Bp Barron Visits YouTube

Earlier this week, Bp Barron posted a brief Youtube video covering a day spent at YouTube and the headquarters of its parent, Google. I've been reflecting on this. In part, I'm guided by the insights of another media savant, Rush Limbaugh, who frequently says,"If you've got a marketing plan, you don't announce it. You execute it."

Bp Barron has something of a Church of Nice persona, and in the video, he does some of that by talking about the wonderful Catholics who work at Google and have a lunchtime rosary group. (I assume the Google engineer who got fired for writing a politically incorrect memo about diversity wasn't a member.) On the other hand, the rosary is a tool. People pray the rosary outside abortion clinics. The bishop didn't go into that.

But that visit certainly had to have a context. Google and YouTube have been at the forefront of modern-day censorship, in which the state doesn't even need to play a visible role; corporate social media can demonetize or delete outright opinion that isn't deemed advertiser friendly, or which visitors can denounce as being insufficiently tolerant or inclusive. The Catholic Church has any number of teachings that can potentially be suppressed on that basis.

Currently there are a number of Catholic channels on YouTube, ranging from Bp Barron's own channel to Ascension Presents to Sensus Fidelium, as well as individual channels where pastors record their homilies, and of course, Church Militant. The slightest change in the algorithms could wipe these out in a matter of days -- so far, quite innocuous channels that simply present opinions outside the Overton window, the "range of policies considered politically acceptable in the current climate of public opinion", have been hit, either partially or kicked off YouTube completely. KEK, as they say.

I've got to assume Bp Barron, who is almost certainly being advanced in the Church for his understanding of contemporary media, recognizes the risks here.

New Non-TEC Ordinations

My regular correspondent reports,

Two current military chaplains, Joseph Reffner and Matthew Whitehead, will be ordained to the priesthood at the end of May. The latter was REC and the former ACA ("Two Regent Graduates Complete Army Chaplain Basic Course"). Their ordinations to the diaconate were completely under the radar. There are two priestly ordination services this year: "A" List on June 29, which was established by Bp Lopes as the official annual date, "B" list (Bayles, these two men, Ed Wills) on May 31.

Both men are married. If they're chaplains, we must assume that the two will continue as chaplains until they're eligible for military retirement, at which point they could be deployed to positions in the OCSP where their military pensions would supplement whatever the OCSP communities could pay.

This seems to indicate that the OCSP is continuing to recruit men under a very loose interpretation of the former model -- they aren't coming in with parishes, they aren't members of an existing OCSP group, but they were in fact ordained in an "Anglican" denomination.

The Reformed Episcopal Church, Whitehead's former denomination, broke from TEC in 1873 in reaction to the increasingly Romanizing trends there. According to Wikipedia,

They emphasized the Protestant, Reformed, Evangelical and Reformational aspects in the history of the Church of England, making frequent allusions to Archbishop Cranmer, Bishop Ridley, Bishop Hugh Latimer, Bishop John Hooper, Archbishop Matthew Parker, Bishop John Jewel, Archbishop Edmund Grindal and other Reformers in the Church of England. Early leaders of the Church, in lectures and sermons, warned against Ritualism as a denominational proclivity in the Episcopal Church.

My regular correspondent adds,

Former clergy do not generally attend seminary, although they may do some make up classes, on-line or locally, and they now have week-long intensive sessions in Houston a few times a year.

How does this make up for what's pretty clearly down-the-line Protestant formation? One question I have is whether OCSP clergy in fact ever do interact much with diocesan clergy.

I also question why these ordinations have been kept secret.

Generalissimo Francisco Franco Is Still Dead!

My regular correspondent is anxious to point out that the finances at St Luke's are unclear, and neither Fr Lewis nor his successor has necessarily had to rely on a supplementary pension. In addition, Holy Nativity Payson is not a full parish, although it owns its property, while St Luke's which is a full parish, does not. It seems to me that this doesn't take away from the fact that all but the very top tier of parishes are struggling -- if the examples of St Luke's and Holy Nativity are iffy, I could substitute St John the Evangelist Bridgeport, where Fr Ousley appears to rely on a TEC pension, or St John the Evangelist Calgary, where Fr Kenyon's presumptive successors are, loosely speaking, consecrated religious and thus subject to lower compensation standards.

Of Fr Ousley, my regular correspondent says, "He was a TEC clergyman for twenty years, from 1979-99. He is 67 now." This means that a reasonable question can be asked, if Fr Ousley can be expected to retire within three years, and he's had to rely on a TEC pension to supplement his stipend as pastor, how can Houston replace him with a younger man who doesn't have supplementary income? Can the St John the Baptist parish expect to grow enough in the next three years to meet that gap?

A bigger question is how any but the very largest OCSP communities can be expected to fare within the next three to five years. Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead!

Bp Barron In Person

My wife and I were at a concert last night, and as it happens, we were seated not too far from now-auxiliary bishop of Los Angeles Robert Barron. He was there in an unofficial capacity, dressed in what apparently for a bishop are the equivalent of Class Ds, light-colored dockers, clerical shirt and collar, but no jacket and no pectoral cross. Two things struck me -- he is quite tall, somewhere abound 6-4 or 6-6, and in person, his hair is almost white. I assume something is done with his hair before he records a video.

Interestingly, he was not surrounded by an entourage and appeared to be quite accessible.

Article 7 Of The Complementary Norms

My regular correspondent has these comments on Article 7 as discussed yesterday, that the ordinary ". . . must provide for [clergy's] needs in the event of sickness, disability, and old age."

As we have discussed, apart from the very small number of former clergy who brought with them congregations large enough to support them, most of the first crop of OCSP clergy were already receiving pensions. A few needed jobs; the Norms allow secular employment but at least in the OCSP every employed priest seems to have some kind of diocesan or school position. But as time goes on more and more of these jobs will have to be found if retiring parochial administrators are to be replaced. The supply of pensioners has probably dried up. And with this comes the risk that these men will, sooner or later, become financially dependant on the Ordinariate, along with their families. This is already the case with Fr Matthew Venuti, the first man ordained for the OCSP, in 2012. Two years later he had a serious heart attack, recovered after a long convalescence, and then in 2016 had another heart attack which forced him to retire completely, at 35, with a wife and two young children

As far as we can tell, even several full parishes, like St Luke's and Holy Nativity Payson, can't pay a full living stipend for a pastor and his family, and they must rely on supplementary pensions from military or TEC careers. As these men age out, the OCSP will need to find a way to pay their replacements a full stipend or shut these parishes.

But there's another question not addressed at all in Article 7, but Fr Ripperger does take it up in recent remarks: how does the Church deal with the myriad problems raised by married priests, including not least the scandals that inevitably will come with their families? We're beginning to see this in the OCSP even before other actuarial issues fully reveal themselves. My correspondent continues,

It looks as though the Reese family will be a charge on the Ordinariate, going forward. It is unclear what the financial arrangement is between the OCSP and the Diocese of Shrewsbury regarding Fr Kenyon. Has an actuary worked out the Ordinariate's potential liability for its younger married clergy? And in the longer term? In a typical Catholic diocese, elderly priests are housed in a rectory and expected to say mass and perform other duties as assigned as long as they are able. Funding the retirement of a married man is a much more complicated and financially demanding proposition, which the OCSP has not really got a handle on. The fact that two [or three] different countries are involved is one more complicating factor.

Let's keep in mind that Fr Reese's wife and children, up to the violent episode last September, were apparently dependent on Fr Reese's income for at least an important part of their support. When Mrs Reese was forced to move out of their home for protection, the pastor of the Holy Rosary parish had to give her money to find a new situation. This will presumably be an ongoing expense, and I assume some part of it would be charged to the OCSP.

A Quick Look At The Complementary Norms

A week ago I was checking on a detail and had reason to look through the Complementary Norms for the Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum coetibus. Much of it is de minimis and common sense, and I see nothing unusual there. Other provisions, though, especially those farther down, lead me to question whether the ordinariates in practice reflect what was envisioned at the time Anglicanorum coetibus was promulgated.

Article 3, for instance, is noncontroversial and, at least on its face, ought to be observed:

The Ordinary, in the exercise of this office, must maintain close ties of communion with the Bishop of the Diocese in which the Ordinariate is present in order to coordinate its pastoral activity with the pastoral program of the Diocese.

On the other hand, the February controversy over Our Lady of the Atonement's intent to administer first communion to diocesan Catholic children who attend the OLA school, but who aren't members of OLA parish families, at the age of reason instead of at about twelve according to diocesan policy, indicates that coordination with the pastoral program of the territorial archdiocese isn't necessarily automatic -- and, since this policy applies to Bp Lopes as ordinary, it reflects on his performance.

For that matter, Abp Garcia-Siller had already told Fr Lewis of his preferred policy months earlier -- not a good look for Lopes. As local observers have pointed out, that members of an OLA faction would be running to Church Militant with their version of the story certainly doesn't help matters as they relate to Article 3.

Article 7 seems to be honored mostly in the breach:

§1 The Ordinary must ensure that adequate remuneration be provided to the clergy incardinated in the Ordinariate, and must provide for their needs in the event of sickness, disability, and old age.

Only a handful of OCSP communities can provide compensation for clergy. Beyond that, after six years, it doesn't appear that the communities that can't pay clergy now will ever be able to do so in the future. A retirement program has been implemented, but it has limited eligibility.

