Update On Kansas City Policy

On Saturday, I posted on a Kansas City, MO policy requiring in-person churchgoers to register with the city. This story carries more information:

Kansas City Mayor Quinton Lucas issued the 10/10/10 rule in effect May 5, ordering that nonessential businesses, like churches, can have 10 people inside and 50 people outside as long as they practice social distancing. They also must record the information of anyone who spends more than 10 minutes inside.

In addition, nonessential businesses can operate at 10 percent maximum capacity.

The order states that by recording names and contact information, the health department will be able “to more quickly trace, test, and isolate individuals who may have been exposed to COVID-19.” Anyone who doesn't provide their information won't be allowed in.

. . . At least one church feared its rights were being violated and contacted Mat Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, a legal nonprofit that has been defending churches amid coronavirus lockdown orders.

. . . "These attacks on churches cannot stand," Staver added in a statement Friday. "We will fight these cases all the way to the Supreme Court if we must."

In general, there is no legal justification for orders limiting attendance beyond existing building and safety regulations. The US federal emergency declaration has expired, and challenges have been issued to governors who have attempted to enforce lockdowns without legislative authority. Local law enforcement in many areas of the US has stated that it can't enforce unconstitutional orders.

So far, I notice that when governors or other local officials are faced with lawsuits, they back down. Even if a judge does not issue a restraining order, he will typically nevertheless order a show cause hearing, prior to which the state or local authority at least partially withdraws the regulation.

I'll continue to follow these issues.

More COVID Updates

My regular correspondent has tracked down some loose ends from yesterday's post. First is the situation in Canada:

No province has announced a date for the loosening of restrictions on church services. I note that Good Shepherd, Oshawa has mass times for last week posted on its website, with the note that no more than five people can attend owing to (provincial) Covid-19 related restrictions on public gatherings. Good Shepherd owns its own church, and I would imagine that five people is about the ASA anyway, let alone that at any weekday service, so I suppose this is technically doable, but the Archdiocese of Toronto has issued a statement that churches and chapels are to remain closed even for private prayer, so this arrangement at Good Shepherd is inconsistent with Bp Lopes’ directive that OCSP communities should be in step with local diocesan guidelines.

No other community will be holding public mass soon, I predict. Provinces contemplating more reopenings—-Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Quebec, PEI, and Newfoundland—-are exactly the provinces with no Ordinariate communities.

There's a potential additional gotcha that may apply to all ordinariate communities in North America that use diocesan parish facilities:

I note that those (US) churches which are open, or reopening, have added extra mass times or made other arrangements (streaming to the parish hall) to ensure social distancing is maintained. This would work for St John the Evangelist, Calgary, I assume, and Annunciation, Ottawa, but could pose problems for the communities in Victoria and Toronto which hold mass at an off-time in a local parish church which may now need that time for its own services. The communities in Maple Ridge, Edmonton, and Fredericton use chapels which could probably not accommodate even the normal dozen attendees at six foot intervals.

One issue is that public officials are beginning to encounter the reality that citizens are following social distancing guidelines like six feet of separation, face masks, or only six people inside at a time, out of pure goodwill. In general, there is no legal or epidemiological basis for enforcing such guidelines, especially as emergency declarations expire, actual case totals prove low in most areas, and predictions by public health officials are not borne out. It may require more forceful demands from the public that such measures be justified to eliminate them in order to allow public masses to resume.

Bishops are forced to walk a fine line between advocating for the interests of their dioceses and appearing to protect their flocks. Individual Evangelical pastors are taking the lead in this area so far.

I noted yesterday that I thought there was an ordinariate group in Georgia, but I couldn't find it on the ordinariate's web site. My regular correspondent points out,

I forgot that St Aelred, Athens is of course in Georgia. Here is a letter from the clergy of the local parish which worships in the gymnatorium of the Catholic school in Athens. The Ordinariate community normally holds mass in a classroom of the same school. Fr Tipton has been streaming Sunday mass on the St Aelred Facebook page from his home chapel since mid-March.

It's hard to see any excuse for the chancery not including the St Aelred parish in the parish finder, but there you are. Especially as Fr Perkins, a man of great foresight, seems to have been self-quarantining since last fall, this might have been something he could have attended to while he was otherwise idle.

Web information on the status of Catholic masses in Florida has in fact been hard to find. My regular correspondent reports,

Public mass was cancelled in Florida before Easter but is resuming next Sunday [May 10]. Services were live-streamed from Incarnation, Orlando and from Fr Mayer’s home chapel.

As I mentioned yesterday, I will welcome and will publish updates on the status of ordinariate communities during the crisis.

