Cardinal Becciu: The Plot Thickens

I was only mildly interested in the announcement of Cardinal Becciu's sudden firing by Pope Francis on September 26:

Over a career spanning decades in the Roman Catholic Church, Cardinal Becciu had become a heavyweight in the Vatican hierarchy, described by one Vatican observer as the “finest, most informed and attentive diplomat working inside the Holy See.” His most recent position was head of the Vatican department that creates saints.

But he also emerged in recent years as a major character in conspiracies about alleged attempts to undercut financial reforms promoted by Cardinal George Pell, who headed the Vatican’s economic arm until he had to return to Australia to face accusations of sexual abuse.

Reports suggest that Becciu's record of corruption and embezzlement is long, but more recently they focus on Cardinal Pell:

The year is 2015. Pell, working as Prefect of the Secretariat for the Economy, finds “vast sums of undeclared money … hidden in various bank accounts by organizations and groups within the Holy See in Rome.”

The same year, Libero Milone is hired as Auditor General by Pope Francis to try to sort out what’s going on behind the financial scenes in Rome. He then suddenly resigns, without explanation. He later discloses that he was charged with espionage and embezzlement, and that his resignation was forced under threat of imprisonment by the Vatican police.

In 2017, Pell is suddenly confronted with allegations of sexual abuse in his homeland of Australia — allegations that are decades old. He winds up on trial, and is convicted with zero evidence or corroborating witness testimony, and spends the next 13 months in prison for a crime nobody could hope to prove he committed – and for which, he was later acquitted on appeal.

The Catholic News Agency has been cautious in reporting on these developments.

In reporting over several years, CNA has uncovered a set of Vatican financial scandals with connections to Becciu, and endeavored to do so with painstaking attention to available documentary proof. Within that coverage has been reporting about conflict between Becciu and Pell. And there have long been rumors and speculation among supporters of Pell that the cardinal was set up in Australia because of his involvement in Vatican affairs.

The reports emerging this weekend have attracted interest in part because they seem to confirm that speculation, and because Becciu’s role in financial scandals is now sufficiently enough established that he has been severely censured by Pope Francis. But the apparent confirmation of rumors and speculation does not by itself lend credibility to the allegations.

Abp Viganò comments:

Much has been written in recent days about yet another Vatican scandal this time involving Cardinal Becciu, Prefect of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints. Faced with accusations that still have to be proven, Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s response seemed to be dictated more by anger than by love of truth, more by a delusion of omnipotence than by the will for justice – in any case by a serious despotic abuse of authority.

From this point of view, we can now believe that the deprivation of the Sacred Purple and the reduction to the lay state have become summary executions, with a very strong media impact in favor of the image of those who inflict them, beyond the real moral and criminal responsibilities of the condemned. Mr. McCarrick, accused of very serious crimes, was directly condemned by the Pope, without the trial documents and testimonies concerning him being made public. With this ploy Bergoglio wanted to give an image of himself that however contrasts with the reality of the facts, since his stated desire to “clean up” the Vatican does not correspond to the fact of his having surrounded himself with widely compromised characters – to begin precisely by McCarrick – giving them official assignments, then kicking them out as soon as their scandals were exposed. And on all of them, as those who work in the Curia know well, already weighed serious suspicions, if not even any detailed evidence of guilt.

Well, I suppose this is Rome. Back in the day, cardinals were strangled. As Bp Barron says, we've been here before. As CNA suggests, we may hear more, or we may not.

What's Next In Michigan?

As far as I can tell from thousands of miles away, the COVID situation in Michigan was chaotic even before the state supreme court declared Gov Whitmer's executive orders unconstitutional last Friday. Karl Manke, the Owosso barber, had already defied the orders and effectively prevailed. Local law enforcerment had already refused to enforce them. In any case, the regime varied by region, and in turn, regions were subject to red light-green light orders at the governor's whim.

In the wake of last Friday's decision, Gov Whitmer insisted her orders were still in effect, while the state attorney general refused to enforce them. Yesterday, the state health department issued new and essentially equivalnt orders under different authority:

This order reinstates three aspects of Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s previous emergency orders:

• Masks are required at indoor and outdoor gatherings that involve people from different households.
• Specific gathering limitations.
• Bars must close indoor common areas, and indoor gatherings are prohibited in most areas where alcohol is sold.

