Back To The Matter Of Habits And Titles

A visitor with a background in canon law remarks,

I’m not aware of anything in the Codex Juris Canonici that stipulates who is or is not entitled to use the titles of “brother” and “sister” — but theologically, these titles actually are proper to every baptized Christian. With God as our adoptive father, we all are siblings in our Lord, which is why religious orders, in seeking to live the gospel more fully, started using them.

Naturally, a pastor may often address us as "my brothers and sisters" in a homily, and this would not be inaccurate or in any way reprehensible. Nor, as far as I'm aware, is there anything in the canons that prevents me from wearing a Franciscan habit if I choose, especially in the back yard. Nor, as far as I can see, especially if I can come to mass in shorts, flip-flops, and a torn t-shirt, is there anything that prevents me, canonically, from coming to mass in a Franciscan habit.

However, in the case I covered here of the ACA priest who styled himself OSA though he had never been an Augustinian, the regional superior of the Augustinians whom I consulted made it clear the guy was not entitled to say he’s OSA. And if I were indeed to go to mass dressed in a Franciscan habit and call myself “Brother John”, I believe Fr Bob would, er, take me aside, notwithstanding there’s no dress code and we’re all brothers and sisters.

Some things are misleading and could represent a danger to the flock even if the canons have no opinion.

The Church Of Torres Strait

In a recent e-mail entitled "A Microcosm of Anglicanorum coetibus", my regular correspondent reports,

In comments on the Anglicanorum Coetibus Society blog Mr Guivens has twice called recent attention, (with no response) to an article in the latest issue of the Portal, the monthly magazine of the OOLW, on the Church of Torres Strait. This was a TAC member body composed of former members of the Anglican Church of Australia who left over some jurisdictional issue involving the appointment of an indigenous bishop. As first reported they wished to enter the Church via Anglicanorum coetibus as a distinct Ordinariate, with thousands of potential members on the islands and in the diaspora.

Eventually this was scaled down to potential membership in the Australian OOLSC, but apart from occasional announcements that negotiations were ongoing nothing more has been heard since the OOLSC was established five years ago. Occasionally they are in the news when Peter Slipper, Hepworth's protégé, pays a visit but otherwise few reports. Now it appears from the Portal article that they have "abandoned this ecumenical effort" and are being led "down a different path," with the exception of a single congregation, or part thereof, on the island of Duaun.

This group, however, does not have a clerical leader, so they have become members of the OOLSC parish in Cairns (which is led by the former Vicar-General of the Church if Torres Strait, ordained in the OOLSC in 2013). "The journey to Duaun from the Australian Mainland involves two or three flights and a short sea passage by inflatable dinghy" (you couldn't make this up) and costs approx AUS$2000. I am sure Fr Barnier has a faithful following at Holy Cross, Duaun, but this arrangement typifies the lack of resources at the disposal of the Ordinariates and the precariousness of their existence. And of course the discrepancy between the preliminary hype and the reality.

This brought to mind the Roman Catholic Diocese of Juneau, where priests must presumably rely on boat and plane to say mass, but the circumstances there must certainly be more routinized and cohesive. Instead, I think again of St John the Evangelist Calgary, 2116 miles and a four-hour flight from Houston. Observers on the ground in the Diocese of Shrewsbury are firm on the point that SJE's former pastor, Fr Kenyon, requires close supervision, but he clearly never had it in Calgary.

Again, we're dealing with something like Robert X Cringely's 30-day airplane, probably something that as a practical matter can't be done and shouldn't even be tried. My guess is that Calgary, with no effective supervision over some very sketchy clergy, will, within a fairly short period of time, erupt into a situation that will bring down the OCSP.

Court Session On Bush Group's Appeal of EDD Decision, Case BS152017

In May, I covered a court session regarding the Bush group's appeal of the California Employment Development Department's ruling that Fr Kelley was entitled to unemployment compensation for his "termination" by the group.

Fr Kelley made the claim based on his termination as rector of St Mary of the Angels by the Bush group after they seized the property. The Bush group alleged that Fr Kelley had stolen funds from the parish. Administrative judges repeatedly ruled that there was no evidence for this allegation, and Fr Kelley was finally awarded full benefits. Even after Fr Kelley was paid, the Bush group has continued its appeal.

In May, Mr Anastasia requested that the judge move the case forward another six months, to December 6. The EDD agreed. This was part of he Bush group's strategy to delay its appeal of the main case against Fr Kelley, which it had lost in 2015, and then ask that all related actions be postponed until the appeal was resolved. The session on December 6, this past Wednesday, was expected to be yet another request to delay the case again. As a result, Fr Kelley told me the session was likely to be just like the short May session, with attorneys calling in by phone, and the judge allowing another continuance. As a result, I decided not to attend.

However, Fr Kelley did attend, and there were a few surprises. Fr Kelley reports,

In the course of the mysteries in court, this came up:

09/01/2017 at 09:31 am in Department 86, Amy D. Hogue, Presiding
Motion to be Relieved as Counsel - Granted

Further,

Judge Amy Hogue began by making the point that under CA Law, a Corporation MUST be represented by an Attorney. She then revealed that Anastasia had abandoned the Plaintiffs. (I had not observed that on line previously...)

