In that context, she spoke of the responsibility Catholics have for ongoing formation. Catechesis in preparation for baptism and confirmation is just the start. Ongoing formation, using her example, is something that takes place beyond the context of a single sacrament, or two of them. This is an intelligent and devout lady. But her comment brought me to Anglicanorum coetibus.
The original idea, which has almost immediately been overtaken by events, was that existing Anglican parishes would petition for inclusion in an ordinariate, undergo an abbreviated catechesis (since they were all baptized and of course there's so little difference between Anglicanism and Catholicism, don'tcha know), and have a "chaplain" or "mentor priest" assigned for some relatively brief period pending the ordination of their existing rector as a married Catholic priest.
In practice, this almost never happened. My regular correspondent says all the Canadian communities did go through this process, but naturally, all were quite small, and only one ever became a full parish, with none likely to do this in the future, so Canada is probably an exception. Most of the full US OCSP parishes, and certainly the largest ones, were previously Catholic under the Pastoral Provision, so this circumstance never applied to them -- we must assume their laity were all fully catechized before 2012.
So this leaves the US "groups-in-formation", which, while a clear minority of OCSP laity, represent the majority of communities. The paradigm we seem to have, especially in the past several years, is that these are small groups that coalesce over an evensong held in someone's parlor or perhaps a small chapel at a host facility. The main reason for this is to ordain a married candidate for the OCSP priesthood. (Exactly how these candidates are selected and formed is a mystery, and the success rate for such candidates, given the experience with Luke Reese and Vaughn Treco, is poor.)
Under the original paradigm, these groups would have had the Evangelium program or some equivalent. However, this would not have been conducted by either the "mentor priest" or a licensed diocesan catechist. In the case of St Mary of the Angels Hollywood, it was done by the Anglican clergy who expected to be ordained for the parish once it was received, although it's worth noting that under those circumstances, none had any real qualification or specific license to do this. It was just sorta-kinda gonna happen, and Houston would be OK with it, or not. In our case, it was not, although there was never a specific policy that covered any such thing.
At some point, the 2012 paradigm was dropped. Exactly how groups of Anglican evensong-wannabes are catechized now is not clear. On one hand, my regular correspondent says some groups (I think an example was the Athens, GA group) went through RCIA at a local diocesan parish, but this poses an interesting question: why can't the diocese claim them, if they went through RCIA at a diocesan parish? I assume as well that most, as baptized Anglicans, would be received at the Easter Sunday mass at the diocesan parish where they went through RCIA. And as RCIA candidates, they would have attended weekly mass at that parish during the year-long process and been dismissed after the homily there. Wouldn't that have been a bigger deal than their little evensong? Just asking.
But then my correspondent pointed out that at the Our Lady of Grace group, in Pasadena, CA at the time, every member was already a diocesan cradle Catholic except for the OCSP candidate for the priesthood, now-Fr Bayles. Fr Bartus began celebrating mass for them within a short time of their formation, with no catechesis or reception involved. Regarding another California group, my correspondent says,
Fr Bartus complained recently on his Facebook page that a significant number of his Holy Martyrs, Murrieta congregation were lobbying for a statue of the Infant of Prague---that touchstone of Anglican Patrimony---to be purchased for the church.(Recall that Bp Lopes promised Bp Barnes of San Bernardino that the whole purpose of the Murrieta group was to accommodate a small number of families who wanted to avoid commuting to Irvine for their weekly dose of the Anglican Patrimony.) It's hard to avoid a sense that the OCSP is either hitchhiking with diocesan parishes for RCIA programs -- and recognize that the certified catechists are often paid for their work with them -- or hitchhiking for use of facilities. In the case of the California groups that are renting facilities separately (and conducting at least one building campaign), they're competing with diocesan parishes for building funds to serve diocesan Catholics who simply prefer not to register at diocesan parishes.
So I think it's worth asking some questions that I don't think Houston will ever answer:
- Exactly how is catechesis conducted as of 2019 for Anglicans wishing to be received into the OCSP? Is there a policy? Is compliance expected or monitored?
- Does the OCSP certify catechists? (Consider that if the Anglican Patrimony is so significant, there should be OCSP catechists who have a defined body of Anglican Patrimony knowledge to transmit, separate from diocesan catechists who would not have this.)
- If Anglican candidates are catechized via a standard diocesan RCIA program, how does the OCSP justify poaching them from the dioceses that hosted their program and trained and paid their catechists?
- On the other hand, if groups are made up almost entirely of diocesan Catholics already catechized, how does Houston justify this at all, especially when they are diverting pledge and building fund contributions from diocesan parishes?
- To what extent are former Anglicans in the OCSP encouraged to take advantage of diocesan programs, especially those at parishes that serve as central resources in their areas? How many concrete examples can Houston provide?
- On the other hand, how many cradle Catholics are discouraged from using the OCSP to separate themselves from effective diocesan programs?