This order is effective immediately and remains in effect through Oct. 30, according to MDHHS officials.

It remains to be seen whether any agency will enforce these new oirders, or whether they are enforceable in this fluid environment. So as far as I can see, little has actually changed.

Nevertheless, I went looking for current policies in Michigan Roman Catholic dioceses to see how they might be responding. It's not surprising that their responses differ.

The most surprising is the Diocese of Saginaw, which actually lifted the dispensation from attending mass as of Oct 1, even before the state supreme court decision. The bishop writes,

As you know, as public Masses in our diocese resumed in May, the dispensation from the obligation to attend Sunday Mass remained in place until Sept. 30. Now that the State of Michigan has opened up a great deal, I believe that it is appropriate to lift this dispensation.

On October 1, I reinstated the obligation to attend Mass. In doing so, I am asking Catholics to, guided by Jesus and a well-formed conscience, prayerfully make their own decision about whether to attend Mass or keep the Sabbath holy from home.

. . . There may be many reasons for not attending weekly Mass as obliged by the Church, and I want to make clear that I continue to encourage all people who are sick in any way, who are fearful of contracting COVID-19 or have concerns about underlying health issues and may be vulnerable to the disease to remain home. It would not be a sin to do so.

This strikes me as a model policy that could be followed in many other dioceses in states where the COVID regime is relatively light. It suggests Catholics can, with a well-formed conscience, actually think for themselves.

In an October 5 letter to the Diocese of Grand Rapids, the bishop writes,

It is good that more of you will now be able to attend Mass. I also realize, however, that by maintaining proper social distancing, our churches still face some occupancy restrictions. I am extending the dispensation for all Catholics within the territory of the Diocese of Grand Rapids from their obligation of attending Sunday Mass through November 23 to address this concern.

, , , Those who are able to attend Mass should return, remembering that our physical presence at the Eucharistic table is irreplaceable. While this dispensation is in effect, all baptized Catholics are reminded of their obligation to keep the Lord’s Day holy.

The Diocese of Gaylord posted the following on its website on Oct 3, following the supreme court decision:

We are aware of the recent decision of the Michigan Supreme Court regarding the emergency powers of Governor Gretchen Whitmer.

The current safety precautions and protocols for schools and parishes that have been issued by the diocese are issued based on the authority of the Bishop, taking into account expert advice from the medical community. Therefore, these safety precautions and protocols are not affected by this decision of the Supreme Court regarding the authority of the Governor and remain in place until they are reviewed and, if appropriate, modified by the diocese.

Your cooperation and compliance in this regard is deeply appreciated.

What's consistent among these is that none acknowledges state authority to limit mass attendance. On one hand, two of the bishops refer to the ability of individual Catholics to decide whether to attend mass, given public health conditions. A third asserts that the conditions under which mass is held are determined by the bishop, not the state.

Under current circumstnaces, the state is in any case not in a position to issue, relax, or enforce consistent public health guidelines, and the bishops are indirectly acknowledging this. This strikes me as a remarkably intelligent response to the conditions they have, and I suspect many other dioceses will be looking to them as the situation develops.

California Update

Pastor John MacArthur of Grace Community Church has emerged as the best-spoken of the leaders among the Southern California Evangelical parishes defying health department orders against indoor worship and singing in church, and mandating cocial distancing.

This YouTube video encapsulates the present status as he sees it. Keep in mind that MacArthur, although his interests do parallel most Christian denominations, is a radical Protestant who in fact does not believe Catholics are even Christian, and he has nice things to say here about Luther and Calvin.

He continues to raise an intriguing question -- of the thousanbds who come to worship each week at the non-conforming Evangelical parishes, there have apparently been very few cases, and no deaths, reported, and apparently very few with any symptoms. This suggests that empirically, going to church, even singing, exchanging the peace, and not social-distancing, is not high-risk activity.

The unspoken context of some remarks by our pastor in yesterday's homily bear this out to some extent -- he seems uncomfortable with the idea of continually extending the dispensation from attending mass. Going to mass is good for people, and it's unfortunate that bishops are allowing people to lose a habit of virtue.

He endorsed an event scheduled for this comming Saturday in Los Angeles, the March for Faith. Unlike the Free the Mass procession in San Francisco last month, this event is non-denominational and explicitly non-partisan;

March for Faith does not endorse political parties or candidates. We promote First Amendment religious freedom for all Americans. All are welcome to attend this peaceful protest.

