Let's Get Real: What Do Anglicans Bring To The Church?

I keep coming back to Fr _____'s homily from two Sundays ago, where he spoke of the gifts of the Spirit we received in baptism, Wisdom, Understanding, Counsel, Fortitude, Knowledge, Piety, and Fear of the Lord. In part, this brought me back to the question of my own baptism and what I was, or wasn't, taught about it as either a Presbyterian -- I had Presbyterian confirmation class at age 12 -- or an Episcopalian, at age 33. Neither had a thing to say about the gifts of the Spirit, even though these have scriptural authority in I Corinthians 12, elaborated by the Church Fathers, presumably in days before Rome corrupted the ancient faith.

So one of the takeaways I had from that homily was that a Catholic priest could tell me a great deal about my baptism that, while it was true and valid, I was never seriously taught as a Protestant, even though in the eyes of the Church, this baptism had the same effect no matter a Protestant denomination performed it. I thought I knew everything, huh? All of a sudden the Church is teaching me new things about stuff I took for granted. Not long before I heard that homily, I belatedly added my late godparents to my prayers, possibly because I was already moving toward that new understanding.

The homily also brought me back to the reading I'd done by the convert from Anglicanism, theologian, and bishop B C Butler, who spends a lot of time in The Idea of the Church with the debate among the Church Fathers on the validity of schismatic sacraments. He concludes, with St Augustine, that the Church recognizes schismatic baptisms as a way to bring those outside the Church into the Church, but it does not imply that the schismatic groups are in any way equivalent to the Church.

If you can get to the sacraments, especially to baptism, you must of course do so. But if, through no fault of your own, you cannot receive grace sacramentally, then God has his own ways of dealing with your predicament. (p 148)

But once I listen to the Church and have these issues clarified for me, I have an obligation to take the Church seriously and continue to develop as a Catholic in a spirit of humility. The thrust of Butler's arguments throughout much of his career was that Anglicanism is not a denomination somehow separate but equal from Rome. Theologically it is schismatic and in a position no different from Arianism or Donatism. The Church recognizes Protestant baptisms for its reasons, though it doesn't see anything special about Anglican baptisms over and above Church of the Nazarene baptisms.

Thus I feel profoundly uncomfortable with remarks, most recently by Fr Bergman, that Anglicans have some special status that entitles them to fix the Catholic Church. As he put it in the essay I linked yesterday, "The refuge we sought was populated in many quarters not by shepherds in the mold of St. John Paul but by scoundrels and wolves who could be aptly described as Judas priests. . . . Our unique background means we don’t have time for the confusion . . . . We do not question the Faith but wonder only how better to communicate and share it with those who desperately need it."

The strong implication here is that Fr Bergman, his fellow ordinariate priests, and presumably right-thinking members of their exclusive little flocks, haven't left the faith at all and don't question it. There was nothing they needed to come into. They're going to fix their newly acquired co-religionists, though. All one billion of them. I've heard this line from Fr Hunwicke as well; I won't cite lay spokespeople, simply because it's the responsibility of their priests and their bishop to teach them correctly, something it would appear men like Fr Bergman haven't yet been fully formed to do.

This idea that there's something special about Anglicans that makes them experts on being Catholic -- indeed, it would seem more Catholic than the Pope, and these people really mean it, they're gonna fix the Church now -- is simply bizarre.

What puzzles me is that when I realized that Anglicanorum coetibus wasn't going to work out for the St Mary of the Angels parish, and my wife and I would need to start over with RCIA, I began to understand for the first time that the Catholic tradition was something I would need to spend the rest of my life learning and understanding. It wasn't something I would get after a few months of Evangelium and a quickie confirmation. I wouldn't be entitled to go out and show the Church how it's done.

Why, by the way, do none of the self-important spokespeople for any of the ordinariates ever mention the Catholic intellectual tradition that's at the basis of Western culture? It reminds me a little of a member of our Bible class who asked me if I'd ever read Chesterton. I asked him in reply if he'd ever read Summa Contra Gentiles. He came back the next week and told me maybe he needed to start reading Aquinas after all.