§2. Candidates for priestly ordination will receive their theological formation with other seminarians at a seminary or a theological faculty in conformity with an agreement concluded between the Ordinary and, respectively, the Diocesan Bishop or Bishops concerned. Candidates may receive other aspects of priestly formation at a seminary program or house of formation established, with the consent of the Governing Council, expressly for the purpose of transmitting Anglican patrimony.

At minimum, I would be interested to see whatever agreements might be in effect between "the Ordinary and, respectively, the Diocesan Bishop or Bishops concerned". The recent disastrous examples of Frs Kenyon and Reese suggest that priestly formation in the OCSP is not reliable.

And "Anglican patrimony" has never been adequately defined, and in fact is probably not susceptible to definition. In Bp Lopes's Vienna address, he seems to refer to it primarily as a limited number of Cranmerian prayers added to an Ordinary Form English mass, with some English archaisms emended into the canon as well. But the implication here and elsewhere is that the "patrimony" is somehow more than this -- but what it is has never been stated. Thus we have laity insisting to an audience of the faithful that the "Anglican patrimony" exempts OCSP members from the requirement of contrition in the sacrament of penance, without contradiction from OCSP clergy.

§3. The Ordinariate must have its own Program of Priestly Formation, approved by the Holy See; each house of formation should draw up its own rule, approved by the Ordinary (cf. CIC, can. 242, §1).

§4. The Ordinary may accept as seminarians only those faithful who belong to a personal parish of the Ordinariate or who were previously Anglican and have established full communion with the Catholic Church.

One difficulty with this provision is that the definition of "Anglican" isn't clearly established, and a number of current clergy don't strictly qualify. Several have simply been "Anglican" for brief periods while riding a Protestant denominational carousel, which violates at least the spirit of this provision. Others have been members of tiny groups-in-formation that appear to have been established specifically to qualify as "parishes" of which they are members, and only to allow their ordination.

§5. The Ordinariate sees to the continuing formation of its clergy, through their participation in local programs provided by the Episcopal Conference and the Diocesan Bishop.

I would be interested to see if any OCSP clergy have participated in any such diocesan local program.

Artilce 14 refers to potential problem areas:

§2. If there is no vicar, in the event of absence, incapacity, or death of the pastor, the pastor of the territorial parish in which the church of the personal parish is located can exercise his faculties as pastor so as to supply what is needed.

There are few full OCSP parishes, and so far, this particular contingency hasn't occurred. But given the small size of even most full OCSP parishes, I question whether a territorial bishop will think it's worthwhile to divert a diocesan pastor to fulfill this function, when he's probably fully, or more than fully, occupied with his own territorial parish.

§3. For the pastoral care of the faithful who live within the boundaries of a Diocese in which no personal parish has been erected, the Ordinary, having heard the opinion of the local Diocesan Bishop, can make provisions for quasi-parishes (cf. CIC, can. 516, §1).

It's hard to avoid thinking that this provision has been cited by some territorial bishops in resisting the formation of quasi-parishes, apparently at least in St Petersburg and San Bernardino, and at least provisionally in Rochester. Given what must be considered a high defect rate in OCSP ordinations to date, I've got to think this resistance is prudent, and we may well see more instances.

More Discernment

My wife and I are attending the Jeff Cavins Great Adventure Bible study course at our parish. He made a remark in last week's session that made at least some of us sit up in our seats: referring to Genesis 9:20-27, he discusses what was meant by Ham seeing Noah's nakedness. Cavins says the Hebrew for "see one's father's nakedness" is the same expression for "incest", and the episode, as far as it concerns Ham's sin, carries strong connotations of incest.

Our sub-group knows we're recovering Episcopalians, so the leader asked me, "Whew -- do Protestants have that sort of Bible study?" I said no -- or at least, having spent most of my life as a Protestant and having attended Bible study for some of that time, I hadn't seen it. In fact, the discussions I've read of Genesis by Protestants and Reform Jews don't mention that view of Noah's nakedness, although this evangelical site has a very thorough discussion. (Out of delicacy, Cavins refrains from the detail the site goes into.)

So one question I have is whether small groups of former Protestants, led by former Protestants, often ordained Catholic priests with very minimal formation, can have Bible study that goes into anything like that depth. Does any OCSP community have the resources, focus, or interest to conduct a Jeff Cavins course? (A parish program seems to involve several hundred dollars for parish publications and DVDs, as well as purchases of class materials in the $30 range from individuals.) Whether Bp Lopes is allowing people to become "catholic" and kid themselves that's what they are without being given the opportunity for real Catholic formation is a question that's above my paygrade, but it definitely is at the bishop's.

I've been rereading a passage from St Augustine lately, for that matter:

If, then, the Lord in the greatness of His grace and mercy raises our souls to life, that we may not die for ever, we may well understand that those three dead persons whom He raised in the body, have some figurative significance of that resurrection of the soul which is effected by faith: He raised up the ruler of the synagogue's daughter, while still lying in the house; Mark 5:41-42 He raised up the widow's young son, while being carried outside the gates of the city; Luke 7:14-15 and He raised up Lazarus, when four days in the grave. Let each one give heed to his own soul: in sinning he dies: sin is the death of the soul. But sometimes sin is committed only in thought. You have felt delight in what is evil, you have assented to its commission, you have sinned; that assent has slain you: but the death is internal, because the evil thought had not yet ripened into action. The Lord intimated that He would raise such a soul to life, in raising that girl, who had not yet been carried forth to the burial, but was lying dead in the house, as if sin still lay concealed. But if you have not only harbored a feeling of delight in evil, but hast also done the evil thing, you have, so to speak, carried the dead outside the gate: you are already without, and being carried to the tomb. Yet such an one also the Lord raised to life. and restored to his widowed mother. If you have sinned, repent, and the Lord will raise you up, and restore you to your mother Church. The third example of death is Lazarus. A grievous kind of death it is, and is distinguished as a habit of wickedness. For it is one thing to fall into sin, another to form the habit of sinning. He who falls into sin, and straightway submits to correction, will be speedily restored to life; for he is not yet entangled in the habit, he is not yet laid in the tomb. But he who has become habituated to sin, is buried, and has it properly said of him, he stinks; for his character, like some horrible smell, begins to be of the worst repute.

I can pretty much guarantee that you will not find this sort of Bible commentary in any Protestant denomination, in large part because Protestantism rejects the Catholic path to salvation (via the sacraments in particular) that Augustine endorses. This involves a mindset that is simply not taught in Protestant seminaries -- and even if you find it at, say, Nashotah House, it will be in an indifferentist context. I'm not at all sure that the people behind Anglicanorum coetibus understood this.

I still need to determine how much time I should spend arguing with people about this, versus the time I should be -- and am -- spending on a Catholic journey without a lot of unnecessary distraction. Certainly I agree with Patrick Madrid that the operant document here is Apostolicae Curae, not Anglicanorum coetibus.

Poorly Catechized, But Also Bad Writers

I don't normally visit the Anglicanorum Coetibus Society blog -- and I don't recommend it -- but I ran into this reference on a news aggregator to a recent post:

After Monday’s article about the Anglican Church in North America’s Anglo-Catholic section, the Missionary Diocese of All Saints contemplating leaving the ACNA we received a statement from the Sufferage Bishop of MDAS, Richard W. Lipka:

"Bishop" Lipka is listed on the MDAS website as "suffragan", not "sufferage". "Sufferage" is not a word. The title suffragan was covered in my TEC confirmation class, so whatever catechesis the author of the post had as an Anglican, it didn't take.

There's that blooper in the post, but there are other simple grammatical errors that a middle-school English student would normally be embarrassed to make. I understand that Mrs Gyapong is an amateur writer, but her editorial skills don't seem to be very good.

What Is It With M Scott Peck, By The Way?

I mentioned an e-mail exchange I had with a regular visitor -- now quite possibly a former regular visitor -- who said that, in insisting that Catholics did not need to avoid near occasions of sin, Mrs Gyapong was the "authentic" Catholic, and I was clueless. (He hasn't answered yesterday's post, and I'm wondering if he's finally decided I'm past his help. I kinda hope so.) Anyhow, this guy is a prominent commenter at the Anglicanorum Coetibus Society blog, and over the past few years, he's sent me e-mails that must total tens of thousands of words, mostly on fine points of canon law.

The apparent incongruity here, which has seemed more notable just recently, is how thoroughly he seems to be versed in canon law, but how unfamiliar he is with the sacrament of reconciliation. I've got to say that in my five years as a Catholic, I haven't quite memorized the act of contrition yet, but I've gotten pretty familiar with its contents, and from the start, I recognized "avoid the near occasions of sin". It's hard not to ask why this phrase seemed so inauthentic to him.

Over our past exchange, he seems to have exhausted canon law, and he's started to explain M Scott Peck to me, of all people. His point to start was along the line that Irish priests are extra-strict, but Irish priests was where the whole child sex abuse thing got started (huh?), and M Scott Peck, obviously an expert, has the solution. "In his book People of the Lie, M. Scott Peck, MD, notes that people who engage in such acts need cover to avoid discovery and that a façade of holiness is one of the most effective forms of cover." It's hard to avoid thinking my visitor has me in mind here.

