St Margaret's Katy, TX Ordinariate Community Closes

Based on posts on the "Catholic Ordinariates of Anglican Tradition Informal Conversation Forum" (whew!) Facebook group, my regular correspondent notes that the St Margaret's Katy, TX ordinariate group has been suppressed by Bp Lopes,

Peter Jesserer Smith is looking for answers, on the actually quite reasonable basis that information sharing helps communities learn and grow. An idea Houston vigorously rejects, in my observation. In any event, there is a picture (from a while back) on the FB page with maybe twenty-five or thirty lay members so of course by OCSP standards this was a not entirely negligible community which has now ceased to exist, despite an abundance of local Ordinariate clergy.

Well, the ordinariates are clergy-centered enterprises, one of whose key functions is to provide career paths for married Protestant refugees from that job market who haven't learned to code. My correspondent continues,

I always assumed that despite Fr Sellers’ initial efforts to recruit membership from among his former TEC parishioners in the area, the majority of those attending St Margaret were connected with the school where it assembled. As we know, Fr Sellers was originally Chaplain, later President of St John XXIII Prep.

Fr Scott Blick, another Ordinariate priest, became Chaplain when Fr Sellers was promoted, Fr Simington assisted there while a deacon, and most recently Fr Mitchican taught there before his priestly ordination and then became Chaplain.

Fr Sellers’ abrupt departure as President probably spelled the end of the school’s cosy relationship with the OCSP. If the congregation had had a significant membership not associated with the school no doubt they would have looked into another worship site.

The fact that this didn’t happen suggests that St Margaret’s was basically a Sunday extension of the school chapel and had no potential as an independent entity.

I think the question is another variation of "What problem are we trying to solve?" My regular correspondent sent me a photo from Facebook that shows how the worship space was arranged at the time the group started in 2015.

As my correspondent puts it,

No kneelers, no altar rail, altar appears to be set up in like that in St Peter’s in Rome, where the celebrant peers through the candles and the crucifix at the congregation, although not for the same reason, judging by the direction of the sunshine.

Beyond that,

Fr Sellers began the process of forming St Margaret by contacting “200 families” of former parishioners for a series of eight organisational meetings in a very long process that led to a modest beginning that stayed pretty modest.

Fr Sellers’ decision to provide congregational music on the guitar, with his wife accompanying him on keyboard, probably meant that the community was not a draw for the Trad crowd in chapel veils.

His tenure as unpaid Director of Communications for the OCSP, then as Director of Schools, of which there were none at the time, was unproductive, to put it charitably.

His initial chaplain’s job at St John XXIII clearly a handout from Cardinal DiNardo, whose brother-in-law was President of the school at the time. He is now officially retired from the OCSP, although he is not canonical retirement age [we think about 68], and continues to minister in the local diocese.

It's hard to avoid thinking that nobody thought this through beyond seeing a need to find a job for Fr Sellers, a member of the old Steenson clique. The tone deafness here is astonishing. If Mr Jesserer Smith is still interested in lessons to draw, the first one might be that you don't look to existing elites to make a success of something new. But there are others.

One is simply the pattern of failure in so many ordinariate startups. If there's a secret, it must be very well kept. However, I think one factor that probably does lead to success is having sufficient money to create something like the ordinariates' selling point, a high-church style worship space, liturgy, and music. If the organizers can't make a start that shows the promise of something like that emerging in the medium term, the effort isn't worth it.

Another issue Mr Jesserer Smith might want to bring up with himself is whether it's a responsible move to keep trying to promote such marginal, unstable efforts. If these things won't last more than five years or so, isn't it delaying the spiritual growth of the few dozen members -- including the Jesserer Smith family -- when they might be making more productive use of their time, talent, and treasure at a perfectly fine diocesan parish far closer to home?

US Supreme Court Status Update Saturday Morning

I posted yesterday on the status of two applications to the US Supreme Court for injunctive relief by Pentecostal and Evangelical parishes in Illinois and California, based on restrictive orders by the states' governors.

Liberty Counsel posted this update for the Illinois parishes as of last night:

The U.S. Supreme Court has chosen not to give an opinion on behalf of Elim Romanian Pentecostal Church and Logos Baptist Ministries since Governor J.B. Pritzker removed all restrictions on churches and houses of worship in Illinois last night.

Justice Kavanaugh “referred to the Court” for the motion for emergency injunction, meaning the case was considered by all nine Justices. The High Court stated, “The Illinois Department of Public Health issued new guidance on May 28. The denial is without prejudice to Applicants filing a new motion for appropriate relief if circumstances warrant.” In other words, the Court did not deny the motion based on the merits, but instead that the door remains open if Illinois imposes restrictions on houses of worship.

. . . Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver said, “We are pleased that now there are no restrictions on houses of worship in Illinois. The Supreme Court made clear that if Gov. Pritzker changes course and reimposes restrictions on houses of worship, the doors of the Court remain open. The governor’s orders have been unconstitutional from the moment they were issued. It’s unfortunate that we had to drag Gov. Pritzker kicking and screaming to the High Court in order to make him remove these unconstitutional restrictions. Now justice has prevailed. This is a shot across the bow to any governors that if they violate the First Amendment right of houses of worship, the Supreme Court is watching and ready to remedy these unconstitutional actions.”

This is probably an appropriate move by the court, since the reason for injunctive relief is to remove an immediate harm to the plaintiff, and Gov Pritzker in fact removed this harm. The court has said that if the harm returns, the churches may reapply for relief.

The petition from the South Bay United Pentecostal Church in California is a slightly different matter, since although Gov Newsom issued relaxed restrictions for churches, they do continue and can at least theoretically be enforced.

As far as I can tell, almost every state has issued enforceable "guidelines for houses of worship" that impose additional requirements over and above restrictions for other, similar indoor activities, such as arenas and auditoriums. In some cases, they try to find ways to forbid communion in any form. The whole idea of separate "guidelines for houses of worship" issued by a state authority raises constitutional issues that could potentially be addressed in a case like this.

I received the following e-mail from the Thomas More Society, which is sponsoring that church's appeal, at 6:15 last night:

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court ordered California to file its response to our petition by Thursday evening, so we know they are considering our petition. Now we are waiting to learn whether they will give us relief tonight or tomorrow – or ever.

So far, I haven't found any reference to the California petition's current status on the web. This went via Justice Kagan rather than Justice Kavanaugh, so it is apparently following a somewhat different path.

What's frustrating is that even though prominent bloggers like Glenn Reynolds and William A Jacobson are constitutional law professors, of all things, they've taken no interest in these cases, and the mainstream outlets have taken even less. Constitutional law professors at prestigious universities are, of course, members of the privileged elite, no matter how they profess they aren't.

UPDATE: The court rejected the request, with Chief Justice Roberts joining the liberal majority:

A divided supreme court on Friday rejected an emergency appeal by a California church that challenged state limits on attendance at services that have been imposed to contain the spread of the coronavirus.

Over the dissent of the four more conservative justices, Chief Justice John Roberts joined the four liberals in turning away a request from the South Bay United Pentecostal church in Chula Vista, California, in the San Diego area.

. . . Roberts wrote in a brief opinion that the restriction allowing churches to reopen at 25% of their capacity, with no more than 100 worshipers at a time, “appears consistent” with the first amendment.

Roberts said similar or more severe limits apply to concerts, movies and sporting events “where large groups of people gather in close proximity for extended periods of time”.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in dissent that the restriction “discriminates against places of worship and in favor of comparable secular businesses. Such discrimination violates the first amendment.”

UPDATE: On further reflection, what happened here took place over the space of a week, and it boils down to two governors backing down on prohibitions against in-person celebrations, or highly restrictive provisions, in he face of appeals to the US Supreme Court. In both cases, the governors relaxed provisions to the extent that, in their judgment, the court would see fit to kick the can down the road. Their judgment turned out to be correct. But the bottom line is that secular authorities so far are recognizing they are vulnerable to legal redress, at least past a certain point.

In a similar circumstance, Howard County, MD sought effectively to prohibit communion in church services, but backed down after two days in response to concerns from the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Baltimore.

UPDATE: On yet further reflection, it seems to me that the attorneys for the churches got their clients what they needed in a highly successful strategy. The churches started the litigation unable to have in-person services, saying they were willing to abide by state regulations if they were able to have them. Under the threat of a Supreme Court case that could force the governors' hands, the governors backed down, and the churches got the ability to celebrate in-person services under the constraints they said they would accept.

Some people clearly hoped for a landmark Supreme Court action of some sort. But I don't see the court making a landmark ruling based on a week-old set of circumstances. The bottom line is that civil authorities see the downside of trying to restrict church services.