So far, I can't imagine having that exchange with anyone in any of the ordinariates.

Bp Lopes Struggles With Numbers

My regular correspondent sent me a link to an article in North Texas Catholic covering a December 7 mass celebrating the tenth anniversary of Anglicanorum coetibus. Buried deep in the piece is the most recent version of the numbers in the North American ordinariate:

Eighty priests currently serve 45 ordinariate parishes in the U.S. and Canada. Approximately 20,000 worshippers attend Sunday Mass. When Lopes was ordained bishop, the ordinariate had no seminarians. Today there are six in formation.

The eighty priests must represent a total including retirees, those excardinated, military chaplains, and quite possibly even those on the path to laicization. There are 42 parishes currently listed on the parish finder for the web site, though in most cases they aren't full parishes, and the level of activity varies widely. But the number that caught my eye was the 20,000 who attend Sunday mass. I remarked that if you were to multiply the number of scheduled Sunday masses over the entire ordinariate by the maximum capacity of each venue, you couldn't possibly reach 20,000.

My calculator says, in fact, that 20,000 divided by 45 is 444. This means that the average venue -- a mixture of storefronts, basement chapels, cafeterias, and other provisional accommodations in most cases -- would need to have a capacity of 444. Even distributed between two Sunday times, each mass would have to have an average attendance of 222. I don't believe that any but a few full parishes in the North American ordinariate has anything like that as a Sunday attendance, even leaving canonical membership aside. 2-400 wouldn't even fit in the space.

So an estimate of 20,000 is wildly inaccurate with just a few moments' reflection. But what's a more realistic estimate? Yet again, the ordinariate doesn't publish statistics, other than the unrealistic estimates we see here. But let's apply rules of thumb like the 80-20 rule, where one might guess that 20% of the parishes have 80% of the attendance. My regular correspondent says,

Approximately 1,000 people attend Our Lady of Walsingham on a Sunday. But other numbers I have seen recently are Mt Calvary 100; St Luke 150 (including diocesan parishioners); St Alban 65; St Thomas More, Toronto 70 (a record, I believe—-swelled by AC conference attendees); St Aelred 40; Good Shepherd 27.

I've been told that with the cancellation of the Sunday evening Latin mass at Our Lady of the Atonement, Sunday attendance is down about 100, with the current number in the 3-400 range for all masses. My regular correspondent added,

[T]here are only eleven full parishes, a designation which requires a minimum of 100 members. The other 31 groups (going by the list on the website, there are 42 OCSP communities) must therefore have fewer than 3,000 members total (I am sure the actual number is far less).

So without more explicit information from Houston, applying a reasonable standard like the 80-20 rule to the best numbers we have, it seems pretty plain that we're still in the mid four figures at best for either canonical membership or weekly attendance. My regular correspondent also noted, while browsing the St John the Evangelist Calgary website,

I looked further down the page, to “Volunteers Needed” and noticed the request for people to help with “identifying Catholics and Anglicans in the Inglewood neighbourhood to invite them to worship at St John’s.” Frankly I prefer to leave doorstep solicitation of those who are currently happily worshipping anywhere to Mormons and JWs, but I would have thought that even those who regard current Anglicans as fair game for active recruitment might draw the line at practising Catholics. But obviously I thought wrong.

Another visitor noted,

The Annuario Pontifico 2019 came out in March and is being distributed in Italian. It shouldn’t be too much longer before some of the online sites that track this data can get it translated and uploaded and the true numbers for the Ordinariates will be readily available. Bishop Lopes and his Ordinariate Bishop brothers already know the numbers because they had to report them. Perhaps that is pushing this “add some people quick” drive.

UPDATE: A visitor comments, "You haven't taken into account that they’re including the angels and archangels who are said to attend every mass."

So, Exactly Why Did Abp Gustavo Remove Fr Phillips In 2017?

I should start this by saying I have no position on exactly why Abp Garcia-Siller removed Fr Phillips, other than to say he wasn't the first archbishop to make the attempt. This post here refers to discussion in a 2017 Our Lady of the Atonement parish meeting in which Mr Wilson referred to an attempt by Abp Flores to remove Fr Phillips, which was forestalled only at the intervention of Cardinal Law. This contradicts the current legend promulgated by Fr Phillips via Mary Ann Mueller that the relationship with Abp Flores was deeply spiritual.

