Ordinariate Information Session At St Mary Of The Angels

In last night's e-mail:

Dear Parishioners & Friends,

Archbishop John Hepworth would be delighted if you would join in an informational session on the Ordinariate and its status, Thursday night, February 1, at 7pm in the Choir Room.

Light refreshments will be provided.

We hope to see you there.

In Christ,
Fr Kelley+

I intend to be there. Abp Hepworth is an engaging speaker, although as I've noted, he has the gift of blarney. It's worth pointing out that the choir room has a capacity of somewhere around 12 to 20, which may give a sense of the expected audience, but we'll have to see what emerges. It's fairly plain from this that the parish does not see the appellate opinion as much of an obstacle -- since the vestry continues to be recognized as the legal corporate board, it can in fact hold another parish election to leave the ACA at pretty much any time.

Two Groups-In-Formation Fold

My regular correspondent reports,

Two more groups---San Agustin, Pinecrest, FL, and St Anselm, Greenville, SC---have folded. San Agustin has been absorbed into the parish at which it met. There is no Spanish-language version of DW so apart from the social connection of the founding members it is hard to see what was on offer there. St Anselm, Greenville was one of the groups meeting in a basement chapel in a school which you featured last year. Its members have apparently drifted away to parishes with children's programs and the other sorts of parish activity which a small group with no weekday meeting space could never offer. In these groups the priest is active in the local dioceses; it is lay demand which has disappeared.

Last year, my correspodent reported of the Pinecrest group,

According to the calendar posted at the St Louis, Pinecrest FL site the San Agustin Ordinariate Mission is still celebrating mass here every Sunday. Fr Pedro Toledo and a group of 21 of his former REC parishioners were received there in 2014. He is listed as the Mission Administrator in the bulletin. As far as I know this is the only Spanish-language OCSP congregation. There is no Spanish Ordinariate Rite, so they use the Spanish OF. Clearly they have chosen to worship as a group, despite the fact that there are two other Spanish masses at St Louis every Sunday.

Fr Toledo came originally from Venezuela, was raised Catholic until he was 10, but became a Pentecostal with his family. He eventually attended seminary at Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando and headed various Reformed and then Anglican Hispanic groups until he took the San Agustin group into the OCSP. He continues to serve as a priest in the Archdiocese of Miami.

Regarding the St Anselm's community, my correspondent reports,

St Anselm's previous arrangements are described here. This was I believe a community gathered by Fr Jon Chalmers before he left Greenville to become the President of a school in Birmingham, AL. He is now also the Administrator of a diocesan parish there. He has apparently not attempted to start an Ordinariate community. His TEC career was quite marginal, as you can see here.

I think these closures give some insight into the somewhat frantic efforts by Houston to identify potential new groups -- it must run pretty fast to stay in the same place. The reason for these groups closing is one I've identified -- an OCSP group-in-formation is simply not a diocesan parish, and it offers little of what Catholics can expect to find at a diocesan parish. If the group meets on diocesan parish premises, the range of "real" Catholic activities (probably including masses at normal times, if nothing else) will eventually draw the fringe group into the full community.

That, of course, is the good potential outcome.

Lack Of Seriousness

Regarding yesterday's post, my regular correspondent comments,

Msgr Steenson dealt with this by wandering about in typical hands-off TEC fashion, intervening only on an as-needed basis and then only if he saw some possibility of success, or if he were given an ultimatum by higher-ups (I would put banishing the EF from OCSP communities in this category). This was apparently not good enough for those in charge, who hoped that Bp Lopes would run a tighter ship, but he has no experience in this kind of thing and while he has an articulate line on the theological significance of AC I am sure he is quite fed up with trying to herd his cats and front for them with dozens of different dioceses. The list of communities he hasn't got around to visiting in the last two years is quite lengthy. Perhaps he is praying that they will fold before he has to put in an appearance. OLW, Houston is the only parish I would describe as rock-solid and he seems to like spending most of his time there. Fund-raising also going well, relatively speaking, and that gets most of the administrative attention. I don't mean to suggest that he is anything but hard-working and conscientious, but conscientiousness is not a substitute for imagination and enthusiasm. I feel the latter is particularly lacking.

As I become more familiar with diocesan Catholicism, I'm becoming more concerned that only a few OCSP communities have anything like the range of activities and devotions available to diocesan parishes. This is a real disservice to several thousand people. I think those charged with their pastoral care need to begin to face the fact that these communities are not going to grow, and they will never offer anything like this range of opportunities.

Beyond that, when groups-in-formation fold, although Bp Lopes or Fr Perkins may give them pro forma advice to seek out a diocesan parish, I question whether they've learned enough about the Catholic Chiurch to recognize this is an important step. The poor catechesis they receive from the marginal, poorly formed Protestant retread priests they have is going to come home to roost.

Thinking About The Pontifex Maximus

Last night I was watching a Science Channel show on building a suspension bridge across a fjord in Narvik, Norway. Several things struck me. This was a very carefully planned, highly organized endeavor. Then it struck me that this was in the best tradition of Roman civil engineering. Then it struck me that the Roman pontiff's title derives from pontifex maximus, a Roman office associated with the emperor in later years, but dating from the republic, where it is normally described as "chief priest". However, this ignores the etymology of pontifex, which comes from pons, bridge, and the suffix -ficium, making. There is a strong engineering context to the word before we get to the priesthood.

One lesson I'm taking from this journey through "continuing" Anglicanism, Anglo-Catholicism, and Anglicanorum coetibus is the lack of any seriousness like what I saw in the project to build the Norwegian suspension bridge -- no careful calculation, no detailed planning, no precise scheduling, no attention to contingencies. The pontifex as a Roman engineer has somehow not been involved here. It occurred to me that the episode I mentioned a few days ago of the cradle Catholic who discovered the TEC Book of Common Prayer and used its daily offices in his private devotions turns out to be an example of this lack of seriousness.

I basically assumed something in my discussion that I shouldn't have -- I thought Divine Worship -- The Missal had daily offices. In fact, it doesn't. My regular correspondent pointed out:

Even if money were no object, the person of whom you spoke could not purchase an Ordinariate version of the Daily Office, since one has yet to be produced. DW is strictly a missal. There is also a volume with approved versions of the baptismal and marriage rites. But the daily office book, completed a year ago, is still awaiting approval from the Vatican and subsequent publication. There is an office book, The Customary of Our Lady of Walsingham, published in the UK in 2012 but it is not an official text.

Many Ordinariate groups do Evensong, regularly or on special occasions, and some, like BJHN, Victoria, and SJE, Calgary offer daily Morning Prayer. Saying Evensong together seems to be the standard activity for groups-in-formation without an ordained leader. Since there is no official Daily Office book I assume they use the local BCP, maybe with the official collects from DW, although groups-in-formation might not have access to a copy.

There seems from the start of the Anglicanorum coetibus project to have been an assumption that things would be present that in fact never were -- approved versions of the daily offices being just one small example. The lack of any serious legal or financial strategy for bringing in existing Anglican parishes in any consistent way would be another. The lack of any serious understanding of the important differences between high-church Anglicanism and Roman Catholicism, and the need to address these issues in catechesis, would be even larger. In fact, I have the impression that everyone assumed that important TEC parishes in major metropolitan areas would simply vote themselves Catholic, and poof! it would all fall into place.

This never happened. It doesn't seem as though anyone gave any thought to the contingency that this might not happen, which is something that a real pontifex in the capacity of head engineer would not tolerate. Instead, we have a scramble to set up Potemkin villages to make it look as if somehow something is happening.

More Background On The Poor Clare Sisters

I've heard from two visitors who've been pursuing the question of why three Poor Clare sisters left their location on the Our Lady of the Atonement property and moved to Alabama. Both have done extensive research based on web sources. One says,

The nuns at Our Lady of the Angels Monastery in Alabama had undergone a substantial reorganization in recent years. I am not sure if it was related to Mother Angelica's death in 2016, but certainly that was another factor. I did a search, and I came up with this forum post from 2012, that was telling. One of the forum posters comments on how they went from 38 members in 2008 down to 12.

This newsletter from 2015 states that Our Lady of Angels Monastery was ordered to merge with another Monastery in North Carolina, putting their total at 10 professed nuns and 6 in formation.

This makes me wonder if the Texas Nuns returned home to Alabama, not entirely because they were requested to leave by Archbishop Gustavo, or "ordered" out of Texas as the Church Militant article would have the reader believe. Based on what I have read, and considering that there appeared to be a door open to them by Bishop Lopes, it seems more likely that the Texas Nuns ultimately left because of their dwindling numbers in Texas and in Alabama, and the consolidation that appears to be taking place.

Another visitor reports,

[Mother Angelica] was involved for a time in the Charismatic Movement in the US and it was purported that she could talk in tongues. She shared this charism with her order. Hard to imagine these Poor Clares of Perpetual Adoration in their traditional, throwback habits, sitting around, waiting for the spirit to move them and blabbering on in foreign languages they themselves did not speak, right? Wrong, while Mother Angelica was involved with the charismatic movement, her nuns did not yet wear the traditional habits.

This charismatic influence created serious conflicts within her order. Mother Angelica gradually backed away and then separated herself from the movement but this tainted her in some people's eyes. In 1991, Mother Angelica had a profound, orthodox revelation and changed the habits of her nuns back to the traditional, Poor Clares garb. This seemed to be a boon to membership in AL.

At this point in the story, you should be getting the picture that there were two sets of nuns within this orders, loosey-goosey ones and strait-laced orthodox types. Orthodox has the upper hand and is squeezing out the loosey-goosies.. The bridges were being burned but the train hadn't come along the track just yet. The expansion of this order to monasteries across the country had begun with three in OH, one in AZ, TX, and AL.