US Supreme Court Updates

Over the past week, two religious liberty cases stemming from COVID lockdowns reached the US Supreme Court, both of which have been covered here. One, South Bay United Pentecostal Church, et al v. Gavin Newsom, et al., was the subject of a request for an emergency injunction via Justice Kagan. The other was brought by two Romanian Evengelical-Pentecostal churches in Illinois via Justice Kavanaugh. Both justices ordered the respective governors of Illinois and California to file answers by last night, May 28.

Illinois Gov Pritzker's response:

Within a few hours yesterday after two Romanian churches filed an emergency injunction pending appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, Justice Kavanaugh ordered Gov. Pritzker to respond by 8:00 p.m. Thursday night. Just before the deadline, Gov. Prtizker issued “guidelines” for houses of worship, none of which are mandatory.

Liberty Counsel represents Elim Romanian Pentecostal Church and Logos Baptist Ministries.

The guidelines are only suggestions and contain no legally enforceable requirements whatsoever. The governor is no longer imposing his draconian 10-person limit on church services.

However, the churches argue this is insufficient:

Liberty Counsel will file a reply to the Supreme Court arguing that Gov. Prtizker’s unconstitutional orders are capable of repetition yet evading review. Also that his supposed voluntary cessation of these orders on churches does not moot the case, because as he unilaterally issued the orders and aggressively enforced them, and now repealed the church restrictions, he could just as easily reinstate them.

This is a problem with both the Illinois and California cases. In both circumstances, the states either relaxed or eliminated their previous restrictions unilaterally, in hopes of eliminating the particular issues while preventing the Supreme Court from forcing their hands with a ruling. The South Bay Pentecostal case takes the same tack:

“We’re asking for the U.S. Supreme Court once and for all, you are the supreme authority of the land. Make a ruling that’s just not for all sake, but all churches sake, not just for California’s sake, all across America we need a ruling in this matter,” said [United Pentecostal Bishop Arthur] Hodges.

Despite the fact that Newsom gave the clearance for churches to reopen, Hodges is still moving forward with the lawsuit since they’re limited to 25% of its capacity or 100 people people, whichever is less.

“We still have a problem here because that is a clear discrimination against churches because no other enterprise in California has those restrictions placed on them, only churches. This is a clear violation of our constitutional rights to free exercise in assembly,” Hodges said.

He also says he’s setting a precedent when it comes to taking his case all case all the way to the Supreme Court.

“We need a ruling at that level that will settle this issue once and for all. We don’t want to be going through this three months from now, and that’s a very real possibility,” Hodges said.

As I noted yesterday, the Catholic News Agency release on Newsnm's order and California dioceses' reopening plans discusses the South Bay Pentecostal case at some length, indicating that Abp Gómez and by implication the USCCB are looking at these cases with some interest. The fact that both Illinois and California were clearly willing partially to back down on the restrictions suggests they recognize the weakness of their cases.

Los Angeles Reopens Churches; The Great "Never Mind" Is Under Way

Via the Catholic News Agency:

After California relaxed public health restrictions on churches on Monday, the nation’s largest diocese announced its plan on Tuesday to resume public Masses.

. . . While Governor Gavin Newsom’s four-step reopening plan for the state had initially placed churches in stage 3 of reopening, that of “higher-risk workplaces,” on Monday the state announced that churches could begin reopening subject to county restrictions. The state is currently in stage 2 of Newsom’s reopening plan, where manufacturing and some retail businesses have been allowed to reopen.

Now, California has allowed churches to open at 25% capacity with a maximum of 100 people.

The state’s Catholic Conference called the new state guidelines “positive, constructive and fundamentally in alignment” with the diocesan reopening plans, and expressed gratitude for being “a part of the consultation.”

Individual dioceses and archdioceses would make the decisions on reopening parishes in consultation with local authorities, the conference said.

The announcement from the Catholic Conference reiterates what Abp Gómez implied in the remarks from May 23 that I linked here: a "consultation" had been under way, and the fact that the state conference was involved suggests a strategy very similar to the one used in Minnesota would be employed if the "consultation" didn't work out.

Abp Gómez has been successful in preventing the state legislature, with a Democrat supermajority and a Democrat governor in office, from going overboard in policies singling out Catholic schools for adverse treatment.

He can point to support from Latin Catholic voters, while it's not generally understood that Filipinos, who are heavily Catholic, make up the largest group of Asians in California. (Why would I want to be in a parish full of Anglican snobs, when I can go to mass with some really great Latins and Filipinos?)

Abp Gómez's apparent success is reflected in this Politico story, "Newsom faces growing concerns that he's reopening California too quickly".

Just as significant, though, is that as I pointed out Tuesday, Newsom actually just punted reopening decisions to individual counties and their health departments. Until very recently, the expectation had been that Los Angeles County would track closely with the "blue" states and their stubborn governors, especially after county health director Dr Barbara Ferrer said on May 12 that the lockdown order would "with all certainty" be extended for the next three months.

Ferrer, LA Mayor Garcetti, and the county board began walking that statement back within days, in some part due to the result of the special election in California Congressional District 25, which covers part of Los Angeles County, and which had been held by a scandal-ridden Democrat who was forced to resign. A Latin Republican candidate won the election, considered a tossup, with a 10-point margin. The county found itself quickly reopening parks and beaches and allowing curbside retail pickup on a much faster schedule than had been expected.

On May 26, Mayor Garcetti, saying his policy was coordinated with the county board, announced churches would reopen under the same order Newsom had announced the day before. These orders, while still restrictive (social distancing, disinfecting pews, 25% capacity or 100 maximum) are at least more liberal than those imposed in some other states. I think it's reasonable to expect they'll be eased more over coming weeks.

Interestingly, the Catholic News Agency release linked above goes on to discuss in detail the status of the South Bay United Pentecostal Church, et al v. Gavin Newsom, et al. case appealed to the US Supreme Court over the weekend:

South Bay church had already filed for an emergency injunction on the state’s order requiring churches to remain closed—Newsom’s original plan that placed churches in “stage 3” of the reopening. The church had asked for relief by Pentecost Sunday, May 31.

Then on Monday, May 25, the state’s health department announced that churches could resume religious services at a maximum of 25% capacity or 100 people.

The allowance is still not acceptable, the church argued in its letter to Kagan, as individual counties can still maintain stricter regulations than the state’s “ceiling” that was announced on Monday.

Furthermore, for larger churches such as South Bay which seats 600 congregants in its sanctuary, the 100-person limit is an “arbitrary cap,” the church argued.

“Some of these churches will seat over 1,000 people, so it makes no sense to have an arbitrary minimum cutoff” of 100 people, LiMandri said.

“They’re not doing that in any other organization or facility,” he added, noting that shopping malls are allowed to open at 50% capacity and warehouse stores like Costco do not have a customer limit.

It sounds as though Abp Gómez is very interested in this case, or the story with his photo at the head would not have carried this analyais.

Cringe Video On The Ordinariates, Anglishy Shaytiby

A visitor sent me a link to this YouTube video that, at least to my American eye, comes off as a desultory, extended chat between a couple of toffs, conducted for the benefit of an unidentifiable audience. There is a bearded toff on the left who doesn't identify himself. The toff on the right is Fr James Bradley, a member of the Ordinarite of Our Lady of Walsingham, but now Assistant Professor of Canon Law at the Catholic University of America.

I ran this by my regular correspondent, who commented, "Before I watched, clicked helpful link to CTS on-line bookstore to purchase the books they are flogging. Too bad all three versions of DW: The Missal are out of print." It's characteristic of this video, though, that after about three minutes of mutual congratulation between the bearded toff and Fr Bradley, Fr Bradley remarks At about 3:10

Let me just start off by saying that the work that the Catholic Truth Society has done with the ordinariate, particularly with the liturgical books has been really first class, and it's really helped us to be able to put those texts into people's hands. . .

Bradley and the bearded toff then go on for fully five minutes on the wonderful plans for the daily office books, which sound just the thing for other toffs on three continents, until at about 8:30, the bearded toff says, "We got into the liturgical weeds a bit there," and they move on to pressing questions like, "What are the ordinariates established under Anglishy shaytiby?" To which Fr Bradley giggles,

Yes, that's a very good question, and I'm glad we've come to that.

So a couple of toffs have been chatting entre nous through the liturgical weeds until, eight and a half minutes in, they get to the point that their perhaps less elevated audience might want to know about. The bearded toff encourages Fr Bradley by mumbling.

Why would an American in particular want to get involved in something like this? Naturally there are cat ladies who swear by Downton Abbey or Upstairs, Downstairs, but they're likely too self-absorbed, or possibly already too far into New Age, to be interested in a Catholic liturgical hothouse. So who do these toffs think they're addressing?

What problem are they trying to solve, other than convincing themselves they're toffs? Somehow, an adult needs to take control of this thing if it's to survive.

California Gov Newsom "Reopens" Churches

In another passive-aggressive move, California Gov Newsom announced yesterday that churches can "reopen". According to Politico,

Gov. Gavin Newsom gave California churches the green light Monday to reopen, three days after President Donald Trump threatened to "override" states that continued to block in-person religious services due to the pandemic.

