Let's Look At Evangelization and Anglicanorum Coetibus

Bp Lopes and others connected to the North American ordinariate now and then make happy talk about how Anglicanorum coetibus is part of the New Evangelization. But the more I look at what evangelization is, the less I think the ordinariate has much of anything to do with it. The USCCB has a remarkably good set of web pages on what evangelization means. For instance,

10. The simplest way to say what evangelization means is to follow Pope Paul VI, whose message Evangelii Nuntiandi (On Evangelization in the Modern World) has inspired so much recent thought and activity in the Church. We can rephrase his words to say that evangelizing means bringing the Good News of Jesus into every human situation and seeking to convert individuals and society by the divine power of the Gospel itself. . . .

12. Conversion is the change of our lives that comes about through the power of the Holy Spirit. All who accept the Gospel undergo change as we continually put on the mind of Christ by rejecting sin and becoming more faithful disciples in his Church. Unless we undergo conversion, we have not truly accepted the Gospel. . . .

14. This is crucial: we must be converted—and we must continue to be converted! We must let the Holy Spirit change our lives! We must respond to Jesus Christ. And we must be open to the transforming power of the Holy Spirit who will continue to convert us as we follow Christ. If our faith is alive, it will be aroused again and again as we mature as disciples.

What I find somewhat disquieting behind the whole process outlined in Anglicanorum coetibus and the Complementary Norms is the definite implication that if you're Anglican, you're somehow so close to Catholic that only perfunctory moves (though perhaps a denominational purity check) toward "membership" are required. But there's no equivalent recognition of Lutherans, who are in fact considerably closer to Catholicism than Anglicans, since the XXXIX Articles specifically reject the Real Presence, while Lutherans believe it. At best, Anglicans are in an environment were credal belief is unenforceable, so that individuals who claim to believe in the Real Presence have been tolerated.

So why are Anglicans a special case? An additional question is the lack of emphasis on personal conversion, when even as a onetime secular observer of Christianity, I fully agreed with the Augustinian model of conversion as interpreted by William James in The Varieties of Religious Experience: the "sick soul" discovers that a "healthy-minded" secularism is simply not working for him and spends a certain amount of time in turmoil as the soul's natural seeking after the Almighty works its way through his life, and he converts.

The assumption behind Anglicanorum coetibus seems to be that in the case of Anglicans, this turmoil of the "sick soul" has already taken place in some significant way, so the Anglicans get a special dispensation that allows them to become Catholic in a body. But on the other hand, upscale Episcopalians do not regard emotional conversions, or conversions like St Augustine, where he's open about his past sins, as being in especially good taste. It wouldn't be far from someone opening up to his neighbor at the peace and blurting, "I have moderate to severe plaque psoriasis."

But as the USCCB says,

We know that people experience conversion in many ways. Some experience a sudden, shattering insight that brings rapid transformation. Some experience a gradual growth over many years.

Why the emphasis on receiving Anglicans as existing groups, when there's simply no assurance that any of these people has been doing anything but going through the motions, however tastefully? In fact, I would say that the actual experience of transitioning to become a Catholic prelature has been traumatizing for a great many people, not in a good way, and definitely not leading the truly converted into the Church. As my regular correspondent puts it,

Whatever the flawed thinking behind Anglicanorum coetibus, its rollout did separate the men from the boys when it came to putting personal ambition aside. There was an initial assumption by many in the Traditonal Anglican Communion that their leadership role, particularly that of bishop, would continue under a new “partnership” with Rome, and when that proved to be a myth, they lost interest.

Others, like Louis Campese and David Moyer, accepted the price they would have to pay. Of course most leaders in the “continuing” world, not being under the sway of the misguided but charismatic John Hepworth, could exercise enough judgement to see that any arrangement with Rome would be entirely on Rome’s terms and mean the end of their little fiefdom, so they did not give the offer even preliminary consideration.

As you point out, changing one’s Christian denomination is a personal decision, made by tens of thousands of people annually for a host of reasons. Trying to capitalise on the defection of a particular group showed complete misunderstanding of this process.

The problem is that in all such cases, laity as well as clergy, actual conversion of the ongoing sort, true amendment of life, wasn't even on the radar. What was being done wasn't evangelization as recognized in a Catholic, or even universal Christian, context, and the result after ten years is an essentially corrupt organization that is not healing its festering sores.

