Sour Grapes!

Periodically I get angry responses to my posts here. I don't follow the pretentiously named Anglicanorum Coetibus Society blog, but a correspondent brought a recent post to my attention. Actually, I had an angry e-mail from a priest about a week ago, and I may as well simply post my reply to him here:

I had a very bad experience, with the St Mary of the Angels parish, during 2012 at the inception of the OCSP. As things have fallen out, most of those responsible for this were removed in subsequent years, including two vicars general, the ordinary, two chancellors/legal vicars, and other clergy. If things were going well, none would have been removed. I’ve got to speculate that this blog had an effect on causing the CDF eventually to take action. Certainly every indication I have is that it is read by influential parties and taken seriously. I am hoping that I can help the parish eventually move to the OCSP by making sure that all the errors that led to the bad experiences of 2012 are fully corrected.

However, one of the OCSP priests, whom I got to know quite well in 2011-12, committed US felonies, by all indications, including mail tampering and non-payment of taxes. This still hasn’t been addressed, and frankly, he’s continuing to have a bad influence on other OCSP priests. Every indication I hear from concerned Catholic laity is that lay people have an obligation to hold bishops accountable. The information I publish is generally well-sourced; speculation is identified as such. I do know the two California OCSP priests, and frankly, I believe it was an error to ordain them. Certainly other observers feel that in pointing out that we know them by their fruits, I’m performing a service.

My experience with diocesan priests in the confessional has been good, with only one exception. I would have a problem going to confession with an OCSP priest whom I am convinced has committed felonies and is presumably unrepentant. He may be able to absolve me, but what other evil advice can he give?

It seems to me that you have the option of not visiting the blog, or indeed of finding ways to counteract what I say on it via the Church. I’m open to other viewpoints, but at the same time, admonition of sinners is a work of mercy. But while you accuse me of not knowing OCSP circumstances, as best I can see, you’re on the faculty of a [redacted] and yourself are viewing things from a distance. I do know two OCSP priests and several others who went through the dossier process (and were dissatisfied and left embittered with it).

If you can clarify with specifics how I may be mistaken, I will appreciate it, but in effect, so far you’re saying I don’t know what I’m talking about, where I don’t see how you know better. Why not, for instance, explain how any other case I raise on my blog is mistaken? I’ll be happy to listen and make any correction that’s justified.

The Almighty does miraculous things to be sure, but Our Lord also had hard sayings about millstones, burning chaff, wailing, and gnashing of teeth. The angry priest, by the way, answered in part:

My apologies for my tone; I do ask your forgiveness. I was impressed with the tone of your first email which was quite genuine and measured. It sounds as though you have experienced great wrongs at the hands of men in the Church, and if so, it is God's good grace that has allowed you to enter full communion despite the bumbling and, at times, ill intent of men. By no means did I intend to say that you did not know what you were talking about in California.

Ms Gyapong accuses me of getting facts wrong. As with the angry priest, I challenge her to point out where I'm mistaken. I will happily publish any corrections where needed. Calumny is propagation of false information. I work hard to avoid this, and will retract anything false and correct any inaccuracies, as I have done all along. Detraction is propagation of information that, without objectively valid reason, discloses another's faults and failings to persons who did not know them. I think there has been objectively valid reason to draw attention to what the priest characterizes as the bumbling and ill intent I've discussed on this blog.

I wonder if rash judgment may be taking place on the other side here.

Here's One!

I've posted that 10 or 11 men are reported to be in the pipeline for ordination in the OCSP, but very little is known about them. I assume this suits Houston. However, due to an apparent slip by Fr Bartus, it looks like we've got a lead on one of them. Thanks to my regular correspondent for a copy of Fr Bartus's Facebook page from April 30 -- this exchange relates to the group-in-formation in Pasadena, CA:

While a name is not mentioned, and I don't intend to mention it here, there's only one potential candidate anywhere near Pasadena. If this is the guy, I've got to say he follows a pattern. While the first wave of ordinations in the OCSP was dominated by graduates of Nashotah House and Yale Divinity with impeccable Anglican credentials, more recently we've seen the likes of Frs Treco and Baaten, with desultory careers "all over the map", as Fr Baaten put it, and indeed, not coming in with groups or even coming from an active Anglican pastoral assignment. What problem are we trying to solve?