M Scott Peck, MD was a Me-Decade pop psychiatrist whose best-known books include The Road Less Traveled (1978) and People Of The Lie (1983). Oddly enough, Peck was very popular with St Mary of the Angels dissidents, especially Fr Bartus, who was most anxious to unmask Fr Kelley as a Person of the Lie. I read that one when it came out, but I've always thought it flattered the reader a bit too much. And Peck doesn't strike me as an authority on much of anything. According to this 2005 obituary in The Guardian:

Psychiatrist M Scott Peck, who has died aged 69, made millions with his first book by advocating self-discipline, restraint, and responsibility - all qualities he openly acknowledged were notably lacking in himself. The Road Less Travelled was first published in 1978. It eventually spent 13 years on the New York Times bestseller list to create a paperback record, sold 10 million copies worldwide and was translated into more than 20 languages. The opening words were: "Life is difficult." This was a pronouncement to which Peck could personally attest. He spent much of his life immersed in cheap gin, chain-smoking cigarettes and inhaling cannabis, and being persistently unfaithful to his wife, who eventually divorced him. He also went through estrangement with two of his three children.

Peck wrote openly of his adulterous affairs in another of his total of 15 books: In Search of Stones: A Pilgrimage of Faith, Reason and Discovery (1995), based on a visit to Britain to see ancient stone monuments. Never lacking in personal honesty, at least in print, he once said he had "the rare privilege of being able to give advice without having any responsibility".

Peck, whose personalised car number plate was THLOST, also spent much of his life seeking religious fulfilment (he was baptised a Christian at 43 after embracing Zen and then Sufism), and used this to explain his infidelities. "There was an element of quest in my extramarital romances," he wrote. "I was questing, through sexual romance, at least a brief visit to God's castle." Such visits, however brief, ceased when he became impotent, he disclosed.

When my visitor tried to hit me over the head with Peck and my supposed need to cover up my sins, I asked him,

Wait a moment. You cite M Scott Peck – not Catholic at all, not a priest, not a theologian – as an authority of some sort. But you don’t cite any Catholic authority that says it’s OK not to avoid near occasions of sin.

He replied,

I cite Scott Peck, a Christian and a psychiatrist, as an authority on the psychiatric disorders behind sexual abuse of minors — not as an authority on Catholic doctrine.

Peck sure was a Christian, huh? And if someone is aware of peer-reviewed papers by Peck on the psychiatric disorders behind sexual abuse of minors, I hope they'll send me the links. I think my visitor's actual point here is that, apparently in citing the act of contrition, I'm not only inauthentically Catholic but secretly lusting after twelve-year-olds and need psychiatric help. I guess I should find this offensive, but consider the source. If he wants to apologize and reset the discussion, I'll be happy to accept his apology.

The problem is what I'm starting to see is a glaring lack of basic catechesis among those closely associated with the Anglicanorum Coetibus Society. I recognize this visitor is not a member of that society and is not a member of the OCSP, but he clearly posts frequent comments on that blog and is clearly sympathizing with Mrs Gyapong in his e-mails to me.

His most recent point, it seems to me, is basically that devout Catholics, or at least those who take the sacrament of penance seriously, have psychiatric issues. I'm puzzled. I was hearing this in late-night dorm room discussions as a sophomore, but I grew up in the decades following. Not sure why my visitor thinks he's come up with anything new here -- and maybe Peck is old hat by now, too.

More On Near Occasions Of Sin

The visitor who disagreed with me yesterday said this in his reply e-mail:

I also did a search on the entire Compendium of the Catholic Church, which is a conversion of the Catechism of the Catholic Church into a question-and-answer format that mercifully appears in a single file, and the entire file contains only ONE reference to “occasions of sin” — and that’s in the Act of Contrition supplied as an example in an appendix of common prayers. There are no references to “near occasions of sin” in the actual doctrinal text.

However, paragraph 1451 of the CCC says,

Among the penitent's acts contrition occupies first place. Contrition is "sorrow of the soul and detestation for the sin committed, together with the resolution not to sin again."

The Baltimore Catechism says in paragraph 406:

406. What is the firm purpose of sinning no more?

The firm purpose of sinning no more is the sincere resolve not only to avoid sin but to avoid as far as possible the near occasions of sin.

The Baltimore Catechism, as I understand this, has not been "superseded". It is a teaching document meant to explain the Catholic faith, which does not change. If the John Paul II catechism doesn't offer a particular explanation for words in the act of contrition, this doesn't mean the words are meaningless.

A simple web search on "avoid near occasion of sin" brings out many, many hits. I found this discussion of views from St Gregory the Great and St Thomas Aquinas, two Doctors of the Church, on near occasions of sin:

Throughout St. Thomas’s treatment on sin, he deals primarily with mortal sin and secondarily with venial sin, there being an infinite distance of the two kinds of sin. Nevertheless, he is very clear that repeated venial sin also can become a disposition or road to grave sins as well. So, for example, he writes:

“Because he that commits a sin venial in genus turns aside from some particular order; and through accustoming his will not be subject to the due order in lesser matters, he is disposed not to subject his will even in the order of the lasting end, by choosing something that is a mortal sin in its genus.”

While venial sin does not mean the lessening of charity in the will or sanctifying grace in the soul, it stops the progress of growth in the perfection of the charity and the virtues. And what Aquinas means is that it can incline someone toward grave sin by enabling someone used to choose an array of disorders contrary to God’s will. It can become like a “small vice” or a disposition for any major vice’s act or a mortal sin.

A visitor commented,

The very Catholic and God-like wisdom of the Church Doctors to advise and even admonish the faithful to avoid proximity to sin is very practical. There is no Catholic doctrine prohibiting anyone under pain of sin, especially small children, from running with scissors and yet, we admonish people all the time, “Don’t run with scissors!” Why is it bad to run with scissors? Well, if I need to explain that to you, you will not understand how hanging around people, places and or things that cause (meaning lead or entice) you to sin is also bad in the exact same way. Nine times out of ten, you might be able to run with scissors (be near occasions of sin) and get away without injury (sinning), maybe even more than that, but eventually, or even more frequently if you are clumsy, you will accidentally slip, trip, poke/stab or otherwise hurt yourself with those scissors (sins). Wouldn’t it be better to not run with scissors in the first place? And so it is with near occasions of sin. Wouldn’t it be better to just avoid proximity to sin in the first place?

This raises some questions for me.

• How well do Mrs Gyapong, those who agree with her like my visitor, and other OCSP members -- including clergy -- understand the sacrament of penance and the act of contrition?
• What does this say about the catechesis provided in the OCSP?
• Why have Fr Bergman and other OCSP clergy not moved to ask Mrs Gyapong to correct or retract the clearly erroneous statements she made on behalf of the Anglicnorum Coetibus Society on the need not to avoid near occasions of sin?
• Do any laity or clergy in any ordinariate believe the "Anglican Patrimony" exempts them from any provisions of the Catholic faith?

Discernment

As I've said recently, I'm trying to discern what direction I should take with this blog, or with the set of abilities I might take to some other effort. For now, I'm still praying. But I did get a couple of hints yesterday -- as they say, if you're catching flak, it means you're over the target.

The first was when one of our priests took me aside after mass. i'm aware that one or two people try to find out what parish we attend and attempt to complain about me to our clergy. I also knew that in mentioning that Fr Longenecker had spoken to our parish, this could give these folks a clue, and indeed, this is what happened. Fr _____ got an e-mail about this blog. The complainant, though, apparently hadn't read Fr Z's tips on how to make an effective complaint, and from Fr _____'s remarks, I got the impression that there were lots of caps and exclamation points, which seem to have caused him not to take it very seriously. He seems to have wondered if the person was a native speaker of English, in fact.

Anyhow, this gave me an opportunity to test one of my theories, that if one were to mention Anglicanorum coetibus to a diocesan priest, the reaction would be a quizzical expression. I was spot on. I did give him an 80,000-foot view of what I was trying to do with this blog, and without thinking, I blurted out the words "instant ordinations" and "disaster". This is the first time I ever put those words together in a short discussion of Anglicanorum coetibus, and it surprised me, but it occurred to me that perhaps this is related to my goals here. Maybe this is what I should be doing, I don't yet know fully. But thanks to my complainant for the help!

The other hint I got yesterday was from a regular visitor, who said

In today’s post, you quoted Deborah Gyapong as saying:

“There are some Catholics who take avoiding a “near occasion of sin” to such extremes that they create a whole new set of rules to put a hedge around such occasions, and then act as if violating one of the “preventive” rules is also somehow sinful. I am going to pronounce right now that this kind of thing is not part of our English Catholic/Anglican Patrimony going forward.”

in a post on another blog some time ago, and then proceeded to use this as a pretext to tarnish the ordinariates for not being authentically Catholic.

But, guess what?

It’s the very “preventive rules” forming fences around the real forbidden acts that are not authentically Catholic. In rejecting such fences, she — and the ordinariates — are more authentically Catholic than those who engage in such behavior.

Now I'm puzzled. I would say that a standard Catholic reading of "if your eye offends you, pluck it out" is in fact to avoid occasions of sin. For instance, if your computer makes it too easy to seek out pornography and you have no other option, get rid of your computer. I've heard this in homily after homily. I e-mailed him back and asked him to cite a Catholic authority that said it was OK not to do this. He complained that it was too hard to search the whole Catechism on line, but apparently he was unable to find the paragraph that said it was silly and unnecessary to avoid near occasions of sin.

He did cite the act of contrition, "I firmly resolve, with the help of Thy grace, to sin no more and to avoid the near occasions of sin", but suggested that was just between the penitent and his confessor. And after all, if you don't go to confession, you don't have to worry about this stuff, right?

So who am I to question the Anglicanorum Coetibus Society, which gives the dispensation for Anglicans within Catholicism not to have to avoid near occasions of sin?

These are little bits of my discernment process. I'm still not sure what to do with this thing, but I just thought people might want to know.