Please stick with non-partisan hats or clothing to express your patriotism, love of our Constitution, and respect for the law. Please no Trump or Biden signs, hats, T-shirts or other campaign paraphernalia. You are welcome to carry American flags, prayer books, rosaries or other small devotional items.

In the spirit of maintaining a peaceful event, we ask you to stay on city sidewalks and public property and observe all state and local laws on social distancing and personal safety.

The March for Life in San Francisco did result in a loosening of restrictions in that city, which had previously limited mass attendance to 12 people including celebrant and cantor, outdoors only. According to the archdiocese, on September 29,

Today, Mayor Breed announced that San Francisco will set the limit for religious worship up to the extent permitted by state health regulations. Archbishop Cordileone responds:

“I want to thank Mayor London Breed for recognizing that faith is essential. As well, I want to thank the thousands of San Francisco Catholics and others who joined the processions, the more than 35,000 who signed the petition at benedictinstitute.org/liftunfairrestrictions, came to St. Mary Cathedral’s outdoor plaza to witness to our faith, wrote letters to the editor or op-eds, and who generally spoke up with one united voice under the banner: We are essential! Free the Mass!

. . . “Our petition effort, though, is not ended. The state of California’s limit of no more than 100 people inside of a house of worship regardless of the size of the building is still unjust. We want and we intend to worship God safely: with masks, social distancing, sanitation, ventilation, and other such safety protocols. But we will not accept believers being treated more severely than other, comparable secular activities.

“This movement is not over. Our work and victories have just begun. Thank you San Francisco people of faith and the thousands of others across the nation who are joining us at benedictinstitute.org/liftunfairrestrictions.”

Los Angeles and Ventura Counties continue to require worship services to be outdoors-only, with no singing, masks, and social distancing. (Ushers at our parish monitor the procesion for communion to be sure people observe the six-foot demarcations taped on the pavement.)

A post on the Liberty Counsel site provides an update on the lawsuit filed on behalf of the Harvest Rock Church in Pasadena:

The lawsuit challenges both the total ban on in-person worship (including in private homes) in the counties on the “County Monitoring List,” and the ban on singing and chanting in the remaining counties. In addition to in-person worship at Harvest Rock Church, the church also has many “Life Groups,” which are home Bible studies and fellowship groups. These too are prohibited under Gov. Newsom’s July 6 (no singing and chanting) and July 13 (no worship) orders. Yet while he discriminates against churches, home Bible studies and fellowship meetings, the governor continues to encourage thousands of protestors to gather throughout the state. Like Gov. Newsom, Pasadena has allowed hundreds and thousands of protestors. Neither the Pasadena Public Health Department nor the Pasadena Prosecutor have attempted to stop the protests in which people are crowded together, many of them not wearing masks.

While California weather continues to allow outdoor worship for now, this won't continue indefinitely, and it doesn't appear that authorities will modify their orders once rain and cooler temperatures make outdoor worship problematic.

COVID Update

The best news since my last post on this subject came yesterday, when the Michigan supreme court ruled Gov Whitmer had no authority to extend emergency lockdown orders past April 30.

The governor does not have authority under either of the state’s emergency statutes to continue the coronavirus state of emergency, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled in questions related to a federal case on Friday.

Two laws -- the Emergency Management Act from 1976 and the Emergency Powers of the Governor Act from 1945 -- govern how states of emergency are declared and handled in Michigan.

Neither, the court found, gave Gov. Gretchen Whitmer the authority to continue declaring states of emergency or issuing unilateral orders under them past April 30, when her initial declaration would have expired.

However, it appears there will still be local battles at the county and municipal level, as there were in Wisconsin.

A State Supreme Court ruling that says Gov. Gretchen Whitmer overstepped her bounds in the fight against COVID-19 doesn’t sit well with Ingham County’s top health officer.

Linda Vail told News 10 the court’s ruling that appears to void Whitmer’s executive orders made past April 30 could cause chaos for health departments throughout the state.

“I’m still really in shock in terms of what (the ruling) means from a public health perspective,” Vail said.

No matter what the fallout is from the court’s ruling, Vail said she will continue to enforce Ingham County orders that limit capacity at bars and restaurants.

