Here's A Set Of Questions

These all center on when and how, should it be necessary, the CDF decides to pull the plug on any of the Anglican ordinariates. I did some preliminary research on the issue of closing and merging Catholic diocesan parishes and came up with some interesting questions:

• The typical numbers given in hypothetical examples of parish mergers and suppression are much bigger than all but the largest OCSP communities. In one example, a parish's Sunday attendance falls from 100 to 35. In another, the parish has $750,000 in debt that it can't pay. Numbers that a bishop would normally think are unsustainably small are more than are typical in the OCSP.
• Discussions distinguish between the process of suppressing or merging a parish and closing church buildings. However, fewer than a dozen OCSP parishes own their buildings, and it seems unlikely that this number will increase. In fact, of the parishes that own buildings, the status seems shaky in several.
• The majority of OCSP communities are in fact chapel groups that have the use of small spaces in diocesan buildings. When does the OCSP decide these groups are unlikely to thrive or continue? Can any such chapel groups point to significant growth, i.e., the potential to acquire property?
• In that connection, why is Houston unable to release reliable statistics on overall membership, participation in the bishop's appeal, or membership numbers for individual groups and parishes?

Natural Law, Social Media, And The OCSP

There's been some controversy lately in the general culture over how social-media giants like Google (which owns YouTube and Blogger), Facebook, and Twitter censor and otherwise manage content. Media of any sort, of course, is media, and it's subject to the preferences and judgment calls of whomever owns it, government, corporation, or whatever. YouTube commentators who are outside the Overton window of acceptable opinion have recently discovered they can be de-monetized or shut down completely, sometimes for innocuous remarks or irony that the censors missed. (An example of the problem is here -- language warning.)

Although I spent most of my career in the IT field, I've always been a slow adopter. I got a Facebook ID several years ago because I had to have one to sign onto something or other, but I never go there. I'm not on Twitter at all. I do this blog because, having observed the medium for nearly 20 years, I think it's an effective way to put out a focused message that's related to a single issue or set of issues. However, I don't put out personal information the way many social media users do.

This relates to natural law and the philosophical virtues. It is simply imprudent do do things like announce vacation plans or destinations, post photos of minor children, especially in stages of undress, or broadcast daily routines when you just don't know who will see this and what use they will make if it. If I were not retired, I would not be blogging at all -- people can get to employers and find ways to get you fired. Indeed, I'm certain that people connected with the St Mary's dissident faction would have done exactly this if they could have. In any case, we have an alarm system and keep our cars in the garage with the door shut.

Rush Limbaugh frequently mentions studies showing that people get depressed when they go on social media like Facebook, because people tend to idealize their lives and put out an image of happiness, popularity, and success, when the people who visit those pages realize their own lives aren't like that and figure they've missed out on something. This is probably related to temperance and avoiding pride. In fact, I would almost think that going on the lookit-me type of social media could be a near occasion of sin, appealing to tendencies like pride and avarice.

YouTube commentators, including Catholics pushing the Overton envelope like Michael Voris, are beginning to realize they're giving hostages to big-time corporate culture, which is proving it can shut them down any time it's convenient to do so. That in turn says to me, while the parallel is inexact, that we may be dealing with something like a ouija board, there may be some fun in using it, but at the wrong time and in the wrong circumstance, it can be very dangerous. I'm very careful about my blogging, I don't get any money for advertising from this blog, and the issues I cover are going to go away fairly soon, so the hostage I surrender isn't too important. But I definitely need to maintain perspective and situational awareness.

So why do so many OCSP priests have Facebook pages? I don't visit them, but from what I'm told, they apparently reflect a very clergy-centered outlook, with the usual OCSP clerical mediocrities assiduously trying to show they're with the program and validating each other. It's hard to avoid thinking this is the lookit-me school of social media, pretty unhealthy in any case, but also just a little redolent of the ouija board. Who's been the biggest star of Anglo-Catholic social media, bar none? Fr Phillips, of course.

Just one more reason I would not go near any of these guys, especially for the sacraments -- valid and licit, sure, but why bother when there are so many better alternatives?