Newsom also was facing pressure from more than 1,200 California pastors who vowed to resume services this upcoming Sunday regardless of what the governor decided. At the same time, a lawsuit filed by a Southern California church reached the U.S. Supreme Court on Sunday night.

But that's not what Newsom actually did.

The new guidelines apply to the entire state, but are subject to approval by each county's public health department. That means they don't yet apply to Los Angeles County, although some county supervisors are pushing to open up as soon as possible.

He punted the issue to individual counties, whose current policies vary widely, so state "guidelines" have no specific effect unless county health departments endorse them.

It's also worth noting that reopening church services had been, before Monday, under Newsom's "Phase 3", which never had a specific target date, and which up to then no county had been eligible for. I would say that the main factor that drove Newsom to change, or more accurately appear to change, his priorities was the denial by the Ninth Circuit of the Chula Vista church's motion for a restraining order against the state. The real possibility of a loss in the Ninth Circuit was already part of the church;'s legal strategy:

[Church attorney Charles] LiMandri said, +. . . If we lose at the Ninth Circuit, then we will have a split in the federal circuit courts with the 6th Circuit, and we will file an immediate emergency appeal with the United States Supreme Court. . . ."

This they did, and Newsom's response came the next morning. Exactly how this affects the Supreme Court's reaction to the emergency appeal remains to be seen. It's entirely possible that San Diego County will endorse the state guidelines, making the Chula Vista case moot, although other churches in other counties will continue to have their services prohibited, regardless of the state's guidelines.

Archbishop of Los Angeles José Gómez had this message on the archdiocesan website dated May 23, which probably continues to reflect the current situation here:

I’ve been working really hard with the city officials, the county officials, and the state officials to help them to understand what is the importance of the presence of God in our lives and how beautiful it is for us to come to church. And especially for us Catholics to have the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist.

This makes a huge difference. I think the officials are, little by little, understanding better what is that urgent reality. And I also tried to explain to them that we have the protocols and everything that is necessary to make sure that there is protection for anyone coming to church — the Catholic Church in these three counties in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles.

So, let us keep praying. Let us keep working together. I’m really hopeful that things are going to change really soon. I need your support and your prayers because, obviously, we need to come to that moment where we can safely open our churches to continue the celebration of the Sacraments that are so essential for us.

In situations like Minnesota, it's plain the churches spent a lot of time and effort trying to get the state to open, and it appears that steady pressure, with various options and threats of escalation, does eventually have an effect. It looks like Abp Gómez, who is President of the USCCB, is probably well aware of circumstances that affect all the dioceses. It wouldn't surprise me if he had been fully in the loop over the Minnesota bishops' strategy to force reopening there, and he'll likely press California officials closely as events develop.

More North American Ordinariate Personnel Moves

I'm hearing from different sources about additional personnel moves in the North American ordinariate. As we saw with the Archdiocese of Baltimore, these are typically announced by the chancery, but although Texas has been reopening, the staff there apparently continues under some type of legal advice to do nothing that might bring attention to themselves. Thus we learn only from Fr Simington's farewell letter to the St Alban group in Rochester, NY:

Our pastor, Bishop Lopes, has chosen to assign a young Deacon, Rev. Mr. Nathan Davis, who will be ordained to the Priesthood on June 29 th, to become your new Parochial Administrator. This new assignment, reminds me, and all of us, of the true value of Christian humility in pursuing our vocation.

. . . As I am reassigned to Irvine, California and to St. John Henry Newman I humbly ask that you keep me in your prayers.

The St John Henry Newman group was begun by Fr Andrew Bartus in 2012 and moved among several diocesan venues before it found a semi-permanent home in a garage area that had been remodeled into a chapel oratory by the Busch law firm in Irvine. Its layout is awkward, and it has a maximum capacity of about 60. But in 2018, Fr Bartus redirected his efforts to the Holy Martyrs group in Murrieta, leaving the Irvine group to supply priests, in particular Fr Hugh Barbour, while keeping it under his nominal control.

Assigning another, new ordinariate priest as administrator of this parish (I believe it's somewhere at the marginal minimum membership for parish status) represents a change. The other California ordinariate priests, Frs Baaten and Bayles, had been creatures of Fr Bartus and effectively assigned and supervised by him. It appears that Fr Simington will have his own channel to Houston, for whatever that's worth, as Houston seems to be under indefinite lockdown unrelated to COVID.

I'm also told that Fr Bartus is now on some type of sabbatical or leave until August 15, and a new deacon, Mr Samuel Keyes, will be the parish administrator at Holy Martyrs Murrieta during Fr Bartus’s sabbatical, and Fr Bayles will be celebrating mass.for him. Exactly how this fits into Fr Simington's move, if it does at all, is unclear.

Another unanswered question is how Fr Simington will be paid, and where he will live. None of the California communities can pay a full time priest. Fr Bartus has relied on teaching jobs, and Fr Baaten has been a property manager for the Diocese of Orange. Fr Bayles relies on pay from the Air Force, where he is a chaplain in the reserves. In Rochester, Fr Simington had a diocesan assignment as well as his ordinariate group, and he lived in a rectory.

It's hard to avoid asking whether he will have an equivalent arrangement in the Diocese of Orange.

Another question without a complete answer is what will happen to the St Augustine of Canterbury group in San Diego. I'm told that there have been postings on Facebook to the effect that the group will undergo a process of discernment once the California lockdown is lifted, so far in the indefinite future. At the same time, the expectation is apparently that Fr Baaten will be reassigned to the Our Lady of Grace community, which meetsin a rented event facility in Covina.

But at least we have the potential that new energy and a new perspective will bring the Irvine group/parish out of what appears to be a two-year period of stagnation and neglect.

Baltimore Area Ordinariate Moves

A visitor sent me a link to this letter from Fr John Worgul, who, although he is an ordinariate priest and leads the small St Timothy Catonsville group, has been named pastor of the St Joseph Catholic Community in the Archdiocese of Baltimore. That community is in Sykesville, in Carroll County. As usual, as far as I can find it, there's no announcement of this in any ordinariate venue.

Based on his letter, Fr Worgul's day job for the past six years had actually been as associate priest at that community -- again, this had never been made clear as far as I can tell. He will continue to lead the St Timothy group, although it will now be moving to a facility owned by the St Joseph community in Sykesville. which is about 20 miles from Catonsville.

Fr Worgull's letter to the St Joseph parish does reflect a certain awkwardness in his dual role:

Saint Joseph’s liturgy will always remain the Novus Ordo – that is, our liturgy will remain the same. This is clearly stated in the agreement between the Archdiocese of Baltimore and the Ordinariate. And just as the Marianist tradition values lay participation, so does the Anglican tradition with its “priesthood of the believer” tradition.

Part of SJCC’s relationship with the Ordinariate is that SJCC will be hosting an Ordinariate congregation of about 30-40 people in our old Sykesville Church. The church, called St. Timothy’s, consists of the remains of a once significant Episcopalian congregation in Catonsville that began in the 1840s. Its original building is on Ingleside Avenue. The church lost this building in 2012 when the congregation voted to enter the Ordinariate. Since then, it has been meeting in the old stone chapel of St. Marks. I have been its Parochial Administrator since 2014. The old Sykesville Church will remain in the possession of SJCC and will be used for weddings, baptisms, prayer, and other activities as usual.

We will be assigned an Assistant Priest named Armando Alejandro who will be ordained this June. He is an accomplished liturgist and musician and is extremely personable and people oriented. He will live in the rectory. Also, another Ordinariate priest, Robert Kirk, who is Parochial Vicar of our immediate area, will be available and will be very helpful to our church.

So this answers another question -- Fr-designate Alejandro will also serve the Sykesville diocesan parish as a new associate there.

Although Fr Worgul makes it clear that the St Joseph community will continue as a diocesan Novus Ordo parish, he feels the need to go on at some length on the mission of the ordinariate and the beauty of the Divine Worhsip liturgy. But my regular correspondent reminds me that

videos of the Sunday mass have often been posted on Facebook even before the current lockdown; the celebration is versus populum and there are female servers. Music is provided by Mr Stagmer on guitar and one or two others on keyboard, etc. Thus not as much differentiates St Timothy’s from what goes on at St Joseph as is perhaps the case at other OCSP communities which share space or clergy with a diocesan parish, so from that perspective perhaps the communities may grow closer in time.

This announcement from the Archdiocese of Baltimore stresses the expectation that Fr Worgul will minister in the tradition of the Marianists, and it sounds as if he'll be keeping the ordinariate part of things separate.

UPDATE: My regular correspondent referred me to this story in the Archdiocese of Baltimore newsletter indicating that the Marianist order would withdraw from ministry at the Sykesville community effective June 30, due to "a declining and aging population of priests and brothers within its congregation". This is a pattern taking place around the country among religious orders operating diocesan parishes, so the ordinariate is filling a role here.