So Lancaster & Anastasia had quietly been relieved as counsel for the Bush group and others in all the related cases over the summer. The reason is presumably the same as the other requests to be relieved, non-payment.

The Judge replied that she couldn't act summarily, but had to give "them" another 90 days to appear -- March 7, 2018, at which time, if they did not, she could consider "abatement" or "dismissal" of the case. (She was wracking her brain for the former term, uncertain that she'd hit upon exactly the right term.)

She inferred that it might be possible to submit a Motion (for Summary Judgment??) by Pal, to clear it all up prior to March 7.

That's where proceedings ended.

It appears that the Bush group's agenda has slowly been coming apart, primarily in recent months for lack of money to pursue legal cases. We know that in August 2014, following the appeals court's ruling in the legal vestry's favor in the Rector, Wardens, and Vestry cases, the Bush group took out a $575,000 mortgage on the parish property, presumably to pay legal bills. But by October 2015, the previous tenant of the commercial property had moved out, and by early 2016, the Bush group had been evicted, leaving them unable to raise additional funds.

In their July petition to be relieved as counsel, Lancaster & Anastasia said they hadn't been paid since 2015. Whatever may have happened to the $575,000, it doesn't seem to be available to pay counsel now.

No Advent Lessons And Carols In Divine Worship Missal

My wife and I attended an Advent festival of lessons and carols at St Mary of the Angels this past Sunday. This was very well done and shows how well Dr Kathleen Moon, the music director, has held the program together though several years of extreme difficulty. Clearly the service was following a liturgy, and the liturgy was good enough that it was making me think better of the DWM, that is, if the DWM had a liturgy for an Advent festival of lessons and carols -- a uniquely Anglican Advent celebration. So I posed the question to Fr Kelley, who replied,

The format for the Lessons & Carols was created by Bishop Edward White Benson, when he was the brand new Bishop of Truro (a newly created diocese, ca. 1877). He wanted to establish some "traditions" for the new diocese. The original format had 9 lessons, but we've kept to seven here. King's College, Cambridge, still keeps to nine, as do most of the English cathedrals. King's is the one the BBC usually broadcasts live each year. The Bidding Prayer is basically that composed by Bp Benson. . . .

So, no, the Lessons & Carols isn't found in the Ordinariate sources; but there's no reason why it shouldn't be incorporated in some future edition. It is very flexible, in terms of what can be incorporated, both in the lesson selection, and in the musical opportunities. The Magnficat is not a "standard" part; but given the Visitation Gospel lesson, which is an alternative in the lists, it seemed perfectly appropriate to include a Magnificat said to be one of Pope Benedict's favorites, & to do it as a Solemn Magnificat, in the best St. Mary's tradition.

As far as I can tell, the dicasteries had something like a dozen people on this thing, and they managed not to think of the Advent festival of lessons and carols. Given the history Fr Kelley gives, this is an authentic treasure of the Anglican spiritual patrimony.

UPDATE: A visitor notes,

The service known as “Lessons and Carols” does not have a rite in the Anglican Book of Common Prayer, either, and thus does not have status as liturgical prayer even within the Anglican tradition.

Since “Lessons and Carols” does not involve any sacrament, there is nothing that precludes any Catholic parish or other congregation from holding such a service. Canonically, “Lessons and Carols” is a pious devotion.

However, worthwhile as such a service can be, so far, I note that nothing is being said about it this year by the people at the Anglicanorum Coetibus Society blog. A good question would be how many OCSP communities are holding this at all.

What's The Formula?

Regarding yesterday's post, my regular correspondent comments,

I have no magic secret for managing a diocese in such a way as to ensure that charismatic leaders are matched up with appropriate local resources. But the administrator of St Thomas More, Toronto announced his retirement last June. Toronto is the largest city in Canada, and the local Anglican diocese is one of the largest in North America. The Cardinal Archbishop of Toronto was the Episcopal Delegate from the Holy See in the formation of the Ordinariate in Canada. Why has no replacement been found to take over STM?

This raises at least two worthwhile questions. The first is, irrespective of whether there's a secret to linking leaders with resources, success seems to breed success. Our diocesan parish, over 100 years old, seems to have maintained this tradition -- the Los Angeles area began to expand beyond its core only after about 1900, and this community was one of the earliest. As far as I can tell, it's had a succession of strong pastors over that time, and I would assume that the archdiocese knows from long experience where to put good resources.

A factor that I've begun to glimpse is the ingredient of having a "good rectory", referring to the quality, interaction, and mutual support of the priests who live there. In this case, it appears that not only parish staff, but retired priests and those in diocesan staff positions also prefer to live there. These men take masses and contribute to the general atmosphere. Married priests, with the evidence of what happened in Stockport in mind, showing the need to empty a rectory to accommodate a family, could well eradicate the possibility of a "good rectory" helping a parish.