This gentleman served briefly as curate under David Moyer at Good Shepherd Rosemont but left that position prior to Moyer's removal there. He then moved to Central California (which makes Pasadena a pretty tough commute). He was, or is, a chaplain with the Air Force Reserves, though I'm not sure in what denomination. The on line biographical information I've been able to locate says he attended both Catholic and Lutheran seminaries; it's not completely clear if his ordination was in TEC or the ACA, although he hasn't had a record of consistent parish assignments in either.

UPDATE: Many thanks to my regular correspondent for doing a great deal of digging. The gentleman was ordained in 2006 in the ACC. At some later time, he was the priest of an APCK parish. As noted, he served as curate at Good Shepherd Rosemont, nominally a TEC parish, though by that time, David Moyer was an ACA priest. Clearly this gentleman has been all over the "continuing Anglican" map, though he doesn't seem to have lasted long anywhere.

He served briefly as a supply priest for Mrs Bush at St Mary of the Angels after the squatter group reopened the parish for "mass", which put him in the company of several other highly marginal clerics. (It's worth noting that Msgr Steenson appears to have given at least one priest the impression that saying "mass" for the Bush group would be looked upon favorably in his record, but in that case he seems to have reneged.) That this gentleman has been something of a wannabe on the fringes of the OCSP since before 2012 suggests he's our guy. It appears, though, that if his application was made during early waves, action had been deferred for quite some time -- yet having no potential assignment has seldom been an obstacle to ordinations in the OCSP.

That he attended both Catholic and Lutheran seminaries raises a potential problem, delict of schism. We know nothing about this other than the bare-bones reference in the information available on the web, but at minimum it suggests that, as with other recent ordinations, the guy has been "all over the map". But my regular correspondent suggests that friends in the right places can fix a great deal.

Even with the Fort Worth clique out of favor, it looks like Fr Bartus is still placed well enough to fix this. What problem are we trying to solve?

Question

Once I lost out in a job interview. The hiring manager outlined a problem to me and asked me what I would do about it. I discussed how I'd seen similar issues in my experience, explained what the causes were, and showed how various adjustments could eliminate the problem and result in smoother operation.

The headhunter called afterward to tell me how it went. "He didn't like your answer," he said. "He thought you'd find a way just to solve the problem and make it go away. But then why would they need his whole department?"

Naturally there's a great deal of internal logic to that position. Maybe I've always had the wrong perspective on things. But this brings me to another question: the OCSP clearly is going to have a continuing problem replacing priests due to retirement, illness, or other attrition -- there have been maybe a dozen instances to date, with five vacancies impending now -- but this says that of about 60 priests, roughly 20% have had to be replaced within five years.

But baked into its system is a near-impossibility of moving priests around to compensate for these vacancies. They're married with families (and indeed, wasn't that the point?). They've had to prove they don't need an OCSP stipend to survive, because in most cases, the OCSP can't support them. To move, they'd have to quit the jobs that sustain them, not to mention dislocate their families and the wives who probably also work.

Of the reported 10 or 11 Anglicans in the pipeline for ordination, how many can move to fill the upcoming five vacancies in the OCSP? I think we already know the answer here. So why are we persisting with the idea that this will be good for the OCSP?

Sometimes the solution to the problem comes from the disappearance of the problem. But this can affect careers, of course.

UPDATE: My regular correspondent adds,

Staffing situation is actually worse than it appears as there are seven groups which have lay parochial administrators because their OCSP priest is canonically retired (in three instances) or they do not have an OCSP priest and rely on a diocesan priest or ad hoc arrangements.

Yet Another Vacancy, And An Old One

My regular correspondent noted

Perhaps I forgot to mention that Fr Hodgins is retiring as parochial administrator of St Thomas More, Toronto at the end of June, so that is one more community which has to be covered, and not one that can offer much financial support.

