Captain Showboat

A visitor notes regarding yesterday's post:

I liked your post yesterday about showboating. When I think about what we have endured at OLA, "Showboating" is a rather gracious description. While showboating may seem harmless, as many a sea goer knows, an overexposure to the sea can make one sick. I draw your attention to OLA's Crusader Award. In 2008, the school started to throw an annual Gala in support of the school. This is a fundraising dinner, with live auction, where a member of the community was honored for their commitment to the school, by volunteer work, or otherwise. For the very first year the school chose to honor, not one of the many hardworking volunteers, or hardworking teachers, or staff - but the school chose to honor Fr. Phillips himself.

One question that comes to mind is, why did Fr. Phillips accept this award? From my way of thinking, a good leader leads by example, but he does not hold himself up as the example -- unless you are one who practices the delicate art of "showboating". A better question, however, is why those on the selection committee felt they had to choose Fr. Phillips as the first recipient of this award. I tell you, from "Good Sheep Sunday", to the annual commemoration of his ordination, the climate at OLA is one in which, if you are going to have an award like the Crusader award - you wouldn't dare not honoring Fr. Phillips first, for he is the supreme example.

For the third year, Deacon Orr was honored. According to the Crusader Times of October 12, 2010,

The Atonement Academy’s 3rd annual gala and auction fundraiser was this past Saturday, and approximately 200 participants enjoyed a lively auction and elegant dinner followed by the presentation of the annual Crusader Award to Deacon James Orr, a co-founder of our school. Headmaster Ralph Johnston and Atonement pastor Father Phillips recognized Deacon Orr’s many accomplishments, and alumna Casandra Treviño paid tribute to Deacon Orr in her own words as well as by Deacon Orr Honored at 3rd Annual Gala Deacon James Orr was the deserving — and grateful— recipient of the annual Crusader Award. reading a letter from her brother, alumnus Alex Treviño. . . .

[During the recent OLA controversy, visitors brought to my attention the numerous instances, some published at the time, of questionable conduct by Dcn Orr with young boys. A father told me about a specific complaint he made to Fr Phillips about Orr kissing his son on the mouth. The father reported to me that Fr Phillips discounted this as the "kiss of peace", and told the father he should basically get over it. However, kissing on the mouth is now specifically proscribed in the OCSP Safe Environment Code of Conduct. That Orr should be rewarded in this way suggests Fr Phillips was at best lax in supervising Orr.]

In 2015, Fr. Stravinskas was honored for his seafaring skill.

To me, this inward looking disposition reminds me of Luke 9:46-48:

An argument started among the disciples as to which of them would be the greatest. 47 Jesus, knowing their thoughts, took a little child and had him stand beside him. 48 Then he said to them, “Whoever welcomes this little child in my name welcomes me; and whoever welcomes me welcomes the one who sent me. For it is the one who is least among you all who is the greatest.”

This brings to mind a question that I've pondered now and then: Our Lady of the Atonement, thought to be now the biggest OCSP parish, is small by diocesan Catholic standards. Yet it's acknowledged that a significant proportion of its membership has always been cradle Catholics. This suggests that liturgical observance, a music program, and a good school can have appeal beyond Anglican converts. Our parish in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles has apparently been very successful -- much bigger than OLA -- for nearly 100 years, stressing liturgical observance, a music program, and two good schools. In changing demographics, the appeal continues. It's not just Anglicans who want these things.

Why hasn't OLA, or indeed any OCSP parish, had equivalent success with diocesan Catholics? Our own parish suggests the ingredients are actually there.

What Now For St Anselm Corpus Christi?

Clearly Houston has made some deft personnel moves in recent weeks with the transfer of Fr Lewis to OLA, moving Fr Vieira to Holy Nativity Payson, and replacing Fr Lewis at St Luke's with Fr Vidal. But this leaves the question of what will happen at Fr Vidal's about-to-be former group in Corpus Christi. My regular correspondent comments,

What will be the fate of this community, I wonder? It came into the Anglican Use of the Pastoral Provision in 1992 under the leadership of Fr Gene Hart, as you can read in two links. Fr Hart passed away in June 2013 and Fr Vidal took over as administrator of the group, which in 2015 transferred to the OCSP. Under his leadership they began worshipping at Our Lady of Guadalupe [in the Naval Air Station Corpus Christi], an arrangement whose disadvantages seem obvious, but as you see from the last comment here it was not necessarily a going concern even before.

