OLA Updates

My regular correspondent found this link, which says farther down,

Now, I say that Phillips is being sacked, because I’ve never, once, in observing Church affairs closely now for 7 years or so, seen a pastor removed for “reflection” ever re-instated.  If lucky, he would be transferred to a backwoods assignment, but in all likelihood, Phillips will never have a public ministry again.

* * *

Finally, a bit more about Atonement: this is probably a minority opinion, but I know of a handful of families who found Phillips’ pastoral care – in their particular cases – counterproductive.  These were all deeply private matters and not related to public ministry, as I understand it, but there were certainly concerns, and complaints, regarding counsel Phillips gave to various families that some felt made matters  worse.  There was also a possible ongoing “situation” – maybe a scandal – involving a certain deacon who retired from the parish this past year.  Concerns had been expressed about this deacon for some time, again by a handful of folks, to my knowledge (bear in mind I am in Dallas but did assist at Mass and Tenebrae at Atonement several times before we went full-TLM all the time.  I know some current and former Atonement parishioners but not a whole lot.  It could be there were broad-based complaints of which I am unaware).

I say this to note that there may be extenuating circumstances in this case, but I doubt those really had anything to do with Phillips’ case.  First of all, the reports came from a small number of people.  Secondly, Phillips appears to enjoy the overwhelming support of the people of Atonement.  My gut instinct says this is really about doctrinal orthodoxy being taught publicly at Atonement and probably some demands being made to conform to the corporate line that were not obeyed.

I would say that, based on comments at the Texas Public Radio site and e-mails to me, there is certainly a strong minority at OLA that is not impressed with Fr Phillips. I haven't heard reference to any counseling issues, but I've heard somewhat more over the retired deacon and other financial issues, although these should be tempered with the knowledge that Canon 1742 does not cover actual wrongdoing, simply a pastor who for some reason isn't working out.

My judgment about the minority opinion is that, unlike the dissidents at St Mary of the Angels, these individuals appear to be referring to specific issues and do not appear to be hysterical, although tempers are hot all around. Another concern is that Fr Phillips's results at OLA have never been exactly reproduced -- the parish seems to be roughly twice the size of the other two big Texas parishes and far larger than any other in the OCSP. This raises important questions for me -- how much of this depends on abilities unique to Fr Phillips? It seems to me that the Catholic Church is something, like the US Navy, "designed by geniuses to be run by idiots". A random genius at the bottom isn't of much use.

On a different tack, the visitor versed in canon law comments,

The present situation has a very interesting canonical wrinkle.

1. The enrolled parishioners of Our Lady of the Atonement canonically qualify for membership in the ordinariate, regardless of whether they completed the sacraments of initiation in the ordinariate or not, because membership in the parish makes them of the Anglican tradition. Formal transfer is as simple as filling out and signing an enrollment card.
2. Archbishop Garcia-Siller cannot prevent Bishop Lopes from erecting and staffing parishes and missions within the Archdiocese of San Antonio to serve ordinariate members who reside there. He also cannot prevent parishioners of archdiocesan parishes from worshipping with ordinariate congregations. Of course, Archbishop Garcia-Siller can block such parishes or missions from worshipping in the churches of archdiocesan parishes if he wishes, so they would have to buy or to build a new campus.

If the preponderance of current parishioners of Our Lady of the Atonement enroll in the ordinariate and Bishop Lopes erects a parish for them, there’s a very real likelihood that Our Lady of the Atonement would cease to be viable as a Catholic parish, at least in its current configuration. Archbishop Garcia-Siller would then have the privilege (?) of dissolving the present corporation and disposing of the parish property. [Something would need to be done about the $6.5 million debt.]

We have no way to predict what would or would not happen to Fr. Phillips in this scenario, but it seems pretty clear that there is no canonical basis by which Archbishop Garcia-Siller could pursue a dismissal from the clerical state. This leaves two possibilities.

Fr. Phillips could request excardination from the Archdiocese of San Antonio from Archbishop Garcia-Siller (I don’t see canonical grounds for a refusal of this request) and incardination into the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter from Bishop Lopes. If this happens, Bishop Lopes would be able to appoint him as pastor of an ordinariate parish in the Archdiocese of San Antonio, over which Archbishop Garcia-Siller would have no authority whatsoever. That would be the ultimate irony.

So long as Fr. Phillips remains incardinated in the Archdiocese of San Antonio, the archdiocese must provide his material support and that of his wife, whether Archbishop Garcia-Siller chooses to assign him to another ministerial position or not.

Either way, I don’t see any way by which Archbishop Garcia-Siller can win.

The link above mentions that Fr Phillips had his day in court with the Congregation for Clergy January 24.

I've Got An Idea

My regular correspondent referred me to an update at the Save Atonement site, whereby

the St Joseph Foundation is collecting official declarations of support from OLA parishioners and seems confident that a super-majority will provide them. Although the procurator's mandate form itself refers only to decisions regarding the parish, its school and property, the accompanying letter describes it as a demonstration that signers are "united in their support of our pastor." They at least seem convinced that this is a property issue unconnected with any other aspect of Fr Phillips' leadership.

The meat of it, in Mr Wilson's words:

So far, the campaign to collect procurator’s mandates is going very well. Philip took about 160 that were collected at the Embassy Suites meeting on January 26th and about 25 more were delivered to my home. On February 5, packets were distributed after all the parish Masses and our Hopedale office reports that some 300 to 400 have been received there. An exact count is not available because our staff has been too busy to do much more than open the incoming envelopes. My guesstimate is that some 1,000 mandates were distributed and I think that the rate of return will soon reach 60% if it has not already done so. It is not unreasonable to hope that the final rate will be close to 75%.

One time when I had jury duty the judge told us that our mere presence in the jury room prompted settlement of many cases that would otherwise remained unresolved. The same is true of the mandates. We may never have to use them; but the fact that we have them could influence the outcome. Once again, I thank those good parishioners who participated in assembling and distributing the packets.

A visitor asks,

There has never been a vote of the parish to join the Ordinariate, and it doesn't seem much effort has been taken as to what percentage of the parish should actually qualify. I've heard it said that a number of cradle Catholics in the parish are married to converts, though I'd expect that few of those have anything to do with the parish having brought them in to full Communion. I'd expect the vast majority come for a solemn liturgy with beautiful music and could care less that it has a few prayers from the Book of Common Prayers.

Now, having gone through an actual electoral process by which St Mary of the Angels voted itself (several times) out of the ACA, what the OLA parish is doing is basically just play-acting. There is no legally applicable definition of what constitutes a "member" eligible to vote, nor what constitutes a supermajority, and I question whether any of this collecting procurators' mandates follows any sort of recognized procedure under Texas law -- or if there's anything in canon law that covers this kind of thing at all.

But those who wind up embittered by the process have a perfectly good alternative, and I'm sure Bps Strawn and Marsh of the ACA would look very favorably on their petition to join.

Canonical Background

A regular visitor with a strong interest in canon law provides this background to the issues surrounding Our Lady of the Atonement:

[T]here are three distinct issues at stake: (1) the canonical validity of Archbishop Garcia-Siller’s attempt to remove Fr. Phillips from the office of Pastor of the Parish of Our Lady of the Atonement, (2) the “particular church” (Archdiocese of San Antonio or Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter) to which the Parish of Our Lady of the Atonement belongs, and (3) the “particular church” to which Fr. Phillips belongs. There is actually nothing whatsoever that precludes a priest of the local diocese from serving as pastor of an ordinariate parish or vice versa.

In the Catholic Church, the normal process for a member of the clergy to transfer from one jurisdiction to another, officially called “excardination” and “incardination,” is governed by canons 265–272 of the Codex Juris Canonici. Note that a bishop normally cannot refuse a request for excardination without “evident grave causes” and that the affected cleric may take recourse against such a decision.

If a cleric transfers from one “particular church” to another by this process, the receiving “particular church” assumes responsibility to provide for that cleric’s support in retirement. There is no automatic transfer of pension funds, and no right to income from a pension fund of the previous “particular church.” If Fr. Phillips were to transfer to the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter, that responsibility would go to the ordinariate with him.