"Catholic within Anglicanism" vs "Anglican Within Catholicism"

So I thought some more about Fr Longenecker's seminary-days justification to his spiritual director of being "Catholic within Anglicanism". This is by no means unusual among Anglo-Catholics, a sort of weasel-mindedness that brings me back yet again to TEC Fr David Miller's remark in my confirmation class that Anglo-Catholics want the prestige of calling themselves Catholic without paying the dues real Catholics pay.

But this sort of weasel-mindedness is one of the factors that makes me concerned about syncretism. Anglicanism developed in its first hundred years as a way for people to justify for themselves that they were adhering to a state religion, and the state accommodated them by giving them lots of leeway -- they could be low church, broad church, or high church, just as long as they weren't Catholic. "Catholic within Anglicanism" was copacetic.

The difficulty is that the small number of Anglicans who've bought into Anglicanorum coetibus, it seems to me, mostly haven't left this mindset behind. Last week we saw a reference by Mrs Gyapong to Bp Campese working so his flock would "fully understand what it means to be a Roman Catholic living their [sic] faith out within the familiarity of the Anglican patrimony". This is the same Mrs Gyapong who said a few months ago

There are some Catholics who take avoiding a “near occasion of sin” to such extremes that they create a whole new set of rules to put a hedge around such occasions, and then act as if violating one of the “preventive” rules is also somehow sinful. I am going to pronounce right now that this kind of thing is not part of our English Catholic/Anglican Patrimony going forward.

It's hard to avoid thinking that the atmosphere in the granny flat ain't the same as the atmosphere in the rest of the house, and the "Catholicism" that's apparently espoused in the Anglicanorum Coetibus Society seems to be closely circumscribed and filtered through Anglo-Catholic funhouse glasses.

I would also suggest that the Catholic priests ordained in the OCSP are culpable -- and will be held to account at their particular judgment -- for not correcting statements like these, clearly meant as definitive pronouncements for members on matters of faith and morals.

We're back to Abp Garcia-Siller's penetrating insight, that these people want to be not just unique but separate. I think Bp Lopes needs to give this matter some serious reevaluation.

Patrick Madrid On "Anglican Catholics"

Midway in the second hour of Patrick Madrid's radio call-in show yesterday, a caller, Char, asked about "Anglican Catholics". The call starts at minute 30 here. Patrick cites Apostolicae Curae as part of his answer, although he says it's "tricky" and essentially goes into episcopi vagantes, though he says Apostolicae Curae covers the "nightmare" and refers visitors to it. But the main question Char had was whether Anglicans had the real presence, and Mr Madrid uses Apostolicae Curae to point out that they do not, basically because they are not in communion with Rome.

This brought me back to Fr Longenecker's presentation at our parish last week. He told us that while he was studying for the Anglican priesthood at Oxford, he had a Catholic spiritual director, an abbot. He kept insisting to his spiritual director that he was "Catholic within Anglicanism" or some such thing. The abbot kept making the point, very politely, that you weren't Catholic unless you were in communion with the Holy Father. It seems that for some years, Fr Longenecker didn't listen, although eventually he did.

But I listened to the segment several times to be absolutely sure Mr Madrid made no mention of Anglicanorum coetibus, the granny flat for the Anglicans. Mr Madrid is a major Catholic spokesman and apologist, up there certainly with Bp Barron. We know he's at least vaguely aware of the granny flat, since a while ago he took a call from Fr Baaten, though once he found out what Baaten had to say, he spent most of his effort getting him politely off the line.

So why didn't Mr Madrid mention the granny flat? Couldn't he have wound up the call with Char saying something along the line of "But Char, the Church has made a special provision for those Anglicans who want to be in full communion, where you can hear the beauty of their precious spiritual treasures, especially if you're within several hundred miles of. . ." -- but no. Poor Char's left with the real presence just in novus ordo down the street. And frankly, I think Mr Madrid is about as well informed as anyone. If he'd thought it worth his while to bring up the granny flat, he would have.

On Anglicanism, the words Mr Madrid came up with were "tricky" and "nightmare". He had his site link to Apostolicae Curae, not Anglicanorum coetibus. Maybe Mrs Gyapong could send him a huffy e-mail. On the other hand, I also think about syncretism, and I think about words like "tricky" and "nightmare". Somehow I don't think Mr Madrid just made an oversight.

Syncretism: Catechesis

Yesterday we saw Fr Longenecker's opinion that the remedy for indifferentism (and by extension the related problem of syncretism) among Catholics is catechesis and strong preaching. But the comments I quoted from a visitor who assumed the catechesis OCSP candidates receive is thorough raise an intriguing question. Where did this impression come from? Let's repeat:

[A]ll of the communities that came into the ordinariates went through several months of intense formation and catechesis with Catholic priests from the local diocese or a religious order assigned to oversee their preparation while their former Anglican pastors were preparing for Catholic ordination.

Somehow I got a similar impression in late 2011, that communities coming in would have a Catholic "chaplain" assigned who would be involved in their reception (possibly by a bishop), who would catechize them, and who would say mass for them during an interim period before their Anglican priest was ordained Catholic. Looking over the Complementary Norms, I see no requirement that this take place, but for anyone who might choose to do this, the number of other provisions in the norms that so far haven't been observed is remarkable. Maybe I'll post on this in the future.

Certainly the process that was initiated for the St Mary of the Angels parish in late 2011 -- which was presumably meant to be paradigmatic -- involved the presence of Msgr William Stetson, and the oral tradition that we were given was that reception would take place early in 2012, and Msgr Stetson as part of this process would hear our initial confessions in the days before the mass at which the reception would take place. Stetson would also say mass for the parish for some period before Anglican clergy was ordained. But for whatever reason -- and the full story will almost certainly never be known -- Houston tacitly abandoned this plan by the first week of 2012. (Legal issues could not have been a factor; the first lawsuits weren't filed until May 2012. More likely a disastrous lack of detailed planning in Houston was at fault.)

So somehow, this model of an on-site Catholic "chaplain" taking new OCSP communities under his wing for some period while the Anglican pastor continued his formation seems never quite to have been implemented. But the impression that this was what was done clearly remains, as the comments from the visitor indicate. Thanks to help from my regular correspondent, I've been able to determine what catechesis was actually done by some of the larger OCSP communities as part of their reception.

• Let's keep in mind that the largest OCSP communities were Pastoral Provision parishes prior to their reception, and their members had already been catechized according to diocesan policy. (But I've been told that Our Lady of the Atonement had discontinued catechism classes for parish children who weren't in the OLA school.)
• St Luke's was in fact received by the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Baltimore in October 2011 prior to the erection of the OCSP, and this was apparently done following archdiocesan procedures, although there may have been time pressures in this case due to the pending retirement of the TEC bishop who was allowing St Luke's to leave. But St Luke's was clearly a special case.
• Incarnation Orlando, according to this post, undertook " a vigorous three year program of Catholic catechesis" conducted by Louis Campese, the former ACA bishop who was never ordained a Catholic priest, "to insure, when the time came, that his people would fully understand what it means to be a Roman Catholic living their faith out within the familiarity of the Anglican patrimony". Campese, though "raised Catholic", was not a Catholic priest, and I'm not at all sure what "within the familiarity of the Anglican patrimony" means, especially since this post concerns syncretism. Also, there is no mention of a Catholic priest ever being on site during this process other than Msgr Steenson at the time of the parish's reception.
• Two groups went together to make up the St John the Baptist parish in the Philadelphia area. The former TEC St Michael the Archangel group "studied the United States Catechism of the Catholic Church for Adults, working closely with the Archdiocese of Philadelphia". This sounds as if it may have been an abbreviated version of RCIA, but depending on the parish, a full RCIA program can take up to two years. A reference to a Philadelphia Inquirer story is behind a paywall, but my regular correspondent says, "Apparently Fr Ouseley prepared the remaining parishioners of Good Shepherd, Rosemont". While Fr Ouseley would have been a Catholic priest by this point, the situation strikes me as a little like a man standing in a bucket trying to pull himself up by the handle.
• My regular correspondent says, "All the Canadian communities had so-called mentor priests from the local diocese or a religious order who prepared them for reception and in most cases celebrated mass for them until their clergyman was ordained." Considering the very small size and number of the Canadian communities, I would be interested in more details here.

The bottom line is that the conventional-wisdom assumption, particularly in the US, that incoming OCSP communities were thoroughly catechized by mentoring on-site Catholic priests who also provided the sacraments for them during some interim period while their Anglican pastor continued formation was, from the start, a rare exception, if it in fact ever occurred. In fact, as far as can be determined from sporadic reports on blogs, the new model is for small groups-in-formation to be led by Protestant clergy of vaguely Anglican background who conduct evensong or morning prayer for them until they, with the other members of the group, are received. Ordination occurs on an abbreviated and accelerated schedule. There is usually no mentoring Catholic priest on site, with the exception of Fr Bartus in California, who, himself a former Anglican, provides no assurance that there will be effective catechesis.

We simply have no recent account of what specific catechesis the members of more recent groups-in-formation receive. The extension of eligibility for the ordinariates to Catholics who have not received the sacraments of initiation (which includes confirmation, of course) is a troubling factor. Unbaptized adolescents who become catechumens in a diocesan parish must be confirmed via RCIA, which can take up to two years. But an unbaptized Catholic (or other adult) who wanders into an OCSP group-in-formation will, as far as I can tell, get Evangelium at best, a program that takes a few months. Whether people in the little basement groups get copies of the Catechism, or are even encouraged to buy one, let alone study it, is an open question.

I have a feeling there are other issues that have a higher priority for Bp Lopes. But for that reason, among many others, I wouldn't go anywhere near an OCSP community.