I'm also keeping an eye out for stories on efforts by parishes in any denomination to hold church services that may be resisted by local or state officials. If anyone finds such stories, again, I'll be happy to publish them here.

Weekend COVID Updates

As part of his state's reopening strategy, Texas Governor Greg Abbot issued an updated executive order on April 27 covering houses of worship.

Executive Order GA-18 defines essential services to include “religious services conducted in churches, congregations, and houses of worship.” State and local government orders may not prohibit people from providing or obtaining those religious services.

My regular correspondent reports on the status of ordinariate communities there. Texas is the main center of ordinariate activity:

Things are more or less back to normal at Our Lady of Walsingham, Houston; St Mary the Virgin, Arlington; Our Lady of the Atonement, San Antonio; and Presentation, Montgomery. The school where St John Vianney, Cleburne normally holds Sunday mass is using the cafetorium as a storage area, so they are celebrating mass at another chapel and using the school cafetorium as a site to distribute Communion. Sunday mass at St Michael, Denison has not resumed. Confusing messages on the St Thomas Becket, Ft Worth Facebook page, but I believe that Bp Olson has not allowed the community Sunday access to the Catholic Diocese Center where they worship. No news from St Margaret, Katy, which has been effectively off-line since last year, but the school where they normally worship is closed.

Restrictions in South Carolina have been generally less draconian than elsewhere. On May 2, Roman Catholic Bishop of Charleston Robert Guglielmone announced that it will resume public Masses on May 11 – marking the first time they will be held since the coronavirus outbreak hit the state several weeks ago. This presumably applies to the Corpus Christi ordinariate group there, which meets at the St Mary of the Annunciation church and had been streaming masses online.

Although I had been under the impression that there was an ordinariate group in Georgia, where the governor has also relaxed restrictions, I can't find it on the ordinariate's parish finder on its website. (UPDATE: The Our Lady of Mt Carmel OCSP community in Savannah closed in 2017.)

As of March 4, it appears that Florida Catholic dioceses have continued to hold masses, but communion is distributed only in one species, the host. The Incarnation Orlando web site indicates current mass times but makes no other remarks. The St John Fisher Orlando site has no particular update. The St James Jacksonville web site says that masses are streamed, but there will be drive-up confessions on May 3.

St Barnabas Omaha announced on its website that it would resume masses May 4 following easing of restrictions in Nebraska.

I'm not aware of the precise status of religious services in other states or provinces, but it appears that ordinariate parishes in most other areas of the US and Canada are closed to in-person masses but broadcasting via livestream. As has been the case throughout this crisis, the main ordinariate web site carries no news. I wish the bishop a continued recovery and anticipate that one day Fr Perkins will find a productive use for his own time.

If visitors are aware of other changes in ordinariate parish status, I'll be happy to report them here. Indeed, if anyone is aware of other sites that may carry this information, I'll be happy to link them here. I look forward to discovering the works of charity being performed by the apostolate of the ordinariate laity, should any exist.

In other developments, the US Departmnt of Justice intervened on behalf of a Virginia church that challenged Gov Northam's virus restrictions.

The department filed a Statement of Interest in federal court in support of Lighthouse Fellowship Church, a congregation in Chincoteague Island, Virginia, that serves, among others, recovering drug addicts and former prostitutes.

The church says it held a 16-person worship service in its 225-seat sanctuary on Palm Sunday while maintaining rigorous social distancing. At the end of the service, Chincoteague police issued Lighthouse’s pastor a criminal citation and summons, based on the Northam’s executive order.

Lighthouse sued on Friday, but a judge denied the church’s request for preliminary relief, ruling that “[a]lthough [professional-services] businesses may not be essential, the exception crafted on their behalf is essential to prevent joblessness.”

DOJ’s filing argues the church can’t be treated differently than other businesses and that faith is essential during a pandemic.

Legal remedies are likely to be an inconsistent strategy, since local judges are often part of a political machine that will support civil authorities. The threat of public exposure and adverse public opinion that may result from court cases, however, may force governors to back down in individual situations, even if they adopt face-saving partial retreats.

I will be interested to hear of other local cases that may come to visitors' attention and will discuss them here as appropriate.

Update On Thomas More Society Lawsuit

I posted yesterday on the Thomas More Society's lawsuit against Illinois Gov Pritzker's executive order forbidding religious services. The Thomas More Society's website now has this update:

In response to a lawsuit filed on April 30, 2020 by the Thomas More Society, on behalf of The Beloved Church and Pastor Stephen Cassell, Illinois Governor “JB” Pritzker has modified his new Executive Order. The governor will now allow residents to leave their homes “to engage in the free exercise of religion,” placing it on the list of “essential activities.” The new executive order encourages churches to reopen for “drive-in services” and allows small in-person gatherings. Previously, Illinois was one of only 10 states that entirely banned religious services.