While Mother Angelica was the Abbess of OLAM in AL, their vocations grew and the community was vibrant enough to be the source of sending nuns to Texas(5), Ohio(2), Arizona(5 or 6) and back to Troyes, France to re-establish one of the founding order sites. This is where Mother Angelica's successor enters the picture. Mother Dolores Marie joined the monastery in AL in 1991. She was sent to Portsmouth, OH, with another nun to assist the elderly nuns there and try to regrow the community. She was appointed mother vicar of this community.

Some of the elderly nuns died, some new nuns joined, the whole kit and caboodle moved to Charlotte, NC at the invitation of Bishop Jung in 2010. Still there were six(monasteries)... By 2015, Mother Angelica's health was so poor, they needed a new Mother Superior. Years of declining health after her stroke had reduced Mother Angelica's recruiting abilities and it seems the ongoing orthodox vs. not -so-much factions finally brought the train to the track where the bridges were out.

The group in AL had shrunk to five professed members, the group in Texas had shrunk to three, the group in AZ had themselves formally separated into their own entity and the group in NC had six members. As per a notice on St. Joseph Monastery (NC) website in November of 2015, the nuns were moving to AL at the request of the Holy See to bolster the OLAM because of its importance in founding the EWTN with Mother Dolores Marie becoming the new Mother Superior and Mother Angelica becoming the Abbess Emeritus(see, there's that emeritus thing again).

Now there are five... maybe. The first three, Canton, Cleveland and the AZ bunch, are each separate entities with the Holy See, with little or no real ties to the AL group anymore. So then there were two... AL and TX. With only 11 total nuns left in AL and three in TX, this once proud order has hit the skids. So what happened to all the nuns? From my research, I saw that some were unhappy because the order was not conservative enough and they have since left to start their own religious groups (I looked at couple of them and was a little alarmed that they portrayed themselves a little more Catholic than the Pope, if you know what I mean).

That the three Texas nuns were recalled to the Mother House in AL is probably the best thing that could have happened, under the circumstances. I would hate to see Mother Angelica's legacy erased so soon after her death and I do not envy the Herculean task Mother Dolores Marie has on her plate of rebuilding this order.

I think the least we can say is that there is a great deal more to this whole story than either Church Militant or various social media discussions have acknowledged. It's certainly possible that pro-Phillips, anti-Garcia-Siller factions are trying to hitchhike on the former prestige of the Poor Clare order to create a false impression that Mother Angelica would somehow have endorsed Fr Phillips in his conflicts with his former archdiocese. The truth seems to be that the Poor Clares aren't what they used to be, and the move seems to be for reasons largely unrelated to issues connected with Fr Phillips.

Abp Hepworth To Visit St Mary Of The Angels February 4

I've learned through unofficial channels that Abp Hepworth will make what appears to be an episcopal visit to St Mary of the Angels on February 4. It will commemorate the 100th anniversary of the parish's founding in a Hollywood storefront by Fr Dodd. At that time, he will also, based on the version I've heard, formally assert his jurisdiction over the parish.

Now that I've had several weeks to reflect on the news that came out January 4 and the discussion in front of Judge Murphy, I think I have a general idea of the vestry's likely course of action. I'm not an attorney; I am not a member of the vestry; I haven't been a member of the parish since 2012; legal strategies are confidential, and I'm not privy to them. So far, the vestry has given me no official or unofficial statement about Abp Hepworth's visit or its forward strategy.

However, Mr Lengyel-Leahu did, in discussion in the courtroom, give a general outline of what his position will likely be. Although the superior court's appeals division in December 2017 reversed Judge Strobel's 2015 decision declaring the parsh's August 2012 vote to leave the ACA valid, this decision did not affect the state appeals court's 2014 finding that the vestry elected in February 2012 was the valid St Mary of the Angels vestry. This has an important effect on other Rector, Wardens, and Vestry cases, which were decided on the basis that the Bush group, which claimed to be the vestry, did not have standing.

Here is the ACA's problem: the appeals division has ruled on narrow technical grounds that the parish's August 2012 vote to leave the ACA was invalid. As a result, the parish is officially under the ACA. However, based on the state appeals court's decision, the elected vestry, Fr Kelley, and its wardens continue to be the vestry. But under the articles of incorporation, the vestry owns and controls the property. The vestry hires the rector. The rector has the keys to the property. (So far, St Mary of the Angels has not reappeared on the ACA Diocese of the West web site.)

As a result, the ACA is in a similar, though less advantageous, position to the TEC Diocese of Pennsylvania when David Moyer was rector of Good Shepherd Rosemont. The then-bishop hated Moyer. The bishop had inhibited and deposed Moyer. The bishop wanted to come on the property, but Moyer wouldn't let him. The Good Shepherd vestry was the entity that employed Moyer, and it kept him in its employ. This also is fairly clearly what the situation is at St Mary of the Angels.

The TEC diocese, recognizing the delicacy of the situation, was apparently reluctant to evict Moyer from the property, but legally, the TEC diocese did control the property, and eventually it saw the need, after about a dozen years, to evict Moyer. The ACA, however, does not own the St Mary of the Angels property due to the unique nature of the parish's founding documents. It cannot legally evict Fr Kelley. There is no way it can legally or canonically remove the vestry in whole or part.

As a result, the ACA is pretty much in the same situation it was in as of May 2012, when Mrs Bush and Mr Lancaster went to Judge Jones to seek a temporary restraining order barring Fr Kelley and the elected vestry from the property. Judge Jones first granted the order, then quickly reversed herself, saying this was an ecclesiastical issue, and she had no authority under the US First Amendment to interfere.

As far as I can see, while the ACA can claim ecclesiastical authority over the parish, it can't evict Fr Kelley, and it can't replace the elected vestry. There is no question that a good litigation attorney can try to pick away at the February 2012 vestry election and, depending on the mean temperature on the day the matter goes to court and what the judge had for breakfast, try to get some kind of an ex parte, but this will cost money, and the elected vestry will have the clear precedent of Judge Jones's original reversal of the first ex parte.

This means that the elected vestry will likely continue to have control of the bank accounts and the rental income from the commercial property. Meanwhile, the Bush group had run out of most of its resources in 2015, when by his filing, Mr Lancaster was last paid.

The state appeals court has already ruled that the Bush group does not have standing to litigate this matter further. As far as I can see, the ACA, not Mrs Bush, would need to file a new suit challenging the February 2012 vestry election, which would initiate a new, multimillion-dollar, multi-year process of litigation. The ACA would need to come up with many thousands of dollars to hire a new set of attorneys to do this. The vestry, though, now has the rental income from the commercial property to defend itself.

I certainly do not endorse this, but it does seem to me that both parties, the elected vestry and the ACA, are in a stalemate where they have roughly equal standing. There should be major incentive to settle this matter on terms generous to Fr Kelley and the parish employees.

A Realistic Use For The BCP

A visitor sent me a link to an intriguing article at US Catholic by a cradle Catholic who discovered the TEC Book of Common Prayer, was impressed with it, and uses it as part of his private devotions.

For over 30 years, I’ve prayed the daily office in the Book of Common Prayer used in the Church of England (the Episcopal Church here in the United States). One of the nice things about the Church of England is that it knows good English when it hears it, and I love the cool, solid voice of Episcopal prayer. I need God’s mercy, but I also need God’s elegance.

He mentions that he bought his first copy new in the 1980s, which means that it had to have been the 1979 version. He apparently uses it without complaint.

He makes no mention of Anglicanorum Coetibus, nor the authority of its august Society. I simply don't know what his reaction would be to seeing the language of the DWM, OF tricked out in faux Stuart English, but then, he probably wouldn't spend $400 on a copy for private devotions anyhow.

My visitor says, "It would have been so much easier doing what this guy does and not creating the ‘fraudinariate’ as a newly departed friend used to call the Ordinariate."

"Fraudinariate". I love it.

"Some Traddies?"

A visitor pointed me to yesterday's post at Fr Hunwicke's blog, which I normally don't follow. It begins,

Sometimes some Traddies are less than enthusiastic about Anglican clergy who enter into Full Communion and are then fast-tracked at a great rate of knots into the presbyterate of the Catholic Church.

It was not always so unthinkable. After all, in the pontificate of Blessed Pius IX, Mr Archdeacon Manning was not kept hanging around more than a month or two.

In part, I'm not sure what he means by "traddie". At least in the US, I take it to mean a loosely-defined faction of people who are primarily dissatisfied with the Ordinary Form mass and versus populum celebration and use that as an excuse to apply private judgment to a fairly wide variety of other doctrinal issues that, as Fr Ripperger puts it, are above their paygrade. I'm not sure what "traddies" are like in the UK, but from following blogs like Fr Z (who is not a traddie in that sense, nor is Fr Ripperger), I get the impression that US bishops regard "traddies" as a divisive faction that they would prefer not to encourage.

From what I see, based especially on what seems to be going on with the OCSP groups and occasional remarks on the Anglicanorum Coetibus Society blog, borne out as well by the blogosphere's reaction to the disputes between Our Lady of the Atonement and Abp Garcia-Siller, "traddies" and ordinariate laity see quite a bit of common ground. They favor ad orientem celebration and general liturgical fuss and feathers, and I'm increasingly convinced they use this stance as reason for exemption from other routine obligations placed on Catholic faithful -- the remarks by Mrs Gyapong that the need to avoid near occasions of sin is not part of the Anglican Patrimony and thus apparently not binding on Ordinariate "catholics" is a very good recent example.

I would call myself a mainstream Catholic doing my best to learn and mature in the faith in a diocesan parish. When, in 2011-13, the option of becoming Catholic appeared realistically before my wife and me, I looked carefully at the Catechism to be as clear as I could on what was actually involved, and I accepted the ordinary obligations placed on the faithful at that time. Thus I'm not a "traddie", as I understand the term. I don't know any "traddies" as I'm aware, but we do know a good many serious and devout Catholics.