Why No Response At All On The Bishop Love Issue?

Episcopalian Bishop William Love is scheduled to face trial on April 21 for violating something called Resolution 8012, which from context I assume has something to do with same-sex marriage. It's a mark of how very poor the reporting is on all platforms that no coverage I've seen explains where Resolution 8012 came from, what it specifies, and what specific violation Bp Love is alleged to have committed, although he'll be tried for it soon. Repeated web searches on variations of "Episcopalian Bishop William Love Trial Resolution 8012" have been fruitless. Everyone involved with this should be ashamed. The dereliction is not just in the elite outlets.

UPDATE: A visitor sent me this link to a more complete story at the Episcopal News Service.

Although a best-case outcome would be a mirror of the 1990s Righter trial, where the panel found itself unable to find a specific violation of something or other, whether Love is saved by a hung jury, convicted, or acquitted is beside the point, and the knee-jerk conservative reaction, "tsk tsk, what are things coming to?" isn't really relevant.

The immediate beneficiary of the controversy will almost certainly be the ACNA, which has been by far the most successful Anglican realignment movement at attracting the disaffected. This in turn goes to the perennial question that comes up over Anglicanorum coetibus: what problem is it trying to solve? Clearly the start of the Anglican outreach project came in the wake of the Episcopalian general convention of 1976. Nobody can really escape the fact that the Pastoral Provision and the subsequent apostolic constitution were intended to reach out to conservative Episcopalians, who in fact have shown themselves willing to jump ship -- just not to the Catholic Church.

But why have we seen no appeals, either from Bp Lopes or the retired ordinary, Msgr Steenson, in the context of the current William Love controversy? Well, of course, it looks as though Bp Lopes will be laid up at least until May recovering from whatever he's recovering from, though one might expect Msgr Steenson to write something, speaking as an individual but someone who'd weathered the Episcopalian battles and found his personal solution to them,. perhaps in the Register, perhaps in First Things, perhaps somewhere else. Wouldn't platforms like these be happy to publish his considered views?

I think one explanation, even if Msgr Steenson had something new and illuminating to say, would be that the strategy outlined in Anglicanorum coetibus, for disgruntled parishes and even dioceses to come over in a body, was a pipe dream. The leaders like TEC Bp Iker who could bring this off with the ACNA never took the Vatican option seriously, even though the evidence we have is that it was presented to them in some concrete form. At this point, I think the CDF needs to rethink the project, which is past its sell-by date.

From an ecumenical point of view, I'm not sure how politic any such gesture would be in this context anyhow. The Episcopal Church is in the process of destroying itself and needs no assistance; any attempt to reach out to the dwindling ranks of the disgruntled would probably serve more to rally the bitter-clinger virtue signaling elites who remain there.

What would Bp Barron, the USCCB's point man for evangelization, do? I'd love to get half an hour of his time to ask him. I think the idea that an attempt at outreach at this point would be counterproductive would be among those he'd throw out. Others might be that the target market is too small, compared to the numbers of those who become dissatisfied with the solutions offered by atheism or New Age religion; or the potential of addressing Evangelicals from an intellectual perspective -- many of these are in fact intelligent, thoughtful people with serious insight into scripture.

But the dogs that aren't barking continue to be Bp Lopes and Msgr Steenson. Maybe they'd agree with the hypothetical points I might hear from Bp Barron. But in that case, both these men were nevertheless tasked with the specific mission of bringing Episcopalians into the Church, indeed even more specifically with bringing them in as full parishes and even dioceses -- after all, the ACNA succeeded at this task where so far they've failed. Where did they fail in this mission where the schismatics succeeded?

I think if Bp Barron were to produce a YouTube on Bp Love and the latest Episcopalian crisis (which I don't think he'd do, and which I don't think he should) he'd almost certainly have to insert brief prefatory remarks on how earlier Catholic attempts to attract Episcopalians didn't work, because. And there would be the rub. After all, Bp Barron isn't expecting to draw atheist parishes and dioceses, nor is he expecting the Rinzai Zen Buddhists to defect in a body.

The decision to become Catholic, I think he would go on to say, is always personal. A direct, largely rational and intellectual appeal is the one that's always worked, on a personal basis.