. . . The Pritzker administration had released its most recent Executive Order to the media several days ago. That draft included no religious freedom language, and at his press conference on April 30, 2020, despite repeated questioning about the Thomas More Society’s lawsuit and religious freedom, the governor made no mention of changing the order. Then, Governor Pritzker quietly issued his new order, which included previously unseen religious freedom language.

. . . The Thomas More Society’s lawsuit will continue, as the new Executive Order provides only a partial victory for The Beloved Church and Cassell. That case is pending before United States District Judge John Z. Lee, of the Northern District of Illinois. The court has ordered expedited briefing on the Thomas More Society’s request for a temporary restraining order to allow Cassell and The Beloved Church to hold services this Sunday.

Civil Obstructions To Reopening Churches

As I briefly noted yesterday. allowing churches to reopen in order to celebrate in-person masses and other services has been very low in lists of "phases" proposed by states and municipalities for reopening society. Generally, these appear in vague "phase 3" scenarios, with no specific criteria or schedules. In at least some cases, civil authorities appear to be adding new, more or less permanent restrictions on religious enterprises.

According to this link,

Kansas City, Missouri, officials are now requiring every church to submit a list of members and attendees along with their names, addresses and telephone numbers to city officials for tracking and surveillance purposes.

. . . The Kansas City government is now DEMANDING that churches turn over membership lists, along with the names, telephone numbers and physical addresses of anyone who enters a church! This order also applies to all businesses.

The new order states that by recording names and contact information, the health department will be able “to more quickly trace, test, and isolate individuals who may have been exposed to COVID-19.” Anyone who does not provide this information should be refused entrance!

Exactly what will become of this apparent policy isn't clear. Certainly if I think about going to an office supply store, for instance, I'll be unwilling to go through the extra hassle of registering as a customer and will certainly prefer to shop online. We must hope the political process can place limits on this sort of behavior in general.

However, movie theatre chains are apparently planning a mid-July reopening, notwithstanding they are also thought to be in a "phase 3" priority with no specific schedule so far announced by most civil authorities.

In a recent interview with Variety, National Association of Theatre Owners’ CEO John Fithian revealed that plans are in place to open up major chains such as AMC and Cinemark by mid-July. Tenet is set to be released on July 17th, and Disney’s Mulan is set from July 24th.

It's not hard to imagine that lobbying groups like theatre owners will have an inside track with mayors, county supervisors, and governors to reopen on a schedule they propose, while it's by no means certain that churches or Catholic dioceses can exert equivalent leverage. In fact, so far, Catholic bishops don't seem to be exercising equivalent foresight:

Cardinal Blase Cupich, head of the Archdiocese of Chicago, declined to meet with a group of faithful Catholics who wanted to discuss with him how their churches could be reopened for Mass while still following social distancing rules.

"After careful review and consideration, the Cardinal regrets that this is not an opportune time for such a meeting," the cardinal's office said in reply to the St. Charles Borromeo Society.

The Society gathered today in front of Holy Name Cathedral in Chicago to pray for a reopening of the churches in the archdiocese. Attendees followed "all social distancing mandates," according to a press release.

The group states that "Churches are no more dangerous than supermarkets" and that "we need food for our souls as well as our bodies." It has called for opening "churches for private prayer and adoration" and for allowing "outdoor Masses and/or parking lot Masses."

In response to Cardinal Cupich's refusal to meet with the group, organizer Joseph Scheidler said, “When would be an opportune time? We are desperately in need of spiritual leadership during this pandemic and that is sorely lacking in the Archdiocese of Chicago."

It seems to me that it's entirely appropriate, given clear signs that the COVID-19 epidemic is behaving like other moderate flu outbreaks in recent decades, that Catholic dioceses should begin working with civil authorities to establish clear decision points, criteria, and schedules for reopening masses and confessions.

Delays or unreasonable obstacles to such reopenings should be met with legal remedies.

Thomas More Society Files Suit Against Illinois Lockdown Order

In the sort of case that's going to become more common, the Thomas More Society, which characterizes itself as a non-profit, pro-life public interest law firm (though as far as I can tell, not specifically Catholic), has filed suit on behalf af an Illinois evangelical parish that is shut down due to Gov Pritzger's lockdown order.

