As most know, Msgr Jeffrey Steenson (the Ordinary of a Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St Peter) is a former Episcopal Bishop. I recently scratched out a 2009 article in which he discusses his then new life as Catholic priest. The reasons for his decision to become a Catholic are interesting and worth a read:
If using dolls to practice the baptismal ritual is a humbling experience for seminarians, one can imagine what it was like for someone who already had baptized hundreds of babies.
Father Jeffrey N. Steenson, the former Episcopal bishop of the Rio Grande, prepared for his ordination to the Catholic priesthood with seminarians from Rome’s Pontifical North American College.
The 56-year-old, who spent 24 years as an Episcopal priest and three years as a bishop in New Mexico, laughs about the humbling experience of the doll practice and has nothing but praise for the “graciousness and good humor” of the NAC seminarians and staff with whom he’s been working for the past year.
Welcomed into the Catholic Church in 2007 and ordained a deacon in December 2008 by Cardinal Bernard F. Law, the archpriest of the Basilica of St. Mary Major in Rome, he was ordained to the priesthood Feb. 21 by Archbishop Michael J. Sheehan of Santa Fe, N.M.
While he studies with the U.S. seminarians in Rome, Father Steenson and his wife have been living in a cottage on the grounds of the Pontifical Irish College.
Archbishop Sheehan has assigned him to pastoral work in a New Mexico parish for the summer, and then will send him to Houston where he will teach at the University of St. Thomas and at St. Mary’s Seminary.
The Steensons’ three children — a daughter and two sons — are grown.
Educated at Harvard Divinity School and at Oxford, Father Steenson is an expert in patristics, the study of the early church fathers. He spoke to Catholic News Service in Rome March 6 before making one of his frequent visits to the library at the Augustinianum Patristical Institute.
“I’ve been attracted to Catholicism all of my life,” Father Steenson said.
When Pope John Paul II was elected in 1978, he said, “I felt this tug,” but he continued his preparations for his 1980 ordination in the Anglican Communion.
For Father Steenson, the role of the pope as the successor of St. Peter, the servant of church unity and the guarantor of the church’s fidelity to tradition was key to his decision.
“It is not negative things that turned me to the Catholic Church,” he said. “I just felt God saying, ‘It’s time.’”
The time came, he said, in 2007 when he felt the bishops of the Episcopal Church had decided to give priority to their autonomy rather than to unity with the larger Anglican Communion.
Father Steenson said that for him gay people were not the issue. “It was the way the decisions were made and the way they were defended,” placing the local church and modern cultural sensitivities ahead of the universal church and fidelity to tradition, he said.
The priest said that while the Episcopal Church spoke of the importance of Christian unity, it continued to approve practices — ordaining women priests and bishops, ordaining homosexuals and blessing same-sex unions — that everyone knew would be an obstacle to Christian unity.
“The frustration with being a Protestant is that every morning you get up and have to reinvent the church all over again,” Father Steenson said.
He said he struggled with the idea of backing out of his pastoral responsibility to the people of the Episcopal diocese. But Archbishop Sheehan helped him see that “if you can’t lead with a clear conscience, you really owe it to everyone to get out of the way. And that’s pretty much where I was in the Episcopal Church,” he said.
Father Steenson said that while Catholic and Anglican liturgies are very similar externally, “there are profound differences, too.”
For example, he said, “even the high, high Anglicans would have a hard time understanding how absolutely central the Eucharist is to the Christian life” for Catholics.“Anglicans have a hard time defining what exactly is happening with this. Catholics don’t have that problem at all,” he said.
“This is a silly way to put it, but it just feels more real. I told someone once: the air feels thicker around the Catholic Eucharist” and it’s not the incense, “because we use more incense in Anglicanism,” he said.While Father Steenson was a member of the conservative, traditional wing of the Anglican Communion, he said he would not define himself that way in the Catholic Church.
“For instance,” he said, “I don’t have any interest at all in the extraordinary rite,” the Latin liturgy often referred to as the Tridentine rite, “or in any move of retrenchment against the Second Vatican Council. Vatican II is the reason I was able to become a Catholic.”
“I am extremely happy with the church as I find it,” he said.
Father Steenson said he fully supports the Catholic Church’s effort to promote Christian unity, particularly its conviction that “ecumenism must be based on the truth.”
While it is up to Archbishop Sheehan to decide what activities he will be involved in, Father Steenson said he hopes to be able to place his relationships with Episcopalians at the service of Christian unity efforts.
“If this is not about ecumenism, then it would seem to be awfully self-indulgent. I really feel that ecumenism has to be a huge part” of his life as a Catholic priest, he said.
