First, Anglicanorum coetibus appears to have been intended from the start as a violation of the Catholic principle of subsidiarity, "an organizing principle that matters ought to be handled by the smallest, lowest or least centralized competent authority." Discussions of Anglicanorum coetibus frequently note that it was promoted to avoid a problem that had arisen with the Pastoral Provision, that individual diocesan bishops could approve (or not) the formation of Anglican Use parishes and the ordination of Anglican Use clergy.
St Mary of the Angels Hollywood has always been cited as the primary example of a diocesan bishop refusing to allow the admission of an Anglican Use parish into his diocese. My position here has consistently been that both Cardinals Manning and Mahony were correct in their respective refusals. (I would guess, by the way, that their postures were developed by chancery staff. Whether or not they themselves were liberals who might have supported other aspects of a liberal agenda driven by Cardinal Law, the staffs likely had a grasp of the issues that they could sell their archbishops.) My sense of things has also developed more slowly that Mahony saw the potential for interference in his diocese from Law and possibly allies in the Vatican and wanted to avoid it, again on the principle of subsidiarity.
Anglicanorum coetibus has removed, pretty clearly on purpose, the option bishops had of approving Anglican Use parishes and ordaining Anglican Use clergy, although Anglican Use still exists as an option for married ex-Anglican priests. However, the Luke Reese case in particular has shown that the US-Canadian Ordinariate clearly has lower standards than diocesan bishops have for ordaining ex-Anglicans under the Pastoral Provision -- the Reese record strongly suggests that his process toward formation in a diocesan seminary was much slower than would have been expected of Anglican Use candidates, and he was ordained without an MDiv from either a Protestant or Catholic seminary.
We have other hints indicating diocesan bishops have had reservations about allowing OCSP groups or clergy. Late last year and early this year, it appears that Bp Barnes in San Bernardino had reservations about an OCSP group in Murrieta that probably stemmed from the group's connection with a prominent Catholic layman and resulting discord. In 2017, Bp Parkes in St Petersburg apparently resisted with more success having now-Dcn Mayer start an OCSP group in Tampa as part of a new path to ordination when his progress in that diocese under the Pastoral Provision had apparently been unsatisfactory.
Another frequent explanation of Anglicanorum coetibus is that the ordinariates formed under them function "like a diocese". In other words, there's a non-territorial prelature that extends over North America that decides, independently of territorial bishops, what shall be a parish and who shall be ordained. The problem is that this becomes an alternate choice for marginal candidates for the priesthood. Experienced vocation directors in dioceses, we're beginning to see, can recognize unsatisfactory candidates in seminary and recommend they not be ordained, but the candidates can then go to Houston and get a second opinion. My own view is that the evidence we have suggests this happened with Luke Reese and probably with Philip Mayer as well.
This goes against the near-universal recommendation from good priests and bishops that bishops be stringent in ordaining candidates. The OCSP is already paying the price for its laxity.
The second problem is this: who benefits? What's been set up is a fully parallel competing jurisdiction that applies over most of a continent. We see from Abp Viganò's letter that Pope Francis doesn't like the orientation of US bishops like Chaput and Gómez, and by installing Cardinals Cupich and Tobin outside the normal course of nomination, he is willing to override the principle of subsidiarity to put in people more favorable to his own views.
My impression of Abp Viganò's letter is that forces in the Vatican that have been working under Pope Francis are nothing new. I'm still puzzling out how Bernard Law, disgraced under circumstances similar to those which have come up with ex-Cardinal McCarrick, figures into this. General discussions of Law's career indicate that after his removal from Boston, he moved to Rome and was able in person to continue as a key behind-the-scenes player -- this must certainly have included implementing Anglicanorum coetibus.
The delegate chosen to implement it in 2010-11 was Cardinal Wuerl, another seriously compromised figure. In that context, I think poor Jeffrey Steenson was groomed by Law from the 1980s onward as a useful idiot, and he was discarded as soon as he became unnecessary, replaced in 2015 by a 40-year old Vatican bureaucrat with no prior diocesan experience. He runs an organization that I believe is generally regarded as incompetent. It may be good that the devil's workers are feckless, but observers of organizational behavior also know that it's to the advantage of higher-ups to have bunglers lower down, as they can be replaced at will and meantime do what they're told.
I think at minimum, Fr Perkins's position is untenable. He is not qualified to serve as either a vicar for clergy or a vocation director. This suits Bp Lopes, at least for now, but he'll be out the door whenever that suits Lopes, too. But Lopes as well knows to do what he's told.
I notice that good priests who comment on the current crisis urge concerned Catholics to seek out their good priests and bishops and continue with their prayers, sacraments, and devotions. I believe concerned Catholics in the OCSP need to distance themselves from their poorly formed and sometimes corrupt priests and get to diocesan parishes and do the same as diocesan Catholics.