An Evangelical Christian church in Lena, Illinois is suing Governor “JB” Pritzker for discriminating against churches and people of faith with his latest stay-at-home executive orders, issuing and enforcing unconstitutional edicts during the coronavirus pandemic. Today, Thomas More Society attorneys filed a federal complaint and motion for temporary restraining order on behalf of The Beloved Church and Pastor Steve Cassell with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in Rockford.

Cassell and his church have been forced to shut down due to Pritzker’s Executive Orders. They were issued “cease and desist” orders and have been threatened with arrest and prosecution by local officials in Stephenson County, who are also named in the suit.

. . . It is noted in the filing that so-called “Essential Businesses and Operations” may have gatherings of larger than 10 people, while religious gatherings of any number are forbidden, on pain of criminal prosecution. The lawsuit reports that in his stay-at-home orders, Pritzker “declared churches and church ministries ‘non-essential’ and commanded them to shut down.” It also notes that “Pritzker forbade congregants from leaving their homes to attend church or church ministries. On the eve of Easter, the holiest day on the Christian calendar, Pritzker expressly prohibited even no-contact, drive-in services in Illinois church parking lots.”

Citizens generally since March have been willing to undergo temporary restrictions in good faith. based on what appeared at the time to be the informed judgment of civil authorities on appropriate measures to limit the spread of a pandemic. Developments have emerged since the start of these restrictions to suggest that, in all but a limited number of localities, the estimates of COVID-19's spread were beyond what was experienced by orders of magnitude.

In addition, governments have in some cases shown themselves unwilling to relax these restrictions, which have proved in practice to be arbitrary. Restrictions on religious gatherings have been one of the most universal of these, and even in US states that are gradually reopening society, the ability to attend church services in person still remains something to be restored months in the indefinite future. However, it is less and less clear that the recommendations from epidemiologists that led to this restriction were well founded.

The neo-Thomist Catholic philosopher Edward Feser, who had earlier recommended charitable compliance with the restrictions, is clearly changing his mind:

I have argued both that the lockdown was a justifiable initial reaction to the Covid-19 crisis, and that skeptics ought nevertheless to be listened to, and listened to more earnestly the longer the lockdown goes on.

. . . This is especially so given that the initial justification for the lockdown (the prospect of overwhelmed hospitals and shortages of ventilators and other medical equipment) no longer applies. . . . [T]he lockdown entails actions that, in ordinary circumstances, would be very gravely immoral.

When a surgeon contemplates sticking a scalpel into you, it isn’t merely a matter of weighing the costs and benefits of prima facie equally justifiable courses of action, and then opting for what strikes him as on balance the best one. Rather, there is an extremely strong moral presumption against his taking such action. And if he tells you that he nevertheless thinks he should do it, the burden is not on you to convince him that he shouldn’t, but on him to convince you that he should. He must not do it otherwise. And notice that this remains the case even though he is the expert.

Now, all things being equal, temporarily forbidding someone to work is, of course, not as grave as doing surgery on him. But there is nevertheless a very strong moral presumption against the former as well. As Fr. John Naugle reminds us in an essay at Rorate Caeli, laborers have a right under natural law to work to provide for themselves and their families. To interfere with their doing so when such interference is not absolutely necessary is a grave offense against social justice (and not merely against prudence), certainly as social justice is understood in the natural law tradition and in Catholic moral theology.

US Attorney General William Barr has expressed very similar views:

“Now that the curve has been flattened and the hospital system has not been overwhelmed, it is time to start rolling back some of those restrictions,” Barr reiterated.

“We will be on the lookout for restrictions that are too widespread, too generalized or unduly discriminatory towards liberty, such as religious liberty or speech, and in the appropriate case we would consider taking action."

I will cover issues of interest as they apply to natural rights and the US Bill of Rights here as appropriate.

What Is The Status Of Our Lady's Dowry?

As we've seen over the past few years, Our Lady's Dowry is a non-profit that has been connected with the Our Lady of the Atonement parish that was set up to receive donations on behalf of Fr Phillips, but which was off the parish books. As such, it was not subject to the archdiocesan parish tithe, nor to audit by the archdiocese. Its function has never been completely clear, but over much of Dcn Orr's time with the parish, it appears to have been used to pay him a salary in addition to his salary from the parish and school, in violation of archdiocesan policy for deacons.