Will it get a new location and a new parochial administrator when Fr Vidal leaves in October, or disappear like St Gilbert, Boerne/Ingram once it is no longer needed as a titular appointment for someone whom someone wishes to have ordained?

The other thing that strikes me is that Frs Lewis, Vieira, and Vidal come from earlier cohorts of OCSP ordinands (or transferees). They strike me as very solid men, in stark contrast to the most recent cohort scheduled for 2018 (leaving the seminarians aside from this characterization). It's worth noting that Fr Lewis moves to a prosperous parish that can assure him a stipend, Fr Vieira can rely on an Army pension, and I assume Fr Vidal has some assurance of financial stability while he's at St Luke's.

The 2018 cohort suggests that without some financial incentive, the quality of the candidate pool drops off severely. But the number of OCSP parishes that can pay a priest is not growing.

Fr Joseph Vieira Moves To Holy Nativity Payson

Fr Joseph Vieira is an OCSP priest who was ordained while an Army chaplain in 2013. He had previously been an Episcopal priest and had served as a chaplain since 1995. Most recently he was a chaplain at Arizona's Fort Huachuca. This past Sunday it was announced that Fr Vieira will be replacing Fr Lowell Andrews at Holy Nativity Payson, AZ; it appears that Fr Andrews is retiring as pastor. This suggests Fr Vieira is retiring from the Army. (While both Payson and Fort Huachuca are in Arizona, they are by no means close by.)

While Holy Nativity owns its property, it is not a full OCSP parish. Fr Vieira will presumably be supporting himself mainly on an Army pension. We thank him for his service and wish him the best in his new post.

Post Hoc Propter Hoc?

In the wake of insistences that yesterday's post on the lack of mention of Fr Phillips's retirement on the OLA web sites was a big nothing-new, OLA suddenly issued at last two announcements later the same day, one here, and one in the Atonement Academy newsletter. NOTE: Address corrected.

Post hoc propter hoc! Get it???

San Antonio Puzzle

A visitor points out that, despite Saturday's e-mail from the parish announcing Fr Lewis's appointment as pastor and Fr Phillips's retirement, as well as Sunday's distribution of Bp Lopes's letter announcing the same, there has been no change to the staff page of the OLA website. He notes there has also been no mention of the change on Fr Phillips's blog or Facebook page, which continues daily posts as though nothing had changed.

The parish staff page still lists Fr Phillips's photo at the top as "Rector Emeritus". Fr Perkins's photo is at the bottom as "Interim Administrator". Following normal protocol, one would expect by now -- the announcements last weekend say Fr Lewis's appointment is immediate -- Fr Lewis's photo to be at the top, with Fr Phillips's to move to the bottom. Be interesting to see how long this takes.

I've had a good many messages regarding the transfer of OLA to the OCSP and Abp Garcia-Siller's apparent reluctance to countenance this saying, "It's all about the money." But I keep getting a sense of resistance to the transfer from OLA itself, and disappointment on the part of the OCSP regarding enrollment from former Anglicans. It's not hard to extrapolate that the disappointment could cover financial issues as well -- if there was an expectation that bringing OLA into the OCSP would change the overall picture, this may not wind up being the case.

We'll have to see what develops. Meanwhile, it doesn't seem like Fr Phillips is acting as though there has been any change.

UPDATE: A visitor notes,

As is normal in dioceses, pastoral appointments are announced in the parishes (and often, though not always, posted on the diocesan website) before they take effect. The letter to Our Lady of the Atonement parish states that the appointment is effective July 1 and "With this appointment, the Rev. Christopher Phillips will be retired." Although retired I would suspect that Father Phillips will continue to take the bulk of the liturgies until Father Mark Lewis moves in August. Do not expect a change to the website before then and there is nothing unusual about it.