Edward Feser: "The Lockdown Is No Longer Morally Justifiable"

The first thing that strikes me is that I haven't heard professors saying a public policy is "no longer morally justifiable" since the Viet Nam war. I haven't given foreground thought to the moral issues in that war for quite some time, although I've always thought that, whatever the moral intricacies may have been, it was clearly an abuse of the conscription power of the state. In fact, there's a parallel to the COVID problem there.

When Elvis Presley was drafted into the Army in 1957, it was taken with good grace, indicating the essentially voluntary compliance with the program in the country at that time. Ten years later, the country had lost patience and withdrew its voluntary compliance. The presidency switched parties due to the war, and Nixon gradually eliminated conscription as part of that mandate -- in hindsight, this was a key political subtext.

I think there's an equivalent loss of patience with the COVID lockdown. Feser expresses it this way:

As I have said before, I think that the lockdown that was put in place in the United States two months ago was morally justifiable given the circumstances at the time. In my opinion, under current circumstances, it is no longer morally justifiable. To be sure, I am not denying that some social distancing measures are still justifiable and even necessary. I am also not denying that a more modest lockdown may still be defensible in some localities. But the draconian total lockdown that was put in place across most of the country is at this point no longer defensible, and state and local authorities who are relaxing it are right to do so.

What we're also seeing is fairly widespread, and at least well-publicized, incidents of civil disobedience. Here's a YouTube by the lawyer I linked the other day who commented on the Bellmawr, NJ gym that opened in defiance of the governor:

At about 2:10, he says,

This is all new territory for us -- it's never really happened before. None of us ever believed, as criminal defense lawyers, we'd ever have to deal with people being cited for going to gyms or parks, or doing things like that, but again, this is where we are right now.

It wouldn't surprise me if the next thing we begin to see is members of the elite finding it expedient to come out against the war come out against the lockdown. As RFK, so Dr Fauci, it would seem.

Pushback Updates On The Lockdown

Sheriffs announcing they will not enforce stay-at-home orders since my last post:

• Merced County CA
• DuPagr County IL
• Genesee County MI

Municipalities:

• Kelso WA City Council
• New Mexico County warned
• Atwateer, CA unilaterally ends lockdown
• Big Bear Lake, CA

In Illinois, a complex dance seems to have taken place. Gov Pritzker issued an order that would impose class A misdemeanor penalties on businesses that violate his lockdown order. He said the state police would enforce the order, presumably because so many local sheriffs were announcing they would not.

In reply to these officials, Gov. Pritzker warned he would send the state police in to enforce his rules.

“Counties that try to reopen in defiance, may not be reimbursed by FEMA for damages they cause because they ignored the law,” Pritzker said adding, “Local law enforcement and the Illinois State Police can and will take action.”

However, the Illinois state police then announced they would not in fact enforce such an order. The result was that, at least temporarily, Pritzker recognized that without the willingness of the legislature to enact his order into law, he couldn't impose it unilaterally. One of the most stubborn "blue" governors was at least forced to a draw.

This essay draws the most important lesson from such episodes.

The extent and severity of the COVID-19 economic shutdowns vary from place to place, but the one thing almost all of them have in common is that they're not really enforceable.

We may have reached the point where most people are realizing that.

. . . Since forcibly quarantining 330 million people was never really possible, the lockdowns that have wrecked the economy and slowed the spread of COVID-19 over the past two months were ultimately based on voluntary compliance.

. . . The biggest benefit that comes from lifting stay-at-home orders is an end to the charade that such lockdowns can be enforced. Kemp didn't "reopen" Georgia. All he did was give people consumers and businesses permission to choose their own acceptable levels of risk—something they're doing anyway in every state.

The decision of the Minnesota bishops (as well as some Lutheran Church Missouri Synod parishes there) to reopen public celebrations is actually the most visible event up to now in which a unified public faction, as opposed to individual protesters, has deliberately withdrawn its voluntary cooperation with the shutdown orders. (As of this posting, I'm not aware of any public response from Gov Walz.) My guess is that we'll see additional actions of this type.

The best alternative will be for a consensus to emerge in which governors and municipal authorities recognize that it isn't in their interest to foster disrespect for pubic order, recognize that voluntary cooperation is the best remedy for the perceived problem, and allow businesses, churches, athletic organizations, and other institutions to develop strategies that allow individuals to choose their level of acceptable risk.

CDC Changes Guidance On Disinfecting Surfaces

Via Fox News:

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) now says the novel virus “does not spread easily” from "touching surfaces or objects" — but experts warn that doesn’t mean it’s no longer necessary to take "practical and realistic" precautions in stopping the spread of COVID-19.

Though when the change was made is not currently clear, the federal health agency appears to have subtly shifted its guidelines from March which simply said it “may be possible” to spread the virus from contaminated surfaces.

"It may be possible that a person can get COVID-19 by touching a surface or object that has the virus on it and then touching their own mouth, nose, or possibly their eyes," the CDC said on a now-archived page from March 28. At the time, however, the CDC did note that this possible method of transmission "is not thought to be the main way the virus spreads."

Even so, the CDC now includes "surfaces or objects" under a section that details ways in which the coronavirus does not readily transmit.

Churches that have been insisting that their "social distancing" measures are effective have consistently cited practices like disinfecting pews, restrooms, doorknobs, and the like, as well as removing worship materials, hymn books, and missals. Turns out this is all a never-mind.

Why is the CDC keeping this so quiet?

The guidance from the CDC regarding masks has already been seriously questioned. In any case, it's also changed.

Minnesota Roman Catholic Bishops Resume Public Mass, Defy Governor

Via Catholic News Agency,

The bishops of Minnesota have permitted parishes to resume public Masses, and to defy a statewide order prohibiting religious gatherings exceeding 10 people.

“An order that sweeps so broadly that it prohibits, for example, a gathering of 11 people in a Cathedral with a seating capacity of several thousand defies reason,” the bishops of Minnesota’s six dioceses said in a May 20 statement.

“Therefore, we have chosen to move forward in the absence of any specific timeline laid out by Governor Walz and his Administration. We cannot allow an indefinite suspension of the public celebration of the Mass,” the bishops added.

“We can safely resume public Masses in accordance with both our religious duties and with accepted public health and safety standards.”

. . . The bishops’ letter permits parishes to resume public Masses May 26.

The bishops’ decision to contravene a statewide executive order is the first made by U.S. bishops since the coronavirus pandemic began.

But Minnesota’s bishops said the state’s prohibitions on religious gatherings of more than 10 people does not respect the right to the free exercise of religion.

“It is now permissible for an unspecified number of people to go to shopping malls and enter stores, so long as no more than 50 percent of the occupancy capacity is reached. Big-box stores have hundreds of people inside at any one time, and the number of goods that are being handled and distributed in one store by many people—stock staff, customers, cashiers—is astounding. Workers are present for many hours per day, often in close proximity. There is no state mandate that customers wear masks in those malls or stores, wash their hands consistently, or follow any specific cleaning protocol,” the bishops wrote.

Up to now, the leadership in this movement has been largely Evangelicals, Pentecostals, and other groups at the fringe. For Catholic bishops to do this in a united front, in direct violation of a governor's orders, is a major step. Interestingly, so far, I've seen no main line Protestant parish or denomination do anything like this.

There are other states with either arbitrary ten or 25-person limits on church attendance, or no guidance at all until a vague "phase 3", still months away. It will be interesting to see if other Catholic bishops move in this direction.

For instance, our own diocesan parish had originally scheduled a drive-through distribution of palms for Palm Sunday, but this was canceled. Our pastor has now announced that this had merely been "postponed", and there will now be a drive-through distribution of those same palms this coming Sunday in the parish parking lot, with a blessing from the priests. I assume this has been squared with the bishop.

California has no provision for any type of church services in its reopening plan so far, leaving this to a future "phase 3". Even a drive-through distribution of palms is perhaps pushing things. We'll have to see what develops.

Chula Vista, CA Pentecostal Parish Granted Expedited Appeal

Last week I posted on the case of the South Bay United Pentecostal Church suing California Gov Newsom for unconstitutional orders during the COVID pandemic in violation of religious rights. The initial petition for an injunction in federal court was denied by an Obama-appointed judge. Via the Thomas More Society,

The Thomas More Society filed an Urgent Motion for an Injunction Pending Appeal on May 16, 2020, with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which the court has set on the fast track for quick decision.

. . . “It is significant that the Ninth Circuit set an expedited briefing schedule. It shows that they are taking our urgent appeal seriously,” stated Charles LiMandri, Special Counsel for the Thomas More Society and partner at LiMandri & Jonna LLP. “If we win at the Ninth Circuit, then the most populous state in the union can start religious services again, and we will have vindicated our constitutional rights, and struck a blow against tyranny. If we lose at the Ninth Circuit, then we will have a split in the Federal Circuit Courts with the Sixth Circuit, and we will file an immediate emergency appeal with the United States Supreme Court. Either way, the outcome of this case stands to have a major potential impact on our religious liberty and our nation’s constitutional jurisprudence.”