Bp Barron On Gnosticism

Bp Barron's latest Word on Fire episode covers Gnosticism. This is an important subject, since as he outlines, Gnosticism is at the heart of New Age movements and many parts of popular culture, including the Star Wars myth structure with features like the impersonal underlying Force.

I think Bp Barron is seeing with increasing clarity something like a continuing mission that Ven Fulton Sheen began, addressing major issues in contemporary culture with intellectual power. Sheen saw the major cultural challenges of his time in Freud and Marx. Bp Barron's agenda includes the New Atheists (as opposed to the Old Atheists Freud and Marx) and various forms of Gnosticism, but I'm also beginning to see a systematic outreach to Evangelicals, which is completely in the spirit of Sheen, who had good relations with Billy Graham and Robert Schuller.

I have a great deal of sympathy for Catholic apologists, like Dr David Campbell, who seriously address the issues in New Age. I spent about ten years in misguided wandering there in my teens and 20s, to the point that I took up Zen Buddhism. It would have been extremely helpful if serious intellectual analysis of this sort of thing had been available to me in the 1960s and 70s -- it certainly wasn't to be found in the Philosophy or Religion departments at my elite university.

At about 12;20, Bp Barron talks about people in a Christian context who also believe that everyone but them has it wrong, and only they have the real story. It's hard to avoid seeing the ordinariates in that context, with people on discussion forums identifying themselves as "ordinariate Catholics" with a certain smugness. I suppose the misguided little groups in the ordinariate aren't a major area of concern for Bp Barron, since he's dealing with real-world issues in the Areopagus, and it's Bp Lopes's job to deal with his own wandering flock, if he gets around to it.

Do people in the ordinariates follow Bp Barron?

The Antikythera Mechanism And The Church

I spent much of the weekend surfing the web and watching YouTubes on the Antikythera Mechanism, a historical anomaly that, like tantalizing evidence of pre-Columbian exploration by Europeans in North America, keeps me in fascination. This device, which has been described by respectable academics as "shocking" evidence of mathematical, astronomical, and mechanical sophistication by the ancient Greeks, was discovered in the remains of an ancient shipwreck more than 100 years ago and has been the subject of desultory study by subsequent generations of academics in various disciplines.

While in recent decades it's been possible to develop a credible reconstruction of the mechanism's working, open questions include exactly who built it, when, how many similar devices were made, and exactly what its function was.

In effect, it's an analog clock- and calendar-like device that predicts astronomical events with great precision. In contemporary terms, it "models" the functions of the visible universe and, among many other things, mechanically accounts for the slightly elliptical orbit of the moon.

For my purposes as a neo-Scholastic, it illustrates the ancient idea that the universe is governed by order. I read that Cicero, in De Natura Deorum, mentions what may be a similar device, something I need to investigate in greater depth.

It also occurred to me that my interest in the device was kindled on the same weekend as the US change to Daylight Saving Time, an idea first widely implemented by the Central Powers in 1916 during the First World War to increase the efficiency of war production. In more recent years, people have begun to ask exactly why we see the need to keep shifting the clocks back and forth, when the cost of doing this probably exceeds the benefits obtained.

But a bigger question for me in terms of the Antikythera Mechanism is why the government sees fit to fuss with the natural order of the hours. Whatever the cost-benefit, the actual subtext is probably more accurately expressed in saying the government can change how we see the natural order by fiat. Gain an hour in the fall, lose one in the spring because the government tells us to. "They'd change the days of the week if they could get away with it," I muttered to my wife on the way to church yesterday.'

And there are no accidents. The main enforcers of the semiannual clock changes have been the churches, who faithfully remind us of the semiannual shift in the natural order on the Sundays preceding, because they're the ones who'll lose the most if the faithful don't show up punctually just hours after the time change. There are no accidents.

But then I began to think about who benefits from chaos overall. From the standpoint of families and organizations, it's the people with hidden personal agendas who benefit from chaos. And then I began to think about Anglicanorum coetibus. By its nature, it was going to introduce some measure of chaos and unpredictability to a certain segment of generally Catholic-friendly Protestants. And the overall history of the movement, from 1977 onward, his been largely chaotic, and its grand old men, Frs Barker and Phillips, have been figures who promoted chaos at critical points.