Mississippi and Florida have loosened some mask restrictions, but other restrictions remain in place. It appears that Florida Catholic dioceses have generally reopened mass since May, though they still require masks, and they haven't lifted the dispensation from attending mass.

In Pennsylvania,

The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Thursday that the Wolf administration’s coronavirus mitigation gathering limits -- 250 people at outdoor events and 25 at indoor ones -- are back in play again while the appeal process works itself through the court system. The news comes after U.S. District Judge William Stickman IV said in mid-September that the gathering limits were unconstitutional.

This Youube gives the current status of the case for Godspeak Calvary Chapel in Newbury Park, CA

It appears that its situation is very similar to that of Grace Community Church in Los Angeles, where both are technically "in contempt", but the judges are suspending penalities until the cases are tried sometime next year. Both judges see constitutional issues, and my guess is that both see the current legal environment as very fluid, as yesterday's Michigan decision illustrates.

However, not all the news on this front is good. For Harvest Rock Church in Pasadena, Liberty Counsel reports,

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a 2-1 decision in a case brought by Liberty Counsel on behalf of Harvest Rock Church and Harvest International Ministry denying an emergency injunction pending appeal against California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s unconstitutional orders. The Court of Appeals heard oral argument on September 21.

Judges Rawlison and Christen issued a short four-page order, and Judge O'Scannlain issued a 15-page dissent. O’Scannlon would have granted the emergency injunction pending appeal. Tomorrow, Liberty Counsel will file its brief on the merits of the request for an injunction which the Court of Appeals will set for another date once briefing is complete. Today’s ruling was only on the emergency injunction pending appeal and the Court will later hear arguments on the merits of the case requesting a preliminary injunction.

Worse, North Valley Baptist Church in Santa Clara, CA surrendered to county health department demands in the face of mounting fines and ceased indoor services:

In a video posted earlier this month, [Pastor Jack] Trieber complained that the church now owed the county an astonishing $52,750, according to a bill he showed on camera — and there would be more to come if the church kept refusing to accept the reality of the virus.

. . . Officials kept adding to their ever-growing list, sometimes issuing multiple five-thousand-dollar fines in a single day due to the church’s multiple services.

And now, only after the bill sits at $112,750 — which the county says the church must pay — has Trieber finally caved.

The overall situation seems more fluid, with different states having increasingly divergent COVID regimes. It remains to be seen how Catholic dioceses will respond to the Michigan decision, though the exmple of Wisconsin suggests it will take them some months to lift the dispensation on mass attendance, and dioceses in other states with generally loose restrictions still haven't lifted the dispensation.

And California, while gradually loosening restrictions on indoor malls, nail salons, and other businesses, still hasn't allowd churches to hold indoor services in most counties.

Another Houston Headscratcher

My regular correspondent has been wondering for several days what Houston had in mind in planning a visit by Bp Lopes to St Thomas More Toronto for October 18 (it appears, for example, on the schedule here). The difficulty is that Canadian COVID regulations continue to require, in part, that

All persons entering Canada, unless exempted – no matter their country of origin or mode of entry – must isolate themselves for 14 days if they have symptoms of or confirmed COVID-19 or quarantine themselves for 14 days if they do not have symptoms of COVID-19.

My correspondent says,

Bp Lopes's visit had been publicised since at least early July, despite the ongoing closure of the Canada/US border to non-Canadian citizens, with a few specific exceptions for family members and health care workers, and the quarantine requirement.

Houston conceded a month ago that no Canadian clergy would be attending next month’s ordinariate Clergy Conference there, because of the necessity of fourteen days’ quarantine upon their return.

Just as of this past Sunday, however, the St Thomas More mass schedule was revised to read, in part;

• Our next Choral Mass will be on October 18th. Bishop Lopes was scheduled to offer Holy Mass for us on this day, however border and quarantine restrictions have forced the cancellation of his parish visitation.
• Those scheduled to be received and confirmed by Bishop Lopes will instead be received and confirmed by Fr. Hodgins on All Saints Day, November 1.

As my regular correspondent puts it, "Hope the ticket was refundable". Well, as far as I can see, bishops travel full-fare, first class. No standby for Bp Lopes!