. . . LiMandri has called California’s unconstitutional relegation of people of faith to third class citizenship “mindboggling.” He noted that “California is one of only eight states whose response to the COVID-19 pandemic has included no accommodation for – hardly even a mention of – the religious rights of its citizens.”

An even approximate schedule for reopening church services in most areas of California is not currently in the works.

Tulare County, CA Supervisors Vote To Reopen

Yesterday, Tulare County, a big central California jurisdiction, voted to reopen in defiance of Gov Newsom's slow-walked "reopening" scheme:

The Tulare County Board of Supervisors voted Tuesday to defy the state’s emergency order and allow nearly all businesses, including those deemed ‘higher risk’ such as gyms and salons, to reopen.

In a split 3-2 vote, supervisors said they will not enforce the state order and want businesses to be smart about health guidelines, but also be able to decide for themselves if they want to reopen.

. . . The move came after Gov. Gavin Newsom announced many counties would be able to move through his phased reopening plan at an accelerated rate.

But Newsom added this when asked which would not:

“It’s not surprising but there are concerns. As an example, in Tulare the skilled nursing facility,” he said.

Supervisor Dennis Townsend said meeting the governor’s requirements may be impossible and cripple the economy.

“We just took action to say we are going to reopen and we’re going to go all the way through phase 3 so we can get all the businesses in there,” he said.

While some businesses that need state licenses may decide it isn't prudent to reopen, others will, and this creates further arbitrariness and uncertainty. Up to now, Gov Newsom has claimed he's "reopening", but the counties that meet his criteria so far have been those with negligible COVID rates. Criteria for actual reopenings appear to be arbitrary and ambiguous, with Newsom adding or removing them as he sees fit.

If Tulare County, in the southern San Joaquin Valley reopens, it means residents of neighboring Kern County, which includes Bakersfield, can drive 20 minutes north for a restaurant meal or a haircut.

Although the sheriff of Fresno County, which neighbors on the north, has announced she will not enforce the stay-at-home order, the legal situation for businesses there is less certain, and it's likely residents of Fresno, as well as Hanford and Lemoore in neighboring Kings County, will be willing to drive over for meals and haircuts.

This in turn makes California's orders, which for most residents continue to be among the strictest in the country, will be harder and harder to enforce.

Chinks In The Lockdown

I think the main vulnerabilities for the restrictive lockdowns will be the clearly arbitrary distinctions beginning to emerge among adjoining states and counties. For instance, as the situation following the Wisconsin supreme court's overturning of the governor's emergency stay-at-home order clarifies, we see that most local authorities found it impossible to re-impose local regulations, and the whole state is now de facto open, with a few exceptions:

More than a dozen counties and several cities enacted their own stay-at-home orders after the Supreme Court’s 4-3 decision to strike down the state’s “safer at home” order.

However, the number of local orders, which ranged from mirroring the state’s former “safer at home” order to rules limiting large gatherings while allowing businesses to remain open, whittled down Friday, with officials expressing doubt in their authority to pass such measures.

Counties that rescinded their local orders include Kenosha, Manitowoc, Outagamie, Winnebago and Brown, which has had the second-most positive cases in the state with more than 2,000 as of Friday.

Kenosha County Health Officer Dr. Jen Freiheit announced the county’s stay-at-home order, which went into effect Wednesday, had been withdrawn the next day due to guidance from the Wisconsin Counties Association’s legal arm suggesting that the Supreme Court ruling also applies to local orders.

It appears that only a few counties and municipalities in Wisconsin continued their individual orders, including Madison-Dane County and Milwaukee. Otherwise, the state is open, and no orders prohibit bars, restaurants, businesses, or religious gatherings from being open. The Archdiocese of Milwaukee will reopen public masses at 25% capacity on May 31.

However, this creates a problem for Illinois, whose restrictions are among the strictest anywhere:

When the Wisconsin Supreme Court overturned the state’s "Safer at Home" order last week, several cities and counties, including Milwaukee and Dane counties, enacted their own orders.

Racine and Kenosha counties briefly issued stay-at-home orders but rescinded them Friday after receiving legal interpretations from their corporation counsels that showed the court's ruling also applied to county health officers.

But this meant Illinois residents who wanted to visit a bar or restaurant, or simply wanted a haircut, could drive north and get what they needed.

When Kenosha’s Brat Stop reopened at 2 p.m. Friday, there was a line of people waiting at the door. About 75 percent of the cars in the parking lot had Illinois license plates.

Owner Deb Glembocki says that’s not unusual.

Oregon Gov Kate Brown created a similar problem for herself when she allowed certain counties to enter an arbitrary "Phase 2" but kept others in "Phase 1".

In an article that highlighted the confusing and often contradictory nature of Brown’s lockdown orders due to the Wuhan coronavirus pandemic, The Oregonian reported:

Can I leave the Portland area to get a haircut in another county or visit the beach?

The governor said Thursday the answer is no, although it doesn’t appear she plans to enforce that. . .

Brown asked Portland-area residents to hold tight and resist the urge to drive to another county to get a haircut, dine out at a restaurant or visit a tourist sites.

Of course, Brown’s lockdown orders have confused Oregonians since they began. It turns out that many retail outlets shut down when they didn’t have to do so.

As we approach the tail end of the pandemic, and as Oregon has consistently ranked in the bottom five states in terms of infections and deaths, Brown’s scattershot approach to the virus has raised more questions than answers.

In California, Gov Newsom appears to skirt this particular problem simply by relaxing the stay-at-home order only in remote counties, so that it's nearly as inconvenient for someone in the San Francisco area to drive to a more open county as to drive to Oregon. However, as sheriffs in larger counties like Fresno and Riverside have announced they will not enforce the orders, the arbitrariness and inconsistency of enforcement become a steadily bigger problem.

Even in my local area, there are differences. I went out for the first time in weeks yesterday and saw that in Burbank, almost nobody wore a mask, and I didn't have the impression that those outside were on "essential" missions. Back in LA, where Mayor Garcetti has recently ordered that everyone wear a mask when outdoors at all, about half those strolling or walking their dogs wore them.

Establishment Clause Updates

Two stories that hinge on the Establishment - Free Exercise Clause of the US First Amendment appeared in this morning's news.

First, via Politico,

The U.S. Department of Justice warned Gov. Gavin Newsom on Tuesday that California must do more to accommodate in-person religious gatherings.

A letter from federal attorneys pointed to “civil rights concerns” around California’s stay-at-home order, which since March has prohibited the faithful from assembling at houses of worship. The Department of Justice noted that religious services are barred even as sectors of the economy deemed “essential” have been allowed to remain open.

“This facially discriminates against religious exercise,” the letter says. “California has not shown why interactions in offices and studios of the entertainment industry, and in-person operations to facilitate nonessential ecommerce, are included on the list as being allowed with social distancing where telework is not practical, while gatherings with social distancing for purposes of religious worship are forbidden, regardless of whether remote worship is practical or not.”

. . . Newsom said this week that the state could greenlight in-person worship in the coming weeks as infection, testing and hospitalization numbers improve.

. . . California’s halt on religious services has already prompted legal battles and defiant stands from faith leaders who have kept their churches open. Federal judges have so far rejected legal requests to allow their services to resume.

But the Department of Justice said those rulings “do not justify California’s actions” and asserted that “reopening plans cannot unfairly burden religious services as California has done.”

Newsom's pattern so far has been what we see here, to tease easing unspecified restrictions "in the coming weeks", then to do so only in remote counties, while allowing the most urban areas to continue with even more restrictive orders from local health authorities. The judges in California, part of the political machine, permit this. It's likely the only thing that will end Newsom's passive-aggressiveness, and the stubbornness of other governors like Pritzger, will be a broad-based national reopening that will force their hands.

Via Liberty Counsel,

Calvary Chapel of Bangor [ME] filed an emergency injunction to the First Circuit Court of Appeals pending an appeal regarding the lawsuit against Maine Governor Janet Mills’ unconstitutional orders that discriminate against churches and prohibit in-person and drive-in worship services. Under the governor’s orders, no religious gatherings are permitted, including parking lot services.

Gov. Mills said that churches will only be allowed to meet in small numbers when she is satisfied with the “metrics,” and when that happens, she will require churches to apply to re-open. Approved churches will then need to display a “badge” at the front door signifying they are approved to open. However, Gov. Mills has no process in place now to begin the approval process and no application for the churches. Even the notion that churches would have to apply to re-open and display a “badge” signifying approval is offensive to the First Amendment.