My regular correspondent suggests,

Everyone, regardless of background:---former Anglican, cradle Catholic, or Other---who was a parishioner of OLA at the time it entered the Ordinariate is eligible to become a member of the OCSP. So I do not believe we know that the apparent foot-dragging about signing up is on the part of any particular group. I would guess it's on the part of lifelong Catholics, or those who became Catholic from some other Protestant background. If they wish in the future to attend a diocesan parish---and should they move away from San Antonio they will have little other choice outside a few locations---they would face some (minor) restrictions as Ordinariate members. But maybe it's just a cross-section of people who like the parish but don't feel any identification with the wider project.

Regarding the parish website, as a constant troller I assure you that an up-to-date one is the exception, not the rule, regardless of jurisdiction. That is why I always try to look at a Sunday bulletin to ascertain who is on the staff or what the mass schedule is.

I'm inclined to see lack of identification with the wider project as a good explanation. Another issue, though, would be how many members the parish actually has. I would not rule out exaggeration in prior estimates.

"Do Anglicans Receive Communion Kneeling At The Communion Rail?"

The moderator of our Bible study asked us this last night, knowing of our background. He was, it turns out, exploring the idea of working with the parish priests to re-introduce the practice -- for whatever reason, the communion rail still exists at our parish. I pointed out that even mainstream-traditional priests like Fr John Riccardo find it impossible to implement simply due to traffic. He replied that it might be practical at times like the 6:30 AM Sunday mass. He then explored questions like how the Anglicans handle handicapped people or those for whom kneeling is difficult. This was clearly a serious discussion.

It's worth pointing out, of course, that the practice of kneeling to receive the Sacrament well predates the Church of England, and the gentleman was not asking how the Anglicans do things with any intention of becoming more Anglican. He was using Anglican practical experience to explore how one might go about re-introducing a traditional Christian practice. (I also added that Anglicans use cushions at the communion rail.) But this brings me to an unanswered question touching on Anglicanorum coetibus: to what extent are ordinariate parishes catering to cradle Catholics who for whatever reason find them more convenient or attractive than diocesan parishes?

I don't mean to ask this in order to prompt any sort of optimism. But my regular correspondent made an interesting point in response to a visitor's account of attendance at the Victoria, BC OCSP parish. The visitor said, "The Ordinariate Masses in Victoria normally have about 15-20 people for a daily Mass and two-three times that number on Sundays." My regular correspondent noted, "BlJHN [Victoria] holds its Sunday mass at a parish whose only other Sunday mass is in Portuguese (there is a Saturday vigil mass in English). I am sure there are those nearby who take advantage of the availability of a Sunday morning mass in English even if they have no connection with Anglicanism." Although Victoria, BC is also a special case with regard to English heritage.

I've been hearing comments from visitors to the effect that the number of former Anglicans at Our Lady of the Atonement has been exaggerated, which is a possible reason for disappointing enrollments into the OCSP there -- some number of cradle Catholics attend OCSP masses due to convenience (e.g., English at a good time, close by) or due simply to to a reverent atmosphere (Dan Schutte songs not to be heard), and this could be a factor in attendance not just at OLA but elsewhere.

Our parish uses what appears to be a version of the OCP Glory & Praise hard cover hymnal. Ralph Vaughan Williams, Isaac Watts, Charles Wesley, and John Mason Neale are all names frequently encountered, but there's no specific effort to seem "Anglican". The parish has many Latino and Filipino members. On the other hand, it isn't obnoxiously Traditionalist. One might say that the Church in the US could learn something from the OCSP, except that Bp Lopes so far has no particular success to point to with his colleagues, and some element of the OCSP's small uptake is almost certainly due to a general preference emerging in the Catholic mainstream for better catechesis and more reverent worship.