A Start On Syncretism

My regular correspondent replied to yesterday's post:

When Msgr Steenson looked into the situation in his early days as Ordinary he realised that there would have to be changes at OLA, and when Fr Phillips got that message the membership application was withdrawn. Should Fr Phillips have been rejected as a candidate for the priesthood in the first place? Did he have innate personality flaws that should have been identified as inconsistent with that vocation? Or should his entrepreneurial energy have been more closely supervised and channeled, his membership in the archdiocesan family more closely cultivated?

As I began to imply yesterday, I think the problem goes beyond screening, and if you think about it, a bishop or auxiliary has much more to do with his time than micromanage a single Anglican Use pastor or parish, especially given the small size of most. I think the problem goes to whether the Pastoral Provision or Anglicanorum coetibus, or at least their implementations as we've seen them, was a good idea at all. The problem at root is what I would call syncretism.

But this means I'm going to have to be somewhat precise in explaining what I mean, because another visitor made my difficulty clear here:

I don’t get the reference to Syncretism at the end of your post today. Syncretism, with respect to religion, is the non-Christian belief that all religions are the same, and thus equal.

I answered, in part:

There are several accepted definitions of the related terms syncretism and indifferentism. I think when you speak of “the non-Christian belief that all religions are the same, and thus equal”, you actually mean what at least some Catholics would call indifferentism. See Wikipedia: “In the Catholic Church, the belief that one religion is as good as another, and that all religions are equally valid paths to salvation, is believed to be obviously false. . .” Some discussions of syncretism do in fact make it pretty much synonymous with indifferentism. But then, why have two terms that mean the same thing? Merriam-Webster calls syncretism “1 : the combination of different forms of belief or practice.” This clearly implies that the different forms of belief are not the same, so there is a difference between indifferentism and syncretism. However, syncretism in a Christian context always seems to imply a merging of denominational beliefs, usually to the detriment of one or both, especially Catholicism.

Fr Dwight Longenecker had some important points in his discussion of Billy Graham's life:

Billy Graham wanted to be all things to all men, but he ended up teaching the kind of indifferentism you find in C.S.Lewis’ Mere Christianity and which is the default setting of Protestant Evangelicals–that is an ecclesiology that is not ecclesiology. For them the church–any church–is a man made institution, open to the vagaries of history and culture–endlessly adaptable and values free. In other words, “It doesn’t matter what church you go to as long as you love Jesus.” While it enabled Billy Graham to throw the net wide, it is not a message that Catholics can promote.

. . . . From the downside we can learn that Catholic evangelization needs to be always linked strongly with catechesis and strong preaching with good content. In the early church the catechumens were instructed for years and had sponsors who walked with them as they learned how to follow Christ. If this is true, then just tossing people out to any old church won’t do. It especially won’t do in this day and age when so many of the churches that call themselves Christian simply do not hold to the historic Christian faith.

I think from these thoughts, syncretism and indifferentism are closely linked. Fr Longenecker argues that "mere Christianity" that tries to sell a generic product isn't enough, and it leaves open the risk that some wacky thing you heard in a UCC sermon (for instance, from someone like Jeremiah White) applies equally to Catholicism, and at that point, we transition into syncretism, for which the cure Fr Longenecker proposes is careful catechesis.

My other visitor from yesterday offered this in response to my concerns:

Note, also, that all of the communities that came into the ordinariates went through several months of intense formation and catechesis with Catholic priests from the local diocese or a religious order assigned to oversee their preparation while their former Anglican pastors were preparing for Catholic ordination. In many cases, this followed a couple years of studying the Catechism of the Catholic Church under the tutelage of their former Anglican pastors as part of their process of discerning whether to come into the Catholic Church as a community or not.

I would say that this is a remarkably optimistic view of the preparation OCSP priests and lay parishioners have had prior to reception. Very few, as far as I can see, studied the Catechism for "a couple years". Some, let's face it, were ordained Catholic priests after formation in Reformed seminaries, mediocre Protestant careers, and with only perfunctory review, almost certainly helped by endorsements from members of the OCSP in-group or the simple exigency of time. This ain't the same thing as formation from adolescence in the context of a family and parish, evaluation via parish priests and diocesan vocations directors, and years spent at a Catholic seminary, including field training.

For that matter, I don't believe that in practice, very many OCSP communities received "catechesis with Catholic priests from the local diocese or a religious order". I don't believe Catholics receiving confirmation or coming in via RCIA receive instruction from priests as a normal thing -- they have diocesan-certified catechists who conduct most of the sessions. I believe the catechesis OCSP groups receive, at least as of 2012, is the Evangelium program, which is remarkably superficial in comparison to RCIA or a parish confirmation class. I don't believe Evangelium participants receive copies of the Catechism, for instance, which my wife and I did receive in RCIA.

I can imagine someone making the argument that the Church recognizes that Anglicanism is so similar to Catholicism that Anglicans don't need thorough catechesis, it's already been done. Just for starters, this is a remarkably slapdash view of Anglicanism, which I've discussed many times here already. But even leaving that aside, recognize that the OCSP definition of "Anglicanism" casts a very wide net. Certainly a good proportion of OCSP laity arrived in sorta-kinda Anglican communities on a general ride on the denominational carousel and never received serious catechesis in any previous parish -- and to say that's OK, they got the basics as Methodists or Lutherans or Nazarenes or whatever is the indifferentism we're talking about here in the first place.

I'd be interested to hear from visitors what their experience was of catechesis prior to entering the OCSP as part of a parish or group.

Screening

My regular correspondent comments,

If one were to look at David Moyer's CV one would see more red flags than at a May Day parade. And to a lesser extent, those of all clergy from "continuing" denominations, ie those who could not handle the discipline of TEC, not generally thought of as a tight ship, and sometimes a number of previous Protestant denominations. But Fr Phillips does not have that background. His CV looks pretty good to me .

As far as I know, with the exception of Aaron Bayles there are no more "continuers" in the OCSP ordination pipeline. This may be simply a reflection of the exhausted state of the relevant denominations, but if it is the result of a deliberate policy I think it is a prudent one. Fr Phillips is a different kind of problem, and not one that could have been easily predicted in 1983. The Church's ability to screen clerical candidates for paedophilia was clearly hopelessly inadequate until very recently; whether the psychological screening is adequate in other areas is hard to know, but I don't feel particularly confident.

And while selection and formation are very important, ongoing episcopal supervision is equally so. Reading this account from 2012 relations just couldn't have been better between Fr Phillips and Abp G-S. Clearly he could do whatever he wanted as long as he was prepared to do it as a member of the Archdiocese.

Regarding Fr Phillips, though, we're talking about a 35-year career as a Catholic priest, with different phases and different stories with different versions about each phase. Indeed, there are a few versions I've been asked not to repeat. The link my correspondent provides is to a well-known e-mail "explaining" Phillips's decision to keep OLA out of the OCSP:

As we have opportunities to deepen our communion with our Father-in-God, Archbishop Gustavo Garcia-Siller, let’s make the most of them. He was genuinely moved to learn that we will be remaining in his jurisdiction for now, and he looks forward (as do we) to strengthening our ties with the archdiocese which has been our home for so long.

But a year ago, I posted an account of what actually happened in 2012 from someone who was there:

Fr. Philips NEVER had a kind thing to say about Archbishop Flores, Archbishop Gomez OR Archbishop Garcia-Siller. Even though he feigns attention on wealthy Hispanic benefactors, in private he speaks very disrespectfully of "Meskins" as he calls them. . . . [In early 2012,] Fr. Phillips made it known that the Parish was going to move to the Ordinariate. Soon, the Archdiocese got involved, inquiries were made and the parish was polled for demographic data. I remember Fr. Phillips meeting with the Archbishop and it was obvious the situation was being pondered by the Chancery. During this time the Atonement bulletin, written and published by Jim Orr himself began scurrilous attacks on the Archbishop, still relatively new to the Chair.

Regarding what kept OLA out of the OCSP, I've heard different versions from different channels, but all cite plans by Msgr Steenson to edge Fr Phillips out of the picture. The one that seems most pertinent is this, from a year ago:

Then, out of the blue, Msgr. Steenson meets with Fr. Phillips and the very next day EVERYTHING changed. It was such an abrupt change of direction and focus, I asked Fr. Phillips what was going on. He was shaken. He said Steenson had made it clear that it was arrogant for Fr. Phillips to have purchased a home next door to the parish because he could be transferred to anther parish within the Ordinariate at any time. . . . almost immediately Fr. Phillips published a blog post, explaining, in loving, glowing sentimentality how much we loved being a part of the Archdiocese as a Pastoral Provision parish and so on. He referred to Archbishop Gustavo as our "Father-In-God". It was enough to make your stomach turn, if you knew the whole story.

Another source more recently told me that there was long-standing opposition to Fr Phillips in the San Antonio chancery, no matter who was archbishop. It's hard to avoid thinking that Fr Phillips was always on somewhat shaky ground with his superiors, no matter archbishop or OCSP ordinary, and Bp Lopes was following what in effect would have been done by Flores, Gomez, Garcia-Siller, or Steenson given the right opportunity.

The background on the "our Father-in-God" e-mail that we have here suggests the nicest characterization we might make of Fr Phillips might be "two-faced weasel". I would guess that bishops from Flores to Lopes might privately agree; I have heard, as a matter of fact, of stronger terms recently employed.

This is about the poster boy for US Anglo-Papalism, let's remember. The issue in part is screening of candidates, but a better question might be whether this whole notion of setting up granny flats for Anglicans has ever been a good idea. I'd love to find a serious extended essay on syncretism, what it is, and how to recognize it. Can anyone recommend one?