What we know as a result of input from parish insiders and other visitors familiar with the Archdiocese of San Antonio is that there were multiple issues, any of which in a secular environment would have led to termination or major demotion:

• Violation of archdiocesan policy regarding the bishop's appeal, whereby Fr Phillips had parishioners pay their pledges to the parish, which the parish forwarded to the archdiocese only at the end of the year
• A large mortgage for expansion of the school, although the expansion was never completed and the building is largely empty
• As of 2016, four reports of abuse by Dcn Orr, which the archdiocese learned of belatedly because Fr Phillips did not follow policy and report the complaints.

What often happens in such personnel actions is that there's a buildup of issues that eventually culminates in a "last straw" event. We simply don't have Abp Gustavo's desk calendar, nor Fr Phillips's schedule, for 2016, but it's hard not to avoid thinking there would have been one or more meetings over the Orr complaints that belatedly reached the archbishop, but there would also have been friction with the chancery over financial issues as well. Nor do we know precisely when Fr Phillips renewed the parish application to join the North American ordinariate, which he'd withdrawn in 2012.

But it's hard not to think Fr Phillips initiated these discussions prior to his removal in January 2017. Certainly if Abp Gustavo learned of such discussions indirectly, he could well have seen this as Fr Phillips going behind his back to save his career and as an act of bad faith. This could certainly have been a "last straw" event, but also certainly not the only possibility. My regular correspondent pointed to wording in the archbishop's letter to the Atonement parish of January 19, 2017 regarding "expressions in the life of the parish that indicate an identity separate from, rather than simply unique, among the parishes of the archdiocese."

My feeling is that this wording is extremely vague, and in and of itself it would not constitute grounds for removal. It's worth recognizing that that personnel issues are confidential. If the archbishop said he’s disputing with Phillips about financial irregularities or covering up for Orr, that would be a breach of confidentiality and potential liability. What we now know of the timeline was that Orr had been forced into retirement as of 2016, very recently, and I’ve got to assume this was on the archbishop's mind. But probably other things were as well.

There would have been a buildup of issues over some period of time. For Phillips to change his mind over the ordinariate could well have been a last straw, in particular effectively giving the archbishop a rude gesture. The wording in the letter had the benefit of being vague and not flirting with breach of confidentiality.

My regular correspondent then asked why Bp Lopes was so much more explicit in the reason for inhibiting Fr Phillips. For one thing, the accusations against Orr had been made public since the archbishop removed Phillips. But in addition, Bp Lopes was in a more difficult position, since he'd come in as a white knight to rescue the parish in 2017, which Fr Phillips had been able to play as at least partial vindication. So Bp Lopes was forced in effect to be shocked, shocked in accounting for his action.

I continue to think that, had the parish stayed in the archdiocese and a consistent policy on Fr Phillips's removal been followed in 2017 -- which I think has been shown to have been the right move all along -- the parish would have dealt with the issue then, the wounds would have healed, and the parish would be in a better position to move forward now. What we see now, Phillips gone, the Latin mass ended, a substantial faction of parishioners departed, would have been an inevitable result in 2017 as well.

Except that the parish going forward would have had the support of an influential archbishop who'd placed a confidant in as administrator, the advice of experienced archdiocesan staff, and a certain lesson in what it really means to be mature adults in a serious Catholic environment.

More Trickles Out On Fr Phillips

A visitor notes that many parishioners at Our Lady of the Atonement read this blog, and OLA is the second-largest parish in the North American ordinariate. The parish and Fr Phillips are key figures in the history of the Pastoral Provision as well, so I think it's worthwhile to continue compiling as accurate a record as I can of the parish history and the connections with the conduct of its founders, Fr Phillips and Dcn Orr. A visitor sent me an e-mail last night:

[A]llegations were made as late as the 2015 to 2016 school year. I accidentally found hard-copy printouts of emails between the heads of the lower, middle, and upper school, Sister and Father Phillips, discussing a parent accusation. Father Phillips wanted advice from his leadership team as to "how to get this woman (who was making the accusations) off his back." The woman was claiming that an adult male staff member made a habit of watching the teen boys change in out of clothes in the locker room, and that her son found it very uncomfortable. The mother felt the boys were too old to need someone watching them change in the locker room, but despite her objections, he continued to watch. Father Phillios was furious with this woman and as I said, wanted his leadership team to help him "get her off his back."