A transfer of a parish from one “particular church” to another is an extraordinary event, so I’m not aware of any explicit provision in ecclesial law pertaining thereto. AFAIK, the normal method of effecting such a transfer is agreement between the ordinaries (diocesan bishops or equivalent) of the affected “particular churches” negotiate the terms, effective date, and compensation of such a transfer. The pastor may, but need not, make the transfer with the parish — Fr. Bergman of St. Thomas More in Scranton, Pennsylvania, did, but the pastors of Our Lady of Walsingham in Houston, Texas, and St. Mary the Virgin in Arlington, Texas, did not. Note that Our Lady of Walsingham was under the pastoral care of its diocesan pastor for several months after the parish officially transferred to the ordinariate, while St. Mary the Virgin was under the pastoral care of an ordinariate priest serving as its “administrator” for several months before it officially transferred to the ordinariate.

My understanding is that the issue that governed the pastors of SMV and OLW not transferring to the OCSP was pension -- they retained their diocesan pensions and retired with the moves, which seems like a prudent and sensible choice. Since Fr Phillips is himself close to retirement, it's difficult to discern his intentions here, since by this account, the OCSP would be responsible for his pension -- but he wouldn't qualify for an OCSP pension, as far as I can see.

A recent comment at the Texas Public Radio site says that OLA has $6.5 million in debt, for which the archdiocese would still be responsible if the parish moves to the OCSP. But in addition, there would be a question of whether the OCSP would be in a position to assume this debt. Presumably this is an issue that will be resolved by the CDF.

Many thanks to this visitor for this additional insight.

The Sisters At The OLA School

Some additional information has turned up on sisters leaving the OLA school "in the dead of night". It appears that these were the School Sisters of St Francis -- Panhandle Franciscans; the Poor Clares of San Antonio apparently were not involved with the school. An archived OLA newsletter (under "School News" halfway down) gives some background in connection with her successor, Mrs Dignan:

Mrs. Dignan assumed the position in January 1996, when the school and the children desperately needed a temporary principal to fill the void when Sr. Clare, OSF, vacated her post at 11:00 p.m. on the night of January 15th. Mrs. Dignan fell into her new position with a sincere dedication and determination to make the school great. She completed her academic requirements at St. Mary's University in record time with high honors and fulfilled the "new" principal standards imposed upon "new" schools by the Catholic Schools Office, which at the time only applied to us.

An informant says the departure of the Panhandle Sisters caused a controversy that resulted in families leaving the parish, but it isn't clear whether the 1996 controversies over the school were the cause of Abp Flores's attempt to remove Fr Phillips or whether this was a separate episode.

Many thanks to visitors for raising questions and resolving puzzles here. Again, if anyone has more information on these or other circumstances, it will be greatly appreciated.

Holes In The Narrative

As I've suggested before, the conventional narrative about Our Lady of the Atonement is that the parish and its priest want to join the OCSP. Abp Garcia-Siller is opposing this move via application of Canon 1742 to the priest, apparently out of pique and because he is insufficiently Anglo-Saxon. The parish is united in its wish, and the priest is a victim.

The secular events of 2016 have led to increasing skepticism about the conventional narratives that people want us to believe. Over the past several weeks, I've heard and seen a lot to discredit the conventional narrative about Our Lady of the Atonement. Here are some highlights:

• The comments at the Texas Public Radio site suggest that the parish is no more unified than any other, and disunity seems to focus on members who are also members of the Opus Dei prelature. According to Wikipedia, "Opus Dei has been described as the most controversial force within the Catholic Church." Without giving a definite opinion on it, I would say that qualities have been ascribed to it that suggest cliquishness, secretiveness, and elitism, which do not lead to parish harmony.
• The archbishop appointed Fr Wagner, an OCSP priest, as pastor of Notre Dame Kerrville in 2016, suggesting he has no bias against the OCSP.
• Although the parish is portrayed as united in grieving for the late Archbishop Patrick Flores, who led the archdiocese from 1979 to 2004, Mr Wilson said in the Save Atonement public meting that Abp Flores attempted to remove Fr Phillips as pastor of OLA, but this was thrwarted by Cardinal Law in his role as delegate for the Pastoral Provision. This attempt, on top of Msgr Steenson's abortive attempt in 2012, would make Abp Garcia-Siller's invocation of Canon 1742 a third attempt to remove Fr Phillips. The practical effect of Canon 1742 is to begin a formal investigation, which in light of this history does seem warranted.
• There are other puzzling events in the parish's history, including major controversies over the school. At one point, I'm told, an order of sisters connected with the school departed "in the dead of night". According to Mr Wilson at the public meeting, this led to Abp Flores's attempt to remove Fr Phillips. (My regular correspondnet notes that the Poor Clares of Perpetual Adoration in San Antonio seem to remain on good terms with Fr Phillips. They are not a teaching order, and they were not affiliated with the school. Fr Phillips appears to have lent them a house when they first arrived in San Antonio but they are now living elsewhere and hoping to open a retreat house as you can see on their website.) At another point, there was a battle royal over the headmaster.
• Although media accounts of the controversy portray the parish as united in its wish to retain Fr Phillips, there is no good way to divine the intent of the rank and file. OLA is not a "continuing" group and does not vote its wishes. The parish council, which was cited in the decision to reverse the 2012 move to the OCSP, is not an elective body, unlike an Anglican vestry. At OLA, every vacancy has been filled by appointment for the past 15 years.

As I've kept saying, there's a great deal we don't know. Any additional clarification on any of these matters will be most welcome.

Canon 1742, Stability, And Anglicans

My remarks yesterday about whether Fr Phillips would accept rotation from parish to parish, as is now common in the US:

An issue I've noted before is that in many dioceses, Catholic pastors rotate on six- or 12-year cycles. Fr Phillips has stayed at OLA since its founding. For him to feel entitled to stay there until his retirement, or for the parish to expect it (and expect to get a successor he nominates, if this is the case) doesn't seem reasonable.

provoked a great deal of comment. One visitor noted,

How could he "rotate" in the Archdiocese of San Antonio as a married priest? The archdiocese never has accepted "married priests" (last I heard) to serve in any pastoral position in the archdiocese, save for at OLA. [See the update below.] Fr. Phillips could therefore never serve (by "rotation") as pastor of any other parish in the archdiocese. (If the SA Archdiocese has any other married priests, of which I am ignorant, they probably [on the analogy of what happens in other dioceses] serve in "specialized ministries" such as hospital or prison ministry, with perhaps a loose attachment to a particular parish church, where they may get to say the odd weekday Mass, or concelebrate at a Sunday one.)

This brings up a cascading series of puzzling questions. Clearly a married Pastoral Provision priest -- or indeed, an OCSP priest -- can serve a diocesan parish in some dioceses. We saw this with Fr Seraiah in Iowa and now see it with Fr Sly in Kansas City. Fr Dean was a married Pastoral Provision priest with a parish in the Diocese of Nashville before moving to St Mary the Virgin.

But whether such priests can rotate brings up trickier questions. I know very little about rectories, but I assume they resemble dormitories and are not set up to accommodate families and children. Having celibate and married priests with families together in such a situation would be awkward indeed. This brings to mind the observation that for some types of women, children are not so much wards as facts on the ground that can be used to manipulate men -- for a married Catholic priest, his family represents just such a fact on the ground.

The visitor above also noted,

I think almost all "Pastoral Provision" (and, maybe, OCSP) priests have served their congregations or parishes indefinitely/long-term until retirement age or illness makes them unable to continue linger (e.g., Fr. Hawkins in Arlington, Frs. Moore and Ramsey in Houston, Fr. Ledkau in Columbia, Fr. Bradford in Boston, etc.; Frs. Moore and Ramsey alternated with one another for nerly three decades in Houston as pastor of OLW, but when one or the other was not pastor of OLW, he served in a "specialized ministry" position - at least Fr. Moore did; Fr. Ramsey [a bachelor/celibate IIRC] served for some decade as a pastor of a "regular" Latin Catholic parish in Houston); I think all US Catholic dioceses would not allow a married priest to serve as pastor/parochial vicar of a "regular" diocesan parish.