But let's not forget that Peter Jesserer Smith, drafted a press release that was published here last November but quickly withdrawn that included this augury:

In sum, Father Perkins said he's very hopeful that we [St Alban's Rochester] shall have a new pastor by the summer or fall of 2017, so please pray for him!

By my count, this gives five vacancies in OCSP groups and parishes that will need to be filled in the next several months. Indeed, in the case of Rochester, we would assume that some type of planning has been underway since last November, and a candidate would presumably be identified and ready to start.

But although the remark has been made that the OCSP has more priests than people, Fr Perkins, despite this surplus, is clearly going to be hard pressed to fill these vacancies. I keep coming back to the remark by the TEC priest in my long-ago confirmation class, that Anglo-Catholics want the prestige of calling themselves Catholic without paying the dues you have to pay actually to be Catholic.

We've got a bunch of supernumerary guys who wear the collar and get to call themselves Father, but far be it from them actually to serve a parish or group if any sort of discomfort is involved. They've got families, after all. We've got to recognize how really special they are!

The Succession Problem

With Fr Kenyon's impending departure, Bp Lopes now faces the need to replace three senior priests who've founded parishes, in Calgary, San Antonio, and Payson, AZ. In thinking about the different classes of OCSP priests, which I began to talk about yesterday, it seems to me that there are three basic sets: those who've founded full parishes, who will be steadily retiring in coming years; the younger group who so far haven't performed as well (and indeed, some of whom are simply mediocrities); and the next generation of seminarians.

Of the seminarians, my regular correspondent notes,

I suspect that one of Bp Lopes' future staffing problems will be the lack of curacies for his youngest ordinands. Plus the fact that most Catholic priests serve in the community where they grew up and/or attended seminary. Sending a young inexperienced priest to lead a parish in an unfamiliar part of the country with no local colleagues or diocesan support will be challenging, no matter how eager he is to advance Anglican Patrimony. I am very interested to see where Mr Simington will go after his ordination to the priesthood in June. I gather that in the year since his diaconal ordination he has been assisting Fr Scott Blick as Chaplain at the school of which Fr Sellers is the President and parochial administrator of the St Margaret's congregation which meets there.

This suggests Bp Lopes can't simply move a newly ordained priest into one of the upcoming parish vacancies, and probably can't plan to do this in the future. But he has few realistic choices among the younger group, and even if he were to move one of them to a vacancy, this would create a new vacancy in a group that could not pay a priest nor make it practical to relocate one absent assistance from a diocese. Beyond that, even if there are 10 or 11 Anglicans in some sort of formation, as a bishop, I'd be hesitant to approve the idea of bringing such an unknown quantity into my diocese to help out.

I recently heard from an OCSP mediocrity -- he certainly knew the shoe fit in his case and was somewhat exercised about it -- and he pointed out

[B]oth the Roman Catholic and Anglican (at least in the 39 Articles) find that the worthiness (including the theological formation, I imagine) of the minister does not affect the validity of the sacraments.

Yes, of course. But how are potentially disaffected Episcopalians ever going to come over if all the OCSP can point to is that sure, its priests are mediocre, but their sacraments are still valid?

More Thoughts On OCSP Priests

A visitor comments, regarding Sunday's post quoting a visitor who gave the view that "most vocations formed through an Anglican faith journey, are well-intentioned":

One obvious problem with that theory is that all three of OCSP's newest seminarians were already studying for the diocesan priesthood; one each for San Antonio, Baltimore and Orlando. The San Antonian's claim to any Anglican relationship seems to be having been part of the Schola at OLA's Latin Mass for a year between seminaries. Whether he joined the Ordinariate Seminary for the specific reason of wanting to later serve at OLA or not, it's difficult to figure what diocesan parish he might later help out at.