Gov. Mills has allowed so-called “essential” commercial and non-religious entities that include liquor stores, marijuana dispensaries, warehouse clubs, “big box” and “supercenter” stores to accommodate gatherings of people without threat of criminal sanctions. People may gather in these venues but not in churches. The governor’s orders also allow people to gather in secular or commercial parking lots, but not in church parking lots and listen to the pastor.

I would expect this strategy to work mainly to establish important precedents in the medium to long term going forward, but this sort of piecemeal fight won't correct much right now. It remains to be seen whether the judge in this case will issue the injunction, for example, or slow-walk the entire process.

Bellmawr, NJ Gym Followup: "A Different Reality"

Via the New York Post:

A New Jersey gym opened for a second day in defiance of executive orders during the coronavirus pandemic — despite Gov. Phil Murphy’s stern warning of “a different reality” to anyone who shows up there Tuesday.

. . . The gym, which was shuttered since mid-March, re-opened for the first time Monday, as the owners called the forced closure a violation of citizens’ constitutional rights.

Both owners were issued summonses and clients were given a warning.

A New Jersey attorney gives his opinion on the case below;

The news article continues,

But Murphy suggested during his Monday briefing that the state might have to step in if the gym’s defiance continues.

“I’m not concerned it will spiral out of control, and we will take action,” Murphy said. “If you show up at that gym again tomorrow, there’s going to be a different reality than showing up today. These aren’t just words. We’ve got to enforce this, but I also don’t want to start World War III.”

This is the sort of thing that the Nazi colonels used to say in Humphrey Bogart movies, so it's strange that Gov Murphy would harken back to that sort of image.

So far, I'm waiting for what "a different reality" will amount to in Bellmawr, NJ, but it seems to me that pretty much anything the governor does will go viral on the web. "Hey, Throckmorton, give me a plan for an action that imposes a different reality but doesn't start World War III!"

Well, there was the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, for one thing. Maybe the governor could study that one.

These politicians are not smart. Something's wrong.

UPDATE: The gym has a Gofundme page to raise money for its legal defense that's doing quite well, apparently. I'm still waiting for the different reality.

UPDATE: CBS Philadelphia reports an individual was arrested leaving the gym, but no other information is available. There is video of the arrest at the site. A New Jersey attorney gives his opinion on the case below:

UPDATE: The news story linked above was updated, noting others in the gym received summonses (presumably for something like disorderly conduct short of a misdemeanor) and added:

It is not clear if the county prosecutor’s office will follow through with these summonses. However, lawyers for the gym say they’ve offered to represent anyone who was issued a fine.

So far, the gym has raised over $25,000 for legal fees.

Gov Northam And The Beaches

With many other commentators, I noted that Virginia Beach, VA was basically occupied as usual by beachgoers last weekend, notwithstanding the usual government warnings against umbrellas, blankets, sunbathing, and the like. Virginia Gov Northam was scheduled to update his executive orders yesterday in anticipation of the Memorial Day holiday this coming weekend. What interested me was whether, recognizing that if there was beach business-as-usual in Virginia Beach last weekend, the governor might bow to circumstance and essentially relax his orders, since it was likely they would not be followed on the holiday weekend anyhow.

No. According to Richmond station WHSV:

[T]he governor was asked about the plan for beaches going into Memorial Day weekend, and he said the state was working with local government officials in areas like Virginia Beach to develop a new plan, which he said he'd likely announce on Monday. And that's what happened.

Over the weekend, while beaches were still only open for exercise, Virginia Beach was packed with crowds.

. . . With a new plan in place that the governor says will allow safer use of the beach, he approved Virginia Beach's request to reopen on May 22 for activities including swimming, surfing, fishing, and other recreational activities.

Not allowed will be group activities, including group sports like volleyball, speakers playing music to large groups, alcohol, tents and groups of umbrellas, and other group-related activities.

. . . However, Gov. Northam said if people swarm the beach and ignore restrictions, he "will not hesitate" to put restrictions back into place and go as far as closing the beach if necessary.

Good luck with that, huh? But the mayor of Virginia Beach was with the program:

[T]he city has hired hundreds of people to serve as "beach ambassadors," who will help coordinated efforts to clean high-touch surfaces and will enforce the beach's regulations.

They'll also have teams dedicated to educating visitors about the new rules.

Acknowledging that beaches around the country have faced compliance problems, he said he wants people to know that they are welcome to Virginia Beach and are safe, but that the city is asking them to comply with the rules.

But let's keep in mind that Virginia Beach is just part of Virginia's Atlantic coast. There's the whole Eastern Shore above Chesapeake Bay, which is actually a major resort area. What about those beaches? The story continues,

Governor Northam emphasized that the opening applies only to Virginia Beach and First Landing State Park – not to any other beaches in the state.

But he encouraged other beaches to look to Virginia Beach's plan as a model for any reopening plans for the future.

So exactly what the policy is for the 70 miles of beach on the Eastern Shore isn't completely clear, but they aren't in the same category as Virginia Beach. What, does Cape Charles need to hire "hundreds of people to serve as 'beach ambassadors'" to enforce social-distanced sunbathing, or what? Will the state cops haul away anyone who tries volleyball there?

My first reaction is that, notwithstanding however many political retainers and civil service staff the governor has to work with, nobody seems able to draw up any reasonable policy to apply to the rest of Virginia's beaches, so they're apparently closed, or on some greater restriction. But hey, he's encouraging reopening plans for the future!

The bureaucrats are too lazy to draw up a few extra plans, so in Chincoteague, they stay locked down.

My second reaction is that nobody's going to pay attention, and everyone's going to follow Virginia Beach, especially on a national holiday, and especially as the other beaches won't have hundreds of beach ambassadors to smooth things along. Except if there's some absurd attempt by a local tyrant to haul someone off in cuffs that goes viral on the web.

Either Gov Northam comes off as ineffectual, or he comes off as Mussolini. It's a lose-lose. Why is he doing this? Why not just make a well-publicized announcement thanking Virginians for their outstanding patience and cooperation for the past ten weeks and say hey, all the beaches are open, have a good time, be safe? That's what people are going to do no matter what he says.

These politicians are not smart. Something's wrong.

North American Ordinariate Personnel Moves

As has probably become clear, I've been shifting my emphasis over the past few weeks away from Anglicanorum coetibus and the way it's shaken out in the North American ordinariate to questions related to the COVID not-quite-pandemic and its context in the overall Western political realignment. On one hand, not much has been happening with the ordinariates, and on the other, a great deal has been happening in the real world. Boutique liturgy seems less and less a good use of my time, but I'll still cover important developments as they come up. I continue to extend my good wishes for Bp Lopes in his extended recovery from indisposition.

A couple of sources have told me about pending personnel moves in the ordinariate. Actually, this is the sort of thing that's made me more and more uncomfortable, since Houston doesn't announce such things, which are normally routine for dioceses. As a result, visitors e-mail me to ask what's going on. So I find myself doing work myself that someone in the Houston chancery is theoretically being paid to do, but isn't. The foresight of the staff there in recognizing the need to be safer at home and stay away from work, long before there was ever a virus to hide from, is to be commended, i guess.

First, a visitor tells me that Fr Lewis, pastor of Our Lady of the Atonement in San Antonio, announced that the longtime associate there, Fr Jeffrey Moore, is being reassigned to Indianapolis. A Fr. Jon Jenkins is to be taking his place. He asked me if I know anything about Fr Jenkins. (Should I be invoicing Bp Lopes for this work?)

Fr Jenkins is a former conservative Episcopalian priest in the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth, TX under Bp Iker. After an Anglican career seems to have petered out, he found himself in Wisconsin in lay Catholic jobs, apparently with Nashotah House contacts sponsoring him there, and in 2019, he was ordained a married Catholic priest by Bp Lopes, but he remained in diocesan parish work in the Archdiocese of Milwaukee. According to the archdiocese web site, he had been a "shared associate, St. Robert Bellamine, Union Grove, St. Francis Xavier, Brighton, St. John the Baptist, Paris, and St. Mary, Kansasville.

However, according to the same website, he was scheduled to be moved "to shared associate, Immaculate Conception, St. Augustine of Hippo, St. Paul Parishes in Milwaukee and Sacred Heart of Jesus Parish in St. Francis, effective August 4, 2020." So the announced move to San Antonio working for Fr Lewis is something quite new.

You're welcome, Bp Lopes.

That Fr Moore is to move to Indianapolis implies that he will apparently be trying to revive the St Joseph of Arimathea group that met at the at Holy Rosary, Indianapolis archdiocesan parish there. However, according to my regular correspondent, this group had been dropped from the “Parish Finder” on the ordinariate website two years ago following the removal of its priest, Fr Luke Reese, in the wake of his kidnapping and battery conviction.

A Divine Worship mass continued to be celebrated there by archdiocesan clergy. Presumably Fr Moore will be primarily on the archdiocesan payroll at Holy Rosary, but of course, absent any official word from Houston or even Indianapolis, this is speculation.

