So What's My Take?

My wife and I were at a parish Lenten function last night, where we had a group discussion. Many others in the group were Filipino. I've come to enjoy talking with Filipinos, because maybe a little like Poles and Czechs, their countries have suffered, they're Catholic, and they've had to become brave, resourceful, and pretty darn sharp. So my wife blurted that we were new Catholics, which resulted in some very pointed questions.

We said we'd been Episcopalians. That was OK, they knew that meant we were sorta-kinda Catholic anyhow and liked good music. Then I gave a 30,000-foot version of Anglicanorum coetibus, how we'd almost gotten in that way but it fell through, and so we went through RCIA. One of them pointed out that it meant we were better-catechized than 90% of our fellow parishioners, but he pushed harder: why had we gone through all that extra trouble?

The only answer I could come up with was we would have gone to hell if we hadn't. Interestingly, my interlocutor felt it was better the OCSP had screwed us; Pope Benedict would otherwise have let us in with too little effort. Interesting view. Filipinos are charming and friendly, but they're very Catholic and no dummies.

But having to explain myself that way, it prodded my mental processes a little, and with my mind still working, I began to come up with an overall theory of the Our Lady of the Atonement situation. Here it is:

• Although Douglas Bess's Divided We Stand is the best history of the "continuing Anglican" movement, it has a key omission. Although he traces the movement to the 1976 Congress of St Louis, Cardinal Law's outreach to Fr Jack Barker, which resulted in the Pastoral Provision, took place in the context of that Congress -- and Anglicanorum coetibus was simply a do-over of the Pastoral Provision. Both need to be evaluated as part of the "continuing" movement, although Bess didn't see this.
• Bess's clear view is that the "continuing" movement has been a disappointment. Since he left off the story in the late 1990s, it has continued to shrink, and indeed there are no bright spots comparable to Our Lady of the Atonement. (One of the few contenders, the former ACA now OCSP Parish of the Incarnation Orlando, is far less impressive.)
• The OCSP has turned out to be a clone of any of several "continuing" denominations, comparable in size, number of parishes, and relative success, with little prospect for growth, while a good number of its missions will need to close in the next few years as actuarial reality catches up with their unpaid clergy and no practical replacements can be found.
• This raises the question of the mean and regression thereto. The Our Lady of the Atonement parish, probably the brightest single light to come out of the whole "continuing" movement, is an exception to the mean. Yet bright as it is, it's a small-to-middling Catholic parish.
• More disturbing, despite efforts to reproduce its success in the OCSP, with Fr Bartus in Irvine and Fr Bergman in Scranton specifically modeling their efforts on those of Fr Phillips, their results have been nothing like his.
• This says to me that at best, all other factors being equal (which they almost certainly are not), Our Lady of the Atonement will regress to the mean and cease to be an example of success for Anglican-style Catholic worship. All things being equal, even if Fr Phillips is fully restored as pastor, at 67 he will need to be replaced, and his replacement will regress to the mean.

Since late January, I've heard from a number of regular visitors who've strenuously disagreed with my views on OLA. I think I can summarize their views as being that OLA, a bright spot, will somehow improve the OCSP's fortunes if it's able to move there -- and that Bp Lopes, a sympathetic ordinary, will improve its prospects, while Abp Garcia-Siller, biased against it, will surely stifle its otherwise good prospects.

But the two parishes most similar to OLA in the OCSP, OLW and SMV, are about half OLA's size. The best that can be said of the OCSP is that OLA's entry would roughly double the OCSP's statistics, which is hardly a recommendation for the move and says little good about the OCSP.

But as a true crime fan, I've got another question. A guy comes to me and says don't waste time with some "prudent" investment that can bring you a measly 5% annual return. Give your life savings to me, and I'll bring in a consistent 20%! Many people are by now trained to recognize that something that exceeds the mean by that much is probably too good to be true.

But what's going on with OLA? Why isn't it regressing to the mean? How come two ex Anglican Catholic priests of very similar age, background, and energy, starting with resources just as minimal, haven't been able to reproduce OLA's results?

Maybe I've been talking to too many Catholic Filipinos.