What makes this oversight relatively less remarkable is the tiny size and general unimportance of the North American ordinariate. As I understand this, the bishop's secretary handles his schedule and at least orders up his travel. For an issue like this to go unnoticed for at least two months, with some people in Houston fully aware of Canadian travel restrictions due to the clergy conference, is still significant in itself and a reflection on the competence of personnel in the chancery.

The picture that's beginning to form in my mind is that the bishop's secretary, J Henry, has, as we've already seen, announced that he's running the show. But from what we've begun to see, he does things like lift the dispensation for mass attendance without recognizing that in many areas, Catholics still have civil obstacles to attending mass. And now we also see that, nominally in charge of the bishop's schedule, he's been forced to revise it because he was unaware of basic COVID restrictions.

Apparently the bishop continues to be indisposed, and he's left key functions of his office in J Henry's not-so-capable hands.

As a regular viewer of the late lamented Live PD, I can only think that if Bp Lopes were operating a motor vehicle, he'd be swerving outside his lane, running stop signs, and otherwise driving erratically. A police officer would have no chokce but to pull him over and give him a sobriety check for his own protection and that of the public.

UPDATE: My regular correspondent asks how Bp Lopes's lifting of the dispensaion applies to the ordinariate groups who have ordinariate priests, like Fr Vidal, Fr Wills, or Fr Lewis, who have both diocesan and ordinariate groups in the same building, or in fact who attend at the same mass times.

Talking Down To Catholics

A visitor responded to the excerpt from the St James Jacksonville parish newsletter that I covered in Saturday's post:

Fr. Mayer makes mention of correspondence between Bp Lopes and priests:

Bishop Lopes recently wrote to us priests that he has been intending to revisit this issue, but that the Vatican beat him to the punch when Cardinal Robert Sarah, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, wrote to the presidents of the Bishops’ Conferences to remind them of the urgency of encouraging the faithful to return to in-person Mass.

On an issue as important as this it would seem that direct communication with the entire People of God would be appropriate. And why the Cardinal Sarah reference?

If you are not in this vulnerable group and you do not have some other grave reason to miss Mass, you have an obligation of holy obedience to your bishop and as a member of the Ordinariate to return to Mass and the Sacraments

Do you read this as talking down to the reader?

If you are not in this vulnerable group and you do not have some other grave reason to miss Mass, you have an obligation of holy obedience to your bishop and as a member of the Ordinariate to return to Mass and the Sacraments.

So Bishop communicates with his priests and this information gets filtered out - in less than perfect ways it seems.

Be that as it may, the pastor could have easily listed one or two of the reasons why Catholics should attend Mass, easily available on the internet or Catechism. Those reasons would include a benefit for the attender as well.

But he chooses obedience to your bishop as first, and membership in the Ordinariate as second.

Yes, the first puzzling thing is that we don't see the original text of the bishop's letter at all (although my guess is that the actual text in question is an e-mail from the bishop's secretary in any case). So wwhat we get is Fr Mayer's interpretation of J Henry's interpretation of what the bishop may have wanted to say.

Contrast this with, just as a random example, the Diocexe of Madison, WI, where the bishop's letter lifting the dispensation is fully published.

I ran the visitor's note by my regular correspondent, who said,

Cardinal Sarah, like Pope Benedict, very big in Ordinariate circles. Mrs Gyapong, a big fan, posted recently that she had stopped using the Daily Office app prepared by St Gregory the Great, Chestnut Hill member John Covert because Cardinal Sarah was quoted (in 2017) as saying that praying the Daily Office with an electronic device “is not worthy: it descralizes prayer.” (Glad he wasn’t around when the printing press was invented, is all I can say.)

She then went on to say that learning how to “juggle a bunch of different books” was part of the Anglican Patrimony. I was happy to see that a number of commenters pointed out that Cranmer’s program in revising Morning and Evening Prayer was the exact opposite: to rectify the situation where “to turn the Book only was so hard and intricate a matter, that many times there was more business to find out what should be read, than to read it when it was found out.” But Mrs G’s acquaintance with Anglicanism is, of course, passing.

More to the point with Bp Lopes, why October 1 and not the first Sunday in October?

The question I have is why, if it was so important that Bp Lopes conform so quickly to Cdl Sarah's exxhortation, his brother bishops in the USCCB amd the CCCB seem to have approached the question with greater prudence and reserve. If you think about it, even the Evangelical pastors who've reopened their churches to in-person services have clearly implied that in-person attendance is optional, and not just for those in exempted health categories. Livestreams are available, and social-distancing options are also available on site.

