More On Mr Hurd And The OCSP

I feel only slightly uncomfortable about singling Mr Hurd out here, because further research has brought out that he continues an extensive on line presence -- Google "Scott Hurd Catholic Charities". Had he shown a clear wish to maintain a low profile, I would be less inclined to discuss his case, but he was not as a priest, and is not as a layman, a private person. I would also say that functioning as a journalist, I have some leeway over the issue of detraction, especially since as Fr Hurd, he had published as an expert on the subject of married Catholic clergy and indeed occupied offices supervising married clergy on the basis of his experience in the area. The issues we're examining, part of the public record, reflect on his actual expertise in his public role.

It seems to me that there are two possible reasons his first marriage ended, since Mr Hurd's children continued to live with him. The first is that his first wife passed away, which would be a very sad thing. The other would be that the marriage was ended with a civil divorce, and custody of the children was awarded to their father by the court. It's worth noting that courts in such cases are inclined to grant custody to the mother, and there would need to be an overriding reason to grant custody to the father.

Beyond the bare bones of what we see in Mr Hurd's own statements, we know nothing of what actually happened. However, if his first wife had passed away, we would expect to have seen this noted in the Anglo-Catholic blogosphere, where expressions of grief and exhortations to prayer would have been, let's face it, over the top. We saw nothing about this at the time if it had been the case. My friend who frequently prompts me to clarify my thinking pointed out,

Although the norms for the ordination of married men to the deaconate (either transitional or permanent) require a vow not to remarry if their wives die, the Vatican has been granting dispensations from this very vow routinely, albeit very discretely, in cases in which the death of a permanent deacon’s wife leaves him with small children. The basic premise, in granting such dispensations, is that young children need a mother to nurture them, and thus that a dispensation is necessary as a matter of justice for the children. There is no further commitment regarding marriage for married former Anglican and former Protestant clergy who receive dispensations from the norm of celibacy for ordination to the order of presbyter, so I see no reason why the Vatican would not grant the same dispensation to permit another marriage. It’s entirely possible that Fr. Hurd is the only such case to date.

The problem with this theory is that Mr Hurd has been, as far as we can tell, laicized (we don't have a public record on this, but since he continues to work for Catholic Charities, we must assume the i's have been dotted and the t's crossed). The case my friend envisions is that then-Fr Hurd would be granted dispensation to remarry while still a priest, but clearly this didn't happen. Mr Hurd is no longer a priest, so I can't see how my friend's theory applies.

This makes me lean toward the view that something happened to cause an irreparable break in the first marriage, with his former wife still living. Sometime between 2015 and 2016, Mr Hurd was quietly laicized, although the events that led to this outcome may well have taken place earlier. By May 2017, he had presumably been granted a declaration of nullity for the first marriage and remarried. I will be most grateful for any corrections here and will publish them immediately if I receive them.

The next question concerns the circumstances of his replacement. My friend comments,

Canonically, a Catholic diocese or other particular church MAY have more than one vicar general if the diocesan bishop or other ordinary so chooses. Both Fr. Hurd and Fr. Charles Hough III were listed as vicars general on the ordinariate’s web site from the appointment of the latter in the summer of 2014 until January of 2015, so it appears that Fr. Hurd continued to hold the title for the rest of his original term.

However, yesterday's post linked to this post at Ordinariate News that quoted the OCSP web site:

Vicar General, Vicar for Clergy: Fr. Charles Hough III

Fr. Hough serves as Vicar General of the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter, effective in July 2014, and as Vicar for Clergy. In the latter role, Fr. Hough will be responsible for personnel matters and continuing formation for the Ordinariate’s clergy, will serve as the liaison for religious of the Ordinariate or providing ministry for the Ordinariate, and will assist those seeking vocations to the priesthood, permanent diaconate or religious life.

No mention is made of a continuing role for then-Fr Hurd, and indeed, no mention is made of him at all. There is no message, for instance, that "Fr Hough III will be assisting Fr Hurd as he transitions to a more active role when Fr Hurd returns to the Archdiocese of Washington in December", or any words to that effect. We may say that clarity has never been a strong point with the OCSP, but in that case, we're entitled to attribute misunderstandings to an extreme lack of clarity. My own view is that if then-Fr Hurd's name was kept on a roster, it was a face-saving gesture consistent with what I see as a very quiet personnel move.

My regular correspondent reminded me of this post here from a year ago:

Even if Fr Hurd had been doing an outstanding job as Vicar General he would have been required to leave it under Bp Lopes because the VG is an ex-officio member of the Governing Council and only clergy incardinated in the OCSP are eligible to serve on the Governing Council.

My friend above made this point in the same post:

A few years ago, when the executive council of the pilot's union at Delta Air Lines approached the company's new CEO with serious concerns [about several] senior executives who were, ah, let's say, "underperforming," the new CEO's reply was, "Please give me some time to deal with this in the proper way, but I think that you will to like what I am going to do." Within a few months, he had given graceful exits to those who needed to go and replaced them with the right people for the respective positions. In the same vein, let's give Bishop Lopes a year or two before passing judgement.

Well, we're getting toward two years under Bp Lopes. Has anything changed?