The back-and-forth emails between the leadership team and Father Phillips had an angry tone. At that time, I had no idea about accusations against Deacon Orr.

I did not keep the hard copies for fear someone might notice them missing.

This would have been very close to the time of Orr's retirement. According to the 2019 report from the Archdiocese of San Antonio,

Between 1997 and 2016, [Orr] was assigned to Our Lady of the Atonement in San Antonio. . . . in 2015, the Archdiocese was contacted by a psychologist who said that one of her clients had disclosed sexual abuse committed by Orr that occurred in the 1990s. Soon after, Orr requested retirement and resigned from active ministry.

As of the January 2019 report, the archdiocese listed

1. In 1992 or 1993, a child claimed that Orr had sexually abused him at a neighborhood pool, when Orr was a volunteer for the parish.
2. In 2007, a second survivor came forward against Orr, alleging sexual abuse in 1995.
3. Eight years later, in 2015, the Archdiocese was contacted by a psychologist who said that one of her clients had disclosed sexual abuse committed by Orr that occurred in the 1990s.
4. In 2017, a civil lawsuit was filed against the Archdiocese over Orr’s abuse, which the Archdiocese has now acknowledged is credible.

So this is four cases that were known to the archdiocese as of 2017, which were not forwarded to it by Fr Phillips, and were publicly reported in 2019. But in his December 6 letter to the OLA parish, Bp Lopes wrote,

More recently, the Archdiocese provided me with documentation of still other instances wherein Father Phillips neither informed nor reported to the Archdiocese credible complaints concerning Deacon Orr's conduct,

So this is multiple instances beyond the four that the archdiocese disclosed in early 2019, but the precipitating event for Bp Lopes's December 6 announcement was yet another accusation, this one brought to Bp Lopes by the complainant in person. I think it's reasonable to surmise that that newest individual had brought his complaint to the archdiocese, but Abp Garcia-Siller saw fit to refer the man to Bp Lopes. One might also surmise that a threat of legal action was behind that confrontation, and Bp Lopes took his final action under this threat.

Recall that a visitor not long ago told us of reports that an angry exchange took place between Abp Garcia-Siller and Cardinal Wuerl in Washington, heard all over the building, when the CDF placed the OLA parish and Fr Phillips into the North American ordinariate, which had the effect of restoring Fr Phillips to the parish in "emeritus" status and still involved with it.

In the two years following, Bp Lopes has temporized over this problem and seems not to have acted as justice would have required until still another complainant came to him with a presumable serious threat.

Let's keep in mind that in the normal process of reincardination, both bishops review all outstanding issues regarding the priest in question. We may assume that Abp Garcia-Siller was bound to discuss at lest the now publicly disclosed allegations against Dcn Orr, covered up by Fr Phillips, with Bp Lopes at the time.

The more I learn, the better Abp Garcia-Siller looks, and the more timid and feckless seems Bp Lopes.

There's Always A Payoff

The response to the news of Fr Phillips's suspension of priestly faculties has been remarkably subdued. In the Anglo-Catholic blogosphere, this site has carried the only report, with no mention on Facebook groups, the Anglicanorum Coetibus Society blog, or parish websites.

The exception to the general radio silence is Virtue Online, which carried a lengthy and generally complete story by Mary Ann Mueller on Tuesday. Before I go into that, I'll comment that the dog that isn't barking here is that so far, there seems to have been no "Save Atonement" parish rebellion of the sort that broke out over Abp Garcia-Siller's removal of Phillips in late 2016.

While Ms Mueller does her usual very conscientious job in reporting, a certain pro-Phillips bias does come out.