But here's what I don't understand about Fr Hunwicke's post. The cradle Catholics who seem drawn to the California groups seem, by comments on social media, in fact to be "traddies" who are happy as bugs with the marginal men who've been ordained to lead them, or are in line for it. Certainly here and among my correspondents, there is in fact concern that such men are "fast-tracked at a great rate of knots" (isn't that a mixed metaphor, Father?), to the extent that most recognize these men would not be a wise choice for confessor. But this objection isn't from "traddies", it's from mainstream Catholics wondering what kind of leadership the people in OCSP groups actually receive. Archdeacon Manning and Pius IX are hardly arguments against this real current concern.

Add to that the egregious case -- I was going to say lugubrious, but it's apparently worse -- of Fr Kenyon, who by all visible indications performed very well as an OCSP priest in Canada for several years but proved completely unsatisfactory in a diocesan UK parish, removed less than a month after his arrival and now functioning under strict supervision. Something was very wrong there.

Or take Msgr Steenson, if anything the Archdeacon Manning of the 21st century, who didn't last five years as ordinary of the OCSP before he was forced into premature retirement and apparently banished from Houston. Or take Fr Phillips, certainly the most prominent ex-Anglican Catholic priest in the US, removed as pastor after long-simmering conflicts with his bishops. If nothing else, this is not Catholic, but there's the remaining puzzle of Dcn Orr, subject of complaints by parents with children in the parish school of inappropriate approaches to boys, forced into early retirement and apparently under effective ban from the property.

Fr Phillips and Dcn Orr built adjoining homes on property that was purchased and split for the purpose. What's up with all that? The "traddies" in the blogosphere are the ones who see Fr Phillips as the martyr here, which is how he continues to portray himself.

Whatever the speed, in kilometers, miles, or knots, on land, sea, or air, at which some of these priests were ordained, it was awfully fast -- and it's the "traddies" who seem to like it best.

Crossovers

My regular correspondent points out several instances of an OCSP priest serving in a diocesan parish.

Fr Luke Reese is a Parochial Vicar at Holy Rosary, Indianapolis where he celebrates DW for the St Joseph of Arimathea OCSP community but also celebrates mass and carries out other pastoral functions for the OF and EF congregations. This is similar to the situation at Our Lady of Sorrows, Kansas City, as we have noted. And before his early retirement Fr Venuti was Pastor of St Joan of Arc, Mobile, celebrating both a DW and an OF mass there on Sundays. Fr Patrick Allen of the OCSP is also Parochial Vicar at St Mary of the Annunciation, Charleston, where both that parish and the Corpus Christi OCSP congregation celebrate a Sunday mass.

I do note that the St Mary of the Annunciation parish has a detailed schedule for masses, adoration, and rosaries, but no times listed for confession. Have I misunderstood this, or is this a lucky break for Fr Allen, who might not be well versed in hearing confessions?

My correspondent continues,

I noted somewhere that St Martha, Murrieta had 6200 registered families. No OCSP group is in this league; even the full parishes are mostly three numbers, struggling to pay for/maintain a building for a parish of a size which a regular Catholic diocese would close in a heartbeat. If the Ordinariate must exist, sharing clergy and buildings seems to avoid many of the objections we have raised. Of course it would leave the Ordinary in a fringe role. Where an OCSP priest has later been incardinated into a local diocese we must assume that either he was not interested in gathering a local Ordinariate group, or he was not really interested in the group he already had (Fr Davis and Fr Wagner, formerly of St Gilbert, Boerne, fall into this category). Otherwise it seems possible to keep a foot in both camps.

Considering numbers and opportunities, the existence of OCSP priests helping out in diocesan parishes seems quite unusual, especially recognizing that there's a shortage of Catholic priests overall, and OCSP priests serving small groups aren't heavily burdened. And think of the cases where an OCSP priest has a diocesan job like property manager, where ordination isn't needed. This seems like another instance suggesting diocesan bishops may not be especially well-disposed toward the OCSP -- I think with some reason.

St Mary Of The Angels And Demons

The other day I was asking myself why I ever thought going into the OCSP via St Mary of the Angels was a good idea. The short answer is that in 2010-11, a lot of people thought it was a good idea. Fr Phillips came there in December 2010 to say it was a good idea -- but a little over a year later, he changed his mind. By mid-2012, a lot of the pro-ordinariate bloggers were losing interest in the whole project, and by now we have a definite B list over at the Anglicanorum Coetibus Society.

As I posted not long ago, I've begun to see the whole St Mary of the Angels saga as a good argument for the existence of demons. Dr Peter Kreeft has a good introduction to the subject here, and I agree with him when he says nobody really knows all that much about either angels or their subtype of demons. I would say, though, that more than one person, looking at St Mary of the Angels, has commented half-seriously, "that place needs an exorcism".

With what I hope will be an ultimate modern-day resolution of Jarndyce v Jarndyce, I'm inclined to say that Mrs Bush and Bp Marsh are welcome to the place. It's already sent its share of souls to perdition.

What I find especially troubling is a tendency that it almost brought into the Church, which Cardinals Manning and Mahony were correct in resisting, the idea that there can be some special kind of Catholicism, most recently calling itself the "Anglican patrimony". Abp Garcia-Siller seems to have had a very similar insight to the Los Angeles cardinals in characterizing the form of Catholicism practiced at Our Lady of the Atonement as not just unique but separate.

Some of the priests ordained in the OCSP strike me, frankly, as about as authentic as Bing Crosby. Some of them, though, really look the part. I've said here before that I wouldn't go to an OCSP priest for confession unless the matter were urgent and I had no other choice. More recently, I'm deciding that even if the big asteroid were about to hit the planet, I'd stand in long lines at St Alphonsus miles away rather than go to any OCSP parish. I'd avoid those places and say three hail Marys just at the thought.

Fr Kelley, Dcn Yeager, and the faithful laity at St Mary of the Angels should be grateful for a form of deliverance. They fought the good fight. But even if you were to have brought an exorcist like Fr Ripperger into the place in 2011, rather than the feckless Msgr Stetson, he'd probably have had to spend months to drive the demons out, and the question would be whether, for such a tiny nave, it would ultimately be worth it.

I hope those who are now disappointed will see this story as a deliverance and a new opportunity to seek out God's plan. The question in my mind is whether insightful laity elsewhere in the OCSP will come to their senses. Those who've written to me who are unhappy about certain OCSP parishes need to take another look at their options, say some hail Marys, and move on. The good people at Our Lady and the Apostles Stockport are rightfully thankful for their own deliverance.

I hear some bishops are pushing back at the idea of OCSP groups in their territory. I'm rooting for them.

Groups Without Priests

As we've discussed here many times, there's a numerical surplus of OCSP priests, but a practical shortage, since most are undeployable outside their current residential area. My regular correspondent outlines the groups primarily affected:

Four OCSP groups are defunct: St Edmund's, Kitchener; St Gilbert, Boerne; Our Lady of Mt Carmel, Savannah; and St Anselm, Corpus Christi. St John Fisher, Arlington VA was supposedly merged with St Luke, Washington; St Gregory, Stoneham is in a live-in relationship with St Athanasius, Chestnut Hill, as we have discussed, and St Bede, Collegeville relocated to Minneapolis under new leadership. It is unclear in these three cases how many members actually made the transition. In two of these cases their priest was reassigned, in the others he became unable or unwilling to continue ministering to them.

But other groups in these situations have survived: Lay leadership kept St Alban, Rochester together as a community through two periods when their ptiest had departed or been reassigned, and St Gregory, Mobile has found a local diocesan priest to offer weekly mass. And of course some groups: St Benedict, Edmonton; Christ the King, Tyendinaga; St Timothy, Catonsville have never had an OCSP priest, but have relied on diocesan clergy and/or OCSP supply priests from the beginning. St George, Republic, formerly in Springfield, MO, existed for almost four years before a priest was assigned to them in 2016.

Lay leadership is the key here; apparently one cannot rely on Houston to take an active role in a group's survival. When Fr Stainbrook was reassigned to St John Vianney, Clebourne from St Timothy's, Ft Worth in July 2016, the latter was assigned three supply priests and promised a new administrator by January 2017. Instead one of the former supply priests was finally appointed "interim administrator" late last year. And this was a group whose leader left at Houston's request. Squeaky wheels like Rochester and Springfield can eventually get a priest assigned to them; other groups can prevail on a diocesan priest to help out.

In three of the full parishes a retiring or relocating priest has been replaced by another, as would happen in a regular diocese, although in the case of SJE, Calgary this has required considerable creativity. But for the smaller groups the situation is more precarious. Fr Ortiz-Guzman had been looking for a replacement for years when Fr Baaten came on the scene in Carlsbad, CA, for example. Fr Bartus seems to have seen this as an ordination opportunity for his protégé.

It appears that unless someone on the ground makes an effort, the group will simply be allowed to fold if their priest retires or leaves. Meanwhile prospective ordinands try to drum up a few attendees in some new location. Odd.

I have several reactions. The first is how tiny and unstable the majority of OCSP communities are. If my correspondent's take is correct, and it probably is, one or two key people make all the difference. But this brings up another issue: in my TEC life, I once attended a parish function that included a lady who had a career as director of several well-endowed art museums. The function took place at a country club or luxury hotel, I can't remember exactly which.

In the lobby was a painting, the sort of thing that was meant to be glimpsed but not really studied. But the museum director went up and gave it a careful look, and she discussed it with those of us who were nearby. "Look at all the detail the artist painted in here," she said. "But the whole painting is meant to be just exactly where it is, it's basically elevator music. Why did the artist go to all this trouble with something that wasn't meant to take all this work?" She shook her head.