An Old Post Revisited

Yesterday I had an e-mail from Ms Rayn Random, author of Cocktail Party Priest, which I discussed in a few 2013 posts, mainly this one. The book covers her experience with a Monterey, CA TEC priest who spread stories in her home parish alleging that she was a transgendered male with fake breasts who was stalking him.

It reminded me of the parish psychodrama surrounding St Mary of the Angels -- nuttiness that certainly continues. Researching Ms Random's story, I found that a parishioner at her parish was "Bishop" Owen Rhys Williams's mother, so there's something a little closer to home in the story as well. Mrs Williams was a supporter of the crazy priest, apparently because her son's one.

Ms Random said,

As I was searching through Google, I came across your blog on St. Mary's Hollywood (2013) and your comments regarding my book Cocktail Party Priest, and William Martin. It was fascinating reading for me, as you addressed the question of "why," and gave the most likely of all the explanations that other people have put forward.

Parishioners often asked me if Martin was gay. The two gay men to whom I dedicated Cocktail, claimed that he was. I was quite certain that he was either gay or sexually confused I say sexually confused because of a conversation we had in our first meeting when he invited me to dinner. I was surprised at the turn the conversation took and how almost confessional it was. He also told me that he knew several gay priests who were married to unsuspecting straight women. I later met two of them. That brings me to my reason for writing--other than to thank you for your very interesting and plausible answer to "why."

I have a novel, written over the last several years, that is now ready for publication. I've taken Martin's comment about gay, but married to unsuspecting women, priests and extended the possibilities. The protagonist is a gay, recently ordained priest with ambition to become the youngest bishop in the Episcopal Church. Of course, being gay would no longer be a problem, but a very wealthy, very anti-gay Catholic grandmother would be, when he is her principal heir. He marries for career reasons, much to his regret, and the lies. blackmail, and cover-ups to keep his secret eventually lead to a homeless man found dead in the church courtyard, and he is suspected.

At the same time that book is published, I want to re-issue Cocktail Party Priest with an updated Epilogue. With your permission, I would love to include––with full credit––your comments and remarkable answer to the question, "why?" I think you've nailed it!

Naturally I gave my permission and wish her the best.

Maybe I can rent myself out as an expert witness on Anglican craziness, if people like Ms Random find my insights worthwhile!

Pre-Trial Conference August 10

I attended the pre-trial conference for case BC487079 in LA Superior Court Department 32 yesterday morning. This is the damage suit brought by the legal rector, wardens, and vestry of the St Mary of the Angels parish against, Mrs Bush, the ACA, the ACA Diocese of the West, and other individuals connected with the seizure and illegal occupation of the property between 2012 and 2016.

The session was short. The subject was to be new counsel obtained by all the defendants but Mrs Bush -- in granting Mr Lancaster's motion to be relieved as counsel for all but Mrs Bush (non-payment was given as a reason, but Mr Lancaster may have been ethically constrained from specifying the real reason), the judge required him to notify the former clients of the August 10 hearing and that either their new counsel or they personally were required to attend.

Nobody showed up, either as counsel or in person, for any of the defendants. Mr Lengyel-Leahu told Judge Murphy that no one had contacted him indicating they were new counsel. Judge Murphy, who has a certain "stuff happens" outlook combined with a slightly morbid sense of humor, simply said, thumbing through the paperwork, "Well, it seems like everyone was properly served." He moved the final status conference for the upcoming late November trial up to October 26 to give any defendants who might eventually show up a little more time.

From Judge Murphy's facial expression, though, it wasn't hard to determine that he thought the proceedings were now going to wind up as a default judgment, with none of the defendants showing up for the trial and the judge then simply awarding the damages claimed by the rector, wardens, and vestry. Stuff happens, and it's kinda funny, at least if you look at it the way you sometimes have to.

I believe Fr Kelley and counsel for the vestry see things pretty much the same way. They believe, as far as I can see, that the Bush group and the ACA still expect to prevail on their appeal of Judge Strobel's 2015 decision, in which case the default judgment would be set aside. My own view, based on how badly things have gone for them for much of the history here, is that the chances of this happening approach zero.

It's hard to avoid thinking that all these defendants, whose interests differ and who should probably never have been represented by a single counsel, are still taking their orders from Mrs Bush, who is not an attorney, and whose counsel, still Mr Lancaster, is representing only Mrs Bush's interests. That none should engage new counsel and none appeared at the conference strongly suggests a coordinated approach. Maybe they think Mrs Bush is saving them money.

