Disappointing Numbers In San Antonio?

My regular correspondent sent me this screen print from Fr Phillips's Facebook page:

I think it's reasonable to infer several things here:

• The Holy See has taken an interest in how many members are coming to the OCSP from OLA
• As of now, fewer members have joined than the Holy See was expecting
• There could possibly be consequences for the OCSP if more members don't come in.

Let's look at this too in the context of the new clergy assigned to St John the Evangelist Calgary, another full parish -- if the full parishes aren't coming up to expectations, I've got to wonder how the CDF is looking at the quasi-parishes and groups.

My current thinking about Calgary is that its membership is insufficient to pay a pastor. I would guess Fr-designate Martens will keep his weekday job as chancellor of the diocese, which would continue to pay him. The incoming Gilbertines, as religious, would be paid much less than secular priests. I assume there is some saving there. I would guess that Fr Kenyon took off, or was possibly eased out, because he wasn't getting paid, or at least not the full amount

Consider that an attendance of 140 a week means far fewer pledging entities, since families attend as units. Let's be generous and say there are 70 pledges at an average of $30 per week, a very rough ballpark number. This is $2100 per week or $9100 per month, $109,200 per year. But if the mortgage is $5000 per month or $60,000 per year by my regular correspondent's estimate, and maintenance-insurance-utilities are high five figures per year by my estimate, the parish is at best breaking even without even paying anyone a salary.

I think this is an example of a pattern that can only continue: founding pastors retire or move on, in part because parishes can't pay an acceptable salary. The experienced pastors can't be replaced by more logical candidates for precisely this reason. Instead, the OCSP must rely on the marginal candidates who present themselves, including those with uncertain backgrounds or little pastoral experience. But this is simply keeping up appearances, putting warm bodies in pastoral slots -- what could possibly go wrong?

One question will be how much the membership at OLA has been exaggerated. My understanding is that the financial issues there are tangled.

The Story So Far

If I were ever to write a continuation of Douglas Bess's Divided We Stand, here is my current idea of a 20,000-foot version of the OCSP story that I would put in the introductory chapter:

The original proposal for an Anglican personal prelature took place in a 1993 meeting between Cardinal Ratzinger and Episcopalians Clarence Pope and Jeffrey Steenson. In the meeting, Pope estimated that 250,000 Episcopalians were ready to leave TEC and enter with their parishes into a Catholic personal prelature. Then-Pope John Paul II appears to have been unenthusiastic about the idea and told Ratzinger to pursue it through the CDF, where it would not have been approved. To avoid a "no" vote, the idea was dropped.

When Ratzinger became Pope Benedict XVI in 2005, the idea was revived. Clarence Pope, by then in failing health, was no longer suitable as presumptive ordinary for a US prelature and was apparently replaced then with Jeffrey Steenson, who had become Bishop Coadjutor of the Episcopal Diocese of the Rio Grande in early 2005 and would succeed to the see later that year. At that time, there was renewed dissatisfaction within TEC over issues like the consecration of an openly same-sex cohabiting bishop, Eugene Robinson. Steenson, a small clique of TEC clergy surrounding him, and presumably sympathetic figures in the Vatican like the disgraced Cardinal Bernard Law, believed that this provided an opening for the large numbers of TEC members, including their parishes and clergy, to enter a newly-erected prelature.

Steenson resigned his Episcopal Church see in 2007 and proceeded to Rome to begin the process of conversion and ordination as a married Catholic priest. It was probably an open secret, especially among the clique of TEC clergy surrounding him, that he was going to be ordinary-in-waiting of a US prelature, well before the 2009 promulgation of Anglicanorum coetibus. It's worth stressing that the clear intent of the constitution was to bring in existing Anglican parishes with their clergy. In the US, this almost certainly meant TEC, with "continuers" something of an afterthought.

In actuality, almost no full Episcopal parishes came over as units to the OCSP. In contrast to developments following the contemporary formation of the ACNA, there were no landmark lawsuits between TEC and former parishes going to the OCSP, and certainly not dioceses. This is significant: TEC did not hesitate to file suit over parishes trying to leave with valuable property. The small number of TEC parishes that entered the OCSP as units with property went in with few obstacles or even, in at least one case, with the blessing of the bishop. This means TEC simply saw their departure as no great loss.