I can only cnoclude that Bp Lopes's response to Cdl Sarah was not very carefully thought through, and I would guess that even the most junior diocesan bishop could provide a cogent explanation for why a diocese outsude Alaska, South Dakota, or Wisconsin would be slower to lift the dispensation.

Unfortunately, this suggests to me that Bp Lopes's judgment is impaired, and this may be a possible reason for why a full text of his letter is not available, as it doesn't exist. If this reading is correct, J Henry and Fr Perkins are the sort of marginal figures that impaired leaders select to cover for themselves. Even if the bishop were to say, "I'm short of time to do this, could you draft a letter lifting the dispensation for my review and approval?" neither would be capable of doing anything like this.

I've got to ask why any ordinariate members do not decamp and go into diocesan parishes with all deliberate speed, given these likely conditions in the chancery.

Houston Is Mailing It In

Almost at random, my regular correspondent found this notice in the September 24 newsletter of the St James Jacksonville, FL ordinariate group:

Bishop Lopes has directed that beginning October 1, 2020, the commutation of the obligation to attend Mass only applies only to those persons who are at higher risk for the Coronavirus (according to the CDC, those who are 60+ years of age, those with underlying medical conditions such as heart disease, diabetes, COPD, kidney disease, or are immuno-compromised). If you are not in this vulnerable group and you do not have some other grave reason to miss Mass, you have an obligation of holy obedience to your bishop and as a member of the Ordinariate to return to Mass and the Sacraments.

A whole bunch of questions come up. The first is why, when Bp Lopes announced the ordinariate's response to COVID measures in March, he instructed each community to follow the guidelines of its local diocese. As of September 2020, though, I'm only aware of dioceses in Alaska, South Dakota, and Wisconsin that have lifted the mass dispensation. This means that all the other North American dioceses still see obstacles to reopening and lifting the dispensation.

For instance, the St Augustine of Canterbury group in San Diego still can't return to its venue, since the school where it had been meeting remains closed. So, what are the members of that group to do, since Bp Lopes, their bishop, now tells them it is a grave sin not to go to mass? Do they go to a diocesan parish? But in California, attendance at any mass is still severely limited, and it must be outdoors only. Regular parishioners at those parishes must reserve spots, but in any case, due to the difficulties of getting to mass, their bishops continue to have the dispensation in place.

Someone might remind me that if it's impossible for any Catholic to get to mass under any circumstances, it's not a sin to miss mass. But why didn't Bp Lopes make this point himself in the letter, especially snce it's still unusual for churches to be open for general attendance anywhere in North America? Bp Lopes's letter apparently exempts only those deemed at health risk from the obligation, not those who could risk arrest by trying to get to mass.

The next question is why Bp Lopes announced this only via a letter to clergy. What puzzles me is that there isn't now, and as far as I can tell has never been, any announcement on the North American ordinariate website concerning COVID, mass guidelines, lifting of the mass dispensation, or anything else. In contrast, every diocesan website I visit, such as at random the Diocese of Fresno, CA , has exttremely detailed information on status. Dioceses that have lifted the dispensation on mass attendance have this prominently noted on their websites.

My regular correspondent noted,

Lifting of commutation mentioned on an ordinariate Facebook forum by a St Barnabas, Omaha parishioner; someone asked for a link to Bp Lopes’ letter to this effect and it was conceded that such was not available: “Our chancery is not known for well publicizing documents or rules...”

In other words, what else is new? Fr Perkins, having foresightedly quarantined himself well before there was ever a virus, is clearly exercising prudence in continuing to stay away, notwithstanding the dispensation from attending mass has been lifted, at least in Houston.

If you want my theory on what's going on, it's this. The letter was generated by Bp Lopes's secretary, J Henry, and broadcast via e-mail to priests, to do with as they saw fit. J Henry thought of including the bits about being over 60 and such, but it never occurred to him to address anything about what might be the case regarding lockdowns elsewhere in North America. He's in Houston, after all.

He probably didn't run this by Bp Lopes, as the bishop is indisposed.

Hey, did I say something recently about Anglicanorum coetibus being a hoax?