Doesn't This Get To The Root Of It?

My regular correspondent had this reply to yesterday's post:

Re your visitor's last sentence: ["My gut tells me that once they feel that there will not be a factional revolt, he is gone.'] when do we think that might be? Fr Phillips was touted as someone who would go on the road, helping other OCSP clergy build up their small, struggling communities into large, dynamic ones, after the OLA model. No doubt the hope was that he would be out of town a lot of the time, however that could be arranged, but he has actually done some of this consulting. He is a FB friend of thousands of OCSP members, including virtually every clergyman. The announcement that he is too toxic to be allowed near the parish he founded would have resonance beyond OLA, even if his local support dwindles to a small minority, a situation which does not strike me as imminent, in any event.

Fr Phillips has certainly been the poster boy for Anglo-Papalism in the US -- but of course, only to an extent. He was a fixture at the 2010 meetings in Texas and California urging "continuers" and others to avail themselves of Anglicanorum coetibus, but once Steenson was named ordinary, he ducked out almost immediately -- and the indications are that this was because Steenson expected him to display the obedience normally seen with Catholic clergy.

I've said all along that Abp Chaput's denial of votum to David Moyer and Phillips's decision to keep OLA out of the OCSP in the first part of 2012 were the pinpricks that burst the balloon of optimism about Anglicanorum coetibus in the US. I'm more and more convinced that neither Moyer nor Phillips, whatever their other personal qualities, was a fit for the Catholic priesthood. And let's face it, most people don't have that vocation, there's nothing wrong with not being called to the Catholic priesthood.

But in the end, this does say something about Anglo-Catholicism and the Catholic priesthood. As I quoted Admiral Beatty the other day, there's something wrong with our bloody ships today. The men the OCSP has been ordaining are turning out to be disappointments, in some cases spectacular ones. And this is going to be Bp Lopes's dilemma. If the poster boy for the movement is "too toxic to be allowed near the parish he founded", this will indeed have resonance.

Is Dcn Orr Back At Our Lady Of The Atonement?

A visitor referred me to a post from March 8 at the Atonement Online blog (which is Fr Phillips's project, not the parish's) with one photo showing Fr Philips and Dcn Orr on a recent pilgrimage to the Holy Land. That's Dcn Orr standing rather cozily next to Fr Phillips, with the other pilgrims keeping a respectful distance.

Another visitor referred me to a post here from February 21 in which I refer to Orr being "banished" from the property. The visitor suggests this may be misleading, as in fact Orr has been seen attending mass at OLA whenever Fr Phillips celebrates it,

The pilgrimage itself, while conducted by Fr Phillips, does not seem to have been sanctioned by either the parish or the OCSP.

As reported here, Dcn Orr was forced into retirement well before the canonical age, and in early 2017 was reported by the Archdiocese of San Antonio to have been the subject of a credible complaint of child abuse.

His history with the parish includes reports by parents to Fr Phillips of Orr's violations of guidelines, including kissing adolescent boys on the mouth, which Fr Phillips discounted and apparently never discouraged, culminating in the archdiocese's report and the eventual banning of Dcn Orr from the OLA property -- but only after Fr Phillips's removal as pastor.

My regular correspondent notes,

Fr Phillips not a team player, but one who attracts loyal disciples. Presumably Mr Orr there from early days, fetching and carrying. Now he will in no way lose his reward, whatever deep flaws have been exposed and whatever higher-ups may think about it. I doubt there is any way of reining Fr Phillips in, at this point. He is financially independent, one assumes. It seems unlikely that he can be legally forced out of his house. Retracting his "Pastor Emeritus" status and banishing him from OLA would be tantamount to conceding that Abp G-S had it right, which seems a bridge too far for the OCSP. Apparently OLA donors are important. Does Bp Lopes want to poke the parish in the eye? No.

Another visitor notes,

I predict that if these sort of things continue (the press packages, the pilgrimages) that they will have to further limit his involvement in the parish. My gut tells me that once they feel that there will not be a factional revolt, he is gone.

More On The Dispensations For Married Protestant Priests

On the fascinating question of how dispensations for married Protestant priests in a larger context relate to the Pastoral Provision and Anglicanorum coetibus, a regular visitor comments,

I’m not sure to whom or where the first dispensations from the norm of celibacy for Catholic ordination of former Anglican and former Protestant clergy were granted, but I know that popes going back at least to Pope Pius XII have granted these dispensations fairly routinely going back at least to the 1950’s. I first learned of a former Lutheran minister who had received ordination as a Catholic priest of the Diocese of Raleigh in the 1950’s while stationed at Camp Lejeune in 1983-1984. However, the numbers of such priests were very small and their congregations typically did not come into the Catholic Church with them. This generally happened fairly discretely, with the married priests not serving in parish ministry.

Note that this accommodation extends to married former clergy of any Protestant denomination — not just Lutherans. When I last visited St. Meinrad Archabbey, its seminary had two married former Baptist ministers studying for ordination for the Diocese of Little Rock. (The magisterium of the Catholic Church does not consider the Anglican Communion to be a Protestant body, even though Protestant influences gained substantial traction therein after the time of separation, because the cause of the schism of the Church of England was political rather than theological. This probably also applies to the so-called “continuing Anglican” bodies.)

But the emerging European doctrine of the 16th and 17th centuries, cuius regio, eius religio, implies that Protestantism was adopted by all affected states, whether Anglophone or Germanophone, for a mixture of theologcal and political motives. Certainly Henry VIII was able to rely on theological as well as political positions among the political and ecclesial establishment to justify the break with Rome. I would say that the idea that Anglicans are "more Catholic" than other Protestants reflects a misunderstanding in Rome.

In the late 1970’s, the decision of the Episcopal Church – U. S. A. (ECUSA), now known as The Episcopal Church (TEC), to ordain women brought two dramatic changes in the situation: first, a sudden swell cases of former clergy of ECUSA (TEC), numbering in the hundreds, seeking dispensations from celibacy to permit their ordination in the Catholic Church in the dioceses of the United States and, second, a number of requests for congregations coming with their pastors to retain their familiar Anglican liturgy within the Catholic Church. Pope John Paul II responded to this situation by establishing the so-called “pastoral provision” in 1980 (1) to facilitate the processing of the large volume of requests for dispensations from the norm of celibacy for former ECUSA (TEC) clergy seeking ordination in the Catholic Church and (2) to allow erection of personal parishes and quasi-parishes that would use liturgical books adapted from the Book of Common Prayer where there were enough laity to do so.

Note that the “pastoral provision” applies only to former Anglican clergy in the United States. The Vatican continues to process petitions for dispensations from the norm of clerical celibacy for former Anglican clergy in any other country and for all former Protestant ministers, including those in the United States, through “normal channels” (directly from the respective diocesan bishop to the Vatican) with no involvement of the Office of the Pastoral Provision whatsoever. What’s interesting is that the erection of the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter actually created an exception to the so-called “pastoral provision” — dispensations from the norm of celibacy for its married former Anglican clergy actually go through normal channels rather than through the Office of the Pastoral Provision. Or, alternatively, one could construe that each ordinariate performs the functions of the Office of the Pastoral Provision for its own candidates.

This would support my thinking that Fr Dwight Longenecker, although a married former Church of England priest, was not ordained in the Catholic Church via the Pastoral Provision but via the normal channel. Certainly he makes no special case for his Anglican history and clearly treats Anglicanism as a call to a life of faith that is fully expressed in the Catholic Church -- but Lutherans, Presbyterians, Baptists, and all others receive the same call and respond to it fully in the same way.

And yes, the fact that “celibate former CofE priests had an easier time” is not a particular surprise. Fundamentally, they did not require dispensations from the norm of celibacy, which is an additional hurdle for married clerics, so their cases did not have to go to the Vatican at all. Additionally, some diocesan bishops probably were less than receptive to married candidates for ordination for various reasons — fear of rejection by other clergy, fear of rejection by the laity, uncertainty of acceptance by the Vatican, specific details of individual cases, and their own prejudices all being potential factors. I also have heard that the Vatican did limit the number of dispensations from the norm of celibacy to two per diocese, at least until they could assess how the Catholic laity and other Catholic clergy would receive them. As a result, some — perhaps many — married former Anglican and former Protestant clergy undoubtedly have had to shop around for a diocese with a bishop who would accept them as candidates for ordination.

By the way, a few celibate former Anglican priests are now Roman Catholic bishops. Bishop Allan Hopes, who served as the apostolic delegate for the erection of the Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham while an auxiliary bishop of the Archdiocese of Westminster and is now the diocesan bishop of the Diocese of East Anglia, is of particular significance in the context of the ordinariates.

While some visitors disagree with my sympathy for Abp Garcia-Siller and his position that Anglicans under the Pastoral Provision and Anglicanorum coetibus want to be "not unique but separate", I think the archbishop is identifying a potential hurdle that adds confusion to the overall question of how the Church welcomes all former Protestants.

A Dispatch From The Legal Front

As we've seen, the various Rector, Wardens, and Vestry cases are winding down in sometimes inconclusive ways. However, there's also an outlier case that doesn't actually involve the parish but continues to draw interest. This is the California unemployment claim that Fr Kelley made against the Bush group masquerading as the St Mary's vestry between 2012 and 2014, when the California appeals court ruled that the elected vestry was the legal vestry.