There do seem to be exceptions, but they clearly must be circumscribed. Another visitor noted,

With respect to your last comment in the subject post, I invite your attention to Canon 522 of the Codex Juris Canonici: “A pastor must possess stability and therefore is to be appointed for an indefinite period of time. The diocesan bishop can appoint him only for a specific period if the conference of bishops has permitted this by a decree.” Here in the States, the U. S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has issued a decree authorizing the appointment of pastors for a term of six (6) years. However, it is likely that the appointment of Fr. Christopher Phillips as pastor of Our Lady of the Atonement occurred before the promulgation of that decree, and thus has an “indefinite” term.

Historically, the concerns that you raise about fiscal management were not an issue because the majority of Catholic clergy would not become pastors until they were about fifty years old (remember that most parishes had 4-6 priests except in rural areas) and partly because pastors were typically “promoted” to larger parishes or to significant assignments in the chancery. The “Anglican Use” congregations erected under the so-called “pastoral provision” were aberrations in this regard — I believe that all of the surviving congregations were still under the pastoral care of their founding pastor when the Vatican erected the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter.

My understanding of the rotation period is that it is normally for six years, but the bishop can also move a priest at any other time. This probably reduces the need to invoke Canon 1742, which is pretty much the reason I made the initial remark. In a corporation, small personality issues or whatever can also result in transfers that reduce the need for more elaborate remedies.

My regular correspondent noted,

This article makes your point, that regular rotation of clergy is analogous to the situation in the military: "Pastors are now like lower-echelon military officers who are moved every few years 'to keep them sharp.' " (in the section entitled "The new Code of Canon Law and the US Bishops." The writer is not very happy about this development, however.

[Two other articles] also make the case that "term limits" are inconsistent with the traditional understanding of the pastoral role, and that while the change in the US was a response to the necessity to close and amalgamate parishes, it has had unintended consequences.

Whatever the circumstances here, it does seem to me that the position of married clergy now represents "facts on the ground", and they apply as well to the OCSP. One can say that placing all the married ex-Anglicans in a separate diocese is a good argument for Anglicanorum coetibus, but (1) there will still be married Pastoral Provision priests in dioceses, (2) OCSP priests now serve diocesan parishes, and (3) probably most important, there are so few OCSP parishes that can support a pastor with family that rotation is not practical anyhow.

Thus Bp Lopes may find a need to invoke Canon 1742 when Bp Skirius would simply move the guy. But let's go back to the argument Fr Phillips made a week or so ago: the point of Anglicanorum coetibus is to make us all one. Except that married Catholic priests represent facts on the ground that are stubborn and require many exceptions -- probably more than we've briefly noted here. So the point of Anglicanorum coetibus is to make us all one, except for all the exceptions, which make the Anglicans a special case living in a granny flat.

A situation that the wrong kind of Anglican is free to exploit.

UPDATE: The Archdiocese of San Anotonio almost a year ago placed Fr David Wagner, a married OCSP priest, in the Notre Dame Kerrville parish, describing him as "on loan" from the OCSP. Thanks to a visitor for the info.

Comment On Canon 1742

My regular visitor points out,

The fact that Abp Garcia-Siller has not made frequent, or any, use of this canon previously proves nothing about the merits of this case. Catholic clergy are moved regularly for pastoral reasons; this formal process represents a last resort when the man in question cannot be otherwise motivated. This is not the typical frame of mind of a Catholic priest, who has been dependent for a lifetime on his bishop's goodwill. You often comment on the difference between Catholic formation and that of other clergy, and we see here an example of the results. Fr Phillips is still the man who upped stakes and left Rhode Island for Texas. Still the man who did an abrupt about-face when he discovered that Msgr Steenson had plans for the parish which did not include him. He is forcing Abp G-S to use a canonical process which I would imagine is very seldom undertaken in the Church. As you point out, canon 1742 is not the one used when a priest has lost collection money at the racetrack, performed a same-sex wedding, or had an affair with the parish secretary. It is vague and I imagine that "ineffectiveness" is hard to prove. If this has been dragging on since last summer it is because Abp G-S has tried every other informal means to twist Fr Phillips' arm, to no avail.

An issue I've noted before is that in many dioceses, Catholic pastors rotate on six- or 12-year cycles. Fr Phillips has stayed at OLA since its founding. For him to feel entitled to stay there until his retirement, or for the parish to expect it (and expect to get a successor he nominates, if this is the case) doesn't seem reasonable.

The idea that incumbents in any job must rotate out is a basic feature in the US military. It is common in corporations, at least in lower and middle levels. Financial institutions require that employees take vacations for two consecutive weeks each year on the assumption that frauds can't be maintained for that length of time. The idea that someone is entitled to stay in a position indefinitely is not good practice in general.

Minor OLA Updates

My regular correspondent has pointed me to this document covering the canonical removal of an "ineffective" pastor who is not guilty of misconduct. He notes that the initial 15-day period of reflection assigned to Fr Phillips has expired, which brings Canon 1742§1 into effect, which gives the bishop the ability to request that the pastor resign within a further 15 days.

Regards the removal of a priests [sic], “It is certainly appropriate that the bishop warn the pastor of problematic behavior or his deficiencies prior to invoking the canonical process. Moreover, the bishop will take care to provide remedial assistance to the priest if such assistance will likely enable the priest to overcome the deficiencies which point to a cause for removal” (eds. Calvo and Klinger, Clergy Procedural Handbook (Canon Law Society of America, Washington, D.C.), 1992, p. 124). Remedial assistance could include, but is not limited to, educational and formation programs, the appointment of a parochial administrator, or both. The appointment of a parochial administrator should be a temporary measure with the administrator being given limited authority in areas where the pastor is ineffective (eg: administration of school or parish patrimony). This arrangement must end when one of two possibilities occur: (1) the pastor improves, or (2) the pastor is legitimately removed because he does not improve over a reasonable period of time.

Further,

The second step is to establish that a grave cause exists after remedial efforts have failed. This is done through a preliminary investigation referred to in Canon 1742§1. Though not explicitly stated, this inquiry should take a form similar to the inquiry required in Canon 1717. Certainly, if the bishop has delegated someone to complete this inquiry, that person has the powers of an auditor. When completed, a document summarizing the investigation, the proof attained, and recommendations made should be drawn up and notarized (Canon 483§1) to authenticate that this first step in the formal process has taken place. This document should carefully note the grave reasons for which the pastor could be removed.

If the removal process continues, the bishop is to discuss the situation with two pastors selected by him from a group established by the presbyteral council for this purpose (Canon 1742§1). A summary of that discussion should also be preserved and notarized for the acts of the case. It should be noted that the choice of pastors for this step should be carefully made. Use of those who have a bias against the pastor for personal reasons should not be used lest the pastor’s good name and reputation be wrongly injured and the objectivity of the process compromised.

“If the bishop then judges that removal must take place, he paternally is to persuade the pastor to resign within fifteen days, after having explain, for validity, the cause and arguments for the removal” (Canon 1742§1). This fourth step is of great importance as regards both pastoral solicitude and due process. “He paternally is to persuade” implies that a meeting between the bishop and the priest take place at this stage of the process. Because of the vague and broad manner Canon 1741 uses to suggest causes for removal, Canon 1742§1 requires the bishop to explain to the pastor both the immediate cause and an argument for the process. A letter quoting from Canon 1741 and suggesting the pastor resign under threat of removal does not constitute an effort of pastoral persuasion explaining cause and argument. Interestingly, the validity of the process depends on this step. The meeting should be carefully documented with an accurate representation of the dialogue put in writing and witnessed by a notary. This becomes part of the acts of the case.

The appointment of Msgr Kurzaj as administrator provides a reference point to what stages of the process are currently taking place, but comments suggest it has been underway since summer 2016. Interestingly, a commenter at the Texas Public Radio site says, "[T]here is no pattern of this kind of disciplinary action by the Archbishop during his tenure here in San Antonio, or in Chicago. Unless someone has evidence to the contrary, whatever actionable cause precipitated this decision cannot be without merit."

