christ and his church. In addition, we are called to serve those less fortunate. We will always endeavor to keep these mandates as our focus.

With that said, we must ask the question, where? Where will this ministry take place? God has been very good to us, in leading us home to Holy Mother Church. He has provided for our immediate needs, mostly through the graciousness of Cardinal Wuerl and the Archdiocese of Washington and the people of Immaculate Conception Catholic Church. However, as Bishop Lopes stated to me during his visit with us last month, “We cannot sleep on our neighbor’s couch forever, no matter how comfortable. Sooner or later that arrangement will prove to be unworkable.” Thus, we should now turn our efforts toward securing a permanent home for the ministry of St. Luke’s, and for the Chair of St. Peter in our nation’s capital.

But the parish had already given up a permanent building when it proved too expensive -- and indeed, any smallish group in an older building, like Bridgeport or Scranton, is likely to have the same issues.

I think the OCSP runs the risk of relying on smoke and mirrors to conceal what was a bad idea from the start.

No Second Wave

My regular correspondent responds to yesterday's post:

It seems that there is no second wave of groups either in North America or the UK. The ones that are doing reasonably well now, the ones that have achieved critical mass and can support themselves, will probably continue although their "Anglican" character may gradually morph into something pidgin. I suspect many of the smaller groups will fold when their leader and/or founding members cannot be replaced. I note that the parochial administrator of Holy Nativity, Payson, AZ has applied to retire later this year. Payson has a population of about 15,000, a Catholic church with a Saturday Vigil and three Sunday masses, (one in Spanish) and an Episcopalian parish that looks flourishing .

If Holy Nativity has not attracted enough new people to become a self-sustaining parish since it was received four years ago I do not see a rosy future for it, unless there are changing local circumstances. Who will come to Payson to be the new OCSP leader?

However, even of the full parishes, I still have my doubts that either Scranton or Bridgeport is financially viable.

Here's a question: in the wake of the clergy child abuse scandals, the Church commissioned at least one important outside study to determine their cause and cure. Has it ever commissioned an equivalent study of why so many millions of Catholics left the Church in the last two generations? I'm still puzzled that rather than go after those millions in some way, it's made such a fruitless effort to bring in a few thousand Anglicans.