Fr. Phillip's [sic] lack of judgement may have been because through the years he and Deacon Orr became close friends. They worked together, they prayed together, and they labored together in Our Lady of Atonement's vineyard. This close relationship may have clouded Fr. Phillips' thinking and sacerdotal actions concerning the allegations leveled against his friend, the deacon.

She goes on to put a similar soft focus on Abp Flores:

It was on Aug. 15, 1983 that Archbishop Flores ordained former Episcopal priest Christopher Phillips into the Roman Catholic priesthood, and a strong lasting spiritual relationship was cemented.

The real villain here is Abp Garcia-Siller, who, the implication seems to be, made too big a deal out of one or two slips in judgment based on true spiritual friendship, which in any case are long in the past. She then speaks with someone close to the USCCB, who tells her,

[I]n today's #METOO climate, bishops are more than willing to throw a priest under the bus to avoid civil and criminal litigation.

While Ms Mueller has the chronology generally correct, I think her interpretations lean toward sympathy for Fr Phillips that I don't think is justified. She places the Atonement parish decline beginning with Abp Garcia-Siller's removal of Fr Phillips in late 2016, but the accounts of several people familiar with the parish indicate that Phillips had chased away key donors and the school enrollment was declining for years before that time, and in fact while still under Fr Phillips, the school undertook an unjustified expansion for which construction was never completed.

The uncompleted interior remains a drain on morale and a fire and safety hazard, while the parish must still pay off loans for the ill-advised project. Personnel issues that began well before Fr Phillips's removal have continued to plague the organization.

And we simply don't know how many additional credible allegations were made against Dcn Orr, their exact nature, and exactly what Fr Phillips didn't report, when that was, and how many times. It's hard to avoid thinking that Abp Garcia-Siller had accumulated a backlog of concerns about Fr Phillips and the Atonement parish by 2016 and placed a new administrator there in an effort not just to avoid litigation but to turn the parish away from a course that was inevitably leading toward where it finds itself now, on the verge of bankruptcy with dwindling numbers.

Ms Mueller doesn't mention a troubling issue that's been covered here in some detail, the Our Lady's Dowry charity that was outside diocesan control and which appears to have operated in some years exclusively to pay Dcn Orr a substantial salary. A question remains whether Orr was paid as a deacon in the parish and a teacher in the school a salary in addition to the one from Our Lady's Dowry, which itself was generous for a man in his position.

That Orr lived in a house adjoining Fr Phillips's property suggests the relationship was close in ways beyond the spiritual, and the connection between the two seems to have been tangled. More than one visitor has suggested that by covering up for Dcn Orr and apparently by providing him with financial rewards beyond those normally paid to a vocational deacon, Phillips may have been responding to some sort of leverage Orr could exert. Exactly what Abp Garcia-Siller may have learned about Phillips, and what he may eventually have transmitted to Bp Lopes, we'll never know, but I think what's public is just the tip of an iceberg.

Since I broke the news of Fr Phillips's inhibition on Sunday, my traffic has more than doubled. My regular correspondent suggests this is because other outlets have provided no news at all, and I think Ms Mueller's analysis falls short, so people have had no choice but to come here. However, I think it says something about the growing maturity of the audience for Anglo-Catholic news that so far, there's been no "Save Atonement" movement to restore Fr Phillips equivalent to what took place in 2017.

I think Fr Phillips is a deeply flawed but charismatic figure, a minor league version of John Corapi or Fr C John McCloskey. Men like these develop a following because they tell people what they want to hear, although what people want to hear in these cases usually involves some way to bypass the teachings of the Church, and such figures prosper as a result. There's always a payoff.

Certainly naive but well-intentioned people have been led to believe there's something special about Fr Phillips, although what I've learned from numerous visitors here has been that the better people came to know him, the more disillusioned they became. The best solution, as a priest whom I've come to respect deeply said in Sunday's homily, is to pray for the grace that will let us realize the gifts of the Spirit we received in baptism, Wisdom, Understanding, Counsel, Fortitude, Knowledge, Piety, and Fear of the Lord.

Again, I think it says something about the people who've been following ordinariate news that Fr Phillips's inhibition in fact hasn't caused the level of hysteria that his removal incited even two years ago.