Faith. And look just how far that ecumenism has brought him:
“The frustration with being a Protestant is that every morning you get up and have to reinvent the church all over again,” Amazing ignorant statement, and for someone who talks about ecumenism!
And to say that “high, high” Church Anglicans don’t understand the central nature of the Eucharist, is just more ignorance! Again, simply amazing for a scholar! Indeed, he is “Roman” Catholic now!
@John: Yes, this has become a very strange affair with Steenson? I would have never thought Rome would chose a man, who makes such flippant and ignorant statements! And such poor theological ecumenical knowledge! This is getting almost adnauseam to me, who speaks for Rome or Anglicanism here?
@Don Henri: Yes, it really is “funny and laughable” to call me anti-Catholic! YOU who are “cradle” R. Catholic by admission, and appear to know little about either Anglicanism, or really Catholicism, historically or theologically! People that cannot be critical of both themselves and what they believe, are simply poor examples in any historical sense of Christianity! I am old enough to remember when the French Jesuit Henri de Lubac, was persecuted by his so-called superiors, and the papacy itself. Then when he was quite old they made him a Cardinal. Reminds one of John Henry Newman’s ups and downs with the so-called Infallible Church? Just quite non-sense!
To quote De Lubac, moved by Pascal, writes…
‘The earth is no longer at the center of the world, it is a point in space, a minor star, Circling in its place between Venus and Mars!
We can no longer imagine man on this planet, who nothing distinguishes from so many others who can claim the saame destinies, just like the principle and end of things. . . . Millions of suns, billions of planets raise equal claims to the dvine solicitude: How many times has the miracle of the Incarnation been renewed? In how many worlds has this wandering God not had to be exiled? Undoubtely he will never lack theologians to imagine some subtle “distinguo” that reconciles science with dogma. . . . But our whole life diverts us from it, it remains outside of all that is the subject of our thought. . . . One does not change the universe without changing, whether one wishes to or not, the idea of God.’ (Page 54-55, Theology In History, De Lubac, Ignatius Press)
The point here is, we simply must have both a God who is Sovereign, but Mysterious! And a Church who is in some sense a real Pilgrim Body! An infallible church, is really an oxymoron!
You carricature our faith. The leaders of the Church are not in any way infaillible in all their decisions. Only the Pope, when he teaches something that is held by all Bishops worldwide and has been affirmed by a Council may use the gift of infaillibility. I add that these dogmas are not invented: when they are infallibly affirmed, its because they were universally believe before, but then some people expressed doubts about it, hence the solemn proclamation.
Stop treating everybody like first grade pupils and read St Thomas Aquinas.
+ PAX et BONUM
By the way I know very well Anglicanism, having been a cathedral chorister for many years. There I have “marked, learned and inwardly digested” Anglican music, and have been served an homily everyday. I didn’t take communion of course, but otherwise participated daily in Anglican services (Evensong or Choral Eucharist). Also, one of my closer relatives used to be an Anglican clergyman.
I am a craddle-Catholic and now live in a predominalty Catholic country (perhaps you can see that my English is now a little rusty, as I have not many occasions to practice), but that doesn’t belittle those wonderful experiences in an Anglican setting.
Fr. Robert – in all due respect for your ‘pilgrim journey’ and where your ‘critical thinking’ has brought you, but it seems to me that you are laboring to push a huge boulder up hill…. Blessed John Henry Newman, after all his “ups and downs” as you say, acquiesced in FAITH–to all that the Holy Roman Catholic Church teaches, after all the heat dissipated and the dust settled. He became…that “little child”–as Jesus said is a prerequisite for entering the ‘Kingdom of Heaven”–he became a Saint! Then too the great St. Thomas Aquinas said that all he had written was like “straw” compared to what was given him in Vision. So yes, “God is Soverign and Mysterious”, but because of JESUS, this prism of ‘The Mysterious’ is made visible to our eyes and tangible for our Salvation–by way of HIS Virgin Bride–The Holy Roman Catholic Church! Perhaps one day when quite old–to your chagrin–you too will find yourself made a Cardinal, like Henri de Lubac. Or better than that–a Saint of Holy Mother Church! Remember, if ‘God is Mystery’ one must be OPEN to the ‘Mysterious’–never say “Never”–to what ‘God has in store’!
@Margaret: Thanks to think about an older Anglican!
I am myself one of those church “theolog’s”…always reading and thinking, but always too hopefully.. “faith seeking understanding”!