Beyond that, Archbishop Garcia-Siller is scheduled to be at the parish this evening (February 21) for Confirmations and First Communions. The Confirmations presumably would then make those people ineligible for membership in the Ordinariate.

Playing The Armchair Detective

I make no secret that I'm a big fan of true crime books and TV shows. It's not a coincidence that many detectives are Catholic (one of the best is the Catholic Joseph Kenda of Homicide Hunter). But whether or not detectives are Catholic, they are inevitably driven by the philosophical principle of sufficient reason. Dead bodies don't just turn up. Sometimes they don't turn up for the obvious reason.

There have been notorious arbitrary moves and feuds in the Church, like the conflict between Cardinal Spellman and Ven Fulton Sheen. On the other hand, the personalities of Spellman and Sheen, along with supportive anecdotes like the milk dispute that went to Pius XII and was resolved in Sheen's favor, can credibly explain it. But as an armchair detective trying to apply the principle of sufficient reason to the Our Lady of the Atonement situation, I've got to conclude that something's missing from the conventional version -- which says that Abp Garcia-Siller is resisting the move of OLA to the OCSP for petty reasons, at best the money involved.

Let's look at one lead that emerged last week, the seminarian who transferred from the Archdiocese seminary to the OCSP seminary. This is just a lead at this point, but I'm not yet willing to drop it. (The seminarian himself is almost certainly an innocent party, and to keep him from being drawn into this unnecessarily, I'm not going to give his name. Let's call him Mr S, for seminarian.)

Mr S is is a cradle Catholic who completed the sacraments of initiation and then found a vocation and attended seminary in the Archdiocese of San Antonio. He attended mass at OLA occasionally when in seminary. At some point he apparently took a leave from seminary before ordination. (My understanding is that this is not an unusual part of the priestly formation process.)

He then went and held a teaching position position at the OLA school. Then, after about two years, he decided to return to seminary, but under Bp Lopes and at the Ordinariate seminary in Houston. A visitor suggests this would need a dispensation from Rome, since Mr S had completed the sacraments of initiation well before he ever attended mass at OLA. Clearly there are issues that haven't come fully to light -- something drew Mr S to the Book of Divine Worship, for instance.

But I've got to wonder how and under what circumstances this issue went to Bp Lopes. How was Fr Phillips involved in the discussions, which he must have been? And what else might have been discussed in Rome in this whole context? And maybe Abp Garcia-Siller learned of all this through a channel, or in a context, he didn't expect? If I learned one important lesson in my working career, it's that bosses don't like surprises.

Comments on various sites suggest that problems for Fr Phillips arose during the summer of 2016. My regular correspondent points out that Mr S's departure for the Ordinariate seminary in Houston was announced in a May 2016 OLA bulletin. Unless one holds a somewhat Humean view of causality, it seems reasonable to suspect some connection here.

But as I've said all along, with the canon lawyer at the Register, I'm convinced we just don't know the whole story. The bits and pieces that are coming out just go to reinforce this.

Bonum Ex Integra Causa

malum ex quocumque defectu. This is in memory of Mr Matthew Patrick Foley, one of my middle school English teachers, who must certainly have been Catholic, who drilled me thoroughly in English grammar, but seems to have taught me quite a bit of Latin as well, since this aphorism comes from his English class, not Mrs Wirsz's Latin. Mrs Wirsz may have been Catholic too.

It is explained here:

Literally this means "good (thing) from an integral cause, bad (thing) from any defect whatever" which isn't terribly helpful. A more Ronald Knox-friendly translation into good English (used in the article Good in the Catholic Encyclopaedia) would be "An action is good when good in every respect; it is wrong when wrong in any respect."

From a personal standpoint, the process of becoming Catholic seems to involve, among many other things, going back into my childhood and bringing up things that I could well have gotten in a Catholic education. For some reason, Mr Foley has been in my mind lately. Bonum ex integra causa came up as I reflected on the whole Anglican ecumenism project, which predates Benedict XVI and indeed seems to have been in Bernard Law's mind before John Paul. (And John Paul was less enthusiastic than Benedict, I think rightly.)

I keep coming back to Law's irresponsibility in encouraging Fr Barker to lead the St Mary of the Angels parish out of TEC, which so far has led to four decades of contentiousness and litigation. We might say that the St Mary parish was the first unsuccessful Anglican Use parish. Much is made of Our Lady of the Atonement as the "first" (we might say "first successful") Anglican Use parish -- but all of a sudden, we're back to contentiousness and a clear scandal.

I seriously question the moral good in this project, however good the intentions may have seemed over the years. Think only of the careerism, opportunism, and general ego-tripping that it's enabled, but recognize that most parishes either have died out already or are in danger of doing so.

The OLA Controversy Reaches The Register -- But Who's Ahead?

A visitor sent me a link to a new story on the OLA controversy at the National Catholic Register. It treads pretty carefully and basically comes to the same conclusion I have:

Professor Martens cautioned against forming premature opinions of the case. “If you don’t know what’s really going on in a case, it’s very difficult to comment on it,” he said. “You’re talking about a people, about the parish, and also about the history, and you don’t know what has been going on. There might be that one piece of information we don’t have.”

The Vatican will ultimately determine the jurisdiction of the parish. Until the Congregation for Doctrine of the Faith makes its decision, all parties involved continue to pray for the good of Our Lady of the Atonement.  

But another visitor sent me a link to a post on Fr Phillips's blog (still called Atonement Online despite the order that he dissociate himself from the parish) that might give a hint about how things are proceeding:

It is this purpose – the building up of unity – which is outlined at the very beginning of Pope Benedict’s Apostolic Constitution, Anglicanorum coetibus.  But even from the first days of its implementation this stated purpose has often been glossed over in the search for the particulars of the Personal Ordinariates.   So much time and energy has been spent on questions of who can belong, of the details of the liturgy, of who can be ordained - indeed, any number of other things – that the more important purpose of building up the unity of the Church sometimes is pushed to a lower place.

The whole tone of the post is oddly mopey -- somehow the Church is ignoring the need to be one. But isn't OLA already Catholic? Aren't the Eastern Rite jurisdictions, for instance, just as Catholic? How is OLA somehow not Catholic enough? I might see this as an argument for St Ipsydipsy Podunk, an ACA parish applying to join the OCSP and somehow encountering an obstacle, but this really doesn't work for OLA, which is already one with Rome.

Which suggests to me that Fr Phillips's case is not going well. My visitor says, "It reminds me of President Nixon's farewell utterings. I suggest an intervention, but then I guess there already is one, of sorts."

Chewed Up By The Machine?

A visitor comments,

One summer during my college career, I worked at Wickes’ Lumber in Sarasota, Florida. Our motley crew made trusses — the triangular fabrications of two-by-fours that hold up the roofs on single-family dwellings. We nailed on the galvanized steel squares that held the joints together on the trusses, and then we fed the trusses into the great rollers that mashed them down onto the soft American pine. Oh, how those rollers made a frightening machine! Just to think of getting one's arm caught in them was the subject of nightmares.

Witnessing what little we know of the abrupt treatment that the pastor of Our Lady of the Atonement has recently received at the hands of the hyphenated archbishop of San Antonio has brought this memory to my mind. It appears that the great and terrible Roman Catholic machine has reached out and fed Fr. Phillips and Our Lady into the massive rollers of the Church to crush it and make it conform to a shape palatable to the vaunted Latin leadership.

On one hand, I've certainly seen people with no religious affiliation chewed up by corporate mergers and takeovers, or indeed by secular politics -- Rome is not unique here. On the other hand, the whole Anglican ecumenism project has been remarkably contentious and even dangerous for many parishes and individuals. (Note how carefully Cardinal Law's representatives guided Msgr Steenson through the process of leaving TEC. Not everyone was treated this well.)