The parallel and contemporary formation of the ACNA and the OCSP reflects a major miscalculation in the implementation of Anglicanorum coetibus. I've been told by a knowledgeable party, but have inferred the same from the public record, that Jeffrey Steenson was not a popular figure in TEC. He was seen as a climber and self-promoter and was not well liked. Few clergy outside his small clique were likely to follow him to Rome. But beyond the personal issues, Rome misunderstood the basic factional questions in Anglicanism which TEC Bp Iker and his allies saw much more clearly: Episcopalians could object to TEC's policies on same-sex marriage or gay bishops, but they didn't necessarily object to ordaining women or the 1979 BCP.

Beyond that, there was a substantial low-church faction in TEC for whom going to Rome was unacceptable. "Continuing" denominations were also largely low-church. For the Protestant groups, especially in the Bible Belt, the ACNA was a better alternative, while "continuers" chose to remain what they were.

The result was that after the erection of the OCSP in 2012, it appears that Steenson and the small clique who had gone in with him began to realize that they were not going to get what they had been planning to get all along, significant numbers of TEC parishes, perhaps entire dioceses, coming in as a body. This happened with the ACNA, but not with the OCSP. This was important: it meant that the OCSP wasn't going to get the experienced clergy it had expected, but just as important, it wasn't going to get a large pool of laity with experience as parish vestry and volunteers, nor major donors, nor experienced staff.

This became a major problem when the OCSP tried to implement parish censuses and ordinariate-wide fundraising: clergy, staff, and volunteers do not appear to have been up to fairly simple responsibilities. It's been reported to me that Msgr Steenson complained to colleagues at bishops' conferences that his subordinates were incompetent. A factor in the overall disappointment of the OCSP was that there was no talent pool from which to draw or develop clergy and staff.

This is playing out in 2017. Msgr Steenson's removal was inevitable, but a question remains whether his replacement, Bp Lopes, can produce acceptable results from the same pool of clergy, staff, and volunteers. Removing the Steenson clique has not been a guarantee that a more capable group could take over. As information about prospective new ordinands begins to emerge, a disturbing picture is coming into focus: clergy and religious with limited Anglican backgrounds, spotty and undistinguished prior careers.

It's hard to avoid the impression that Bp Lopes is under increasing pressure to demonstrate success, but he's working with the resources available to him that he's inherited from the previous regime. So far, his ability to recruit new clergy suggests that those who are filling vacancies are simply not up to the standards of those leaving or retiring. This is not an encouraging development.

More Thoughts On Empty Pews

As I said last week, I've always had the wrong attitude, and by now, I'm used to catching flak for it. But I'm still musing on the difference between what I saw in the toddler photo from yesterday's post and what the church ladies seem to think I should have seen. I saw empty pews in a tiny venue, incomplete families, some lady taking baby pictures in the middle of mass, and a chapel veil reminiscent of the oppressively church-lady culture that's been reported to me at OLA and OLW. Somebody else thought the toddlers were cute. I wondered if we haven't quite made it to 2017.

I spent some part of last evening thinking about what my wife and I find at our diocesan parish several times a week. This includes traffic jams in the large parking lot (people are remarkably courteous), intact family units with many children, the nave so full you've got to get there 20 minutes early, a reverent atmosphere, confession several times a week with several priests in the booths and lines a dozen people long. There are definitely toddlers, but they often have their six-year-old sister managing them, quite well. Dad is there, too. As I said yesterday, a nave full of people has marvelous effects on dampening toddler noise.

Why on earth would anyone want to set foot in that coldly forlorn Canadian chapel? Just to hear some faux Shakespearean English? One thing I'm coming to realize as a Catholic is what an active parish life really looks like. One ingredient of our successful diocesan parish is the number of Filipino and Latin American families. We frequently celebrate Filipino and Mexican traditions, and for holidays Filipinos and Mexicans sell their delicacies at coffee hour. I'm starting to think going to a Spanish language mass would do wonders for my Spanish. Heck, the Latin that's in our OF mass has been bringing back my Latin.

Something's wrong -- and I would say not quite Catholic -- with how this whole Anglicanorum coetibus project is being implemented, and I think those who are currently cheerleading for it are seriously misguided. Why are the pews empty in all but a few OCSP parishes? Why do visitors to this blog report such unpleasant experiences at some that are (relatively) successful? Why are cute toddler pictures showing them as onesie-twosies? Shouldn't they be there with three or four siblings? (I think I know, to tell the truth.) And one more time, where's Dad?