Btw, I have been reading John Henry Newman, who of course was an Anglican before Rome, for perhaps over 30 years? And not so sure about the “R. Catholic” aspect of “Saints”? St. Paul said, all Christian believers are “Saints”! (Rom. 1:7 / 1 Cor. 1:2)
Finally for both you and Don, I have also been reading Aquinas for many years, who btw was an Augustinian! And “Mystery” (mysterion) should be appreciated mentally and intellectually. This was certainly St. Paul’s approach!
@Don: Indeed there has been much “caricature”, and even some parody about the overall life and certainly history of Anglicanism here. But, it is often hard on a blog to speak in the actual way one is seeking. I have been perhaps harsh, but only I hope in a theological manner. This at least has been my effort, but then of course too, though I know something about Anglicanism, High, Low and Broad Church, I also have had my own Roman Catholic life. My point about the so-called Roman Catholic doctrine of Infallibility, is that it really is not that simple to define, etc. And many Roman Catholics don’t have a clue to the real scholastic depth of Rome’s theological meaning. At least many that I have seen.
Btw, I was speaking about your “theological” understanding and history of Anglicanism. I am glad for your experience with Anglicans. But again, there is much more to Anglicanism, besides Anglo-Catholicism, etc.
I won’t repeat here, but I really was stunned to hear a few of Steenson’s statements, really very ignorant and just not theological or historical toward Anglicanism. He should of course simply know better, or at least not make his statements so biased! I can appreciate his zeal for R. Catholicism, but they surely must be based on correct knowledge and the history of Anglicanism, when in this dialogue. My thoughts anyway.
I’m wondering if we have almost a Cult of Personality here! Photos of His Ordinariness every day lately!
I know him not.
Perhaps our host has decided to slightly counterbalance a private vendetta you seem to have been carried out in the comment box against Msgr Steenson lately.
LOL. The anti Catholic Protestant and the anti-ordinariate Anglican. Asinus asinum fricat!!
Actually, on reflection, I think there are other insights into the Ordinary’s personality to be had from this piece. One is how very careful it is — he isn’t anti-gay, he’s just sorta-kinda not exactly quite with the decisionmaking hoozis, or something. (“It was the way the decisions were made and the way they were defended[.]”) He sure ain’t with the Tridentine mass or anything like that — just a middle-of-the-roader here, not some kind of raving moonbat! This of course is how you build a career. I was struck at the time by the careerism, and indeed the egoism and grandiosity, implicit in his March 22 interview with Virtue Online, all about how his see extends from ocean to ocean and from Mexico to the North Pole.
He made bishop once in The Episcopal Church, and then he made Ordinary (much the same thing) in the Catholic Church — in a larger organization, with a bigger see (at least geographically). As even Fr Smuts says, “And look just how far that ecumenism has brought him”! Indeed.
I’ve read Catholic commentary that says careerism is a form of Greed.
This commentary is rather uncharitable Mr Bruce. It seems to my mind at least, a massive step to lay down a bishopric. I know few men would…
Fr. you must be kidding me? Who really believes the Anglican bishopric has any real authority now? And as you even know, the office of the Archbishop of Canterbury is basically gone! Indeed, the only “authority” is in “truth”…biblically, theologically and historically… And here is the true Pilgrim Church, both catholic & evangelical! Sadly, it appears the best of the Anglican Communion seems to be in the ground…buried, and “asleep in Jesus”!
I’m just curious – after a comment like that, are you really wanting to eventually join the Ordinariate? If so, how in the world is making ad hominum attacks against the man who would eventually be your spiritual father good for anyone, including you? You have personally and repeatedly impuned Msgr. Steenson’s motives, competence, integrity, and priorities on more than one public blog. You have certainly made yourself and your opinions widely known. And this is good or useful for you and/or your obviously troubled community…how??? It seems to me remarkably similar (and about as intelligent or as effective) as hacking a hole in the bottom of your own boat, then throwing the captain overboard. I hope you are a really great swimmer.
These metaphors mean really nothing today! And the Tiber will not see me again! (Never did swim that, just born into it.) Certainly we must acknowledge the RCC, but think both historically and critically therein. Let’s face it “Brethren” the Church is NOT infallible, East or West! “The highest theology is not the cacophony of the scholastic doctors, but the awesome silences of negative theology.” (Luther, WA) That’s always a much harder road, but really safer, and here is the real “Crucifixion”, Death & Cross of Christ! (1 Cor. 1:1-5)…”That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.” (Verse 5)
And btw, the whole western church and world is a “troubled community”, now! We shall see how long “faith” on earth survives? (Lk. 18: 8) It is not popular to say such things today, but better “truth” than platitudes! Note again, how Rome is throwing the Modern Jewish people & nation “Israel” under the buss!