I've got the same question about all these tiny OCSP groups. Why are people going to all this effort -- that is, at those few that are struggling to survive at all? If they were trying to establish a diocese or parishes on Mars, well, that would be one thing. But here, we've long since had our Bishop Amats, our Bishop Lamys. These people are trying to maintain highly marginal enterprises that take a lot of founding effort a few blocks, at worst a few miles, from existing Catholic parishes -- or indeed, just upstairs.

The other day I listed some of the resources available in those parishes a few blocks away that almost certainly will never be available in these OCSP communities -- that is, if they survive at all after their priests retire or their key lay people move on. I'm increasingly convinced the laity sees the whole Anglicanorum coetibus enterprise as an opportunity to build a parallel Catholic Church with the prestige of the Vatican but made in the image of Anglo Catholicism. Look no farther than the Anglicanorum Coetibus Society, made up most visibly of poorly catechized lay people who seem to see their calling as building an alternate magisterium.

I have a sense that some diocesan bishops are beginning to see what's going on here. I support them. But I think the house of cards that makes up the OCSP will collapse in fairly short order no matter what.

Missing The Point, Misunderstanding The Market

I got an e-mail from a former St Mary of the Angels parishioner who dates from the Fr Jordan era but now lives in another part of the country. That he should be from this background is, I think, significant:

I belong to a growing, inter-racial parish of the Orthodox Church in America (OCA) that has a full church on Sundays with many crub crawlers (which I'm happy to step over-no cryng room hee!) with five priests, one full time, other guys do confessions and other services, three deacons, none stipendary- they all have full time secular jobs, numerous sub-deacons and readers and others who do lessons etc, as well as a choir with frum 10 to 20 people. And we get people coming here from RC and other places who want to explore what we offer. Can you comment on this to me privately, or otherwise, John? What is it that about the 'bigly' RC parish that is so attracive? Are we missing something? Am I missing something with your currant Pope who seems strange to me?

What I think I'm seeing here, as well as from the e-mail I got a few days ago touting an ACNA subgroup, is the idea that there's a range of Anglican-rite options available to Anglicans who are primarily dissatisfied with TEC or the ACC. Seen from this perspective, Anglicanorum coetibus is just one of literally dozens of alternatives, "continuers", ACNA, Orthodox, and so forth. Also seen from this perspective, the Catholic Church is less preferable as one of those options, with disincentives ranging from Humanae Vitae, to its idiosyncratic interpretations of the sixth commandment, to the residual sense that it appeals to blue collar and immigrant types.

To which I'll say yeah, if all you want is the 1928 BCP, no same-sex marriage, or no women clergy, fine, knock yourself out. If what you want is valid sacraments and clear religious instruction, you're on much shakier ground. It's a little puzzling that people would decide that certain points that fringe Anglo-Protestant groups share with the Catholic Church are somehow enough to make them small-o "orthodox", while they reject 95% of the Cathechism.

I think this is the mistake Cardinal Law made in thinking Rome should offer the Pastoral Provision or Anglicanorum coetibus as options in this somewhat wacky market, which was wildly overestimated from the start. These are people who want to pick and choose, and in the end, they aren't a good fit in the Catholic Church.

And certainly there are Protestant parishes that number in the mid five figures, and there's the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, for that matter. These are accidents and unrelated to the real thing. The issue is that the Catholic Church is the real thing, and nothing can really get around that. There are good and bad parishes, and there are good and bad popes. It's still the real thing. A lot of the other options are trying to masquerade as this, which I think is frankly dangerous.

Vignettes Of Small Group Life

My regular correspondent has brought me up to date on how the OCSP is thriving in Massachusetts and Kansas City.

The transition I am looking forward to with morbid interest is that which will have to take place when Fr Bradford retires from St Athanasius, Chestnut Hill. At the moment the members of that group seem quite adamant that they remain a congregation of the Archdiocese of Boston, despite my understanding that the Pastoral Provision for parishes/congregations ended early last year.

Meanwhile St Gregory the Great, the OCSP group formerly meeting in Stoneham, MA under the leadership of Fr Liias, now retired, is presenting itself as the present tenant of the 11:30 am Sunday slot at St Lawrence, Chestnut Hill. There was a lengthy discussion regarding the makeup of the current congregation here whose implications are interesting. Regardless of the current canonical status of the group, the existence of two websites is unusual, shall we say, and suggests that lay leadership remains in two camps.

Fr Bradford seems to think his retirement is imminent. Mr Guivens has frequently pointed out that the St Lawrence location is awkward and particularly so for the former Stoneham congregation, so that will be another possible bone of contention.

Regarding Kansas City, the news is:

Here is the story in Fr Davis' own words, of how he brought the Pastoral Provision community of of Our Lady of Hope into the OCSP. After about two years of combining full-time hospital chaplaincy with ministering to OLH, Fr Davis was reincardinated in the Diocese of Kansas City-St Joseph, and is now the pastor of a local parish. His replacement was Fr Randy Sly, an OCSP priest who had moved to Kansas City for family reasons and became Associate Pastor at St Therese North there, a position he still holds. He is also the Pastor of Our Lady of Sorrows, the host parish for OLH.

The OCSP group may have felt that they got the short end of the stick when it came to Fr Davis' pastoral attention, but they are even less visible under Fr Sly's management. The website remains unchanged since it was first set up by Fr Davis; the last FB post was Christmas 2016. On the FB page of Our Lady of Sorrows, we see a new sign for OLS, largely contributed to by the Ordinariate community, mentioning the DW service time. It also displays a OLS website address, not yet active, as a commenter notes (sign was erected last May). So perhaps it's just that the interweb isn't Fr Sly's thing.

A permanent and a transitional deacon were recently ordained for OLH; perhaps the latter, a former CEC colleague of Fr Sly's, is slated to take over the group when he becomes a priest, although he is a near-contemporary. If I were a member of the OLH mission I wouldn't be getting my hopes up about a new beginning.

I think we can refer to these newer examples to draw a more complete profile of all but a dozen or so OCSP communities, new and old:

• They are effectively ghettos, isolated from diocesan parishes by schedule and location, possibly as well by perceived social class division.
• Where OCSP priests happen to serve diocesan parishes as well as OCSP groups, the diocesan parishes get priority, probably due to level of attendance and financial contribution, as well as more local attention from the diocesan bishop. Bp Lopes is in Houston, the diocesan is nearby.
• The OCSP groups ghettoize themselves, apparently feeling superior to diocesan Catholics, to the extent that in Chestnut Hill, the OCSP clique is separate from the Pastoral Provision clique in the same location.
• However, the small communities are subject to actuarial conditions and the shortage of deployable OCSP priests. When their administrator retires, the little group is abandoned by the OCSP's bishop.
• It does not appear that the OCSP makes any effort in these circumstances to prepare such groups for this eventuality or transition them to life in a diocesan parish. (This would be an effective admission of failure, of course, which would not be politically acceptable in the current environment.)

It's worthwhile to enumerate just some of the sacramental, devotional and fellowship options that are routinely available in diocesan parishes but are effectively denied to these self-ghettoizing groups:

• Frequent masses
• Frequent confessions
• Rosary groups
• Adoration
• LifeTeen, Steubenville, and other youth activities
• Bible study
• Special events, presentations, and lectures
• Parish social activities, fairs, and fundraisers
• Ethnic celebrations
• Counseling.

The problem I see is that Anglicanorum coetibus is by its nature self-isolating a small population of new Catholics -- and an additional population of unknown size made up of angry traddies looking for a new separatist option -- from the wide diversity and enormous resources of diocesan life. I see no indication that Houston is encouraging any OCSP laity to familiarize themselves with the wider Church. But recognizing that we're already seeing Bp Lopes abandon groups for whom he can't find a replacement administrator, he's doing them no favors here.

A Different Perspective

A visitor sent these remarks:

Although this Pew Research is a few years dated, it demonstrates how even the Hispanic faithful is leaving the Roman Catholic Church in America.

Another study available from Pew also depicts Hispanics are simply packing it in in Central and South Americas.

The main benefactor is the Protestant church and not for just Hispanics leaving the Catholic Church.

This could be seen as a role reversal for Anglicans entering the Catholic Church through the Ordinatiate. Comparing the numbers, the attraction of the Ordinariate is indeed quite small when comparing numbers going the other way in just the Hispanic community alone.

I think one of the major problems of attracting Anglicans to the Ordinariate is the fact that Anglican Church has many streams and sub-titles. . . Anglo-Catholic (High Church), Low Church, Evangelical Church, Broad Church, and Charismatic Church under the Anglican umbrella. It appears that only a minute faction of the High Church (Anglo-Catholics) would ever swim the Tiber in the first place, and possibly the RCC did not effective study the wide diversity/liberalism under the Anglican umbrella. That being said, there are multiple conservative High Church Anglican churches available to Anglicans that no longer attach themselves to The Episcopal Church or desire the RCC.

The Missionary Diocese of All Saints (ACNA) does not ordain women to any office and seems very conservative and growing as an alternative to Vatican rule and liberal Anglicanism while still keeping their strict sacramental Anglican heritage. Such a situation would eliminate confusion between Houston and local bishops seen in various Ordinariate locales for Anglicans seeking alternatives to the Ordinariate.

Naturally, trends in Catholicism in Latin America are beyond the scope of this blog, not least because I speak only rudimentary Spanglish. And I'll leave aside the Pew agenda. But I think there may be a misunderstanding of the reasons Anglicans might wish to become Catholic here. It is unquestionably true that there are Protestant denominations, large and small, that don't ordain women, that don't bless same-sex marriages, and so forth. That's not the basic issue. There are non-Christian denominations that don't do those. The central issue is the origin and authority of the Roman Catholic Church and the teachings that stem from it. A Baptist denomination that doesn't ordain women or bless same-sex marriages will still get lots of things wrong from this point of view, nearly as much as TEC does. The basic problem is that neither is Catholic, so neither teaches what the Church teaches.