We Don't Need No Stinkin' Complementary Norms!

A visitor sent me a quote from the FAQ page on the Presentation Church in Woodlands, TX web site (italics mine):

Who can be a "Canonical" member of the Ordinariate?

First, all of our parishioners — whether diocesan or Ordinariate Catholics — are full members of our parish community. To become a "canonical" member of the Ordinariate, however, is to officially put yourself under the care of the Ordinariate's bishop. Any person who receives their sacraments of initiation, any protestant who has been converted by the ministry of the Ordinariate, or any Catholic whose faith has been enriched and deepened by participation in the life of the Ordinariate may become a member of the Ordinariate. It is a simple process. Please talk to Fr. Fletcher if you're interested or have questions about this.

When I read this, I was concerned to follow up as conscientiously as I could. Had the Complementary Norms for Anglicanorum coetibus been quietly updated, and had I missed it? Well, I checked them out, and Article 5 §2 still reads:

A person who has been baptized in the Catholic Church but who has not completed the Sacraments of Initiation, and subsequently returns to the faith and practice of the Church as a result of the evangelizing mission of the Ordinariate, may be admitted to membership in the Ordinariate and receive the Sacrament of Confirmation or the Sacrament of the Eucharist or both.

There is a footnote to this paragraph that says, "This paragraph was added to the text of the Complementary Norms according to a decision of the Ordinary Session held on 29 May 2013, approved by Pope Francis on 31 May 2013." It is apparently still in effect and is the current version. An explanatory note dated April 9, 2019 linked at the bottom of the Norms makes no mention of any changes to Article 5 §2.

Another puzzling entry on the Presentation FAQ page reads (emphasis mine),

What diocese is Presentation Catholic Church a part of? <

Our parish is a part of the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter — a structure that was originally created by the Pope for former Anglican communities, clergy, and individuals seeking to become Roman Catholic, and which has now grown to nourish and serve Catholics of all backgrounds through its liturgy and tradition.

This is so far the only mention of the ordinariate, or even of Anglicans, I can find on the parish web site, but that stuff is now dismissed as just fine print. So far, I can't find any reference to Anglicanorum coetibus, which still refers to itself as a

structure for regulating the institution and life of Personal Ordinariates for those Anglican faithful who desire to enter into the full communion of the Catholic Church in a corporate manner. This Constitution is completed by Complementary Norms issued by the Apostolic See.

In other words, company policy as published continues to be that the ordinariates are for Anglicans who wish to enter the Church in a corporate manner. According to the Complementary Norms, it is not intended primarily for initiated Catholics, who may certainly come to mass and stay for coffee hour, but they can't be counted as canonical members. So the FAQ page, as far as I can see, directly contradicts published company policy.

And this is important, because the Church counts numbers. Bp Lopes must report numbers of canonical members. Beyond that, Bp Lopes has had to reassure his brother bishops, like Bp Barnes in San Bernardino, that he's directing his efforts toward Anglicans and Catholics who aren't fully initiated. If someone like Bp Barnes were to get the impression that the ordinariate had quietly widened its mission, this could be problematic, as it could be seen as poaching.

Now, there may well be revisions under way. Clearly the person to contact over any questions, as stated in the FAQs, is Fr Fletcher, who might well be able to point to, say, a clarification in a statement from Bp Lopes on the ordinariate web site, or he might give some other guidance to clear up my confusion. Given the Catholic principle of subsidiarity, my first duty is to contact Fr Fletcher. So I sent him this e-mail yesterday afternoon:

Fr Fletcher, I’m contacting you because the FAQ entry on ordinariate eligibility on the Presentation web site makes you the contact point for questions. The FAQ entry adds “or any Catholic whose faith has been deepened” by participation to eligibility for membership. However, Article 5 §2 of the Complementary Norms still says, “A person who has been baptized in the Catholic Church but who has not completed the Sacraments of Initiation, and subsequently returns to the faith and practice of the Church as a result of the evangelizing mission of the Ordinariate” is eligible but says nothing about any Catholic otherwise deepened in faith. As far as I’m aware, the 2013 revision of the norms is the most current. Can you clarify policy in this matter?