One impression I've begun to gain from following the Anglican ecumenism project for nearly five years now is how reckless Cardinal Law, Fr Barker, and the St Mary of the Angels parish were in undertaking the business of leaving TEC without any clear, assured, or enforceable path into the Catholic Church. This was not a "pioneering" effort -- it was a reckless one that could well have been foreseen and perhaps was by insightful individuals at the time.

The process has also been dominated by opportunists and careerists. The other side of the coin is that Catholic saints have suffered within the Church. I keep reminding myself that much of what we know about St Patrick comes from a document he submitted in his own defense during some ecclesiastical proceeding against him.

My own conclusion continues to be that becoming Catholic is a personal decision in any case. Trying to create an institutional path for Protestants to become Catholic risks syncretism -- if the OLA example is instructive, it is certainly an illustration of how congregationalism can find its way into a Catholic diocese.

More OLA Comments

Regarding Fr Dean's remark, "I do know of the desire of Fr. Phillips and of the parish to be a part of the Ordinariate of the Chair of St Peter," a visitor comments,

Interesting that all of these outsiders that know Fr. Phillips know of the parish desire to be part of the Ordinariate when it seems it hasn't been openly discussed in the parish since Father withdrew his application years ago. Back then, there was a certain amount of enthusiasm at "Becoming One" with the thousands from the ACA that were anticipated to join, which of course didn't happen.

I'm getting more concerned, the more I think about it, that the OLA situation is bringing to the fore "continuing" tendencies that don't seem desirable. So far, for instance, we don't have demands from Catholic parishes for flying bishops who will be more friendly to ad orientem or whatever. But here we have a parish that is roiling over which bishop will supervise its BDW liturgy, nothing else in dispute.

This visitor has two theories on what may be driving the archbishop's apparent concerns:

The [OLA] school is still in the midst of a large building expansion project, which likely has a fair amount of debt remaining that perhaps is guaranteed by the Archdiocese. Since the expansion project began, a Great Hearts Charter School opened in the area which attracted both some faculty (better pay) and students (no tuition) from the School. Within the past couple of years the Rolling Hills Academny couldn't meet payments on their debt and the Archdiocese bailed them out. If the property is to go in to the Ordinariate, I'm not sure what would happen if they can't meet the debt due to another decrease in enrollment.

And from the start, I've wondered if something happened to surprise Abp Garcia-Siller, since otherwise he appears to have been friendly to the parish. The visitor suggests this:

As far as vocations go, the most recent one seemed to have spent five years at the Archdiocese's seminary prior to leaving it and taking a job with Atonement, which apparently then qualified him to join the Ordinariate. As far as I can tell, the Archbishop may have been notified of his placement only after the fact which might have been the first hint of Father's new application for the Ordinariate.

This is presented here for what it's worth -- but potential loan guarantees and the substantial investment of the archdiocese in educating a new priest, with the expectation that he'd then work for the archdiocese, not Houston -- would be serious issues, and if there were surprises involved, this could be more serious indeed.

I've said from the start that I'm far distant from San Antonio and know little more than what's been made public. But I'm sure we don't know everything here.

Comments On Our Lady Of The Atonement

Several visitors have referred me to discussions and announcements regarding the Our Lady of the Atonement situation. My own view on the whole business is summed up in the Our Father, where I pray that Thy will be done, although I have incidental opinions as well -- but let's go to what visitors have pointed out. On January 27, Fr Dean posted on the St Mary of the Virgin site:

As many of you may know, Fr. Phillips, founder of Our Lady of the Atonement in San Antonio, the first “Anglican Use” parish in the United States, has been removed for a period of “discernment.”  I am not privy to inside information except that which is in the public and on the internet.  I do know of the desire of Fr. Phillips and of the parish to be a part of the Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter.  That is also public knowledge.  Our Lady of the Atonement, along with Our Lady of Walsingham in Houston (now the Cathedral of the Ordinariate), and a few years later St. Mary the Virgin, were those Texas-based “Anglican Use” parishes that aggrieved Episcopalian people like me, from afar, looked on with great interest and hope. It is sad and somehow not right that the situation has come to this.  There is a website offering some information on this situation and I offer it in the name of charity: http://saveatonement.org/

This is even-handed, though a mild endorsement of Fr Phillips's position. It does not contain, as Fr Hunwicke's comments did, a denunciation of Abp Garcia-Siller for not being Anglo-Saxon. The biggest question I would raise is that the only reason for supporting the parish Fr Dean provides is that they want to go into the Ordinariate, which is no more convincing than any other assertion of personal preference. And how does this differ from a "continuing" parish that votes itself from one jurisdiction to another?

However, my regular correspondent redirected my attention to comments at the Texas Public Radio site. The big issue I see there is that the OLA parish is by no means unanimous:

As to the "glad you left" comment, I think that emotions are running pretty high right now. As in any large family, and Atonement Parish is definitely a family, there are going to be family members whose actions disrupt the cohesion of the whole. That is a reality. The rancor that sometimes ensues over these occurrences is also a part of it.

Overall, I'm not sure what the controversy is about. Clearly it has exacerbated personal differences within the parish, although some of the commenters feel this is an inevitable consequence. But beyond that, qui bono? Another comment:

One of the aspects of this which has not been mentioned is that His Excellency, Archbishop Garcia-Siller, offered to let Father Phillips incardinate into the Ordinariate, but without the Church, school, etc. that he has worked, with God's grace, to grow. This is a land and money grab, sadly.

Someone might be able to clarify this, but isn't this all Fr Phillips is canonically entitled to? Normally, let's recall, he would have rotated among several diocesan parishes in an ordinary career. And beyond that, the parish and its property are legally owned by the archbishop as a corporation sole. The same commenter says,

Another aspect to consider is why is Archbishop Garcia-Siller the ONLY bishop that has refused a Pastoral Provision Parish from joining the Ordinariate? All other parishes from the Pastoral Provision have made the switch, and they were allowed to go with all of their property as well as parishioners (even those who were not Anglican converts).

I'm not sure about how totals measure up, but I would guess that, of the small overall number that were ever Pastoral Provision parishes, about the same number have simply died out or been closed as have gone into the Ordinariate -- and only three large Texas parishes had significant value to their diocese. (I continue to see Scranton as a marginal special case.) I just don't see numbers large enough to establish a definite trend.

By the same token, I assume the OLA cathedraticum is potentially valuable to Houston, which needs the money. And if the membership of OLA is several thousand individuals, this would potentially double the membership of the OCSP. But here the small numbers hardly qualify as an argument in favor of the OCSP -- the archdiocese will survive without OLA, but the OCSP badly needs the prestige, membership, and money of OLA simply because it has not developed without them.

Not an argument in support of the move, even from SMA's perspective.

Columbia, SC Correction

A visitor notes,

The Continuing Anglican parish, left behind by Fr Ladkau and the faction which formed the now extinct PP, did NOT fold. it affiliated with the California based APCK, took the name Church of the Epiphany, and continues to thrive, but is now part of the Diocese of the Holy Cross.

More On Former Pastoral Provision Parishes

My regular correspondent reports,

St Thomas More, Scranton was originally in the PP and is now a full parish of the OCSP. Our Lady of Hope, Kansas City was also formerly a Pastoral Provision parish, now in the OCSP. The former parochial administrator, Fr Davis, was a PP priest but not previously associated with the group before the members became Catholic. He has now returned to diocesan ministry, and the group is led by Fr Sly, pastor of the host parish. The St Anselm's Community in Corpus Christi, TX was also PP, now in the OCSP. The parochial administrator combines his leadership of the group with his position as civilian chaplain at the Naval Air Station there. Masses are held at the base chapel. Based on their websites I would guess that both these latter groups are small and are not the first priority of their respective priests. There was also a PP congregation in Austin, St Margaret of Scotland, which was later suppressed. Perhaps this was the inspiration for Fr Sellers' choice of dedication for the congregation he leads in Katy, TX.