I think the visitor is on the right track in suggesting, though, that Anglicanorum coetibus did err in not recognizing how Protestant Anglicans are and thus assuming Anglican confirmation or ordination is almost as good as Catholic. Just because people wear Catholic vestments (a fairly recent affectation), call themselves bishops, or use certain liturgical formulas doesn't mean they're on track. Just because someone appears and says she's the Virgin Mary doesn't mean she's right, after all. The good thing is how few Anglicans are availing themselves of this opportunity and thus how few demons are coming in via this door -- there are plenty inside already.

But as I've pointed out here before, somewhere around 60,000 people come into the Church in the US via RCIA each year, a better path that provides people with far more opportunities for growth in the faith.

More On OLA And Pastors Emeritus

A visitor comments,

In fairness to Fr. Phillips, perhaps he did try to let loose of the reins but parties unhappy with the Archdiocese/OCSP compromise kept trying to hand them back. I do not envy Fr. Lewis. He is battling to keep that fractured parish together, to re-grow a school that has had its enrollment decimated by this public fight and trying to be a full time pastor. I would imagine that the folks cc’ing, including and consulting Fr. Phillips were doing it on the QT, maybe even at the request of Fr. Phillips himself, and Fr. Lewis had to finally come out and make an official request for it to stop.

Fr. Phillips’ wife was the head bookkeeper for the parish and school. She still works in the administration offices, although from the outside, it appears she is being transitioned out as newer employees are brought onboard to learn her job, but surely she has/had access to the inner workings and goings on of the last year. It would not be unreasonable for a husband and wife to discuss, “What went on at work today?”

UPDATE: A visitor reports Mrs. Phillips was moved out of the Administrative offices in November.

I suspect these ”leaks” are coming from many sources. There are still more than a few parishioners and parents that genuinely want/think Fr. Phillips could return when this all blows over. Unfortunately, this thinking is either naïve at best or delusional at worst, or some combination in between.

The fact that one full year later this is still a source of animosity and vitriol, used as a weapon to beat up on the Roman Church makes me concerned about the less than Christian charity and lack of Christ-like forgiveness. These people need our prayers. Both sides in this War of the Roses need guidance from the Holy Spirit to do the right thing and assistance from the Virgin Mary for the humility to accept the will of God, regardless if they agree with it.

Until they do, the only “winners” I see are folks that want the Catholic Church to look bad. Who wants to make Christ’s Church look bad? (Channeling my inner Church Lady here ) Can you say. . . Satan!

The tendency I keep seeing throughout the OCSP is to regard its version of small-c catholicism as a special compartment, just another edition of Anglo-Catholicism that at basis is rejecting authority and making it up as it goes along. The succession issue in the OLA parish is one instance, but we also see it in various pronouncements at the Anglicanorum Coetibus Society blog that suggest an "Anglican Patrimony" overrides the ordinary obligations of Catholics.

I think Fr Bergman, who I believe is on the board of directors of the Anglicanorum Coetibus Society, has a special obligation to offset this tendency, which he is either ignoring, or about which he is himself unclear -- but if he were acting as he should, such posts would long since have been deleted from the blog.

This is another indication to me that Bp Lopes is preoccupied and not really paying attention here. It also reinforces my view that Cardinal Mahony had the correct understanding of the governing factors behind both the Pastoral Provision and Anglicanorum coetibus.

My regular correspondent has been looking more closely into the Pastor Emeritus question. From last summer:

I doubt that Abp G-S would have named Fr Phillips "Pastor Emeritus" if he had been able to remove him from OLA. The disciplinary process, if successful, would have been a humiliating conclusion to Phillips' career in the Catholic church. Instead his departure took place in a face-saving manner. Presumably knowing that these were his only two options prompted Fr Phillips to treat "Pastor Emeritus" as exactly what he had in mind, so one might make a case that Lopes and G-S were acting in tandem, although I still feel that the latter let things go on too long. But perhaps your speculations about friends in high places are accurate. A very tangled situation.

It seems to me that the "Pastor Emeritus" designation for Fr Phillips was a way for Bp Lopes to temporize with the potentially divisive impact of simply removing Fr Phillips, although from the reports I had a year ago of the disagreements between Fr Phillips and Msgr Steenson, the fact that Phillips would own his house adjacent to the parish property was seen as a major problem in 2012 and seems to have been a factor behind the parish staying out of the OCSP at that time. Clearly, based on the report of current circumstances above, it continues to be a potential problem and a challenge for Fr Lewis. More recently, my correspondent has pointed out,

Relatively few OCSP groups have changed leadership since the Ordinariate was erected. I note that Fr Allan Hawkins is listed as "Pastor Emeritus" at SMV, Arlington, although as far as I know he remains incardinated in the local diocese. He has a blog which seems to avoid any discussion of parish business.

Fr Reid left Annunciation, Ottawa to take over BJHN, Victoria upon the retirement of Msgr Wilkinson, who had been in charge for only a year and was a former ACCC colleague of Fr Reid. This seems to have been an uneventful transition. Msgr Wilkinson continues to assist at BJHN.

Fr Catania and his two assistants at Mt Calvary, Baltimore left that community to make way for a new administrator. Fr Catania eventually took over St Barnabas, Omaha from Fr Scheiblhofer, the founding parochial administrator. There was a transition period during which Fr Scheiblhofer was "Pastor" and Fr Catania was "Associate Pastor" which this post described as a "coadjutor" arrangement.

I believe you had a correspondent from the [St Barnabas] parish who felt that Fr Scheiblhofer was forced out of the parish to make way for Fr Catania. He would have been 64 at the time. In any event Fr Scheiblhofer is now serving at St Robert Bellarmine, Omaha (see page 10 here), as of October 2017 according to the SRB FB page. This would be a more typical arrangement, I would imagine, regardless of the circumstances under which the previous administrator/Pastor retired.

My correspondent then added,

I meant "typical" for a Catholic parish. Nothing in the OCSP is yet "typical."

Groups-In-Formation: What's The Program?

My regular correspondent sent me a link to the web page of the new group-in-formation St Aelred's Athens, GA. It raises lots of questions. It had a DWM mass on Epiphany Sunday -- I believe Fr Perkins traveled to Athens to say it for them -- but the two dates for potlucks and evening prayer have passed with the location still "Contact for location", so it isn't clear if these actually happened.

But here's another question: we know that those eligible to be "members" of the OCSP are Protestants of Anglican background, very flexibly defined, or cradle Catholics who haven't completed the sacraments of initiation. But except for cradle Catholics who've had first communion, none in these groups would have been eligible to receive the sacrament on Epiphany Sunday. Was there just a procession of people who came up to Fr Perkins to receive a blessing, or what?

The next puzzling thing is what they're doing at the potlucks. The one scheduled for, but which may or may not have been held on January 10, was to have included "a discussion of the significance of the season of Epiphanytide". (Catholics who went to mass that Sunday, of course, had that as well.) This suggests that some stab at catechesis is possibly being made, but how much of one, and by whom?

Is the intent to bring these people into the Church at the Easter Vigil? This leaves less than three months to complete catechesis. And let's keep in mind that Mrs Gyapong, a show horse among the OCSP laity if ever there was one, announced only recently that the Anglican Patrimony overrode any necessity for OCSP members to avoid near occasions of sin. This leads me to question if she's ever been to confession, or if she has, if she's ever recited an act of contrition. What sort of catechesis is being done anywhere in the OCSP?

Diocesan RCIA programs, which are often felt to be less than satisfactory, frequently take nearly a year, sometimes two. And to assert that Anglicans have most of it down already is a serious misunderstanding of Protestantism. For instance, a perfectly respectable Anglican understanding of the Sermon on the Mount is that it sets an "impossible standard", to which I guess the faithful are meant to go "gee, wow' and go on sinning. (The link suggests it's meant to blow our minds, but it's not to be taken literally, for instance.)

The Church's position is that She doesn't demand the impossible. This is a serious difference, and at minimum it brings us to the examples of the saints and the reason for purgatory, which as we recall is denounced in the XXXIX Articles. It's also a key reason for aural confession, which in Anglicanism is not required of believers. If my education on confession was too sketchy in RCIA, what's it gonna be after potluck on Wednesdays in lent at St Aelred's?

And who's doing the catechizing here? Is it Mr Tipton? He's been trained in an Anglican seminary, where he's learned about the many branches, one tree, the impossible standard in the Sermon on the Mount, and whatever else. He's in line for ordination like the other sketchy candidates, so of course he's fine to catechize his little flock. Maybe Mrs Gyapong will teach him the finer points of the Anglican Patrimony, too.

Diocesan catechists must normally be certified after extensive and ongoing formation. As far as I can see, Mr Tipton, not even Catholic himself, isn't remotely qualified to teach RCIA, much less bring in people who've had misguided Protestant formation.

If Mr Tipton isn't even Catholic himself, it means he's never been to confession. How on earth can he instruct others on how to make it? How on earth, a few months hence, can he set himself up as someone who can hear it? So why not require members of groups-in-formation to attend RCIA at the same host parish where they're holding potlucks? Well, that might delay things, which might make Bp Lopes look bad or something.

As best I can figure, based on the short-lived example we saw in the Tampa area and what we're now seeing in Georgia, after a few months of casserole and fried chicken on Wednesday nights, Mr Tipton will be clear for ordination, and his dozen or so quasi-Catholics will be ready to be received. The folks who go through RCIA down the hall at the host parish will be better off indeed, no matter how inadequate that program may be.

