Ordinariate Narcissists Weigh In!

Here's a puzzle. At various times in my career, I was called on to write corporate policies, so I became somewhat familiar with what policies look like, what they do, and what their consequences are. For example, banks have policies that cover areas like what's expected of branch managers in emergencies. They require employees to follow, and be sure their subordinates follow, the instructions of first responders and other civil authorities. It is implicit that violation of such policies can be a terminable offense.

So from a secular point of view, the situation we saw at Our Lady of the Atonement for the week between March 12 and March 19 was clear cut. By March 12, Fr Lewis had received policy guidance from Houston to follow the practice of his local diocese on whether to hold mass. On March 13, Abp Gustavo canceled masses in the archdiocese. In spite of that, Fr Lewis elected to hold masses on March 14 and 15. At the same time, civil authorities in San Antonio limited the size of public meetings. The numbers attending mass on March 15 exceeded those limits.

On top of that, by March 19, Fr Lewis reported that a parishioner who had attended mass both days had contracted COVID-19. This became public. Whether the parishioner specifically contracted the virus at one of those masses, he in fact did expose other parishioners, at masses that by policy instruction from Houston and instruction from civil authorities should not have been held. These facts are all in the public record.

They don't just reflect badly on Fr Lewis -- if he were a manager of a secular business that had been instructed to close by civil authorities, like a gym, and in violation of those instructions and corporate policy it had remained open, he would be fired. If a customer had contracted COVID-19 arguably at the gym under those circumstances, or had exposed other customers to it, there would certainly be lawsuits. My wife, a retired attorney, suggests that the OLA parishioner would at least have reason to discuss his case with an attorney, although neither OLA nor the ordinariate would be in a position to pay much in damages.

In a secular organization, a regional vice president who had looked the other way over a similar situation would be reassigned, demoted, or terminated. This is how things are in the real world. These circumstances are just the most recent that send a message that the ordinariate is poorly run and indeed potentially dangerous to members -- not least because any attempt to recover damages after blunders like that would bankrupt the parish and the prelature and leave the victims uncompensated.

In that context, I nevertheless heard from what I assume is a tiny contingent of Atonement Kool-Aid drinkers. One said,

What is the purpose of your campaign of whispers and assumptions? Half truths, rumors and gossip. I have been a parishioner at Our Lady of the Atonement since 1995. I am not a follower of any particular priest and stay well away from the politics of opinions about our parish or its clergy. As you have noted (very inaccurately in many cases) the parish doesn’t have a perfect past. There is no such thing as a perfect parish. For all it’s faults, the parish has brought many non Catholics to the church and that is a blessing.

What whispers and assumptions? I'm working from the public record and urging counsels of prudence.

Another Kool-Aid drinker wrote:

I consider Fr. Lewis a good friend and he is my pastor. He is one of the kindest, humblest persons I have ever met. He is a caring pastor and would never place his congregation at risk. To speak as though he would do so through neglect or malice is simply slanderous. This COVID-19 pandemic is changing all the rules. Fr. Lewis is basing his decisions on the best information he has as well as being obedient to his bishop. That's all we can ask of him. It's all we can ask of anyone, including our flawed politicians.

Again, the best information Fr Lewis had as of March 13 was that he should cancel mass if his local bishop did this in his diocese. Abp Gustavo canceled mass. The civil authorities limited the size of public gatherings, a further guideline that would have counseled canceling mass. Yet he held masses on two days, apparently over the reservations of parishioners who were concerned about receiving the host on the tongue. A communicant then was infected or exposed others to the virus at those masses.

If Bp Lopes instructed Fr Lewis to hold those masses or looked the other way, he should be held to account as well. Nobody's perfect, but people who behave recklessly or deliberately violate instructions aren't in the same category as people who make simple mistakes. Neither Fr Lewis nor quite possibly Bp Lopes appear to have made simple mistakes in this area. They placed parishioners at risk by disregarding policy and the instructions of civil authorities.