My own experience at st Mary of the Angels was that the prospect of entering the newly erected North American ordinariate was an excruciating two years of chaos that benefited only a few people with hidden personal agendas. The development of the organization in Houston has been chaos as well, with a current sense, given the bishop's indisposition, that nobody's in charge and there's an ongoing power struggle over next to nothing.

Oder in the Church should reflect the order of the heavens. Anglicanorum coetibus hasn't done a thing to promote this.

It Looks Like The Whole Music Department Is Out At Our Lady Of The Atonement

A visitor sent me a link to this help-wanted notice at a church music forum. In a series of ads posted on March 4, Our Lady of the Atonement is advertising for a music director, assistant music director, and organist for the 2020-21 school year. I've reached out to sources at OLA, but so far haven't had any other feedback. It isn't known if they've been given notice as a group or resigned as a body, but neither case is a good sign.

It's been more than three years since Fr Phillips was removed, and even longer since Dcn Orr's forced retirement. Yet at least one problem that plagued the parish throughout their tenure, staff churning, clearly continues. This suggests that Fr Lewis hasn't been able to get a handle on personnel in his time at the parish, which itself can no longer be considered short.

By the same token, if the explanation given for lower pledges, a wait-and-see attitude among some parishioners, is correct, then inevitably those parishioners may well decide they've waited and seen plenty long enough.

I believe this also follows on continued churning at the school administrator level. Again, this is unlikely to reassure prospective parents.

It's hard to avoid an impression that the ordinariate hasn't been able to attract capable clergy at the pastor level, and there's no bench of promising, less senior candidates -- these are all marginal men who were unable to develop Protestant careers, and they don't have a fund of experience in building strong parishes either as Protestants or hyphenated Catholics.

The few capable men, like Frs Erdman or Vidal, if they're relocated to fill new vacancies (which inevitably occur), will simply be moved prematurely from existing situations where they might have a positive impact, with no equivalent replacements.

But the fragmentary evidence we have from this latest development is that Fr Lewis so far has been feckless in solving one of the most visible issues at OLA.

I will deeply appreciate any additional insights knowledgeable people may be able to provide on the situation in San Antonio.

UPDATE: For clarification, I'm told that the music staff was that of the Atonement Academy. Dr Seighman remains Music Director and Organist of OLA.

As A Good Aristotelian, I Look For Causes

My regular correspondent reminded me that 90,000 people a year in the US go to the ER with injuries sustained in falling from a ladder. I won't disagree, but I assume an equivalent statistic is zero Roman Catholic bishops in the US go to the ER with injuries sustained in falling from a ladder. Except for 2020, when the number will be at least one.

Now, I have no good single explanation, although the consensus among the few visitors who've weighed in seems to be that Bp Lopes was under some sort of pressure that affected his concentration at the very least. My sense of such calamities is that they don't just happen, they come in some sort of context.

My regular correspondent found an odd piece to add to the puzzle:

I note that Bp Lopes was supposed to officiate at a Confirmation at a diocesan church on February 22. Maybe it was too much to face.

Bp Lopes's fall took place, I believe, on February 21, the Friday before the confirmations were to happen.

I simply don't know enough about etiquette among bishops here. I assume that confirmations are a second-level priority that are normally handled by auxiliary bishops, or indeed other clergy to whom bishops delegate the function. In The Episcopal Church, retired bishops also perform confirmations.

I would guess that it would be extremely uncommon, and perhaps a gaffe, for a diocesan bishop in one geographical territory to ask a diocesan bishop in another to perform routine school confirmations -- an exception might be a situation where a foreign bishop's relative was involved, or perhaps that bishop actually went to the school.

However, it's hard to avoid wondering if the request was made to Bp Lopes because the auxiliaries in the Archdiocese of Houston were too busy, and Bp Lopes, with time on his hands, was being asked to pitch in.

It may or may not be relevant that Bp Lopes and his staff are increasingly referring to the ordinariate as a "diocese". Perhaps this was a reminder that Bp Lopes is a pretty junior guy, and if an archbishop requests a favor, he'd better comply.