Bp Lopes is the one who will answer for this, if not when the OCSP goes kerflooey, then certainly in the hereafter.

UPDATE: My regular correspondent provides some corrections and clarifications:

Mr Tipton and his wife were received into the Church last Easter. The mass on January 7 is described as "Novus Ordo"; I believe it was the regular 8:15 mass at St Joseph's, Athens, unless you have other information. The Evensong/potlucks were/are scheduled to take place at the Tiptons' home, which is why the address is not published, but can be forwarded in reply to an email. I note that Mr Tipton is now teaching theology at a local Catholic high school, for what that's worth.

I do agree that there seems to be no reason why what was appropriate preparation for the Tiptons at St Joseph would not be equally appropriate for any seekers who have joined the Evensong group. We are not talking about any community he previously led in his brief stint as a campus chaplain at the university, I would presume. Why this duplication, except as a vehicle for his ordination?

I'm still puzzled. If someone's been Catholic less than a year, I don't see how they'd be certified to be catechists. And if I were a school parent, I'd want to know more about that "theology" class -- Catholic parents do have choices. And are members of the St Aelred's group going to the novus ordo mass normally on Sundays, receiving a blessing or eligible for the sacrament? If so, what on earth is the point of Anglican Patrimony here? What is the point of going to mass with Fr Moreau at St Josph's, or in fact going to him for confession, and thinking that things will be "better" once Mr Tipton is eligible to read thees and thous from the DWM?

The Pastor Emeritus Problem

My regular correspondent comments,

Your reference to Fr Phillips as "retired" caused me to explore the significance of the title "Pastor Emeritus" in a Catholic context. While it is fairly widely used in the Church, the holders of that title seem to be retired priests who continue to offer sacramental ministry in their former parish but have no administrative role. But clearly there is the potential for difficulty in making the transition from leadership to this kind of ministry. This document prepared by an American Protestant denomination seems to anticipate these problems and proposes some implementation strategies.

It seems evident that removing Fr Phillips as Pastor of OLA was part of the deal whereby OLA was transferred to the OCSP, and naming him Pastor Emeritus rather than exiling him, as Abp G-S seemed to be proposing, was the face-saving way of doing this. Unfortunately the PE job description does not seem to have been made clear to Fr P.

As you recall, at the time it was announced that he would be travelling extensively to act as a consultant to other parishes and perhaps it was assumed that he would be away a lot and thus would voluntarily start to separate himself from the day-to-day operation of the church and school. If so, this was naive.

Now, as you describe, a year after Abp G-S removed Fr Phillips as OLA Pastor, Fr Lewis is attempting to pry the reins from his hands. The Church Militant spin was to make G-S the bad guy, but of course the current impetus comes from Bp Lopes, or at least has his support. As the UCC document acknowledges, the task is complex, and more difficult in this case because clearly Fr Phillips WAS "included, consulted, or cc'd on... official meetings or decisions regarding the school or parish" up until now, where it should have been clear from the start that this was no longer his role.

I don't believe I've seen the title "Rector Emeritus" used in TEC. I do recall two instances in which a retired rector reappeared at special occasions (like the Christmas Eve midnight mass), although this was often enough a situation where the poor man would lose his place in the prayer book and loop through the prayer of consecration several times.

On the other hand, when the late Fr Carroll Barbour, as effective and beloved a rector as I've ever seen, retired from St Thomas Episcopal Hollywood, he made it absolutely plain that it was his duty to separate himself from the parish completely, and it was the parish's duty to move on, a task with which a capable interim helped enormously. (After he retired, Fr Barbour became Catholic.)

It seems to me that there are two issues with Fr Philips, one being the attempt to continue interfering with parish administration, with which it appears that Fr Lewis is dealing effectively, and the other being taking his disagreements public, especially to Church Militant. This latter strikes me as extremely serious, and I've go to assume that Bp Lopes has remedies available.

Certainly it says less-than-favorable things about Fr Philips that he would wish to damage the OCSP by linking it with public disputes like this.

Fr Lewis Is Asserting Control At Our Lady Of The Atonement

One of the consistent issues that parents of Atonement Academy children and others have raised with me is the constant churning of headmasters. Clearly the parents would prefer to have a qualified and competent headmaster who is empowered to do his job, but especially when the headmaster reported to Dcn Orr -- who also taught at the school -- this didn't happen. Dcn Orr's retirement doesn't seem to have improved the situation, however.

I'm told by multiple sources that earlier this month, an e-mail from Fr Lewis went out that said the current headmaster was being asked (or had asked himself, it wasn't clear) to step down and resume a teaching only role, with the search on for a new headmaster. This time it would not be a crisis pick, with the position staying open as long as it takes to find the right person for the job.

Apparently another e-mail went out to school parents the gist of which was that from now on, Fr. Phillips was not to be included, consulted or cc’d on any official meetings or decisions regarding the school and parish, because he is retired. A visitor said he hadn't seen the e-mail, but its effect is clear, and such a policy now appears to be in place.

I've heard as well from several visitors giving what amounts to a consensus theory of why the news of the Poor Clare sisters' departure was taken down so quickly from both the Atonement Online blog and the Anglicanorum Coetibus Society blog. One e-mail expresses what others have said:

After reading your blog today it reminded me of something else that had occurred to me during this fast-paced, lurid, nuns-being-ejected scandal. . . why did Fr. Phillips retract his blog entry so quickly? It is curious. I doubt very seriously Fr. Phillips will come forward with an explanation. If I were the gambling sort, my money would be on Fr. Mark Lewis, Pastor of OLA, acting swiftly and decisively before Bishop Lopes even got wind of this. Or maybe Bishop Lopes was paying attention but doesn’t want to tip his hand quite yet. Who knows, but again, it is very interesting to watch, kind of like a train wreck in slo mo on an IMAX screen, but with a laugh track.

So many things in the Catholic world are needed by the faithful and this is the best we got? I predict 2018 is gonna be a banner year!

I certainly get a feeling that Fr Lewis is working carefully and capably to put adult supervision over the parish and school, but recognizing that any premature move could provoke Fr Phillips into inciting a factional rebellion. I would say that by trying to create a Phillips-centered crisis over the Poor Clare sisters' departure, he may have attempted just that. But at the same time, by going to Church Militant with the story, almost certainly without Houston's approval, he committed what in the secular world would be a terminable offense.

Even if he's "retired", by living next to the parish, he's in a highly ambiguous situation and pretty clearly has his own interests in mind, over and above those of the parish and the OCSP. Bp Lopes has additional disciplinary options available to him, as far as I can see, which could include forbidding him to exercise any public role, and potentially forbidding him from the parish property.

Monasticism 102

A visitor replied to my request in yesterday's post for more information on "Monasticism 102":

I am no Canon Lawyer but I have been Catholic long enough to have seen how various religious orders operate within various dioceses. Here’s what I can give you:

• How is a Monastery supported?

  Usually, these are self-supporting, by a combination of private benefactors, fundraising activities of the monastery (like these nuns did by selling soap, hand-made scapulars, etc.), or additional assistance from their parent organization if they are a satellite group. It is also possible, if a group is answerable to a specific Bishop, that the diocese where the monastery resides could offer financial assistance or a stipend of some sort. I do not know the financial arrangements between the Poor Clares and the archdiocese of San Antonio.

• What are the Canon Law governing codes for a Monastery within an Archdiocese or Ordinariate?

  I don’t know the specific statutes, but religious orders are established (a) within a diocese, in which case the local bishop is the person to whom the order must obey or (b) as a personal prelature, in which case the members are answerable to their order Superior (Mother, Brother, Abbot etc.), who is then answerable to technically the pope (but in practice to an arm or office of the Vatican). Either way, any religious order working within the geographical confines of a diocese must have the auspices (permission) of the bishop of that diocese to minister there. So the Mother Superior was in AL (where that monastery must have permission from the local Bishop of Hanceville) but the nuns were ministering in San Antonio (not just living as private citizens) so they needed permission from Archbishop Garcia-Siller.

• Why wasn't the parish informed until the sisters were packed up and already on the road?

  The nuns operated entirely separate from OLA; they only lived in a house owned by the parish that would have otherwise been vacant. The nuns were staying there rent free but were taking care of the lawn, cleaning the house, etc. The charism of the nuns was contemplative, fundraising and outreach via their radio program, none of which was connected to the parish or the school at OLA. The nuns did attend Mass at the parish and I assume the priests at OLA assisted them as needed, possibly because of an original arrangement with the Archbishop of San Antonio (I find it unlikely an order of religious whose charism is perpetual adoration would establish a satellite community in another diocese without at least some assurances from the local ordinary that the group could have access to some method of Eucharistic Adoration, hence the relationship with the clergy at OLA). They were contemplatives. They didn’t have many visitors because their days were so regimented. They only had to pack their clothes (which was what, a habit that each one was wearing and some undergarments and maybe pajamas). What would be the point of notifying the parish in advance? A going away party? That’s not really the Poor Clares style. I imagine they left immediately because the Mother Superior told them to. I’m sure they were given specific instructions about the date and time they needed to be back at the Motherhouse in AL. It is a long drive but doable in one shot with three drivers from San Antonio to Hanceville.

• Why didn't the Mother Superior contact Bp Lopes? Did she? Why such a quick decision to uproot before exploring other options.

  Who knows what the Mother Superior did and who says other options weren’t explored? The nuns specifically wanted 50 acres of natural, raw land in San Antonio to build their monastery on. They did not want to remodel existing structures. There was nothing even close to their price range available within the city limits of San Antonio or the surrounding area. They looked, waited and prayed for ten years. That seems like a pretty long window of exploring all their options to me.

• Why the drama of leaving on Ephiphany?