My regular correspondent and a San Antonio visitor have both pointed out that, although Fr Phillips was removed as pastor of OLA by Abp Gustavo in early 2017, and Fr Phillips returned to the parish only as "pastor emeritus" under Bp Lopes's authority -- and subsequent to that, his pastoral faculties were removed, and he was prohibited from entering the property -- the Our Lady's Dowry charity continues in operation, at least as of its most recent IRS Form 990, filed November 18, 2019. Our Lady's Dowry is still in existence and lists its mailing address as 18415 Red Robin Drive, San Antonio, TX 78255.

This is also the address of the Our Lady of the Atonement parish, and it says pretty clearly that although Fr Phillips is prohibited from the property, as of late 2019, he's still apparently allowed to conduct business from the parish address. As I suggested in yesterday's post, although Fr Phillips is officially retired and as well had his priestly faculties withdrawn, he still seems to claim some remaining prestige in connection with the parish and apparently continues to have an influence on its operation through major donors.

A visitor says,

I figured after Dcn Orr’s passing and the [parish's] entry into the Ordinariate, the Dowry fund would have been dissolved. Since Fr. Lewis mentions specifically an endowment, I wondered if the dowry was still going on. What a surprise, it is! Some folks funneled over ¾ of a million dollars ($874,078 to be exact) through that fund since 2014. I know some of that money was supposed to be earmarked for classrooms for the new school building because I know someone who contributed specifically for that purpose and was told to make the check out to Our Lady’s Dowry. I wonder where that money actually went. Here is some publicly available info regarding the charitable Our Lady’s Dowry organization. Check out the financials and the Form 990s. They clearly show Dcn Orr was paid a salary for 40 hrs/wk (ranging from around $64K to $65K per yr) as Treasurer until the year of his death when he was replaced as Treasurer by a guy who made $0 in compensation.

Some of the money went to San Antonio Water Service to the tune of $150,074 in 2016, presumably to bring water/sewer to the new school building. Some of the money went for organ repair ($22,486 in 2015 and $124,788 in 2016). Some of the money went to produce videos for the priest ($11,500 in 2015) and advertising ($20,000 in 2016).

The information from 2017 is not available so it is difficult to say where that money went.

It is interesting to note that income from Hall Rental, which had been increasing year over year dropped to $0 in 2018. I suppose because Hall Rental was no longer controlled by an Our Lady's Dowry tool in the office and Fr Lewis began directing money from the rental of the parish hall back to the parish and not the slush fund he was not a party to.

Was the money used for nefarious purposes? Mostly, no. Was it used to circumvent reporting to the Diocese/Ordinariate and thereby circumventing the cathedraticum tax, yes. Is that moral, no. Was it used to provide a salary for a Deacon who was assigned to a parish, yes. Was that legal? I don’t know but it doesn’t pass the smell (and morality) test. What a mess, and what a con! I tip my hat to the creative shell game masterminded at Our Lady of the Atonement. I just wish they worked as hard at being authentically Catholic as they did at gaming the system.

The From 990 for 2018 lists a reduction in net assets of $64,300 on line 20, but this would have been explained on a Schedule Q that isn't shown on the PDF of the form. As a result, we simply don't know what happened to substantial amounts of money that had been in Our Lady's Dowry control before Fr Phillips's removal as pastor, when he was raising these amounts on behalf of the parish but placing them in the separate charity under his control not subject to audit.

I think it would be appropriate for the parish to ask Fr Lewis what became of substantial donations to the Dowry for classrooms in the school addition.

Another puzzling question is how the Dowry was involved in financing the home at 8003 Shady Hallow Lane formerly occupied by Dcn Orr that adjoins Fr Phillips's residence. A visitor told me,

when I asked Fr. Phillips what happened to the "Our Lady's Dowry money" Fr. Phillips told me that this money was used to buy Dcn Orr's house for the parish. This home today is where Fr. Lewis and his wife reside.

But another visitor suggests the ownership has been more complicated.

If you read the ownership history , it seems to go from Atonment as owners, then Orr, then Atonement and Orr together (i think). The current owner, Hivnor, is a very wealthy parishioner. Under Mortgage once Hivnor bought it, it says: "Mortgage Modification Agreement". I have little knowledge on mortgage terms but it stood out.

So who actually owns the house at 8003 Shady Hallow Lane now occupied by Fr Lewis and his wife, if the parish doesn't? Was money from Our Lady's Dowry used to buy it from Dcn Orr? Who benefited from this whole transaction?

There are lots of questions, and I would think more than a few secrets.

UPDATE: My regular correspondent comments that In the parish's 2018-19 financial report,

the Business Manager reminds readers that “contributing to Our Lady’s Dowry is not [underlined] an offertory contribution that directly supports the parish,” and that OLD is not governed by the parish. Looks like they have the desire but not the power to wind it up.