The Bush group "terminated" Fr Kelley in May 2012, and Fr Kelley made an unemployment compensation claim on that basis. The Bush group denied the claim on the basis that they maintained Fr Kelley had stolen money from the parish. Over a series of appeals lasting several years, the California Employment Department determined that no evidence existed of any such misconduct on Fr Kelley's part, and it eventually awarded him full benefits. On the other hand, by that point, the appeals court had already determined that the Bush group was not the legal vestry.

Nevertheless, the Bush group brought suit, Case BS152017, against the California Employment Department still seeking to deny the benefits (the California EDD had presumably seized the parish's share of the benefit payment to give to Fr Kelley). Yesterday there was another hearing in this continuing matter. A report on the last hearing, held December 9 of last year, is here.

The issue at that time was that the Bush group, which still claimed to be the parish vestry (although the appeals court had ruled it was not in 2014), was, or at least claimed to be, a corporation. But under California law, a corporation must be represented by an attorney. However, as of September 2017, Lancaster & Anastasia had withdrawn as the Bush group's attorneys, claiming they hadn't been paid since 2015. Judge Hogue continued the case until March 7, 2018, yesterday, to give the group more time to hire counsel.

I wasn't there -- I haven't covered this case directly, since it doesn't involve the parish, and Fr Kelley at this point is just an "interested party". But I'm told things went this way:

Mrs Bush and Mr Cothran turned up today for the "Order to Show Cause" before Judge Amy D. Hogue, on the BS152017 case. Mrs Bush did not do well. The judge reminded her again that a corporation must be represented by an attorney, under California law. Mrs Bush is not an attorney. She said their attorney was in Las Vegas.

The judge answered, "He is not HERE. You have had since December!"

Then Mrs Bush said, "Anastasia, our attorney, is disabled."

Judge: "He quit this case in September. That is irrelevant."

Mrs Bush made some other statements.

Judge, "I'm not hearing this."

More statements.

Judge, "I'm not hearing this."

Mr Lengyel-Leahu, who was present, stated that he IS the attorney for the Parish, and that this was a case where the opposition Bush group was not, as the California Court of Appeal had ruled in July, 2014; and Judge Murphy had found them "without standing" from the beginning of litigation, on December 12, 2016.

Judge Hogue said, "Well, that's not in documents that I can act on today. If this were presented as a demurrer, perhaps then I could do something." She kicked the can to June 8 -- another three months. The state attorney, Christina Matsuyama, was to be out of country on June 1.

When we emerged from the court, Mr Omeirs was seated in the hall. He looked quite sepulcral. Mrs Bush and Mr Cothran sat with him. The state attorney tried to talk with them. Came away rather bemused.

What’s interesting is that the Bush group had an attorney make a “special appearance” on their behalf at a trial setting conference for the damages case on January 5, but apparently they haven’t engaged any regular counsel. This makes me wonder if, although they’re pretty much off the hook in the damages case, they’re in a position to hire an attorney to follow through on the reversal of the Strobel ruling.

My guess is that it would be a pretty major job to say OK, the parish vote to leave the ACA in August 2012 was invalid, but with the 2012 elected vestry still the vestry per the 2014 appeals court ruling, how does the ACA move to evict them in 2018? Seems like new counsel could basically rebuild Lancaster’s 2012 case from scratch, insisting that A, B, C, and D were excommunicated by the ACA, the corporation code was not followed in any number of ways between 2014 and now or whatever, and try to remove a post-2014 vestry, but this would take money I assume they don’t have.

So far, in any case, there doesn't seem to have been any move to follow up on the appeals division's reversal of Judge Strobel's 2015 ruling. This in turn makes me wonder if, without access to the parish's bank accounts and current income, the Bush group and the ACA have no money to front up hundreds of thousands to try to pursue this. My guess is that Fr Kelley and the vestry are simply going to sit tight. In January, I thought about a settlement, but this was on the assumption that the Bush group and the ACA had the resources to pursue the case.

Mrs Bush will turn 88 this year. At this point, I would guess that time is on the parish's side, and I'm starting to question whether Mrs Bush is fully capable of following the legal issues.

More On The Married Former Lutherans Ordained As Catholic Priests

Regarding yesterday's post, a visitor comments,

As I recall, it was German Lutheran pastors, not Swedish ones, I think in the late 1940s, just after the war. I don't know if it was an indult, and I can't recall how many (although it was more than a handful) of them became Catholics (including the noted German Lutheran academic Scripture scholar Henirich Schlier - but I don't think Schlier was ordained in the Catholic Church). Later on, from the 1970s onwards, a number of Swedish Lutheran married clergy became Catholic, and were ordained, including the noted historian Magnus Nyman, who has tried to apply the "revisionist" English Reformation historical work of historians like Eamon Duffy and Christopher Haigh to the Swedish Reformation process.

Elsewhere I wrote,

By November 1997 some 240 former clergy of the Church of England had been received into the Roman Church (not including those who became Catholic after their retirement), but some 50 have become Orthodox.

Within the last 5 years I read somewhere that "nearly 500" Church of England clergy (including retired ones) have become Catholic since 1992, of whom "about two dozen" subsequently returned to the Church of England (IIRC, after being ordained in the Catholic Church). I can't recall where I got those figures, though, not how trustworthy they are.

I've begun reading Longenecker's The Mystery of the Magi: The Quest to Identify the Three Wise Men, from which I get the impression that he is a careful writer with an acute scholarly historical sense. I decided that, rather than pursue these matters as questions after his presentations, I will try e-mailing him and perhaps give him a picture of my overall project here, so that he might be able to help me clarify some of these, and perhaps other, points. This could also possibly help me with discerning where I'm headed with this whole effort, turn it into something bigger or drop it, as I'm reaching a decision point.

One point he's raised several times is that the Catholic Church is a treasure house with millennia of spiritual resources. Yes, the Church of England is 500 years old, but as soon as you cross onto the Continent, you immediately add another 1000 years, and once you reach Rome and Jerusalem, you've gone back to the start. In that context, the Anglican precious treasures start to fade (although Fr Longenecker didn't say this).

Bl John Henry Newman is one thing, the Doctors of the Church are quite another. I'm not sure how many of the rag-tag members of the OCSP have been brought to understand this.

Fr Dwight Longenecker Mission

Last night I attended the first session of a Lenten mission at our parish held by Fr Dwight Longenecker, a very well-known Catholic writer, blogger, and speaker. He represents himself, and has been represented to us by our clergy, simply as a rare example of a married Latin rite priest. I believe that theoretically, he came in as a former Church of England priest in the US via the Pastoral Provision, but he made no mention of Anglican Use or Anglicanorum coetibus in his presentation.

He did have some remarks on the modern history of married priests in the Catholic Church. He traces this back to Pius XII, who issued what he called an exemption or exception (can someone confirm this was an indult?) to a group of married Swedish Lutheran pastors who wanted to become Catholic. He then mentioned a 1978 letter to Paul VI from US Episcopal priests who referred to the action by Pius XII as a precedent for granting an exception for certain married Protestant pastors. However, neither Paul VI nor John Paul I had the chance to take any action.

This is somewhat at variance with the account we have from Fr Barker, who puts the rise of the Pastoral Provision in the context of the 1977 Congress of St Louis and negotiations sponsored by then-Bp Bernard Law, although these negotiations seem to have stalled when most of the budding "continuers" elected to form their own jurisdictions and elect their own bishops. I'm tempted, perhaps at tonight's question session, to ask Fr Longenecker if he knows how the two initiatives may or may not have been related. (On the other hand, it might be better to lurk or maybe follow up with an e-mail to Fr Longenecker.)

In Fr Longenecker's case, he was happy enough to be a Church of England priest on the Isle of Wight until he left with a group of about 800 C of E priests in 1995 over the issue of ordaining women. A certain number of these 800 who were married did apply via local UK Catholic dioceses tor exceptions that would allow them to be ordained. Whether this was done appears to have depended on the whims of both Rome and the local bishop. (The celibate C of E priests had an easier time.)

In any case, this appears to have happened somewhat under the radar, and the conventional history leading up to Anglicanorum coetibus doesn't mention it. If Fr Longenecker is right, a substantial number of married Church of England priests were ordained Catholic prior to the erection of the UK ordinariate. And it does appear that the option for married Anglican or Lutheran priests to apply for exceptions and be ordained as Catholics outside of Anglicanorum coetibus still exists, although presumably in the US, it would preferably be done via the now-established Pastoral Provision channels. I hope a visitor familiar with the canonical specifics here can clarify the situation.

In Fr Longenecker's case, the process of application took ten years due to the vagaries of bureaucratic delays and wavering intentions by bishops in the UK. He finally met with the Roman Catholic Bishop of Charleston, SC on a visit to his family there and was eventually successful in being ordained there and placed in his Greenville, SC parish in 2006. This may have been via the Pastoral Provision procedures, but it could possibly have taken place separately, since his application had been pending in the UK since 1995.

My wife and I both remarked, after we left last night's session, that we heard no weepy references to the precious treasures of the Anglican spiritual patrimony. Fr Longenecker is matter-of-fact and even-handed in discussing Anglicanism. He explains to Catholics that Anglicanism has features that "look like" Catholicism, including bishops, kneeling at prayer, praying from a book, and "a Eucharist that looks like a Mass." A good way to put it.

But there is absolutely no sense that he wishes to be seen as either unique or separate, except insofar as he could avail himself of canonical procedures that would allow him, after great struggle, to be ordained a Catholic priest in the married state. He is simply a Catholic priest, and far more prominent than any others in the Pastoral Provision or the OCSP. The OCSP ought to be considering this as a model going forward.