  These are contemplative nuns who practice Eucharistic Adoration and come from a monastery named after the Virgin Mary. What better day to begin a new chapter in their lives of discernment than on such an auspicious feast day. The Catholic Church has a very long history of scheduling important events on feast days (note that Fr. Phillips chose Aug. 15th, the Feast of the Assumption, as the date to found the school of OLA- was that just drama?)

• Is the Archbishop King Herod in this story?

  Really? How many innocents were slaughtered exactly?

I chuckle as I watch this tempest in a teapot.

My regular correspondent added,

[Y]ou are probably right that Fr Phillips then turned around and gave, directly or indirectly, a fuller and more lurid version of the story to Church Militant. Not good. And the spin on the story: are we really to assume that Abp G-S has been waiting since last April to take revenge on Fr Phillips by having the nuns yanked out of San Antonio? A dish served cold indeed, if so. And, as you point out, the idea that this is a big story because "Texas has lost an entire monastery" is absurd.

Another interesting aspect is that Fr Phillips, retired for nearly a year as pastor, has inserted himself into the story, complete with photo of himself, and made himself a chief player and victim of the archbishop.

I'm not sure if Bp Lopes is all that interested in being Bishop of the OCSP, or he'd have been on Phillips's case and at minimum issuing some type of clarification to Church Militant, which it seems to me they'd be obligated to add to the story. Instead, he's allowing the impression to develop that things are out of his control.

Church Militant Doesn't Have The FULL STORY

A story on the Poor Clare sisters leaving OLA for Alabama appears now at Church Militant. My immediate reaction is that this story is such a puff piece for Fr Phillips, including a smarmy photo, that it must have come from the freelance Phillips press office that I hypothesized yesterday. Several things follow from this. The story can do absolutely nothing to help relations between Bp Lopes and Abp Garcia-Siller, and if I were the archbishop, I'd be asking if this is done with Lopes's tacit approval.

My second reaction is that the comment section reminds me of the issue Fr Z sometimes raises, that Catholic web sites allow such vivid flame wars to erupt in their comment sections that some of the people involved are putting their souls in danger. And this goes to the demonic issue that has lately had me concerned here. People ask why I don't have comments on this blog, and I will submit the comments on that post as my answer.

My third reaction is that this story not only threatens any good relation between Bp Lopes and Abp Garcia-Siller, but it raises a question for any diocesan bishop: why would I want a bunch of essentially anti-Catholic agitators to come into my territory, calling themselves "Catholic" but outside my authority, picking squabbles with me and running to Church Militant with their side of the story? I can't imagine the way this is being spun doing anything but damage -- and, I suspect, more damage, not damage de novo -- to the OCSP's cause.

I noted yesterday the puzzling phenomenon of recent OCSP groups-in-formation having apparent difficulties in gaining the use of diocesan facilities. And Bp Lopes is not on top of this. Fr Phillips has become a loose cannon here. Bp Lopes, this is not a good look.

But let's get to the actual situation of the nuns' departure and the possible reasons for it. Mr Schaetzel actually left a constructive comment at the Church Militant thread:

In the case of these three nuns, while they too are Ordinariate members, they are also under the Mother Superior of their religious order in Alabama. They have to follow their Superior's orders. Such is the nature of religious orders. The article states that +Gustavo contacted the order's superior in Alabama, revoked his predecessor's invitation, and asked that they be removed immediately. He can legally do this, since they were originally there under the invitation of the previous archbishop of San Antonio, back when Atonement was under the Archdiocese. It's a technical matter really. . .

However, even this doesn't go into much more ambiguous background. An observer contacted me yesterday noting

As religious groups usually serve in a diocese under the auspices of the Bishop, these women by their applications for OCSP membership would have thrown this relationship into some serious ambiguity, if that was the case. It would not be out of line for the Archbishop to request clarification of their intentions or to re-evaluate the original mission of these nuns in the archdiocese.

However, it appears that the Poor Clares themselves had been reassessing their mission for some time prior to last year's events in any case. The visitor continues,

[T]hese nuns originally had five members housed here in San Antonio but [t]wo returned to the Motherhouse in Hanceville, AL several years ago because they were unhappy/unable to support the ongoing mission in San Antonio, which was ostensibly to pray for the community and fundraise to build a monastery in the San Antonio area. Looking into the Poor Clares order online, I can see that it has undergone a pretty significant consolidation over the last decade with a monastery in OH consolidating into NC and the NC monastery has now been merged into the AL monastery. Moving these three remaining nuns back to the main monastery at this time would not be inconsistent with what is occurring within this order as discernment.

Another visitor notes several errors or obscurities in the Church Militant piece.

• The article says the archbishop "had commanded three Poor Clare nuns attached to the parish back to their motherhouse in Alabama after nine years in San Anotonio." He made a request to the Mother Superior, as shown in the excerpt.
• The article says "They had been in the process of raising funds to build a monastery." This had been ongoing for 9-10 years, but as discussed above, there was some disagreement, and the status of the land acquisition is unclear at best. The article says, "Texas lost an entire monastery," but the monastery is at best rumored for the future and entirely notional.
• The article says, "The sisters left Sunday morning before the announcement was made; parishioners weren't even given the chance to say goodbye." Not given a chance by whom? This was at the mother superior's order, not the archbishop.
• The article says, "Fr. Phillips was reinstated shortly after, but has since retired." The announcement of his retirement was effectively simultaneous with the admission of the parish to the OCSP.
• The article says, "This, parishioners believe, set the stage for Sunday's expulsion — a move they have described to Church Militant as punitive, vindictive and godless." As discussed here, the move was consistent with the canonical status of religious orders in dioceses and seems to be consistent with an ongoing process of discernment within the order, not necessarily related to any events at the OLA parish.

A question I have is why, if all that would have been needed to keep the nuns at the OLA parish would have been a re-invitation from Bp Lopes, such a re-invitation hasn't been issued. My regular correspondent notes,

There is now a group of Dominican nuns in residence at OLW, Houston. One of them is helping out in the Chancery; another two are teaching at the school of which Fr Sellers, former Communications Director of the OCSP, is the President.

Bp Lopes is entirely capable of inviting an order into his see -- so why didn't he just re-invite the Poor Clares to OLA? I think it's entirely possible that the mother superior saw good reasons to re-discern the sisters' mission at OLA, not necessarily related to any other developments.

An observer has these questions:

• How is a Monastery supported?
• What are the Canon Law governing codes for a Monastery within an Archdiocese or Ordinariate?
• Why wasn't the parish informed until the sisters were packed up and already on the road?
• Why didn't the Mother Superior contact Bp Lopes? Did she? Why such a quick decision to uproot before exploring other options.
• Why the drama of leaving on Ephiphany?
• Is the Archbishop King Herod in this story?

These are worthwhile questions, and if anyone can help, I'll publish the info, especially on the Monasticism 102 material here.

But backing off the specific issue, I've got to say I think the black eye here goes to Bp Lopes, who hasn't been able to control the loose cannon in his see, who hasn't been able to get a favorable contrasting message out, and indeed, whose essentially non-existent press office hasn't built favorable relations with outlets like Church Militant. Keep in mind that a good press person would find ways to build confidence with Mr Voris's operation such that they would contact Houston for comment and clarification before running this sort of a story.

Yeah, the usual angry traddies will get stirred up in the comment section, but the people who count -- Bp Lopes's colleagues in the USCCB and CCB -- will have different reactions. If I am Cardinal O'Toole, Archbishop of Gotham, how eager will I be to allow some new little group of angries who aren't even sure if they're Anglican or Catholic to meet after the Korean mass at St Ipsydipsy?

Poor Clare Sisters Leave Our Lady Of The Atonement

At the end of mass on Epiphany Sunday at Our Lady of the Atonement, Fr Lewis read a letter from the Mother Superior of the Poor Clare Sisters in Alabama, saying that the nuns who had resided in a convent at OLA were returning to Alabama in response to a request by Archbishop of San Antonio Gustavo Garcia-Siller. It was not made clear, and it isn't clear to observers, if they were ordered to leave or what exactly the request was. The letter also spoke of discernment on the nuns' part.

An announcement of this appeared briefly on the Atonement Online blog, authored by Fr Phillips, but it was taken down almost immediately. A source apparently at OLA also notified this blog of the news:

Traditional Nuns Forced From Texas Diocese

Church Militant Headines – 1/8/18

Sources say Poor Clares [resident at Our Lady of the Atonement, an Anglican-use Catholic parish] suffering payback from new San Antonio archbishop [because of the recent transfer of the parish to the Anglican-use Catholic Ordinariate].

FULL STORY COMING SOON

As far as anyone can tell, what we currently know of the "full story" doesn't imply that anything was "forced", nor whether it had anything to do with either "payback" or tradition. In my view, opinion from what I would call very solid priests like Fr Chad Ripperger is that "traditionalism" can easily turn into "substitution of private judgment", of which Anglo-Catholics have always been notably guilty. I would cite only the most recent pronouncement from the Anglicanorum Coetibus Society that, in its semi-official view, it is not needful for Catholics to avoid near occasions of sin, as this is not consonant with the Anglican Patrimony.

I'm told, though, that coffee-hour conventional wisdom at OLA was that this was "payback" from the archbishop, though I'm not exactly sure how this would pay anything back. An observer suggests that changes in administration at OLA due to recent audits may have resulted in review of the nuns' use of the parish house and the convent. This may in fact be about discernment, rather than anything the archbishop may have in mind. But I await the FULL STORY.

There's a troubling issue lurking behind this, which is the OCSP's non-existent policy on social media. By my count of at least the issues that have come to me, this is the third case where a community issues some type of semi-official public announcement that basically steps on, or could conceivably step on, the prerogatives of a diocesan bishop and must quickly be taken down. Clearly the short-lived post at Atonement Online allowed visitors to conclude unfavorable things about the archbishop, and the news item that apparently went to Church Militant said the same things more directly, and could well have come from the same source.