I also wonder if that bizarrely campy letter from "J Henry" that usurps the function of the vicar general and reiterates that all issues for the bishop are to go through him is just a vignette of life in the ordinariate chancery. Perhaps other vignettes of life around Bp Lopes have come to his brother bishops' attention, and pressure is being applied from that direction.

If anyone has insights into how things operate with bishops not terribly busy being asked to do school confirmations, I'll be very interested to hear them.

A Visitor On The Situation In Houston

I had an e-mail from a visitor who sometimes helps me with what the actual job roles and duties are in Catholic seminaries and chanceries. His insights remind me of what I learn about cars when, as an English-major non-mechanic, I'm exposed to what actually happens under the hood when something goes wrong.

In this particular case, he echoes other concerns I've had from people who've commented on the e-mail from Bp Lopes's secretary: expressed in other words, it reflects "unhealthy boundaries" between him and Bp Lopes, which is not a good sign and suggests, like the visitor's other comments, that something's very wrong in Houston:

My confusion is with the structure of the chancery staff and the “hierarchy” therein at Houston. If you looked at the top of an org chart for a regular diocese, there would be a direct line from the Bishop to the Bishop's Secretary. There would be connected lines from the bishop to the V.G. and Moderator of the Curia

The Bishop’s Secretary is really a gatekeeper/handler of sorts. They handle the diary, meetings, functions, event planning and all of the “things” which the bishop is involved in around the diocese. They handle sensitive matters, draft sensitive letters and responses. The discretion most people in this position practice is phenomenal. If you want to get something done or want something to end up at the top of the correspondence pile, you want to be on good terms with the bishops secretary. In many diocese this position is staffed by a lay person. In some cases it is staffed by a religious and in other cases (fairly few) it is staffed by a priest.

The Vicar General is responsible for the day to day running of the diocese in the bishops absence. Remember there are 3 “munera” or gifts that a bishop receives through consecration/ordination to the episcopacy (teaching, administrative, sacramental). The Vicar General must be a priest.

The Vicar General can ordinarily carry out the teaching and administrative (not legislative or judicial) acts of a bishop in the bishops absence. Now, that being said, there are some limits imposed by Canon Law and basic prudence. The Vicar General cannot sell property, close parishes, issue decrees of excommunication, excardinate or incardinate priests, a vicar general may never sacramentally ordain. In exceptional cases (long term illness) a Vicar General could be the ordinary minister of confirmation in a diocese as delegated by the bishop.

The Moderator of the Curia is there to see that the chancery functions in a clear and effective manner. They really are not there to take the place of the bishop in any circumstance. They are there in a way as an “operations” manager for chancery offices. They also monitor administrative functions and assist to ensure coordination with in administrative and ministerial functions. Moderators of the Curia are not required positions to have, a bishop could choose to carry this out himself.

All of the above is to say... Why the communication from J. Henry? If anything... In the real world something from the Vicar General or something FROM THE BISHOP would arrive in people’s inbox which would address the bishop falling and breaking his leg/ankle. It would just be facts and not have any commentary surrounding it... But apparently there is a power struggle in Houston. The line, “you are to bother me, and not the Bishop.”, is something bizarre for him to say... The Vicar General is in charge, not the bishop’s secretary.

I’m also just weirded out by the overly affectionate nature of the letter. The reference to keeping him on bedrest, his version of the story, paragraph 3, the good behavior quip and the end of paragraph 5. It’s just weird. The facts could have been said in 2 paragraphs, with a little humor... But clearly, J. Henry is trying his hand at comedy as well... I suppose if the Ordinariate is suppressed, right? I think this is hinting at your “clique” suspicion... The campy tone of the whole letter is off putting... But than again, the Ordinariate does trend toward “camp” performance. Let’s not forget some sermons we have seen/heard, along with the rather weird pronunciations used when presiding over the Anglican communion ser... I mean Holy Mass....

I read that letter as part neediness and part power play. It is unfortunate that there has seemed to be no coordinated information release. All this goes to do is muddle the necessary information, which is His Excellency broke his leg/ankle, here’s how it happened. he has a few months to recover from surgery, he will be cancelling visits, here is who to contact in the meantime and pray for me and continue to pray for Himself (the Bishop) and the diocese.

Oh and J. Henry is not even listed on the ordinariate staff page. . . So. . .