A regular visitor adds,

There appears to be one factual error in your final paragraph in today’s post. There is at least one community received under the so-called “pastoral provision” that grew itself to parish status outside of Texas — the congregation now known as St. Thomas More Parish in Scranton, Pennsylvania. I’m aware that you expressed some doubts about the financial situation in this parish a while ago, but Fr. Bergman seems to know which trees to shake to make it rain money when there’s a crunch in the parochial finances.

More to the point, though, there’s no doubt that each congregation of the ordinariate is in a “sink or swim” situation. Several decades ago, I heard a sermon by a very wise Benedictine archabbot who pointed out that every living entity must grow in one way or another, and that this is just as true of a monastery or a parish as it is of a biological organism. An organism isn’t growing is dead, and thus decaying. In the case of a parish, the key to growth is evangelism — and this encompasses evangelism of successive generations as well as evangelism of the unchurched. Congregations that don’t evangelize effectively are certain to wither and fade in due course.

Regarding Scranton, we continue to hear in parish newsletters reported here that the parish has repeated difficulty meeting its cathedraticum, and at other times, payments to staff and creditors have been deferred. I believe Houston is under considerable pressure to show success, and this includes painting a favorable picture of the Scranton parish.

Pastoral Provision Footnotes

In the wake of the news concerning St Athanasius Boston, a visitor noted that there was until 2014 a Pastoral Provision Parish of Good Shepherd in Columbia, SC. However, the bishop finally suppressed this parish in 2016.

In 1984, the Personal Parish of Good Shepherd in Columbia, South Carolina, was established to serve the spiritual welfare of those identified by their common bond of Anglican heritage in Richland County, South Carolina. Since its erection, the Faithful have heard the Word of God, worshiped, and received the Sacraments of the Church within this personal parish. Over the past decade, a marked decline has been noted in the Anglican community of which the parish was initially established to serve. In an effort to ensure the vitality of parish life, with concern for the best stewardship of resources, and the right of the people of God to receive assistance from the Church, especially the Word of God, spiritual sustenance, and the sacraments, it is now deemed necessary to suppress the Personal Parish of Good Shepherd while creating new provisions for the spiritual care of its parishioners.

The visitor adds,

This is no surprise, since right from its inception, or very shortly thereafter, it abandoned any sort of "Anglican Use" Mass rite, and for many years has been mainline Roman Catholic in its worship life. The church's remote origins lay in a split over women's ordination in the local Anglo-Catholic Episcopal parish, Good Shepherd, in which, if I recall correctly, Fr. William Ladkau, then the Curate, led about half the congregation into forming a Continuing Anglican church there - and then, in 1984, led part of that congregation into the Catholic Church (I think that the Continuing Anglican congregation subsequently "folded"). Well over a decade ago I was told, I forget by whom, that while the Catholic Diocese of Charleston accepted Good Shepherd as a "Pastoral Provision" personal parish it was made clear "unofficially" that it was with the expectation that it would become "normal Roman Catholic" in its liturgical life, which it did. I cannot remember whether Fr. Ladkau is a married man.

Another visitor notes,

There is a Church of the Good Shepherd in Columbia, SC, but its web site states that it is “The Anglo-Catholic Parish of the Episcopal Diocese of Upper South Carolina” which is still part of The Episcopal Church (TEC), not to be confused with the Diocese of South Carolina that withdrew from TEC a few years ago and subsequently joined the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA), formed as an alternative province of the Anglican Communion in the United States and Canada.

Regarding St Athanasius Boston, this visitor notes,

St. Athanasius has had minimal growth since the reception of its founding members into full communion c. 1995. Its membership is still several dozen parishioners, so it has not yet attained canonical status as a parish. It worships in St. Lawrence Church — the former church of a suppressed parish that still hosts one Sunday mass of St. Mary of the Assumption Parish, the ultimate receiving parish, for the convenience of parishioners who live within walking distance, in addition to the St. Athanasius mass. The administrator, Fr. Richard Sterling Bradford, is also a parochial vicar of nearby St. Thresa of Avilla Parish in West Roxbury, which is about fifteen minutes away from St. Lawrence Church.

Other than the large and successful Texas Pastoral Provision parishes, the story of the rest seems to fall into two categories: small groups that never grow beyond their initial membership and eventually fade out, and more dodgy, medium-size parishes. Survivors of both types now look to be fully absorbed into the OCSP, but I question how much of a future any of those has.

A Slight Our Lady of the Atonement Update

A visitor sent me a link to a story at Texas Public Radio that carries slightly more recent information:

But the Archbishop wouldn’t say more about what’s next for the pastor who worked to develop those traditions within the Catholic Church.

“You know, I don’t want to make any other comments because we are in the process,” Garcia-Siller said. “But I want to assure the people that we are here to serve them and to love them. And the pastoral provision will continue.”

Fr. Phillips’ ‘mandated reflection period’ ended in early February. He’s appealing the Archbishop’s decision to remove him from the parish, according to some canon lawyers who’ve taken the case. Philip Gray claims he’s representing the priest.

“Canon law affords the faithful an opportunity to remain faithful and still challenge Church leadership,” Gray told a crowd of about 200 Atonement parishioners gathered in a hotel ballroom by his group the St. Joseph Foundation, which bills itself as something of an ACLU for Catholic rights.

Gray said he’s not allowed to share much information about the evidence against Fr. Phillips or what the St. Joseph Foundation’s defense of the priest might entail. But the Foundation is also preparing parishioners to defend their rights to worship according to their Anglican traditions, with or without Phillips.

We may recall that Fr Hunwicke accused Abp Garcia-Siller of not being Anglo-Saxon enough to reveal the charges against Fr Phillips, but Mr Gray, whose name seems perfectly Anglo-Saxon, turns out to be just as reticent. (Again, I assume Fr Hunwicke is out of control by the OLW hierarchy, since is is maligning a Catholic prelate on racial grounds and speaking out of turn about a Church matter. Anglicanorum coetibus in all its glory.)

St Athanasius Boston

Although St Athanasius Boston is a Pastoral Provision parish, my regular correspondent reports,

As you can see on page 52 here under the headline "Meeting"

The future of the Anglican Use in the Boston area lies with the Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter. Bishop Lopes has given us some major goals to reach to ensure our longterm viability. Your commitment is important as we hear and share ideas.

In other words, when Fr Bradford retires, the Boston archdiocese does not intend to replace him with a diocesan priest (Fr Bradford was ordained in TEC in 1970). So the merger of St Gregory the Great, Stoneham OCSP group with St Athanasius has only postponed, not removed, the necessity of finding some way for the congregation to support a new parochial administrator. This is the only remaining PP parish besides OLA and we see that the local diocese is quite happy to cede it to the OCSP when no property or assets are involved.

In the context of the potential Our Lady of the Atonement move to the OCSP, it looks as though there is an agenda to place the two remaining Anglican Use parishes into the OCSP. What this might mean for the Pastoral Provision overall is of course speculative, but it could mean that the Pastoral Provision will continue only as a means of recruiting former Anglican clergy into diocesan positions, but they would likely perform exclusively Latin Rite diocesan work.

In terms of numbers, though, even with OLA, this is moving small change from one pocket to the other. However Houston may hype this as growth or progress, which it undoubtedly will, I can't imagine anyone in the CDF will be fooled.

Many-Branches-One-Tree vs Heresy

A regular visitor and I frequently work through friendly disagreements. Sometimes he brings me around to his views, and other times he forces me to clarify my own thinking. Here's his reply to my last two posts:

With respect to today’s post, there’s a LOT that happens “behind the scenes” when clergy of other denominations seek ordination in the Catholic Church, including the very vetting that you described in today’s post. In the case of the initial wave of clergy who came into the Catholic Church to form the ordinariate, it occurred even before the ordinariate was erected. Cardinal Wuerl, in his capacity as papal delegate for the erection of the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter, spoke of it in a briefing to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), when he spoke of the dossiers submitted by the applicants being divided into three groups — (1) those who had completed a full program of Anglican seminary formation, who could be ordained after a relatively brief, but uniform, program of formation, (2) those had little or no formal formation for ministry, who thus would require a full program of Catholic seminary formation, and (3) who would require individual programs of formation tailored to their specific situations. The ordinariate continues to do this for those now seeking ordination. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith reviewed all of these decisions in considerable detail before approving the ordination of the candidates.