Bp Lopes Letter To Our Lady Of The Atonement

A visitor has forwarded a copy of Bp Lopes's letter to the Our Lady of the Atonement parish:

It's hard to avoid a few inferences. Last week's e-mail to the parish said, "Fr. Phillips is our pastor emeritus and enters that state called 'retirement.'” Bp Lopes's letter reiterates, "With this appointment, The Rev Christoper Phillips will be retired." It would appear the man is retired indeed, finito, fini, schluss. He has been replaced by what we must conclude is the most trustworthy man in the OCSP aside from Fr Perkins, the only remaining vicar forane with Fr Kenyon's departure.

This change has been accelerated beyond the initial announcement that it would take place in 2018. A visitor told me that as of May 16, the date of Bp Lopes's letter, Bp Lopes was on site at OLA, and an audit of the parish was under way. Certainly it seems as though the outcome for Fr Phillips has been visually hard to distinguish from what it would have been under Abp Garcia-Siller.

I'm told Fr Lewis's replacement at St Luke's Washington will be Fr John Vidal, formerly of Mt Calvary, latterly civilian chaplain of NAS Corpus Christi, TX and the St Anselm's Ordinariate group.

Fr Mark Lewis Moves To Our Lady Of The Atonement

A visitor kindly forwarded this e-mail from the OLA parish:

So much has been happening with our transition into the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter! Of course, much of it is behind the scenes as our thirty four years as a parish of the archdiocese is translated into being the newest parish in the Ordinariate. Our new pastor, Fr. Mark Lewis, will be moving from Washington, D.C. with his wife Vickey, and we look forward to them taking up residence at the beginning of August. Fr. Moore continues his duties as parochial vicar, and will assist Fr. Lewis in the many pastoral duties in the parish. Fr. Phillips is our pastor emeritus and enters that state called “retirement.” He and JoAnn will continue living in their home by the church and school, and he will have additional duties throughout the wider Ordinariate, visiting and advising young communities and being available to his brother priests for anything they might need.

So far, I'm not aware of any announcement regarding who will replace Fr Lewis in Washington.

I'd been receiving reports of an accelerated schedule for fully replacing Fr Phillips at OLA. It had originally been announced that a replacement would be named in 2018, but circumstances have apparently required a faster move. The visitor comments, "I wonder if we are in for another fight to preserve Fr. Phillips from retirement."

Status Conference On Bush Group's Appeal Of California EDD Decision

I attended a status conference in Los Angeles Superior Court this morning on the Bush group's appeal of the California EDD decision awarding unemployment benefits to Fr Kelley. Fr Kelley made the claim based on his termination as rector of St Mary of the Angels by the Bush group after they seized the property. The Bush group alleged that Fr Kelley had stolen funds from the parish. Administrative judges repeatedly ruled that there was no evidence for this allegation, and Fr Kelley was finally awarded full benefits. Even after Fr Kelley was paid, the Bush group has continued its appeal.

With the continued delay of the Bush group's appeal of Judge Strobel's 2015 decision, Lancaster & Anastasia, the Bush group's attorneys, have continually asked the court in the appeal of this EDD case to delay sessions pending the outcome of the appeal of that case. In this morning's status conference, Mr Anastasia simply requested that the judge move the case forward another six months, to December 6. The EDD agreed.

It's worth pointing out that although Fr Kelley is a "party of interest" in the case, the Bush group is actually suing the California Employment Development Department. Thus neither the parish nor Fr Kelley is directly involved, but Mrs Bush is apparently continuing to pay Lancaster & Anastasia for the appeal.

In the continuing appeal of the Rector, Wardens, and Vestry cases, however, Fr Kelley passed on that Lancaster & Anastasia filed a notice of attorney substitution. Apparently Tyler Andrews is now representing the Bush group in the appeal of the Rector, Wardens, and Vestry decision by Judge Strobel. Fr Kelley is not aware of how this affects Lancaster & Anastasia's involvement, although it appears that Mrs Bush became unhappy with Mr Lancaster following Judge Murphy's December 2016 award of summary judgment against the Bush group.

Briefs for the Bush group's appeal of Judge Strobel's 2015 decision are due May 25. Observers are increasingly wondering if Lancaster & Anastasia are being paid, and how Mrs Bush proposes to pay the new Mr Andrews.

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.

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.