a movement to divide the foreign-born Roman Catholic population of the U.S. for ecclesiastical purposes according to European nationalities and to appoint bishops and priests of the same national origin and language as the majority of the members of a diocese or parishThe assumption would be that Irish Catholics (who had dominated the 19th century US Church) would not be entitled to have Irish bishops who supervise Italian-, German-, or Polish-majority parishes. Instead, each ethnic group that made up a particular parish would be entitled to have priests and a bishop of the same ethnic group. This idea has certainly resurfaced in 21st century secular discourse -- in contemporary companies sensitive to ethnic agitation, there are African promotional silos, Hispanic silos, women silos, LGBT silos, and on and on.
Another way the idea has resurfaced is the practical result of Anglicanorum coetibus. It has created a separate path for ordination and promotion of Anglo priests over arguably Anglo parishes. (In fact, the actual qualifications for "Anglo" mirror those in contemporary discourse: you're Anglo pretty much if you say you are, just as Sen Warren can claim to have Native ancestry.) It's probably good that the original Cahenslyism didn't proceed to the point where a priest named O'Hara could qualify for a better promotional opportunity by changing his name to Schmidt.
What I think is emerging as a major objection to 21st century Anglo Cahenslyism is that the Anglo ordination and promotional silo in the Church is clearly producing problem priests who haven't been screened by the normal vocation and seminary process.
In addition, there's now a situation where a parish with masses in several languages that also hosts an ordinariate group is likely to have not one, but two different English-language masses, one presumably for Hispanic, Filipino, and other immigrants who speak English, as well as the descendants of German, Italian, Polish, or Irish immigrants -- and a second version of English mass for certifiably blueblooded Anglo English speakers. My regular correspondent comments,
As we have discussed, the appeal of Divine Worship is hard to credit, except to a few pretentious Anglophiles. Little of the so-called “Anglican Patrimony” is exclusively Anglican, and in any event no two Ordinariate members agree on what it is. So what draws a lifelong Catholic to the Ordinariate when he could find architecture, vestments, music, and liturgy as good or better in his own diocese? Some motives are suspect, I am sure.We have discussed the idea that people are looking for a congregation that reflects their own ethnicity and social class. They may have a problem with a pastor who is Hispanic, Vietnamese, or Nigerian. They may like to run things, and are looking for a small community where they can have outsize influence.