A Visitor Weighs In

A regular visitor provides the comments below. There is additional perspective in the 100-plus comments at the post on the blog that broke the story, which strongly suggest that there are factions in the Holly Rosary parish with strong views in both directions;.

This is to share a few observations with respect to your posts in the past week regarding Fr. Luke Reese. The one thing of which I’m certain is that none of us know all of the details, so caution is indicated.

1. Most ordinariate clergy are nearing retirement age, but Fr. Luke Reese is a notable exception. Your comments about clergy coming to the ordinariates needing to have independent means of support are accurate because the fledging ordinariates did not — and still do not — have the means to provide decent salaries. For most, the independent means of support was a vested pension from their prior denomination. Fr. Reese has, or at least had, a business producing and selling communion wafers that provided the necessary support. The pictures of Fr. Reese’s family at the time of his reception showed about eight children ranging in age from adolescent to newborn, so the youngest probably are still in elementary school. My guess is that he and his wife were in their thirties at the time of reception, which would put them into their early forties now. [News reports say he is 56. The Mary Ann Mueller piece at Virtue Online, which has the most thorough research, says he is 49 -- jb]
2. I don’t know what formal training for ministry Fr. Reese might or might not have received in his prior denomination(s), but he apparently was judged to be in the category of needing significant remedial studies but less than a full program of Catholic seminary formation. There are several clues to this: first, the statements in the public record that he commuted to St. Meinrad School of Theology and Seminary from his residence in Indianapolis, which is over 2 ½ hours each way, according to Google Maps, indicating that he was never resident, and, second, the fact that the School of Theology granted him a Master of Arts rather than a Master of Divinity (this stood out to me when I saw the degree list in the alumni newsletter) indicating that he did not do the full program of coursework for the latter. His selection of courses at St. Meinrad undoubtedly was chosen to fill in the gaps in his previous formation, and probably was more extensive than the actual requirements for the degree that he received.
3. The report that he supplied alcohol and got inebriated with a bunch of minors might well be a distortion of the gossip net rather than actual fact. [Commenters at the Fisher blog take this position, but if the arresting affadavit is correct, the complaints were made by parents of the minors -- jb] His ordinariate community met at a parish that also hosted the Tridentine mass for Catholics in or near the city of Indianapolis. For better or worse, many traditionalists who gravitate toward the Tridentine mass are of the mind that nothing can ever change, failing to distinguish between doctrine (which cannot change) and discipline (which can change). Such traditionalists undoubtedly would be shocked by the practice of distributing communion under both forms to the congregation, and even more shocked that he allowed minors to receive from the chalice (even though the official policy of the Catholic Church is that all who are admitted to communion may receive under both forms, regardless of age). It’s not unlikely that “He gave the chalice to minors!” might have mutated to “He was drinking to excess with minors!” in the traditionalist “gossip net.” If there had been real wrongdoing in this matter, a phone call from the Archbishop of Indianapolis to Bishop Lopes undoubtedly would have brought swift action as soon as the offense came to light. [The comments at the Fisher blog suggest the bishops had taken actions that aren't public -- jb.]
4. Many arch-conservative circles, Christian or otherwise, put great value on a family’s public image and thus shield all kinds of misdeeds within the walls of the family home to maintain a façade of respectability. As part of this, arch-conservative Christian circles of all stripes typically misconstrue the doctrinal position that wives should be submissive toward their husbands to mean that they must just take whatever abuse the husband might dish out — and it can go on for years. The ordinariate communities tend to be pretty conservative, so it’s certainly plausible that this dynamic was at work and that there was some history of unreported domestic abuse behind closed doors.
5. There are also many who construe any sort of corporal punishment of children to constitute abuse. Here, I differentiate between a measured spanking of a child by an adult who is in control (okay) and a beating by an adult who is in a rage (not okay) — but others don’t. [We don't have information on what happened within the family, but it does appear from the published account that Reese could lose control and become violent -- jb.]
6. But Catholic priests are human. The poor guy “lost it” when he caught his wife and another man engaging in sexual acts in the back seat of the other man’s automobile — but who among us would be a model of Christian charity and forgiveness on the spur of the moment in a similar situation? If you were to catch your wife in a similar scenario, do you really think that your reaction would have been a whole lot prettier than his? (Note: I’m distinguishing here between the reaction in the rage of the moment and the considered response after one has had a day or two — or perhaps several days or even weeks in a matter of this magnitude — to cool down and consider one’s lawful options.) [I would take the triggering episode as a symptom of more pervasive dysfunction -- this couldn't have been sudden -- jb.]
7. If the alleged acts really are as violent as the charges that you quoted make them sound, why on earth was Fr. Reese set free after posting less than $2,500 in bond money? Indiana is a very conservative state that tends to be quite strict, especially when it comes to violent crime. Something here simply does not fit! [Reese is a priest with no prior record, so the judge might have been lenient -- jb.]
8. It’s likely that some of the criminal charges against Fr. Reese will be dismissed for lack of evidence and/or witnesses and that it will be exceedingly difficult for prosecutors to win a conviction on the A&B rap(s) for what transpired when he caught his wife and another guy “in the act” due to the very clear provocation of the situation in which he caught them. My guess is that there will be some sort of resolution of the case involving either a plea deal with drastically reduced charges or an indefinite continuation without a finding. [I would agree that charges may be negotiated down, and Reese's counsel will probably argue that he is a priest with no prior record -- jb.]
9. There’s also a human tendency to reinterpret prior events after a “falling out” that could be at play here. If there’s violence in the home, the time to report it is when it occurs — not several years later. [But your point 4 above could explain this, as well as a human tendency to put up with abuse, often mentioned in media discussions -- jb.]

I lived with a lot of abuse until my teens, when I simply got big enough to make my dad worry that I might fight back. This story gave me nightmares, frankly. I would say that a theory of Reese as someone who could lose control and become violent fits the reported circumstances, as well as an unwillingness by the family to report the abuse. My dad was normally careful not to leave marks where they'd be seen, but I definitely did get bruises, cuts, and welts. This would imply that my dad was fully aware that what he was doing was wrong as a matter of natural law if nothing else, but in remaining silent, my mom and other relatives were complicit.

As I reflect on my family circumstances, though, I'm more and more convinced that the physical abuse was just one part -- and maybe just a symptom -- of a more general dysfunction. Basically my dad was living a double life, and as I look back, there were far more issues than just abuse. I can't avoid wondering if this may be the case with the Reese family.

But I think the best overall perspective is from a comment at the Fisher blog from a woman married to a former TEC priest, both now lay Catholics:

This is not to ignore all the various horrible details of this particular case. It is horrible. I do wonder how exactly candidates for ordination in the Ordinariate are vetted. I also can’t help wondering just how much time the vetters spend talking to wives, and how seriously they take what the wife might say — if the wife is honest in her responses. I can see how, for various reasons, she might not be.

When I think about the level of formation that permanent deacons **and their wives** go through prior to ordination, this all seems crazy. Again, though, I have some personal experience with married clergy in both the Anglican Use and Byzantine Rite traditions, and I don’t think the couple in this story are exemplary of married Catholic clergy generally. I just wonder how they got through the process.

The problem is that Reese is not an exception in the OCSP as far as apparently cursory vetting is concerned.

More Information (Or Not) On Luke Reese

The pseudonymous Mary Ann Mueller has done a very creditable job with additional research on Luke Reese at Virtue Online. She's clearly been able to reference the actual legal documents in the spousal abuse case, but she also raises just one of the additional issues the Reese case brings to light:

The Catholic Church is not fully equipped to deal with the home life, financial needs, problems and issues surrounding a married priest with wife, children and even grandchildren. . . . Through the marital problems and eventual breakdown of Fr. Reese's marriage, played out in such a public manner, the Ordinariate -- and the overarching Catholic Church -- is learning firsthand the lessons that Anglican bodies have already learned -- marriage and the priesthood is a delicate balancing act.

However, a visitor raised another issue that's been at the back of my mind:

It is worth asking how well his service with not only the Anglican Church of America, but with another traditionalist affiliation, the Anglican Catholic Church in the Indianapolis area, was investigated. Did anyone contact [ACC] Bishop Starks as a part of a background check? Sometimes clergy church-hop for other than spiritual reasons, and abusers are good at being charming. Was his background fully vetted for signs of trouble?

Both the ACA-TAC and the ACC have communities in Indianapolis. The published accounts of Reese's background only vaguely mention a "continuing" denomination in which he was ordained in 2006, and no published account I've seen refers to a second. The visitor suggests Reese was at St. Edward the Confessor (an ACC parish in Indianapolis) at one point when his oldest children were small and they were singing in the choir, possibly in the late 1990s or early 2000s. He may have been originally ordained in the ACC and then moved to the St Margaret of Scotland ACA-TAC group in Indianapolis, according to the visitor.

At this point, it seems to me that it's incumbent on the CDF to walk back the cat, find out where exactly Reese was as an Anglican priest, and determine why he apparently hopped jurisdictions before landing in the Catholic priesthood. A failure to check references thoroughly, and a failure to verify all prior employment, would be a major dereliction, especially in light of the allegations that he provided alcohol to minors and became intoxicated with them as a Catholic priest.

I will see if I can e-mail the parishes involved and determine if they will confirm whether he was a priest in either, and the dates of his tenure or ordination. In light of the publicity, which must certainly be pervasive in the Indianapolis area, I'm not sure if either will wish to be associated with him at this point.

If any visitors have information on Reese's prior career, which could be just dates of employment and where employed without any other judgment, it would be very helpful.