Oddly, I got two other e-mails commenting on yesterday's post. One was from my regular correspondent:
Forgot to mention that it took some years for Houston to grasp that the retirement fund for priests could not be set up in such a way that Canadian clergy could benefit, despite the fact that Msgr Wilkinson was the poster boy for one of the early campaigns. Of course most Canadian [ordinariate] clergy are already receiving pension income from other sources but the younger men have been told that they will have to make their own arrangements.So unless I misunderstand this, Canadian ordinariate priests aren't eligible for an ordinariate pension, although US ordinariate priests with exactly the same qualifications and time in service are. For that matter, Catholic priests in Canadian dioceses are eligible for whatever retirement benefits are available to them, but Canadian ordinariate Catholic priests are not eligible for equivalent benefits. Do I have this wrong?
The first question I have, if this is correct (and it's simply hard to believe, but I'll defer to knowledgeable visitors) was there some way someone could have worked a little harder to fix this? Retirement benefits, the basic eligibility being satisfied, are part of many modern workers' wages. If you're eligible for them, you have a good job. Conversely, not to provide them, especially when workers in exactly the same category and level of seniority receive them, is to defraud a worker of his just wages. This is one of the sins that cry out to heaven.
But let's leave that aside and simply look at the market economics involved here. You get what you pay for. Although the main line Protestant job market has been shrinking, those clergy who have positions can in fact expect pensions, given time in service and age at retirement. For the ordinariate to attract comparable candidates -- indeed, to hire capable clergy away from Protestant denominations -- it has to offer a pay package that's equivalent, at least to those who aren't already receiving pensions.
So, who has the Canadian deanery been able to hire among Protestant clergy young enough still to expect pension benefits? Just asking. The impression I have is that every one of that small number was someone his previous jurisdiction was not sad to lose. Just sayin'.
The other e-mail I got yesterday was from a visitor who said,
Your website has indirectly covered the Archdiocese of San Antonio over the years, especially with regards to the relationship and problems with Our Lady of the Atonement. Part of the backstory is of a diocese that has always been liberal, and because of that, many Catholics found a home at Our Lady of the Atonement.The only thing I'd ask is, "How'd that work out?" The mindset that regards Novus Ordo Good, Ordinariate Bad as wrongthink has a built-in problem, in that it's vulnerable to clerical charlatans who flatter them for their liturgical good taste and tell them what they want to hear. The best evidence we have, from visitors who are former parishioners there and lived through much of the parish history is that Dcn Orr wasn't just an unfortunate oversight. He was baked into the recipe.
A number of people either put their best efforts into that parish and became disillusioned, or they understood the tradeoffs at some level, made the best of a bad situation, and moved on when their kids graduated from the school and the atmosphere elsewhere in the archdiocese improved. But they all seem to have recognized there was nothing inherently better about one or another form of extreme liturgy over and above novus ordo, and when other factors balanced out, they moved on.
The other side of the coin is if people think extreme liturgy and other forms of ostentatious piety will compensate for other shortcomings in their own lives. That way lies pharisaism. But the whole education I've gotten for myself in the course of this blog's journey ought to be a counsel to steer well clear of the North American ordinariate.