If you look at it a certain way, it's kinda funny.

Much, Much More On OLA And The Archbishop's Appeal

I've had a series of remarkably informative e-mails from people familiar with how the Archbishop's Appeal was conducted at the Our Lady of the Atonement parish, as well as the archdiocese's policy in the appeal. The importance of the appeal to the archdiocese is reflected in the Parish Manual from the archdiocese, available online. From this, it's plain that pledges and payments are received and administered by the archdiocesan office, which as we'll see below has staff dedicated to this purpose. Instructions to parish pastors on how to represent the appeal on specified Sundays are outlined in detail.

From this, it's clear that deviation from the detailed policies and instructions from the archdiocese would normally be harmful to a pastor's career, and it's increasingly plain that Fr Phillips in fact deviated. Indeed, it's hard not to imagine that he was protected for much of his time at OLA from consequences that would have been grave for just about anyone else. Several visitors pointed out that what was printed in the parish bulletin wasn't necessarily what Fr Phillips actually said in announcements at mass, and the mild suggestion in the 2015 bulletin announcement, published here the other day, that parishioners make appeal checks payable to the parish, would probably have been represented more strongly by Fr Phillips in person.

A visitor said,

To your request for info, we were regularly instructed in the bulletin to write the check for the Archbishop's appeal directly to the parish, and they would send one check.

Another said,

I read with interest your posts of the last few days regarding OLA and money, since my husband and I always thought it odd that we would have to write the check to the parish and then they would send amount to whichever group, be it the archdiocese, lenten charities, etc. We did start giving directly to the SA archdiocese years back, which we mailed in a card with "OLA parish' directly marked on it. I did just make my first donation to the ordinariate, which was duly mailed directly to Houston.

A second collection as recently as July 16, after Fr Phillips's retirement but before Fr Lewis's arrival, was conducted as follows:

This Sunday there is an Ordinariate-wide Second Collection for the Church’s Missionary and Charitable Activities.

There is a bowl near the entrance where you may place your gifts. Make your checks payable to Our Lady of the Atonement Church, and mark it “Second Collection” or you may mail your check to the parish office this week. We will then send one check to the Ordinariate Chancery Office.

How this relates to OCSP policy is unknown, but if Fr Perkins is unaware of what's going on here, perhaps he should pay closer attention. UPDATE: I'm told that in this case, sending a single check is consistent with OCSP policy. However, I still question whether this misses a chance for Houston to identify potential donors -- it sounds to me as though the Archdiocese of San Antonio would be on the case more closely, as outlined in the e-mail below.

Another visitor sent a long and detailed e-mail that's worth publishing in it's entirety, but redacting any identifying incidentals. As far as I can see, the individual is very knowledgeable about the Archdiocese of San Antonio but has never been registered at the OLA parish and does not seem to be part of any pro- or anti-Phillips OLA faction:

I can’t speak for OLA but I will tell you that is an irregular practice in the Archdiocese of San Antonio. In all my experience with Archbishop’s Appeals in SA, my home parish has always instructed the faithful to MAKE the check out to the Archbishop’s Appeal (along with the accompanying paperwork/envelope) and put it in the collection plate to be forwarded to the Archdiocese by the parish staff or to mail/sign up for auto debits from accounts/credit cards or otherwise remit funds DIRECTLY to the Archdiocese.