Who's shepherding this sparse flock?

As Long As We're On The Anglicanorum Coetibus Society,

a visitor raised a worthwhile question about this post there, entitled "A Little Distraction During Mass". It seems to me that there are three issues:

1. The photo is of two toddlers interacting over the back of a pew. The first question that came to mind for me was whether both mothers in the photo had signed releases giving permission to publish their children's photo on social media. However, even if this were the case, another issue is whether this is even a good idea. This article in Today's Parent makes several good points:

   For my part, I just don’t want my kid on social media until she’s old enough to put herself on there (and maybe not even then, given the rampant cyber-bullying and judgment kids are subjected to at the click-happy hands of their peers nowadays). Maybe it’s because I’ve watched too much Law & Order SVU, or I’m feeling comfortably critical in my pre-procreation phase, but I don’t think kids need to be exposed quite so much from such a young age. . . .

   Fundamentally, I have an issue with overexposing children to the opinions of other people. Will it affect the way my child sees herself if she’s expecting likes and responses to her every action and facial expression? Maybe it’ll make her stronger, or maybe it’ll make self-awareness next to impossible. What if sharing her life with acquaintances and strangers before she even knows who she is somehow makes her unable to figure it out for herself without a constant stream of feedback? It’s hard enough being a kid. Why subject her to scrutiny-well-meaning or otherwise-right from birth?

   I don’t even think I’m the only one subscribing to this approach. More and more friends are choosing to keep their babies’ lives off social media, instead finding more private ways to share their kids’ images with friends and family. Though I can’t say what effect putting a child’s images on the Internet will have in the long run, maybe there’s something to be said about not taking the risk.

   A visitor suggests that the photo may in fact violate OCSP's own guidelines on posting photos of children on social media, although these apparently aren't published on the OCSP site.
2. Second, the title of the photo uses the term "distraction". Two toddlers being toddlers may count as a distraction, but wait a moment: somebody else stood up and turned around to snap this photo. Wasn't that also a distraction? I simply don't know in what part of the mass this took place, but the photographer was clearly preoccupied with something other than the mass him/herself and decided that a little social interaction (oh, how cuuuuute!) should take precedence over the canon or whatever. My first correspondent even asked if the photographer's purpose was to shame the ladies and toddlers, and I don't have an answer to that. But the toddler-distraction was clearly less than the photographer-distraction, which was ill-advised in any case, even if the mommies' judgment was poor enough to allow the photo.
3. But finally: wow, what a small venue, and it isn't even full! There's lots of room for toddlers to play. I compare that to our diocesan parish, where the pews are routinely packed -- of the four short pews visible in the photo, 12-14 people would be seated in them on any of three Sunday morning masses at our parish. Here there's two mommies (where's dad?), two toddlers, another face half-visible in back, and lots of available seats. Sorry, doesn't say much for the parish, and I'd be ashamed to have that sparse attendance made public, frankly. But another point I've come to recognize is that if the pews are full, the toddlers are in parents' laps, reined in by older siblings, or at least somewhat constrained by having more people in the pews. That with a good PA system greatly minimizes any distractions, cute or not.

As I say, I don't visit the Anglicanorum Coetibus Society blog normally, and that probably suits them as well as it suits me. But what I see on display is remarkably poor judgment, potentially to the point of being harmful to kids -- even if the mommies think it's great that boopsie and poopsie are playing for the camera (and by the way, they're in the picture too), nobody's giving the slightest thought beyond their narcissism to the kids' welfare, or whether their social priorities over and above the toddlers' play are also damaging the reverent atmosphere of the mass. And nobody seems to think scraggly attendance worthy of TEC is odd.

Not to mention that apparently the bloggers think their audience will think it's great as well.

You, Anglicanorum Coetibus Society

Last weekend an individual posting as the Anglicanorum Coetibus Society, presumably speaking for its whole membership, made a rather angry personal attack on me, imputing base personal motives and saying

I will not name this blog or link to it so as not to give it oxygen. But I do think it traffics in detraction if not downright calumny from time to time and gets many facts wrong.

Why am I bringing this up, and by doing so, risking giving oxygen even directly to this blog?