I think there may be something akin to reification or hypostatization going on here, but not exactly those. (If anyone can explain it better, I'd like to hear it.) In this case, it seems to me that my visitor is assuming a consistency in a very large, nearly abstract, entity, the Catholic Church, that probably doesn't exist in practice. He uses "Cardinal Wuerl" in this case, I believe, as something close to an abstraction. In reality, as best we can determine this, "Cardinal Wuerl" was actually Fr Scott Hurd, who appears to have done the day-to-day work in 2011-12 implementing Anglicanorum coetibus in North America.

Fr Hurd, an Anglican Use priest, Nashotah House alumnus, and former Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth priest, is by all accounts very closely linked to the original Fort Worth clique that started the OCSP. The testimony we have in blogs and elsewhere is repeatedly that Fr Hurd favored Nashotah House alumni and friends from the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth in all personnel decisions, and indeed, based on occasional remarks by him in blogs, he was quite open about it.

The testimony we have is that applicants for OCSP ordination who were not in the favored clique actually had their paperwork "lost" in the process or were simply blackballed. Cardinal Wuerl, presumably busy on a wide variety of missions, was not going to be in a position to review or second-guess Fr Hurd's decisions. But perhaps more to the point, by late 2015, it had become plain that most of the Fort Worth group, along with Msgr Steenson himself (a Ratzinger candidate presumably, not Wuerl's call) were not going to work out and were removed. Vetting? Whatever took place was ineffective, notwithstanding whether more careful reviews are done in the CDF itself.

Next, my visitor says

And with respect to yesterday’s post, there clearly has been a major break in Anglicanism over the past forty years, with liberal provinces abandoning the rule of scripture, which is central to authentic Anglican tradition and patrimony, to follow the “political correctness” of the current day.

Anglicans who remain faithful to the rule of scripture, and thus to the core of Christian doctrine expressed in the Nicene Creed and in the baptismal vows, continue to celebrate at least the sacraments of baptism and marriage validly. Thus, we must regard them as authentically Christian even though they do not profess the fullness of Christian faith and the fullness of Christian life in the rest of the sacraments, as articulated infallibly in No. 15 of the dogmatic constitution Lumen gentium promulgated by the Second Vatican Council.

Many of those who have abandoned the rule of scripture seem to have radically abandoned Christian faith and thus fallen into apostasy. Some may have gone over to syncretism (the heretical belief that all religions are the same), but it is not clear that even the majority have done so.

Those who are coming into the full communion of the Catholic church are clearly part of the former group. Thus, I’m not persuaded of the relevance of the concerns that you expressed in yesterday’s post.

My visitor's assertion here is clearly that the defects in Anglicanism date only from the 1970s. However, Anglicanism has been heretical since the 16th century, and we've got to take that seriously. Exactly what beliefs constitute Anglicanism has never been completely clear, notwithstanding the very Protestant XXXIX Articles. But to be thorough, we've definitely got to exclude any who ascribe to the Articles from automatic eligibility to be waived in as Catholics.

Some Anglicans, presumably like Msgr Steenson, believe in doctrines like the Real Presence, but until very late in his career, he did not accept the authority of the Pope, since he allowed himself to be consecrated a bishop in a heretical church. Although he did not ordain women personally, he concelebrated masses with them and certainly accepted them in his diocese. So we have the head honcho of the OCSP, ordained an Episcopalian priest in 1980, who made a very good career for himself on the basis of post-1970s Anglicanism -- as indeed did most in his inner circle.

A better example of an Anglican bishop who became Catholic would be Frederick Kinsman, although he saw the problems inherent in Anglicanism between about 1912 and 1919, when he resigned, and he did it without an assured Catholic position to go to. Interestingly, he did this at roughly the peak of Anglo-Catholicism, and he was high church himself. He saw the defects in Anglicanism as basically a problem that "there's no there there", and a bishop who in fact sought to enforce, say, the rule of scripture would not be supported, as several in fact were not at that time. In the early 20th century he clearly saw the potential for Bps Pike and Spong.

My visitor says that faithful Anglicans celebrate baptism and marriage validly -- but the Catholic Church recognizes nearly all Protestant baptisms, and indeed it recognizes first civil marriages. This is no great leap. The problem is that Protestants of whatever stripe remain Protestants, and minimizing the important differences continues to be indifferentism or syncretism.

Vetting Of Protestant Converts!

In the context of yesterday's post, this appears at Eye of the Tiber.

In a speech in Rome last night, Cardinal Raymond Burke outlined his plans to combat Protestant theology from entering the Church, including a new screening test for converts to the Catholicism.

Applicants would be tested to determine whether or not they share traditional Catholic beliefs such as praying to the saints and the Eucharist.

Clearly this is tongue-in-cheek -- but would more vetting in fact be appropriate for candidates for ordination in the OCSP? I would probe especially those whose formation took place in Reformed or Lutheran seminaries, to the extent of asking what their courses in moral theology covered. (This would be nothing more than the examination of my undergraduate curriculum that took place when I went to graduate school.)

Another key issue would be discerning what they had in mind when they took their vows of obedience.

More Thoughts On The Bess Perspective

My regular correspondent commented on yesterday's post:

Had there been any significant pent-up demand for either of these initiatives, many more existing communities would have joined in the first wave. In the event, only about thirty did so, many of them only a small fraction of the original congregation. The last group of this sort was St Michael's, Denison, whose dozen members entered in March, 2015. It is not impossible that other parishes, including OLA and St Mary's, may eventually join, but on the other hand some of the smaller groups have already disappeared.

As you have frequently noted, the market among existing parishes was greatly over-estimated by those who originally pitched the idea. So the way forward would seem to be "gathered" groups of which there are eight or so now. This is a much more challenging model, and in the five years since its creation the OCSP has seen no parish grow in the same way that OLA did in a similar space of time. Leaders of Fr Phillips' sort will always be exceptional.

Meanwhile the Ordinariate struggles to erect the structures that will enable it to function effectively as the equivalent of a diocese and ensure a supply of clergy for its existing congregations. The fact that a leader had to be found from outside the Anglican tradition tells us a lot about the weakness of the concept.

I'm beginning to formulate a more settled opinion that Anglicanism in whatever flavor is a syncretism that may tantalizingly lean more or less Catholic, but it will always be at best a syncretism. A recent notion I've come to see in John Guy's Elizabeth: The Forgotten Years is that James VI of Scotland was able to secure a reluctant consent between Henry IV of France and Pope Clement VIII -- Catholic anti-Spanish forces -- that he should succeed Elizabeth because his wife, Anne of Denmark, had already converted, and perhaps James would, too.

In other words, a Catholic style in Anglican religion can be useful, but is always subordinate to political gamesmanship and personal agenda. Playing footsie with Anglo-Catholics is always going to be a risky proposition.

What If Douglas Bess Were To Continue Divided We Stand?

When I located Mr Bess some time ago, he told me he was no longer interested in "continuing" Anglicanism, so it's unlikely this will happen. He left the story in the late 1990s unaware of the 1993 meeting among Pope, Steenson, and Ratzinger, before Hepworth's accession as TAC Archbishop, and well before the Portsmouth Petition and Anglicanorum coetibus. He seems to have moved to other preoccupations, and I got the impression that he wouldn't be interested in any updates from me on what's happened.