Just to see what would happen with my money if I put it in the collection plate payable to my home parish with a note on the memo line, I called our parish bookkeeper and asked. She told me it would be put into the general parish account and would not be credited to the appeal. She very politely explained that the checks should be made payable to the Archbishop’s Appeal so that they could be forwarded on by the parish. I inquired as to who keeps track of what is given and she patiently explained that the Archdiocese tracks all that, the parish doesn’t. Got it, thanks! Next, I called the Office of the Archbishop of San Antonio and was transferred to someone who answered the phone “Archbishop’s Appeal” so I asked her the same questions. Of course, this lady was a little more interested in whether or not I had filled out a pledge card and what my name and address was so she could get my account number and see what my pledge balance was. After assuring her that I had already met my pledge amount for the year, she was more amenable to answering my questions. This lady, too, was adamant about making the checks payable to the Archbishop’s Appeal directly. I asked her who reports funds to the IRS for tax purposes and she said the Archdiocese does. ( I know this is true because each year I receive a separate “this is tax deductible” statement from my home parish for regular and special collections and the Archdiocese for the amount of our Appeal gift.) I pressed the kind lady a little further, asking about people who make their checks payable to their home parish. The lady explained that happens on occasion and that it is a little distressing because the parishioner DOES NOT get Appeal credit for the contribution. She told me that she has had people call her and ask if the Archdiocese received their funds, when the reply was negative this was determined to be the culprit, so again, she emphasized how important it was to send the money DIRECTLY to the Archbishop’s Appeal (and fill out a pledge card). I thanked her for her help and before I hung up, I gave her my address (because the kind lady was required to keep a record of the calls she received about the Appeal); I’m sure she immediately looked up my contribution history to see what kind of nincompoop was asking such silly questions…

As I was typing about this call to you, I was chuckling to myself about the nice lady’s obsession with a pledge card. Yes, yes, the pledge card was used by the Archdiocese to keep tabs on who was giving money and to which parish they belonged. The paperwork also serves as a way for the Archdiocese to set up individual accounts for each contributor so the Archdiocese can track who gives what each year, what parishes have contributors and then directly market to individuals in subsequent years, encouraging them to up their contribution ever so slightly each year (i.e. “thank you for your contribution last year of $xx, would you prayerfully consider increasing your contribution this year to $xx + $x? —very personal, very specific, very modest increase and a VERY effective marketing strategy). These letters are direct mailed to contributors each year in addition to the materials marketed through the parishes (hence the built-in costs of the Appeal campaign that is enumerated quite clearly in the Archbishop’s Appeal literature that specifies how funds raised are allocated- nice and transparent, see?).

Pledge cards, pledge cards, but then it occurred to me, pledge cards are ALSO used by parishes and the Archdiocese as part of the calculation used to determine if a parish has raised the requisite 50% of funds to begin building on a capital project. Pledges of funds are considered by the Archdiocese to be actual funds so if a parish needs to raise six million dollars to build a high school, the parish needs to show the Archdiocese that they have at least three million dollars in their bank accounts or money in their accounts and PLEDGES from parishioners to make up the difference to get to the 50% threshold for construction to begin. Hmmm.

(As a former banker, I worked for a series of Savings and Loan/Banks that merged and eventually ended up being part of [redacted], I would tell you to follow the money. If power derives from knowledge, imagine what power you as a pastor have if you know exactly WHO gave WHAT (or DIDN’T give for that matter) to the Archbishop’s Appeal ( remember other pastors have no idea who is contributing to the Archbishop’s Appeal until after the campaign is over and the Archdiocese tells them how much over or under the parish is total). If your parish is built on the premise that it is the sole outpost of reverent Catholicism and the Archbishop is verily only steps away from being the Antichrist (okay, maybe a little hyperbole), wouldn’t it be helpful to see who in your parish was being loyal to the pastor and who was loyal to the enemy (insert “Archbishop”).

So why would OLA ask parishioners to make the checks payable to OLA? Aside from the obvious advantage of an essentially interest-free loan of tens of thousands of dollars for the OLA parish/school’s operating budget for 9 months or so each year, and the ability of a pastor to see who is giving big bucks to the Archdiocese to determine if a well-heeled parishioner is holding out on a pledge card for your parish’s capital campaign projects why else would they do it? I can only imagine…

Again, I've got to think that any ordinary diocesan pastor who violated detailed and important policies so consistently would suffer grave consequences. My guess, which I've made here before, is that Fr Phillips had important protectors, including for at least a number of years Cardinal Law, and it was only as his protectors faded from the picture that Abp Garcia-Siller felt able to move.

Such a move appears to have been fully justified, and I can't attribute delays exclusively to Abp Garcia-Siller, or indeed his predecessors.

Quick OLA Update

I'm on my way out of the house to cover the pretrial conference downtown, but it's worth noting that I've heard from more OLA parishioners who say that, at minimum, they were strongly encouraged to write checks for the archbishop's appeal to the parish, not the archdiocese. I'll provide details later.

