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.