But if I were to imagine a continuation of the story from the point of view we have in Divided We Stand, I think an outline might go something like this:

• It was an omission not to cover the discussions between Fr Barker and Cardinal Law's representatives that eventually led to the Pastoral Provision. As Fr Barker has pointed out, these began in the context of the 1976 Congress of St Louis and predate the founding of the Anglican Catholic Church -- while the definition of "continuing" Anglicanism covers developments that began at the Congress.
• Anglicanorum coetibus was a direct outgrowth of the perceived defects in the Pastoral Provision. In particular, the unwillingness of Cardinals Manning and Mahony to accept St Mary of the Angels as a Pastoral Provision parish has always been cited as a reason to attempt a redo.
• However, even in the mid-1980s, the St Mary's parish was never unanimous on going into the Pastoral Provision, and there were factions in favor of becoming Catholic, Anglican-rite Orthodox, and going into the ACC. A group of TEC loyalists broke off under the auspices of Bp Rusack. I still hear from a former parishioner who became Orthodox.
• As an effort to fix defects in the Pastoral Provision, Anglicanorum coetibus failed spectacularly in 2012. Key TAC figures Hepworth, Falk, and Moyer stayed out of ordinariates. Although St Mary of the Angels, the clearest manifestation of the Pastoral Provision defects, was to be received in January as the first parish in the new OCSP, this foundered on continuing parish division and competing personal agendas. Personal agendas kept another significant parish, Our Lady of the Atonement, out. (Would Mr Bess be surprised?)
• Between 2012 and 2016, the US-Canadian Ordinariate's growth was disappointing. In size, it was comparable only to any of the larger "continuing" denominations (themselves a disappointment as Mr Bess points out) and did not offer any practical advantage for most parishes or any splinter denominations that might have considered it.
• The "retirement" of the US-Canadian Ordinary at age 63 in late 2015 can certainly be seen as another attempt to fix the original idea in the Pastoral Provision. However, at the current writing, the most concrete effort at a renewed fix, bringing Our Lady of the Atonement into the OCSP, seems to be encountering difficulties, again almost certainly on competing personal agendas.

Maybe I'll make an attempt to contact Mr Bess and bring him up to date. Somehow I don't think he'd be surprised.

Is This Prudent?

The amateurish Save Antonement! blog carries a link to a February 1 piece at Crux, "Removal of pastor feeds perceptions of draconian authority". Er, perceptions? Bishops have, and have always had, wide-ranging authority. The pull quote:

By removing a dedicated pastor at an Anglican Use parish, Archbishop Gustavo Garcia-Siller of San Antonio has not only engaged in a striking overreach, but he's fed perceptions that Catholic prelates are inflexible, authoritarian and aggressively assertive.

For shame! The same nefarious bunch that maybe won't allow communion for same-sex couples! This whole thing is awfully confusing. The people behind this piece appear to be traditionalists, who in fact are mostly unhappy that bishops won't be inflexible, authoritarian and aggressively assertive. Unless their pet cause or pet martyr priest is involved.

This piece is remarkably silly. Farther down:

Now that the ordinariate is established, it should be obvious to everyone that the parish of Our Lady of the Atonement’s true home is in the non-geographical jurisdiction of the Anglican Ordinariate.

Er, why is it "obvious to everyone"? The parish backed out of its first chance to join the Ordinariate in 2012 -- which the archbishop fully supported both ways. There was a personal agenda involved, or perhaps a conflict of personal agendas, in 2012, which was never made public. Is there a private agenda now? The bottom line is that we don't have all the facts, any more than we had in 2012, and it's hard to avoid thinking some of those withholding facts are on the parish's side.

Although Fr Phillips has been ordered not to contact parishioners, I've got to assume these articles (with the same photo of Phillips and his family) are being submitted by parishioners with his tacit approval. This can't help his case. I assume that, while he can't contact the parish directly, it ought to be possible for him to get the message through, perhaps via Bp Lopes, that this sort of thing can't be helpful.

Msgr Kurzaj And Rhetoric

I gave more thought to my visitor's comment yesterday that Msgr Kurzaj's homily "harms your rhetorical cause for the archbishop’s hegemony over Our Lady of the Atonement". His reference to rhetoric brought me back to when I taught rhetoric at the start of my career (I did it just long enough to be able to know what Samuel Johnson meant when he called teaching "intricate misery").

So I went back and listened to the homily again, all the way through. I thought there was something good about it when I first listened to it, and going back, I'm beginning to see what it is.

In classical rhetoric, there are three kinds of argument: argument from the nature of the thing, argument from similitude, and argument from circumstance. Argument from circumstance is the most desperate. The best examples are from classical histories, where the historian makes up the argument a general must have used in addressing his troops before a battle: "We're boxed in on three sides by the ocean. The enemy faces us on the fourth side. We have no chance if we try to swim for it. We have some chance if we fight our way out. Let's go, men!"

Msgr Kurzaj's homily is quite a good argument from circumstance, recognizing his situation, and that of the parish, is desperate. He's coming in assuming the parish is either divided or united against the archbishop, his boss. The parish is likely to mistrust him. Prospects aren't good. Here are his points:

• I didn't expect to be here. I was in the Holy Land. The archbishop gave me a call. I said I'd come.
• I did it because I'm Catholic. I follow orders. We're all Catholic.
• This is a good place. Nobody has done anything wrong.
• A parish has a bishop. It needs a bishop. Right now it has the one it has.
• Whether it gets the one in Houston or the one in San Antonio is up to Rome.
• We need to renew our commitment to being Christian and Catholic.
• This includes the need to be humble and pray, be optimistic and keep the unity of the Church in mind.

He's also able to make his Polish accent and stumbling phraseology work for him -- he's appealing to basic principles and coming from a perspective of simple common denominators. He doesn't talk down -- in effect, more or less saying I'm from Poland and had to take English courses, he's talking up and respecting his audience.

Reminds me of Robert E. Lee's comment on Grant's strategy: "Altogether, he's managing his situation rather well."

Some Reflections

A visitor, who is not Catholic and unlikely to become one, reacted to the homily from Msgr Kurzaj, linked in Monday's post:

You have posted Msgr. Kurzaj homily on your weblog. All biases in this case aside, that is one of the worst sermons that I have heard in my life! I have been subject to many so-called sermons/homiles from Catholic priests, but this one sets a new, subterranean bar. Polish men are know for being stalwart, if not inspired. . . . Posting such a dreadful speech only harms your rhetorical cause for the archbishop’s hegemony over Our Lady of the Atonement, as far as I am concerned. You have just got to do better than this.

My reaction was different, which may indicate the changes in my attitudes since I became Catholic. Nearly seven decades of life experience have brought me around to a natural-law view that character stems from developing habits of virtue. I would not have endorsed this view as a student. Since becoming Catholic, reflecting on the dumb things I did as a student, I've come around to the Thomistic notion that sin dulls the intellect.

A good homily, I've come to think, is one that exhorts the listeners to develop habits of virtue, to pray, and to continue with the sacraments. A football coach may have certain, sometimes similar, objectives in addressing his team. Neither necessarily needs to send the audience into swoons of appreciation. They just have to get the job done. I appreciate homilies that get the job done.

(The closest thing I've heard to homilies from the OCSP is those delivered by Fr Bartus at St Mary of the Angels. Fr Bartus typically read homilies written by someone else, which did the job -- if only of preparing without involving unnecessary work. Is this a research technique he picked up in college?)

I don't know what discussions Msgr Kurzaj may have had with the archbishop when he was reassigned to OLA. His homily seemed to focus on pride and humility. This was probably a reflection of the job he somehow felt he needed to do. I can't disagree if that was his perception; at a distance, I suspect something like that is involved, at least among some parishioners.

An issue that strikes me from the e-mails I've had from those with closer experience of the parish is the popularity of the Latin mass and the rigor (including Latin) of the school. These are features of mainstream Catholicism, not Anglo-Catholicism. In fact, Msgr Steenson was radically lukewarm toward Latin masses, to the extent of dissociating the OCSP from such practices. Schools in the OCSP? Mostly just vague future proposals.

A knowledgeable visitor has suggested that the actual membership who qualified as former Anglicans in the large Texas Anglican Use parishes prior to the OCSP was consistently only in the high 40 percentiles. I have a hard time seeing exactly what OLA as a parish expects to gain from joining the OCSP, except to get an OCSP pastor as Fr Phillips's successor, who unavoidably will be less friendly to Latin and will have less experience with a rigorous school. Not to mention the prime candidate who cribs his homilies.

But this is above the parish's paygrade and beyond my competence as a distant observer. No lay observers know all the facts. It will be resolved where it should be resolved.