“bus and “buss-saw”!
*I know its buzz, but I used the extra s, as I hung the s.
With your extensive theological background you surely know that no Catholic in the world believes that the Church (or the pope) is generally infallible in what she (or he) does or say.
We simply believe that our Lord has provided for error-free interpretation and propagation of the deposit of faith by the Church (using the mechanism of the Petrine office of keys) pretty much the same way He has provided for the error-free presentation of the deposit of faith in the Scripture by otherwise quite fallible human authors.
It is hard to deny that it is a sound and quite logical theological concept, even if you personally do not believe it.
Indeed the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility is a much layered thing! Note the so-called Magisterium of the Pastors.
I’ll say it again, Mr. Bruce: your uncharitable attacks against Msgr Steenson are uncalled for and are just downright nasty. You are constantly drawing more and more negative attention to your poor battle-weary parish – heaping burning embers onto a situation already ablaze with anger. Stop while you are behind, lest you paint all St Mary’s Parishioners as bitter, anti-Catholic hags who just go on the Internet to stir the pot! Some of the parishioners there would actually like to become Catholic, and you are giving the whole parish a bad name. The Catholic Church may want to think twice before dealing with your group if you are representative of the whole.
Btw, lets lighten things up here, I am enjoying a copy of The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible (RSV), NT… my Roman Catholic priest friend I work with (were both Hospital Chaplains), gave me.
He is younger than the ‘old irishanglican’, but who isn’t these days it seems? 
Yes, it is brilliant! When complete (OT) it’ll be my daily Bible of choice.
Speaking of which… (next post).
I wonder when they will get to the OT? I remember the Orthodox Study (NKJV), which never got to the OT, at least in that edition. Sadly, the OT sometimes gets placed secondary with Christians.
Naturally, people are entitled to ask whether or not I intend to go into the Ordinariate, and I don’t think it’s all that hard to divine my current intentions — it sounds as though others, like Fr Christopher Phillips, have come to somewhat similar conclusions. It’s pretty plain that St Mary of the Angels won’t be going into the Ordinariate as things stand, so I probably won’t have much choice in the matter myself. I certainly wouldn’t go in as an individual, with little option but to get the Sacrament over the web!
John,
You don’t have to go to church to be a genuine and right-believing Catholic. If no genuine priest (and Mass) is not available to you, you have no obligation to attend a non-Catholic service. In fact you are obligated to avoid it!
When it is considered that that the Catholic Church the Church of England, other Churches in the Anglican Communion including the Episcopal Church, other “continuing Anglican” communities and various other denomiations have their bishops who thereby acquire episcopal authority, it is curious to see quite so much bad mouthing of the Catholic hierarchy in the blogosphere – even from those who purport to support the Ordinariate. For example, it was a shock to find two quotations on a particular blog. The blog in question purports to support the Holy Father’s initiative and on the “About” page the moderator speaks of “the divisive. hateful rhetoric of many “Continuing Anglicans” – yet the two paragraphs quoted below appear to have been keyboarded by that same moderator.
“Dreadful news about Our Lady of the Atonement. Powerful forces in Hell and the American Church are working to destroy the Ordinariate from the very start. The Holy Father’s will is clearly being flouted, as seemingly everywhere else. Pray for Fr. Phillips and his congregation. The builders truly have rejected the chief cornerstone.” and elsewhere this: “Perhaps the Holy Father, having been informed of the mischief and villainy on this side of the Pond, may soon bring his will to bear on his disobedient and arrogant American bishops?”.
Perhaps the proper conclusion is that the schisms and disputes (i) between the Episcopal Church and the “Continuing Anglicans”, (ii) between the different continuing bodies and (iii) within particular bodies have all been so protracted and bitter andwith so much name-calling between the protagonists that grossly offesive hyperbole has become the norm. If that is indeed the case the case then Mr Bruce’s comments, while remainnig offensive, are at least more understandable.
Obviously, the Catholic hierarchy in the USA is a verly large body, Since bishops are human too, some may well from time to time seem arrogant and other may be guilty of some foot dragging where policies they do not like are concerned. But people not yet in the Catholic Church may not as yet understand that a Catholic bishop is in a very different position to most Anglican ones. Once a CofE bishop takes possession of his see he is irremovable and ungovernable – short of some process akin to having him certified as insane, jailed or subjected to a full heresy trial. In the Catholic Church,the exercise of papal authority can be very decisive when need be. In the words of Canon Law: “By virtue of his office [the Pope] possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely….No appeal or recourse is permitted against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff.” Because the Papacy has that plenitude of power, it is not often ecessary to exercise it to its fullest extent.