Mainly, what I see in the blog’s constant negativity regarding the Ordinariate reminds me of Aesop’s Fable of the fox and the sour grapes. The fox could not jump high enough to reach the cluster of ripe, luscious-looking grapes, so he consoled himself by telling himself the grapes were sour and not worth the trouble.

So for the sake of shorthand,let’s call the blog the Sour Grapes blog.

I believe bitterness darkens the perspective of Mr. Sour Grapes and contributes to his drumbeat of doom and gloom.

Secondly, it struck me in looking at a recent spate of posts how lacking in supernatural faith Mr. Sour Grapes’ perspective is.

It goes so far as to impute to me bitterness and lack of supernatural faith, but it goes even father to accuse me of "detraction if not downright calumny". I'm not entirely sure who is making these very serious charges, either of which could involve mortal sin, while hiding behind the name of an entire society, but on Sunday I challenged Ms Gyapong (or perhaps it's Mr Murphy) to explain precisely where I've engaged in detraction or downright calumny. So far, there's been no reply.

I'm not entirely sure who-all is a member of the Anglicanorum Coetibus Society, but whoever is speaking for them here is, as far as I can see, speaking for among others Fr Bergman and Prof Tighe. I certainly hope these members can make it clear to me whether they endorse the position that I'm engaging in detraction and calumny out of bitterness. I would be very sad to see at least one personal relationship damaged.

On the other hand, if an individual claims to be speaking for the organization but is not authorized to make personal attacks and impute motives to people a continent or more away, then I would suggest the organization has very serious problems.

The Catholic Encyclopedia says of detraction,

Finally, even when the sin is in no sense public, it may still be divulged without contravening the virtues of justice or charity whenever such a course is for the common weal or is esteemed to make for the good of the narrator, of his listeners, or even of the culprit. The right which the latter has to an assumed good name is extinguished in the presence of the benefit which may be conferred in this way.

The employment of this teaching, however, is limited by a twofold restriction.

• The damage which one may soberly apprehend as emerging from the failure to reveal another's sin or vicious propensity must be a notable one as contrasted with the evil of defamation.
• No more in the way of exposure should be done than is required, and even a fraternal admonition ought rather to be substituted if it can be discerned to adequately meet the needs of the situation.

Journalists are entirely within their rights in inveighing against the official shortcomings of public men. Likewise, they may lawfully present whatever information about the life or character of a candidate for public office is necessary to show his unfitness for the station he seeks. Historians have a still greater latitude in the performance of their task. This is not of course because the dead have lost their claim to have their good name respected. History must be something more than a mere calendar of dates and incidents; the causes and connection of events are a proper part of its province. This consideration, as well as that of the general utility in elevating and strengthening the public conscience, may justify the historian in telling many things hitherto unknown which are to the disgrace of those of whom they are related.

California court documents draw a rather convincing picture that a number of individuals, including clergy in the ACA and a current OCSP priest, engaged in felonious conduct. I believe the damage resulting from those sins or vicious propensities is notable as contrasted with the evil of defamation. We're talking here about damaging another priest's good name, as well as the good name of an entire parish, and directly causing years of litigation. I believe there are lesser issues, like careerism and opportunism, that must be brought to light in the context of the OCSP, but of course the potential damage that might accrue from inveighing against those matters is also proportionally much less. I believe I'm also speaking on this blog as both a journalist and historian.

I wonder if the individual who is speaking for the Anglicanorum Coetibus Society, whom I believe to be either Ms Gyapong or Mr Murphy, would be willing to speak as an individual and explain how I have engaged in detraction on my blog, providing specific instances. I've already made this challenge regarding calumny, and so far, I've received no reply. If either Ms Gyapong or Mr Murphy is not behind this post, I would appreciate it if they would also make this clear.

Frankly, I think the post linked here would be out of line if it came from an individual. Since it claims to be speaking for the entire Anglicanorum Coetibus Society, I believe it's indefensible. I think responsible members of the Society should take action to be sure it isn't repeated.

My suggestion would be that the individual who made this post identify him or herself and, if unable to substantiate these serious accusations, retract them with an apology and a clarification that they were not made on behalf of the entire Anglicanorum Coetibus Society. I think justice would require that the apology be made to me by name.