You're welcome, Bp Lopes.

In other personnel news, my regular correspondent reports,

Four men are being ordained to the diaconate in Houston on Ascension Day. David H. Delaney (graduated high school 1978) is an academic based in San Antonio. I see nothing Episcoplan/Anglican in his background, so I assume he is an OLA parishioner. Stephen Arthur Hilgendorf is the Director of Christian Formation at St Paul’s Cathedral in St Paul, MN. A Nashotah House graduate, he was previously the rector of an ACA parish in St Louis Pk, MN and was received at the St Bede Mission there led by Vaughn Treco, now inactive. Sam Keyes, also a Nashotah House graduate, lives in Murrieta, CA so one can at least predict how the Ordinariate plans to deploy him. Last is Scott Wooten Also Nashotah House. I might be tempted to suspect that it’s not what you know, it’s who you know.

Add to the Nashotah club members Fr Jenkins, of course. Looks like Nashotah House is back in favor big time in Houston, although as we've been seeing, the Anglicanorum is being dropped from the coetibus in favor of a more generically pre-Conciliar approach to boutique liturgy. So why the continued need for pedigreed Episcopalians? And, er, wasn't Houston supposed to be moving toward celibate clergy formed in Catholic seminary? My regular correspondent answers,

That has never been a stated policy—-realistically, it couldn’t be. It is Bp Lopes’ HOPE that celibate candidates become a larger percentage of OCSP clergy, and that any married candidates would gather a group as a condition of being ordained (that part might have been explicitly stated), but in the meantime he apparently has to take what he can get. He has stated that 55 is the cut-off age for being accepted as a candidate and that no one will be ordained for strictly diocesan work—-two policies that would be a departure from Msgr Steenson’s practice—-but I think we decided that Fr Robert Kirk at Christ the King, Towson was 63 when he was ordained in 2019. And Fr Jon Jenkins was as a pastoral associate at Kenosha-Racine County Line, WI Catholic Parishes since 2019, with no Ordinariate assignment until this upcoming transfer. Looks like this will also be the situation with Mr Hilgendorf in St Paul, MN. Not sure what the plan is for Mr Wooten in Ft Worth. Only Mr Keyes fills an obvious gap.

I'll continue to cover ordinariate issues as they arise, but it's worth thinking about these particular events in the larger context of other institutions that aren't working. Bp Lopes is collecting pedigreed, married former Episcopalian priests for largely imaginary postings -- and the ones he can fill continue, with only a few exceptions like Our Lady of the Atonement, to be dependent on part-time diocesan parish work, if priest assignments can be found for them at all.

Yet even the focus of the North American ordinariate itself is moving past trying to be a clone of The Episcopal Church to an ad hoc refuge for traditionalist cradle Catholics who don't know Latin. But the bureaucratic rules still require that he ordain men with Anglican credentials -- and given the Nashotah House types, I guess he's gonna go big with that or go home.

For now, there are bigger and more compelling examples of political and bureaucratic rot on which I want to spend more of my time.

Baker County, OR Judge Overturns Gov Brown's Executive Orders

Via the Baker, OR City Herald,

Baker County Circuit Court Judge on Monday declared all executive orders that Oregon Gov. Kate Brown has issued related to the coronavirus pandemic as “null and void.”

Brown has exceeded her authority by restricting activities, including church services and businesses, for longer than the 28 days the governor is authorized under a state law related to public health emergencies, Shirtcliff said.

The judge granted a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement each of the more than 10 executive orders the governor has issued since March 8.

Shirtcliff’s decision applies to the entire state. He ruled on the motions because the lawsuit challenging the duration of the governor’s legal authority was filed May 6 in Baker County Circuit Court.

Elkhorn Baptist Church of Baker City is the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit, which was filed by Salem attorney Ray Hacke of the Pacific Justice Institute, a nonprofit that defends religious liberty.

. . . In granting the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, Shirtcliff concluded that Brown, by citing a certain state law in some of her executive orders since her original emergency declaration March 8, in effect placed a 28-day limit on the state’s enforcement of those orders.

That law is Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) 433.441.

. . . Although Brown invoked a different law — ORS 401.165 — when she initially declared an emergency, Shirtcliff wrote that 401.165 “does not grant the Governor power directly over the movement of citizens and gatherings.”

. . . The crux of the legal dispute involves the relationship between the two laws the governor has invoked — 401.165 and 433.441.

Brown’s attorneys argued in a May 14 hearing that because the governor cited 401.165 in the emergency declaration, that law, which has no time limits, is the controlling statute.

But Hacke argued — and Shirtcliff agreed — that the governor, but repeatedly citing ORS 433.441 in her executive orders, made those orders subject to the 28-day time limit allowed under that law for public health emergencies.

Moreover, Shirtcliff wrote in his decision that Brown, in order to issue executive orders that restrict residents’ movements and the size of their gatherings, had to involve 433.441 because 401.165 doesn’t give her that authority.

Brown will immediately appeal the ruling to the state supreme court, and the executive orders remain in effect.

Analysis at The Hill:

The Oregon ruling is likely to generate additional momentum behind opponents of stay-at-home orders, who got a major boost last week when the Wisconsin Supreme Court invalidated the state’s coronavirus health order.

Legal experts say governors’ emergency powers are likely to wane as the pandemic persists.

“The longer the crisis wears on, the less compelling it is for the governor to characterize it as an emergency in which there’s no time for the legislature to weigh in,” said Lindsay Wiley of American University.

Civil Disobedience Update

I note that another sheriff has announced he will not enforce stay-at-home orders.

Protesters are expected to rally against Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s stay-at-home order Monday evening at Rosa Parks Circle in downtown Grand Rapids.

The event, titled “American Patriot Rally-Sheriffs speak out,” is scheduled to run from 5:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m., and will feature remarks from at least one law enforcement official, Barry County Sheriff Dar Leaf.

Leaf, who has been in office 16 years, says he will not enforce the governor’s stay-at-home order because he believes it is unconstitutional.

Note that it's taking place at Rosa Parks Circle. I think this is an acknowledgement of the natural rights principles on which the civil rights movement was based beginning in the 1950s.

In Bellmawr, NJ Atilis Gym

reopened on Monday morning in defiance of Governor Phil Murphy’s Coronavirus lockdown order.

People gathered in the parking lot in front of the gym to show their support for the gym owner.

. . . Bellmawr police walked to the door of the gym and the officer said the gym was in violation of Murphy’s order but “on that note, have a good day!”

The crowd went wild and chanted “USA! USA! USA!”

Karl Manke, the Owosso, MI barber who continued to cut hair when a local judge refused to grant the state a restraining order against him, has closed his shop again after receiving a notice that his license had been suspended. However, Shelley Luther, the Dallas salon owner who was jailed for cutting hair in opposition to a municipal lockdown, has said she will appear at Manke's shop with him today.

In Virginia Beach, VA, crowds went to the beach, which was officially closed under stay-at-home orders. Gov Northam appears to be somewhat behind the curve:

Gov. Ralph Northam is expected to make an announcement today regarding what, if anything, can be done to reopen Virginia’s beaches before Memorial Day.

Under the governor’s current stay at home order, beaches in Virginia are only open for fitness activities. People can walk and run on the beach, fish and even swim, but they can’t pull out chairs, umbrellas and blankets and spend all day sunbathing.

Widely published photos showed many people with chairs and blankets, sunbathing. It's hard to imagine how he can do anything but announce a new policy that simply permits this.

Diocese Of Jefferson City. MO Updates

The visitor who sent me the information on the Diocese of Jefferson City, MO's reopening sent a correction:

Following is from link I sent you. These instructions are not optional. They are to be followed by all parishes at every weekday mass.

Before Mass

5. The faithful are obliged to wear a mask (or other face covering) upon entering the church and during the celebration of Mass, except when seated in the pew and for the brief moment of receiving Holy Communion.

This reminds me of when I was in the ROTC (not for long, though) and was always confused over when to wear my uniform hat, and whether to salute if my hat wasn't on. More below. The visitor also commented,

Examples of non-observance on part of worshipers include not wearing a mask, sitting in a pew directly behind another parishioner, not keeping distance from other worshippers while leaving church (see below). This is mainly an issue during weekday mass, when there are no ushers.

Here's my take on this. This is a completely new and unusual situation, and based on the subtext of remarks during homilies and announcements. as well as body language when I see them on Facebook, our own priests seem to agree with this and want to get through it. The situation is so new and unusual that the Diocese of Jefferson City has issued several pages of instructions on how to deal with it -- but we must hope that those instructions will be in effect for no more than a matter of weeks.

