Now, I say that Phillips is being sacked, because I’ve never, once, in observing Church affairs closely now for 7 years or so, seen a pastor removed for “reflection” ever re-instated. If lucky, he would be transferred to a backwoods assignment, but in all likelihood, Phillips will never have a public ministry again.I would say that, based on comments at the Texas Public Radio site and e-mails to me, there is certainly a strong minority at OLA that is not impressed with Fr Phillips. I haven't heard reference to any counseling issues, but I've heard somewhat more over the retired deacon and other financial issues, although these should be tempered with the knowledge that Canon 1742 does not cover actual wrongdoing, simply a pastor who for some reason isn't working out.* * *
Finally, a bit more about Atonement: this is probably a minority opinion, but I know of a handful of families who found Phillips’ pastoral care – in their particular cases – counterproductive. These were all deeply private matters and not related to public ministry, as I understand it, but there were certainly concerns, and complaints, regarding counsel Phillips gave to various families that some felt made matters worse. There was also a possible ongoing “situation” – maybe a scandal – involving a certain deacon who retired from the parish this past year. Concerns had been expressed about this deacon for some time, again by a handful of folks, to my knowledge (bear in mind I am in Dallas but did assist at Mass and Tenebrae at Atonement several times before we went full-TLM all the time. I know some current and former Atonement parishioners but not a whole lot. It could be there were broad-based complaints of which I am unaware).
I say this to note that there may be extenuating circumstances in this case, but I doubt those really had anything to do with Phillips’ case. First of all, the reports came from a small number of people. Secondly, Phillips appears to enjoy the overwhelming support of the people of Atonement. My gut instinct says this is really about doctrinal orthodoxy being taught publicly at Atonement and probably some demands being made to conform to the corporate line that were not obeyed.
My judgment about the minority opinion is that, unlike the dissidents at St Mary of the Angels, these individuals appear to be referring to specific issues and do not appear to be hysterical, although tempers are hot all around. Another concern is that Fr Phillips's results at OLA have never been exactly reproduced -- the parish seems to be roughly twice the size of the other two big Texas parishes and far larger than any other in the OCSP. This raises important questions for me -- how much of this depends on abilities unique to Fr Phillips? It seems to me that the Catholic Church is something, like the US Navy, "designed by geniuses to be run by idiots". A random genius at the bottom isn't of much use.
On a different tack, the visitor versed in canon law comments,
The present situation has a very interesting canonical wrinkle.The link above mentions that Fr Phillips had his day in court with the Congregation for Clergy January 24.If the preponderance of current parishioners of Our Lady of the Atonement enroll in the ordinariate and Bishop Lopes erects a parish for them, there’s a very real likelihood that Our Lady of the Atonement would cease to be viable as a Catholic parish, at least in its current configuration. Archbishop Garcia-Siller would then have the privilege (?) of dissolving the present corporation and disposing of the parish property. [Something would need to be done about the $6.5 million debt.]
- The enrolled parishioners of Our Lady of the Atonement canonically qualify for membership in the ordinariate, regardless of whether they completed the sacraments of initiation in the ordinariate or not, because membership in the parish makes them of the Anglican tradition. Formal transfer is as simple as filling out and signing an enrollment card.
- Archbishop Garcia-Siller cannot prevent Bishop Lopes from erecting and staffing parishes and missions within the Archdiocese of San Antonio to serve ordinariate members who reside there. He also cannot prevent parishioners of archdiocesan parishes from worshipping with ordinariate congregations. Of course, Archbishop Garcia-Siller can block such parishes or missions from worshipping in the churches of archdiocesan parishes if he wishes, so they would have to buy or to build a new campus.
We have no way to predict what would or would not happen to Fr. Phillips in this scenario, but it seems pretty clear that there is no canonical basis by which Archbishop Garcia-Siller could pursue a dismissal from the clerical state. This leaves two possibilities.
Fr. Phillips could request excardination from the Archdiocese of San Antonio from Archbishop Garcia-Siller (I don’t see canonical grounds for a refusal of this request) and incardination into the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter from Bishop Lopes. If this happens, Bishop Lopes would be able to appoint him as pastor of an ordinariate parish in the Archdiocese of San Antonio, over which Archbishop Garcia-Siller would have no authority whatsoever. That would be the ultimate irony.
So long as Fr. Phillips remains incardinated in the Archdiocese of San Antonio, the archdiocese must provide his material support and that of his wife, whether Archbishop Garcia-Siller chooses to assign him to another ministerial position or not.
Either way, I don’t see any way by which Archbishop Garcia-Siller can win.
