Thursday, December 21, 2017

Cardinal Law

Cardinal Bernard Law, as I'm sure most know, passed away yesterday. The obituaries all portray him as the face of the sex abuse scandal, but of course, this was endemic, and Cardinal Mahony of Los Angeles was eventually barred by his successor from functioning in a public role due to equivalent complicity in the scandal. But Law was also a prime mover in the Anglican ecumenism project, which will almost certainly not be mentioned in the media.

This blog is about St Mary of the Angels, and Law was a key figure in initiating the bizarre recent history of that parish we've been following here. We know from Fr Barker's account that Law was familiar with the trends that led to the 1977 Congress of St Louis and the quixotic "continuing Anglican" movement. I don't believe Fr Barker has ever given a full account of when contacts between him and Law, or Law's surrogates, began, and as far as I know, it isn't completely clear what role Law may have played in encouraging Fr Barker to take the parish out of TEC.

Whether Law first whispered an idea in Fr Barker's ear, though, is less important than the practical result: the parish filed revised articles of incorporation in January 1977 to remove itself from TEC; TEC filed the first lawsuit the following month. Forty years and three lawsuits later, the fate of the parish is still unresolved.

Certainly by late 1977, according to Fr Barker, Law's people were actively discussing the idea of a personal prelature that would incorporate the St Mary of the Angels parish and the limited number of others that saw such a move as an option. But the Anglican Use Pastoral Provision was not authorized until 1980, while the St Mary's parish was badly divided and embroiled in an expensive lawsuit. Either Law didn't foresee such a result, or he didn't care; he certainly never provided, and likely never advised, a more prudent option for the parish.

Once the first lawsuit was resolved, Law was unable to secure a favorable reception of the parish into the Archdiocese of Los Angeles. Neither Cardinal Manning nor his successor, Cardinal Mahony, accepted the parish's petition, Mahony in particular questioning whether the parish could accept Catholic authority if it couldn't accept TEC. In light of subsequent history, Mahony had a point.

But there's an additional question. The Anglican ecumenism project, irrespective of its practical lack of success, did represent a momentous shift in policy. Such policy changes need to be thoroughly prepared, and those affected need to be brought on board. It appears that Law never did this with Cardinals Manning and Mahony, who were key figures that clearly held a veto over the early test of the project that St Mary's represented. I've had the impression that, although St John Paul approved the Pastoral Provision, he always took an arm's-length position, and I would guess that his view would have been that if Law wanted it that badly, he could bring Manning and Mahony around himself.

Instead, I wonder if Manning and Mahony thought Law was trying to interfere with their archdiocese, telling them without saying so in words what priest and parish they needed to bring in. But I think there's a concern that mostly isn't addressed, why should a bishop bring in a former Protestant priest whom he hasn't fully vetted? Might this be behind the apparent resistance to bringing in OCSP priests in Rochester and St Petersburg? Note that Matano in Rochester seems to have changed his mind when offered the possibility of a celibate Catholic seminarian, while the Bishop of St Petersburg seems to have resisted an OCSP group but had no objection to the same candidate coming in under his own supervision.

Let's also keep in mind that Law, from accounts we've heard, maintained contacts with Jeffrey Steenson and other dissident TEC figures in the late 1980s. We don't know what was on his agenda (or for that matter Steenson's) at that time, but I think it's safe to say not much good came from it then. But the 1993 meeting between Ratzinger and TEC figures Pope and Steenson was facilitated by Law and meant to pursue the idea of a personal prelature, which St John Paul had rejected once already at the time of the Pastoral Provision.

We may assume that the personal prelature was intended to fix the original problem posed by the St Mary of the Angels fiasco, but clearly this didn't happen. St John Paul was still not well disposed, and even when Ratzinger as Benedict was able to establish it on his own, the project was too poorly resourced to succeed. No matter what's been tried so far, the parish still hasn't come in, and if it were up to me, I'd advise the parish and Abp Hepworth to hold out for a better deal, given the extremely valuable property they bring to the party.

My regular correspondent reflected the other day,

"450,000 Anglicans to join Catholic church." Right. How desperately do we think the Vatican wishes that Pope Benedict had never come up with Anglicanorum Coetibus? If you are correct in your surmise that Fr Kenyon left Calgary under a cloud---and the fact that he appears to be under a form of house arrest certainly supports this idea -- [complaints] regarding his would-be replacements must be the last thing they want to hear about.
Leaving the sex abuse crisis entirely aside, there are reasons not to eulogize Cardinal Law. He had direct responsibility for the 40-year St Mary of the Angels disaster, fostering the break from TEC but unable to secure its reception into the Catholic Church, but he also bears some behind-the-scenes responsibility for the whole "continuing Anglican" boondoggle.

Not a happy record.