Can anyone provide insight into what advantage, if any, would accrue to the parish for doing this? I can imagine that if the parish collected pledge payments during the year and wrote only one check (per accounts) to the archdiocese, presumably at the end of the year, the parish had the use of the money, not the archdiocese, during this time. It would also be possible for Fr Phillips to manipulate the total, as may have been done for 2016.

Any additional insights into this, how normal or unusual it may be, and how it may have benefited Fr Phillips, would be greatly appreciated.

More On OLA And The Archbishop's Appeal

Regarding recent posts on participation by the Our Lady of the Atonement parish in the San Antonio Archbishop's Appeal, a visitor comments,

My recollection is that when the parish announced its "goal" for the appeal, it would indicate how much per family that would average with the encouragement to give more to make up for those that gave less. Checks were suggested to be made out to and turned in to the parish with "Archbishops Appeal" in the memo line, and the parish would make out the check for the appeal (no way to determine the participation rate other than the parish bookkeeper". If the parishioners fell short, the parish would be required to make up the difference. If parishioners gave more, the excess would offset the parish tax.

Can't see how under that system, how parishioners felt about the diocese made much difference. I might be mistaken, but I think the parish goal was set by the Archdiocese at 1/2 of the parish tax so 1/3 of the total owed. One way or the other it was paid by the parish.

Quite likely, The Atonement Academy was more significant than the parish itself. Any big fundraising event was always a school fundraiser and never a parish event. While the parish was one of the smaller parishes, the school likely ranked higher in size among schools, drawing from local parishes without schools.

But these comments raise, perhaps unintentionally, another point. My regular correspondent noted,

I do know that for the OCSP Bishop's Appeal groups are repeatedly reminded that cheques are to be sent directly from donors to Houston; they must NOT go through the parish books. Of course if there is a shortfall the parish must make it up from general revenue, but the participation rate is quite transparent, whereas in the San Antonio Archdiocese not really.

I note that the Archdiocese of Los Angeles works the same way: archbishop's appeal pledge forms are sent directly to the archdiocese, pledging entities indicate their parish on the forms, and payments go to the archdiocese, not the parish. In other LA cases, I've seen parish priests instruct parishioners to made appeal payments that they put in the Sunday collection basket out to the archdiocese, putting the parish code number (e.g., "105") in the memo field. The archdiocese gets the participation rate by dividing the parishioners giving their parish membership on the check or in the pledge forms, by the total parish registration, no problemo.

The idea of having bishop's appeal payments go through the parish books seems highly unusual. I asked my visitor if it might be possible to confirm this with others from OLA who may have experienced it, but so far, there's been no other information. If anyone from OLA can confirm this -- or if visitors from other parishes and dioceses can confirm their experiences one way or another -- I will greatly appreciate it.

However, wouldn't this put a different spin on the remarkable overage from OLA in the 2016 archbishop's appeal? If Fr Phillips could find tens of thousands available in miscellaneous parish accounts and forward it to the archdiocese saying it's for the archbishop's appeal, it puts a feather in his cap -- but the overage is credited back to the parish anyhow. It would be pure gamesmanship and basically have nothing to do with participation or how the parish felt about the archdiocese one way or another.

I get a continuing impression that gamesmanship is paramount in this tiny, penny-ante world. But any other insights or information that can shed light on what's really going on here will be much appreciated, as usual!

UPDATE: The original visitor sent this information Taken from a 3/23/2015 online bulletin:

"STEWARDSHIP: Please make your 2015 Pledge if you have not done so, by using one of the pledge forms found on the table in the Narthex. Persons making pledges will receive offertory envelopes upon request. Blank envelopes are available on the table in the Narthex. Please clearly print your name if you take a box.

The Campaign for the Archbishop’s Appeal began Feb. 22nd. If you receive a letter from the Appeal’s office, and you choose to send a donation directly, please be sure and put the parish name on the envelope so we receive credit as a parish This year, our parish goal is $30,292. We can meet this goal if everyone gives their share of $100 per registered household. Let’s make this year’s campaign a success. If you wish to donate through the parish, please make your check payable to the parish, and put “Archbishop’s Appeal” in the memo line, and we will add this donation to your annual contributions. Thank you!"

The idea of making a donation through the parish, clearly given in the announcement, seems unusual.