Thanks!

A perfectly acceptable reply might be to refer me to the ordinariate press office or Fr Perkins, but so far, I've had no reply at all to what seems to me is an entirely reasonable question, and Fr Fletcher is listed as the contact point for any such questions.

If I hear further from Fr Fletcher, or perhaps from someone in Houston whom he's asked to respond more authoritatively, I'll be happy to update this post. I'll have more to say on this tomorrow.

"The Catholic Church Is Starting A New Parish In Montgomery County"

As long as we're talking about the Presentation parish in The Woodlands, TX, I might as well bring up a branding issue that I find somewhat troubling. The home page of the parish carries the claim in the title. The About Us page says,

We are a Roman Catholic community gathered together in and through our Lord Jesus Christ, standing gratefully under the leadership of his vicar on earth, the Holy Father Pope Francis. , , , We are a mission of the Cathedral of our Lady of Walsingham, which perceived the need for a new Catholic community in fast growing Montgomery County.

At no point does it say anything about Anglicans, an ordinariate, or how an ordinariate isn't the local diocese. Farther down, it offers visitors the opportunity to "help start a new Catholic parish in Montgomery County". Again, there's no mention of Anglicans, Anglicanorum coetibus, or "membership" in an ordinariate. Beyond that, as I've noted before, there are two Episcopal parishes in The Woodlands, Trinity and St Isidore, and an ACNA parish, HopePointe Anglican. None of the Presentation promotional material seems aimed at any of these; instead, it's aimed at Catholics who might want to try a new parish.

Normally it's up to the diocesan bishop to decide where to locate a new parish, or indeed whether to close an existing one. Somehow here, it's the Cathedral of Our Lady of Walsingham that perceived the need for a new community in the county. But Catholics who aren't detail-oriented or well informed are going to think it's the archdiocese downtown that perceived the need.

What need was it? Has any of the three Anglican parishes in The Woodlands petitioned to join the North American ordinariate? Or is there a faction of Anglican parishioners there big enough to support a parish aimed at Anglican converts if they decide to make the move in a body? That's doubtful indeed. Instead, it sounds like Bp Lopes has decided to second-guess Cardinal DiNardo on where he should open his next parish. Or do I have this wrong?

There's a related issue that I find just as unsettling. Fr Andrew Bartus is using the Catholic brand, including Spanish subtitles, to address Catholics in California generally in the YouTube video below:

However, it's posted on a YouTube channel called Our Watch, which seems to be a group of secular conservatives who may or may not be Catholic and who may or may not promote a larger Catholic agenda. They seem, based on other videos, to be active in expressing conservative viewpoints at local school board meetings.

Abp Gómez in Los Angeles has had some success in promoting a Catholic political agenda by speaking for Catholics in the wider political arena. But he does it by choosing his issues and controlling the message, with politically savvy people who can get practical things done. It's hard to avoid thinking that, whether or not Fr Bartus is saying the right things, he's freelancing and allowing the Catholic brand to be used by secular groups who may or may not have the Church's larger interests or strategies in mind.

In other words, there continue to be things that dioceses and experienced bishops should be controlling. This includes political agendas and even where new parishes are needed. I've got to wonder whether Houston, having begun to recognize that evangelizing Anglicans isn't a winning idea, has decided to meddle in areas well outside its mission. My regular correspondent pointed to a post no the blog of an ordinariate member at St Thomas More Toronto, who said of his group

Currently we have people attend who are from many Christian traditions, both eastern and western – a man from the Coptic Church of Egypt, a family of Croatian origin, our Italian/Scottish administrator, a young woman who is a PK from a Seventh Day Adventist family. Over the years these folks have joined with Mennonite friends and even a few Anglicans who have found their way into the fullness of the Catholic Church.

My correspondent calls it "another admission that most people attending an Ordinariate mass are not former Anglicans". Further, "Maybe the Ordinariate is just a tough product to market. Maybe disaffected Catholics are in shorter supply in Canada than in Texas."

So we're gonna branch out and, with access to the brand, set up a parallel amateur version of the Catholic Church, huh?