I cannot speak to any specific case, but I can tell you that the Vatican is willing to bend considerably to accommodate particular circumstances of Anglican and Protestant clergy who seek Catholic ordination following full reception into the Catholic Church.He points specifically to the first three receptions and ordinations in OOLW, who resigned their Anglican orders on December 31, 2010, and were received, ordained transitional deacon, and ordained priests by January 15, 2011. However, I question whether any was serving as a parish priest and hearing regular confessions -- they were higher in the food chain in a startup role. And for whatever reason, Msgr Steenson's schedule was much slower, received in December 2007, ordained a transitional deacon December 2008, and ordained a priest in February 2009 -- though again, he was not a parish priest hearing confessions or doing counseling, and to tell the truth, I'd feel much more comfortable going to a diocesan associate for confession than Msgr Steenson, then or now.
He notes, regarding the secrecy issue with Mr Bayles,
The bottom line is that any public disclosure that a clergyman of any denomination is seeking reception into another typically would be sufficient cause for immediate dismissal from that condition. This could have the consequence of depriving a man of income that he needs for subsistence and support for his family, and it also could become impossible for a man to remain as pastor to a congregation that would come into the Catholic Church with him. This is why Episcopal clergy typically say nothing more than that they are “exploring the option” until they actually make the move. However, Anglican and Protestant clergy who are “exploring the option” frequently are heavily immersed in studies to prepare for Catholic ordination following their receptions into the full communion of the Catholic Church. And for this reason, the Catholic Church and the ordinariates make no public announcement whatsoever until the reception into full communion actually takes place.Well, OK -- but recognize that the Facebook "announcement" of Mr Bayles's reception last month did not in fact mention his name and featured the back of his head -- clearly this was meant to be confidential, even though the guy was going to become this group's priest! What's up with that? Had he not yet resigned as an Anglican chaplain? We simply don't know.
But let's go a little farther. While Msgr Steenson by his own account was exceedingly careful to inform Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori of his intent while forestalling any pre-emptive move to remove him as bishop, he certainly left a bad taste among his TEC colleagues, who felt he violated his consecration vows and in effect had become a TEC bishop under false pretenses.
One problem I see in my friend's interpretation is the difference between a career and a vocation. I can certainly envision situations -- CS Lewis's move from Oxford to Cambridge might be an example -- where a high-level career move might be carefully choreographed to avoid stepping on toes while averting abortive disclosures and slip-ups. But this involves a move from one job to another of the same kind, professor to professor, lawyer to lawyer, corporate officer to corporate officer.
A move from Protestant priest to Catholic is a move from one kind of thing to another. The doctrines and expectations are radically different. These days, a TEC priest can easily move to a Lutheran parish as a simple career move equivalent to a lawyer going from one firm to another. For a Protestant priest to become Catholic is a different thing -- when Ronald Knox moved from Anglican priest to Catholic, his father disinherited him, for instance. When Frederick Kinsman resigned as a TEC bishop to become Catholic, his old schoolmates at St Paul's in effect had to defend his sanity. Jeffrey Steenson's colleagues clearly saw the insincerity implicit in his move -- how could he insist on doctrinal purity over women in the priesthood, for instance, when he himself concelebrated mass with women priests?
This kind of move entails risks, and while the Church does what it can to avert risks to the faithful -- one thinks of Pius XII doing what he could to avert catastrophe for the faithful in Europe during World War Ii -- it can't always succeed. Martyrdoms, and lesser calamities, happen. We simply don't know the reason for continued secrecy in Mr Bayles's case; the announcement of his reception by name didn't come from Houston but from acquaintances in Pennsylvania -- and the continued secrecy leads to questions.
Another issue is that Mr Bayles's position as a chaplain in the Air Force Reserve was at best part-time, and for the past several years, he appears to have had a series of secular jobs, most recently as a real estate agent. It's worth pointing out that the OCSP has at least reportedly required candidates for ordination to attest to their financial independence, and I would have to assume this would take into account any loss of income from a Protestant denomination. To a considerable extent, Mr Bayles is responsible for managing his secular financial situation, and any risks attendant to becoming Catholic must be risks he assumes fully understanding what he's undertaking.
While my friend points out that the Church is "willing to bend considerably", this is certainly something I've acknowledged here all along. The problem is that it seems in the case of the OCSP to bend to the point where there is no effective policy. I saw in last Sunday's parish bulletin that a guy named Joe Schmo or something had been representing himself as Fr Joe Schmo and trying to function as a priest in certain parishes. The archdiocese was intent on making it clear that Joe Schmo was not a priest of the archdiocese, and if he turns up anyplace, call the vicar for clergy.
If someone is wearing clericals and calling himself Fr Whatever in a Catholic parish, we've got to assume certain minimal qualifications are being met. These qualifications depend on policy. The Church can be flexible on some matters, but if I'm dealing with an obscure branch office a long way from headquarters, I have a right to want to be sure policy is being followed. With the most recent cohorts of OCSP ordinations -- not just Mr Bayles -- I'm not so sure.
I would not go to any of these men for confession in circumstances other than grave necessity. I have serious doubts of their ability to give sound counsel in a Catholic context. I question the judgment of people who think going to these men for confession is a good idea. But hey, maybe they don't go to confession anyhow.