Somebody needs to make it clear to the little Shakespeares authoring social media posts at OCSP communities that any post that mentions a diocesan bishop or local diocese must be approved by Houston. At best, this paints a continued picture of the OCSP as amateur hour, and someone should have seen the need to make such policies clear before this instance -- although if Fr Phillips is running his own freelance press office, I assume that there are disciplinary options available to a bishop even for retired priests. Bp Lopes, this is not a good look.

But this leads me to wonder about other possible issues. We seem to be coming to more episodes of difficulties with local dioceses. For whatever reason, recent announcements of groups-in-formation at Athens, GA and Murietta, CA aren't accompanied by a set location, even though use of local diocesan facilities would be the logical option. As best we know the story, Bp Parkes of St Petersburg would not allow diocesan facilities to be used for a Tampa-area OCSP group, although he afterward accepted its candidate priest into the Pastoral Provision. Bp Matano seems to have had some level of hesitation to allow the OCSP group in Rochester to use diocesan facilities.

Are bishops conferring among themselves on the desirability of allowing OCSP groups in their dioceses? Certainly my own impression of the OCSP, reinforced by what we hear from the Anglicanorum Coetibus Society, is that there are lots of poorly catechized laity and poorly formed, poorly supervised priests making all kinds of crazy assertions about what's "traditional". As a bishop, I can keep some sort of a lid on this stuff in my diocese. But to have a group calling itself "Catholic" in my diocese beyond my control, under the authority of some prelate who may not know what's going on thousands of miles away, doesn't seem appetizing at all.

Stay tuned.

Sustainability

My regular correspondent sent me the following:

Bp Lopes visited St Barnabas, Omaha late last year to consecrate it as a Catholic church, but he did not take that opportunity to raise it to full parish status, which must mean that membership is significantly below the 100 individuals/30 families benchmark. Nonetheless the congregation, thanks to a significant bequest, as I believe you reported, has undertaken significant restoration work on the church, acquired a new rectory, and can pay Fr Catania a full stipend.

This situation sounds like a first cousin to what St Mary of the Angels would have been had it come into the OCSP. As of early 2012, it had about 65 members and rental income to sustain it indefinitely. One problem is there's not enough going on to keep people busy, which provides openings for mischief.

And why, exactly, are we doing this? I'm getting more and more of a feeling that with poorly catechized laity and poorly formed, poorly supervised clergy, there's a developing unspoken assumption that the OCSP is a freelance version of Catholicism where, as the Anglicanorum Coetibus Society recently announced, old-fashioned silliness over things like near occasions of sin is not to be countenanced. Why else have your own cozy little establishment only a few blocks from a diocesan parish?

My correspondent offers additional comments on the situation in Canada:

Growth is often an elusive goal---funerals and baptisms balance one another off, as it were---but stasis is not so difficult to achieve. Mostly it's about money. The problem for much of the OCSP is that this stasis depends on the ministry of a priest who has independent means, or an outside job. The latter situation is not ideal---it largely precludes growth, because the priest has to divide his time---but potentially could be sustained indefinitely. The former case, where a priest, usually retired on a pension, can forego a full stipend, is not sustainable. Sooner rather than later he will die or fully retire and the congregation will not be able to find a replacement on similar terms.

I would say that virtually the entire Canadian Deanery is facing this eventuality. All of the groups are led by retired men, with the exception of St John the Evangelist, Calgary and Annunciation, Ottawa which has one of its two priests still actively working as a teacher. And Christ the King, Tyendinaga, whose lay leader/candidate for the permanent diaconate has been hospitalised for the last two months. Not sure what is going on there; usual ad with service info has not been placed in reserve newspaper since his illness.

But point is that no vocations, with the exception of the Bros, have come forward from ACC clergy since 2012. ACC dioceses only ordain as many candidates as there are upcoming vacancies, so they do not have the pool of un/der-employed clergy that is providing OCSP candidates in the US The ACCC has given its all, at least for the priesthood (there is a diaconal candidate at Annunciation) and I do not detect any young celibate candidates on the horizon. So I predict that one by one the communities in Canada will fold.

William James vs Edward Feser

I wound up studying William and Henry James a lot as an undergraduate, and I've looked at The Varieties of Religious Experience pretty closely at least twice. I've said here already that James's Pragmatism is a rough frontier tool, but it does its job. Much more recently I've been drawn to Edward Feser and neo-Scholasticism, and I think James and Feser have a similar purpose, but James uses a hatchet or tomahawk, while Feser uses an electron microscope.

James's object, which he never quite states in so many words, is to show that the objections to natural religion raised by Hume and Kant are irrelevant, because natural religion has demonstrable good effects as we see them. Arguments for or against the existence of God are beside the point, because we see a clear and consistent longing for something outside itself in the "sick soul". This is nothing like the sophistication of Feser's Five Proofs, but it works for certain tasks.

As I begin to withdraw myself from the St Mary of the Angels story, I'm coming back to William James's method. Whether we can prove the existence of demons is beside the point, because we can observe their effects in what we see. Take just the perplexity I saw in Judge Daniel Murphy this past Thursday. He's looking at a situation where parties are expending millions in time and treasure to squabble over a property in a real-world Jarndyce v Jarndyce.

But I have another observation -- while some long-term parishioners were on the sidelines here, the prime movers who began the dispute in 2011-12 were all newcomers. Mrs Bush hadn't been to church in 40 years. The Kangs, named in the damage suit, were new to the parish. Fr Bartus was a newly-minted priest, ordained a "continuer" only in early 2011. A woman closely associated with Fr Bartus and a godmother to his daughter, while in middle age, had only recently been baptized.

The events of 2012 would simply not have occurred without these neophytes taking very active roles. And new to the game, they were utterly consumed by it, driven sometimes by a frightening level of anger. Let's go back to the neo-rationalist principle of sufficient reason. The link quotes Leibnitz:

Our reasonings are based on two great principles, that of contradiction, in virtue of which we judge that which involves a contradiction to be false, and that which is opposed or contradictory to the false to be true. . . . . And that of sufficient reason, by virtue of which we consider that we can find no true or existent fact, no true assertion, without there being a sufficient reason why it is thus and not otherwise, although most of the time these reasons cannot be known to us.

We've got a strange cabal of people new to a parish, new to Anglicanism, new to Christianity, new to the priesthood, who've suddenly got it all figured out, to the point that they're breaking laws to get what they want. Yet what they want isn't at all clear. Do they want to steal the property for themselves? Some may have wanted baksheesh of some sort out of the deal, or some tangential advantage, but certainly not the property itself.

At this point, I can't exclude the idea that the sufficient reason in this case is demonic. I hear presentations by priests who say that the demonic can enter via the occult or via pornography, but I've got to consider the hypothesis that the demonic has inserted itself via something in the St Mary of the Angels parish. The late Fr Carroll Barbour had a point when he said the devil sits in the front pew of every parish.

It seems to me that there was a constellation of very weak characters who came into the parish around 2010 and fell under some very bad influences. Those who've emerged from this story without a lien on their souls should probably be thanking the angels and saints and working on an exit strategy. And in addition to my other devotions, I've begun saying three Hail Marys at morning and night.

Outline Of A Possible Settlement

I ended my last post with the idea that the parties in the Third Lawsuits would be best off reaching a settlement that would conclude the current cycle of litigation and leave everyone happy. An idea of how this might be done is beginning to occur to me, based on the general outline of how the Roman Catholic Diocese of Orange acquired the former Crystal Cathedral.

The vestry does have a continuing capacity to delay indefinitely the execution of the appeals court's decision, based on the fact that the existing vestry continues to be recognized as the legal vestry, and there is no way under the parish bylaws that the ACA can remove vestry members or appoint new ones. Resolution of this problem would take years of additional litigation, and throughout that time, the ACA would not have clear title, even if they were able to evict Fr Kelley and the vestry again.

Mrs Bush will turn 88 this year. Many other figures in the case are at retirement age, including Bp Marsh of the ACA. Nobody currently is in a position to pursue years of additional uncertainty.

So it's in the ACA's interest to get Fr Kelley and the vestry to go away happy. A very rough approach would be the one I suggested yesterday, envisioning a multimillion-dollar disposition of the property, with the great bulk of the proceeds going to the ACA. Remember that the value of the Della Robbia altarpiece alone is potentially in eight figures. However, the final sale of all the assets would be years in the future.

But just a promise of money from the sale (in the form of severance packages for Fr Kelley and other parish employees and potential charitable contributions to other entities) would not be sufficient to make the vestry and Fr Kelley go away happy.

But here's a solution, along the lines of how the former Crystal Cathedral was sold:

• The legal process is begun whereby the existing vestry starts to dissolve the St Mary of the Angels corporation. This avoids any question as to who has the ability to do so.
• The property, including the Della Robbia, is fully appraised.
• An agreement is reached whereby the vestry and Fr Kelley retain occupancy of the premises during this interim period. The vestry continues to receive the rent from the commercial property. Fr Kelley and other employees continue to be paid. Books subject to audit as specified.
• The parish functions as a community church under the authority of Abp Hepworth during the interim period.
• A set of generous severance packages for Fr Kelley and all other eligible parish employees, to be made from the eventual proceeds from sale of the property, is established.
• Payments to attorneys on both sides, to be made from the eventual proceeds from sale of the property, are established.
• At the time of the final sale and disposition, Fr Kelley and the vestry move out.
• At that time, the ACA receives clear title. The final dissolution of the corporation would be roughly simultaneous.
• The proceeds of the sale are distributed as specified during negotiations.

It's a thought, anyhow. But it seems to me that the cooperation of the existing vestry will be key to any sort of satisfactory resolution that would avoid years of additional litigation.