In this case, the visitor reports that the problem is most pronounced during weekday mass. My surmise is that with no ushers available, the pews aren't roped off on weekdays, so attendees may well be confused over whether the special instructions are still in effect, which pew is the right one to sit in, and which page of the new policy applies to it. I don't really blame them. The bishops all seem to be asking for patience in this situation. Correctly, I think. I said yesterday that people will have different levels of comfort with how things work out going forward, and as the visitor said then, the dispensation from attending in-person mass is still in effect.

But let's back up a few steps and look at she situation from the standpoint of the natural virtues, prudence, fortitude, temperance, and justice.

Prudence: In a time of contagion, we're called to exercise prudence to protect ourselves, our families, and our neighbors. Even if masks aren't much more than a token, they're a matter of courtesy and respect, at least for a reasonable duration. The same would apply to social distancing in the pew, with allowances for people who might not understand that if the pews aren't roped off, the rules still apply. Again, we may reasonably expect the situation to be temporary.

Fortitude: Another side to the coin is having the strength and courage to persist in the crisis, and particularly to make realistic estimates of risk. Even given how little we know about COVID, as more information becomes available almost daily, we're beginning to understand that the contagion had arrived in the US as early as late 2019, and we didn't know it because so many people didn't show symptoms. As best we can tell, somewhere between 10% and 30% of the population has already been infected and is asymptomatic.

This means that especially for people who are young and healthy, even infection isn't a dire matter, and it leads to immunity. Among those over 65, deaths are heavily concentrated in nursing homes, and this problem needs to be addressed via clear changes in procedures there and changes in government policies.

Temperance: In this case, I think individuals are entitled to make individual estimates of risk based on prudence tempered by fortitude. Temperance would certainly rule out panic or hysteria in reacting to the overall crisis. If people find it impossible to work but fare better financially on unemployment anyhow, I guess you'd have to say more power to them, at least for the duration. But not everyone needs to make that particular determination, and not everyone can. Everyone's choices will differ based on weighing the variables.

Justice: I'm drawn to Prof Feser's argument that natural rights include the ability to earn a living, freedom of movement, freedom, pf association, and freedom of worship. Governments may limit these rights in highly exceptional cases, but they must be circumscribed, and the longer those rights are limited, the harder it is for governments to justify. Past a certain point -- and in at least some cases, we're past it -- state and local governments sin against justice. In some cases, courts are beginning to recognize this.

I certainly think we're entitled to hope that the circumstances that lead dioceses to take exceptional measures with how masses are run will be of short duration, and I agree with bishops who have little choice but to urge us to be patient during this period. People will need to work out what's the most effective way to resolve the issues they can control the best way they can.

More Sheriffs Announcing They Will Not Enforce Stay-At-Home Orders

Every few days, I've been doing a quick web search to see if additional county sheriffs have announced they won't enforce stay-at-home orders, and in fact more have. An Illinois sheriff explained the legal grounds for this decision:

Winnebago County Sheriff Gary Caruana says that while he isn’t encouraging people to defy social distancing norms, but his department won’t enforce Gov. JB Pritzker’s stay at home order.

“We get calls for that. You’re not social distancing, you’re not wearing your masks,” Caruana said. “We’re not responding to the personal protection equipment type-thing. We’re not the personal protection police. We’re staying away from that.”

Caruana says that since the Governor’s stay-at-home order isn’t a statutory law, his department won’t enforce it.

These new sheriffs have come up on my latest web search. As before, the list isn't exhaustive, but it's an indication of a growing movement, and it's clear that other jurisdictions, while not making official announcements, are either rolling back previous enforcement policies or looking the other way at violations.

• McHenry County, IL
• Kankakee County, IL
• Douglas County, IL
• Winnebago County, IL
• Grundy County, IL
• Hancock County, IL

In addition,

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio today announced police will no longer require people to wear masks in public, unless the absence of a mask presents a "serious danger."

The decision is part of a "reset" of the NYPD's enforcement of emergency rules during the pandemic, following a number of controversial encounters between officers and members of the public, some of them caught on video. The most recent was a confrontation between officers and a woman in a subway station, over whether she was wearing her mask properly.

At the same time, de Blasio says police will continue to enforce rules against large gatherings, because he says it's a matter of "saving lives."

Advocacy groups have complained that the NYPD's social distancing enforcement has been unfair and even racist, because about ninety percent of the people arrested in encounters related to social distancing enforcement have been black or Hispanic.

On the other hand, wealthy Upper East Side New York residents are allowed to enter restaurants for dine-in and consume alcohol on public sidewalks. But in response,

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio said Sunday morning that the Big Apple's beaches will not open on Memorial Day and he's not comfortable with people gathering outside bars.

. . . De Blasio said walking on beaches is permitted, but if people start to swim or defy social distancing guidelines then the city will take more drastic measures and put fencing in place to keep people out.

As Abraham Lincoln said, "The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly."

Elsewhere, in Coldwater, MI,

Cars were lined up for an estimated quarter mile or more to get into the Capri Drive-in Theater Friday, May 15, when it opened in defiance of Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s stay-at-home order.

. . . The family drive-in theater is in a category of businesses that the governor’s office says is temporarily prohibited as part of an executive order. Whitmer’s order to shelter in place and all non-essential businesses be shuttered isn’t set to expire until May 28.

But the Capri opened for the first time Friday, several hours after Whitmer’s remarks.

. . . Before the event, Branch County Prosecuting Attorney Valerie White said all the police agencies with jurisdiction were aware of Capri’s plans to open. She said the business reported it to the prosecutor.

The business has been educated and warned about the possible consequences of operating, Branch County Undersheriff Keith Eichler said on May 15. Police would only respond if they receive a complaint, he said on Friday before the theater opened.

Diocese Of Jefferson City, MO Has Resumed Public Mass

A visitor tells me, "The city opened up May 4, and public Masses resumed May 5 with a weekday Mass." According to the link the visitor sent,

During Mass:

1. Entry and exit doors are to be adequately designated and monitored. Entry doors are to be propped or held open before Mass, and exit doors are to be propped or held open at the end of Mass to prevent people from touching the door handles, knobs or push plates.
2. Staff, ushers or other volunteers should assist with directing people to pews specifically marked. Attendance may be limited to assure compliance with social distancing requirements.
3. Families are to maintain six-foot distancing between their family and other families or individuals throughout the celebration of Mass.
4. Offertory processions are suspended as well as the sign of peace. Collection baskets (or any other materials) shall not be passed from one family to another, nor shall ushers take up the collection from the congregation. Stationary baskets are to be used for donations from the assembly and are to be monitored by the ushers until the donations are collected and handled according to the proper protocols in place for handling the collection.
5. All concelebrating priests and deacons are to receive Holy Communion by intinction utilizing a separate chalice from the main celebrant and with the last clergy communicant consuming all that remains in the Chalice.
6. For the distribution of communion, ushers or other volunteers who are masked and gloved will ensure six-foot distancing in the communion line. Floor markings shall be placed six feet apart in the aisles in which the congregation approaches the sanctuary for communion to facilitate proper social distancing.
7. Communion ministers must be masked, sanitize their hands immediately before and after distributing Communion, and when at all possible, to utilize a disinfectant wipe or purificator dipped in a sanitizing solution (at least 60% ethanol or 70% isopropyl alcohol) to sanitize their fingers when incidental contact is made with the communicant.
8. Distribution of Holy Communion from the chalice is prohibited to the assembly. For those who are gluten intolerant, special arrangements are to be made with the pastor.
9. For the distribution of Holy Communion, a single-file for each Communion minister is necessary to maintain social distancing. Multiple Communion ministers may be used as long as one-way traffic patterns are observed.
10. During this time, Holy Communion will only be distributed in the hand in keeping with the advice of state health officials and thereby to avoid the Communion minister’s fingers coming into contact with saliva.
11. When approaching the Communion minister, the communicant is to pull their mask below their chin and present one hand resting on the palm of the other. After responding “Amen,” the communicant reverently places the Eucharist in his or her mouth and immediately replaces their mask.

As we're beginning to see with other dioceses, many details are not micromanaged at the diocesan level but are left to the judgment of individual pastors. However, the visitor says,

In our parish, the problem is parishioners who come to Mass but refuse to take any precautions. As a result, I am staying home. Fortunately I have a dispensation through June.

Clearly people are going to have different comfort levels about any public activity going forward. As far as I can see from these guidelines, communion ministers and ushers must be masked. Ushers must also be gloved. Communion ministers must sanitize their hands. There isn't a specific requirement for communicants, other than that they maintain the xix-foot distance.

I think overall, these guidelines err on the side of caution, which considering the context is appropriate. So far, individuals have the option of staying home with the dispensation not to attend public mass.

In many states and municipalities, there's been no practical relaxation of lockdowns, and even in dioceses that have begun to offer public masses, the need for rows of pews to be roped off or other limits on attendance will continue to restrict ability of people to attend them for the foreseeable future.

But where dioceses have been able to hold public mass at all, this is at least a mildly encouraging sign.