This brings me back to a view that other visitors have sometimes given here, with which I'm in sympathy: Anglicanorum coetibus is in effect the Catholic wing of the "continuing Anglican" movement, and as such, it attracts a ready-made constituency of the unhappy. But as far as I can see, there are now at least two tiers of OCSP priests, those who came in as married Anglicans, a substantial number of whom I think are opportunists who couldn't continue careers as Protestants, and now a completely new generation of celibate seminarians who are receiving a much more complete Catholic formation.

Of the opportunists, many built their previous careers, or their networks, largely on the basis of being against TEC or what it stood for. This bears some resemblance to the strategy of medical quacks, who use legitimate objection to the medical and pharmaceutical establishment to give credibility to otherwise much less credible proposals. Not all OCSP priests are in this category, but some do fit. However, it's eventually going to shake out that they're not going to obey any authority, and I think that's what we're now seeing in the case of people like Fr Phillips.

In other words, I think there's a pro-Catholic side of the OCSP, which is altogether a good thing, and I would suggest that's Bp Lopes as well. He is a fully formed Catholic who seems to have some sympathy for Anglican liturgy, but he clearly has no intention of going native.

Another visitor takes exception to my view that Anglican (or Reformed) seminary training is insufficient for the Catholic priesthood. He says

In the four-year theology curriculum of St. John’s Seminary here in the Archdiocese of Boston( on pages 34-35), which probably is fairly typical of most Catholic seminaries, there is only ONE required course in moral theology and the listing of electives for the current academic year shows no electives at all in this area. The practical reality is that one course is about enough time to cover fundamental principles and some of the most common scenarios to which they apply. Some years ago, I took a course that specifically focused on Christian sexual ethics at another Catholic school of theology and seminary — and we did discuss various aspects of homosexuality in some detail in that course, but pornography never entered the discussion. Thus, it seems unlikely that a broader course in moral theology would go into much detail on that subject. And I have never seen a course about the occult on the syllabus of any Catholic seminary, even though it is a very significant issue in Catholic ministry today because so many ostensibly Catholic young people have gotten into it.

But if you read or listen to just about any Catholic apologist, from Fr Ripperger to Prof Feser to Scott Hahn to Bp Barron to Fr Schmitz to Patrick Madrid -- and many others -- you will get very consistent and detailed views on Catholic moral theology that certainly don't water down their treatments of same-sex attraction, pornography, or the occult. These are mainstream Catholic views that must come from somewhere. If not in seminary, they must result from serious Catholic formation in some other way, and again, I am deeply skeptical that any Protestant seminary, or any informal parts of Protestant clerical formation, can have the same effect.

If subsequent cohorts of OCSP priests become pro-Catholic rather than anti-TEC or anti any bishop, so much the better. But then I'm less convinced that Anglican "distinctveness" will bring much to that party.

Fr Kenyon Leaving St John The Evangelist Calgary

My regular correspondent passed on the news that Fr Kenyon announced yesterday that effective August 1, he is leaving St John the Evangelist, Calgary to take up a diocesan parish in England, near his extended family. He will be trying to gather an OOLW group in addition to his parish responsibilities.

This is surprising news, given that as founding pastor of a full parish, he may have been expected to keep that post for an extended period. In addition, he has been vicar forane for the Canadian deanery in the OCSP. Bp Lopes will presumably have some difficulty coming up with a replacement, and there doesn't seem to be an obvious candidate. Remaining OCSP priests in Canada are in their sixties and seventies.

My correspondent continues,

Fr Kenyon's story is that after eight amazing etc years in Canada he is "being appointed to a parish in the Diocese of Shrewsbury from 1 August, with a particular care for the development of an Ordinariate apostolate in South Manchester, my home town. [He] will remain incardinated as a priest of our Ordinariate, on loan, as it were, for an initial five year period. The parish...will be only a 15 minute car journey from my parents' home, and three of my siblings live within a 3 mile radius of the new parish. This has been a major factor in our decision to return to England." It has surface plausibility.

Not sure how well things are going financially at St John's. They have a mortgage of close to a million dollars, and the offering figures published in the weekly bulletins suggest to me that they are falling behind.

Well, that's the info we have, at any rate.