But second, you can't put good resources anywhere if they don't exist. The OCSP is incongruously in the position of having a surplus of priests but a dire shortage of deployable men. One issue is that the bishop must often move not just the priest but his family, including the need to find work for his wife. Add to that the fact that most OCSP communities can't support a priest and are unlikely to grow to the point where they might in the future. This in turn means that, after the initial optimism of 2010-11, few men have seen desirable career opportunities in the OCSP, and for the few good positions, there's clearly a waiting list where the good candidates have long since taken numbers. So what you get is the rag-tag second tier of latecomer opportunists and wannabes that we see, who are unlikely to grow a community.

So Bp Lopes can't move anyone to Toronto unless the diocese can offer him (and probably his wife) a day job. And let's keep in mind that Cardinal Collins's attitude toward Anglicanorum coetibus cooled distinctly in late 2011, to the point that he apparently vetoed the idea of a separate Canadian ordinariate. I'm not sure if the OCSP is in a position to ask him for any favors. But if the STM group showed actual promise, these obstacles could probably be surmounted. The problem is that, like the great majority of OCSP communities, it is unlikely to grow. But then, the Toronto area apparently hasn't been able to turn up even a Bayles or a Baaten.

You need resources even to build a Potemkin village, after all. If there's no budget for false-front buildings, and no ready-made ones on the distress market, you can't even have those.

Msgr Steenson's Status

My wish for a tell-all (or something similar) from Msgr Steenson yesterday prompted this update on his status from my regular correspondent:

The Ordinary Emeritus has been quite banished from the scene, moving from Houston to St Paul, MN where as "Priest Scholar in Residence at " he has a small teaching load at the St Paul Seminary and no connection with a local parish that I can ferret out. (He is leading an Advent meditation at the Cathedral today; bio omits any mention of OCSP). Nor with the small OCSP group in Minneapolis led by Fr Treco. Even if the long-term plan was always to have Steven Lopes take over as Bishop Ordinary I think that Steenson was expected to lay a far firmer foundation than he was able to do. The Davises, as we explored, were encouraged to pour considerable resources into his administration and got very little for their money, IMHO. Presumably it was difficult for those outside TEC/ACC/"Continuing" Anglican culture to assess what a motley collection they would be dealing with and how little relevance Steenson's experience would have to the challenges he faced. As a result I think his tenure was brought to a premature close and Lopes was forced to take over a struggling operation that has yet to achieve stability. . . . And while Bp Lopes seems to be slowly getting out to visit some of the smaller and more far-flung groups, he does not seem to be developing any vision for either growing them to sustainable size or rationalising his clergy deployment to create communities with potential to become sustainable.

As time has gone on, my sympathy for Msgr Steenson has increased, especially as what we see under Bp Lopes shows little change. I think this goes to the basic miscalculations behind Anglicanorum coetibus, and there's only so much Bp Lopes can do.

UPDATE: A visitor adds,

I’m not sure how much the leadership of the OCSP can do to whip things up, if your contentions that it was based on way overblown popularity estimates are correct. I’m saying this because it seems to me the most vibrant Catholic parishes achieve that due to a capable, charismatic pastor and a well-managed laity team, without much help from the diocese. It seems to me there are always “going places” parishes and less active ones in town.

As it is with the OCSP: you have a very few, active and probably growing parishes—OLA, OLW, SMV, couple others, arguably good leadership there, and then you have the rest. Hard to see how Bp. Lopes can do a lot to change that.

I think that Catholic parishes vary widely is something that certainly argues for this. But the impossibly small size of most OCSP groups pretty much keeps them from even making a credible start.

Take A Closer Look At The Chronology

One thing that's escaped me until I looked at the chronology behind the issuance of the DWM missal is how closely it corresponds to Bp Lopes's arrival as Bishop of the OCSP. Per Wednesday's post,

On 29 November 2015, Advent Sunday, the new missal went into use. The Book of Divine Worship was retired on 1 January 2016.

Per Bp Lopes's Wikipedia entry:

On November 24, 2015, the Holy See announced that Lopes would be the first bishop of the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of Saint Peter for the Anglican Use. In assuming that responsibility, he succeeded Monsignor Jeffrey N. Steenson, a former Episcopal bishop appointed by Pope Benedict XVI to the position of "ordinary" in 2012.

A little higher up in the Wikipedia entry, we see

Starting in 2012, Lopes served as the secretary of the Vatican commission Anglicanae Traditiones, which was formed with the goal of developing a missal that would hybridize Anglican and Roman Rite liturgical elements for the use of the personal ordinariates.

I think this makes it a little plainer that Bp Lopes, clearly a protégé of Cardinal Levada, whom he "served as a personal aide. . . from 2005 to 2012", was on the fast track and had been in line for this appointment from the start, even before Steenson's 2007 move to Rome. There was nothing sudden about the appointment, and it probably had little to do specifically with Msgr Steenson's performance..

However, I've got to think that the CDF has expected more than it's seen so far. I'm also sorry that we'll almost certainly never get a tell-all from Msgr Steenson. I wish I could chat with him the way I've chatted with Abp Hepworth.