Good Sheep Sunday

A user pointed me to this bizarre post by Fr Phillips on the Atonement blog:

Each one has his own responsibility to be the Good Shepherd’s “good sheep.” Just as the Shepherd leads, so the sheep must follow. And by following the Shepherd faithfully, the sheep will reach pastures of heavenly joy. Good Shepherd Sunday should also be “Good Sheep Sunday,” a reminder that we must daily recommit ourselves to follow Christ, wherever He leads.

Surely there must be a better way to put this.

Money And Numbers

Both Mr Chadwick and Ms Gyapong have recently accused me of having a cold and managerial perspective on the OCSP. On one hand, I think as an amateur writer Ms Gyapong is trying to play against some sort of American stereotype, but on the other, I'm wondering if both are missing a much bigger point. It reminds me of our diocesan pastor, who noted in a homily that some people complain about how much he talks about money, but after all, how many times does Jesus Himself talk about money in the gospels?

Which brings me to a favorite passage from Luke 14:

28 For which of you, desiring to build a tower, does not first sit down and count the cost, whether he has enough to complete it? 29 Otherwise, when he has laid a foundation, and is not able to finish, all who see it begin to mock him, 30 saying, ‘This man began to build, and was not able to finish.’ 31 Or what king, going to encounter another king in war, will not sit down first and take counsel whether he is able with ten thousand to meet him who comes against him with twenty thousand? 32 And if not, while the other is yet a great way off, he sends an embassy and asks terms of peace.

Our Lord's basic point is that we have to calculate the cost of faith, which in this case is everything, but we definitely have to be realistic about it. How many stewards appear in the gospels? Stewards are what we would now call estate managers. Our Lord certainly doesn't suggest that if we want to build a tower, we ignore the cost and say the Lord will perform miracles -- that way lies being mocked.

A visitor agrees with Ms Gyapong here:

I do however think that we best be careful in any assertions that OCSP communities aren't worthwhile just because they are small. . . . Who knows what financial sources or gifts may accrue to the tiny OCSP groups Now I realize that in business we do not launch into a new venture without the money being there, and without our "exit strategy" in place. But these aren't businesses, and the boss is God. Two or three gathered in His name have Him in their midst.

But set this against the Parable of the Talents. The successful servant is the one who multiplies the resource. Or the Parable of the Fig Tree (Luke 13:6-9):

6 And he told this parable: “A man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard; and he came seeking fruit on it and found none. 7 And he said to the vinedresser, ‘Lo, these three years I have come seeking fruit on this fig tree, and I find none. Cut it down; why should it use up the ground?’ 8 And he answered him, ‘Let it alone, sir, this year also, till I dig about it and put on manure. 9 And if it bears fruit next year, well and good; but if not, you can cut it down.’”

Bishops, of course, have a strong managerial role. I assume they must spend quite a bit of time on questions like closing and merging parishes. Bp Lopes will be derelict if he doesn't begin to pursue this question as well, and I don't get the impression he means to be derelict. Regarding groups and their relative success, with particular reference to the one forming in Pasadena, my regular correspondent notes

Groups which entered without their former clergyman's being ordained---St Edmund, Kitchener and St Benedict, Edmonton, for example---have failed to thrive, even by the low standards of the OCSP. So it was perhaps inevitable that the bar was low in the first few years.

But things have tightened up, I perceive. That is why having a group up and running is, I believe, crucial for [Fr Bartus's Pasadena protégé]. As you point out, he has had five years to get something together on his own but until Fr Bartus got heavily involved, and as we recall he has been working at this for over a year, trying a number of locations, we have heard nothing.

When the Pasadena Ordinariate Group Evensong was a FB "event" last year to which Fr Bartus had sent literally thousands of invitations, the 20 or so who planned to attend were lifelong Catholics; at least that was my conclusion based on their FB pages. So this is not an evangelistic effort in Pasadena, or even an effort to connect ex-Anglicans with their patrimony.

It's a make-work project.

It seems to me that most of the groups-in-formation haven't thrived. They seem to have served as justifications for ordaining opportunist clergy, with little realistic prospect of growth -- indeed, as far as I can see, there's a complacent faction within the OCSP's clergy who are content to wear the collar and carry the prestige, but were never really cut out to build a parish. In fact, the prior records of several should have given some indication that that's how things would turn out.

The vinedresser didn't tell the landowner to wait for a miracle, after all. He said he'd give the tree some hard work, and if that didn't help, the owner could cut it down. The boss is definitely God.