Open Response to Msgr Steenson’s Letter by Rector, Wardens and Vestrymen of St Mary of the Angels
May 6, 2012 16 Comments
[Background: Msgr Jeffrey Steenson letter to the ACA parish of St Mary of the Angels in Hollywood is here.]
In via e-mail:
Open Response to Msgr Steenson’s Letter of May 3, 2012
By the Rector, Wardens, & Vestrymen
Of Saint Mary of the Angels, May 5, 2012
There have indeed been obstacles in our path, and these are being overcome.
1) Almost all Parishioners (and some desiring to become Parishioners) have been instructed in the Evangelium Catechism used by those entering the English Ordinariate. This was approved by Msgr. Stetson. Each person has been exhorted to examine his or her conscience in this matter. 65 have endorsed the Petition at this time.
2) The Corporation, underCalifornialaw, determines its affiliation. This has been tested in the past in court. Two votes of the Corporation members have already been taken in the affirmative, by over 80%. A third vote is scheduled for May / June, 2012.
3) St Mary’s website does not refer to any charges, nor have any disciplinary actions been undertaken by any recognized authority over St Mary’s Church. On the instruction of our Bishop, at the division of the House of Bishops of the ACA, our only connection to the ACA was the Patrimony of the Primate. When this structure closed, April 15, 2012, so too were our ties to the ACA. The Solemn Agreement adopted by all ACA bishops on April 26, 2011, at Tucson, guaranteed that any parish desiring to return to an ACA jurisdiction from the Patrimony had to formally request such a move. St Mary’s has not done so. Dissolving in reverse, ex post facto, has no legal effect in theUnited States of America. (See above, Point 2, and the U.S.Constitution.)
4) The statement that there are “charges” – and this is noted on the website – is contrafactual, to the best of our knowledge and a thorough web-search. No “charges” were ever brought against Fr Kelley, only allegations, and that without foundation in evidence.
5) As a matter of Californiacivil law, who has oversight is a matter determined by the Corporation.
6) The Vestry has been duly elected at an Annual Parish Meeting, according to the By-Laws. NO Vestry Member may be “appointed” in this Parish, under CA Law, not even by any Rector, Bishop, or presumptive Canon. State Law in CA specifies who are the legitimate authorities, past and present.
7) Only a single Draft of proposed Articles and By-Laws was ever offered by us, and that only for comment, before its submission to the Vestry, although up to five drafts were communicated from sources unknown, pretending to be on authority.
8) The actual tally of votes was provided electronically immediately after the vote, Sunday, January 22, 2012; this was acknowledged by both Msgr Wm. Stetson and Fr S. Hurd. The vote countof May 1, 2011, was also transmitted and acknowledged. All Vestry members signed the letter to Cardinal Wuerl on December 11, 2011, expressing the stated will of the Parish (by over 80%) to join the Ordinariate soon after its formal erection in 2012. This was also acknowledged by the Cardinal’s office.
9) At the January 2012 meeting, copies of Dr Chalmers’s statement on parish property was made available to all who wished to examine it; several expressed interest and took it for examination; it was discussed on the floor of the meeting. Fr Raymond Willy and Mr Charles Coulombe were Roman Catholic witnesses; Pastor Philip George was a Presbyterian witness.
10) The nine points in bishop Steve Strawn’s April 2 “Notice IF Inhibition” (sic) were all falsehoods. They rest only on slander, gossip, or speculation. Some of them are actually impossible, as does appear to any careful examiner. Bp Strawn has never had legitimate jurisdiction over St Mary of the Angels.
About Fr Stephen Smuts
Jesus mercy, Mary pray. Dear people of SMA, we pray for you!
+ PAX et BONUM
“Only a single draft of proposed Aryicles and By-laws was ever offered by us, and that only for comment, before its submission to the vestry, although up to five were submitted by sources unknown, pretending to be on authority. ” Huh? What does this mean?
Is Dr Tromping saying that new Articles and By-laws in compliance with Catholic Canon Law have been approved by the Vestry under Fr Kelley? If so, please say so in an unambiguous way.
If you are saying that Fr Kelley sent a draft to the Ordinariate for comment only and not in mind to ha
(Typing on a phone) not in mind to have them corrected — that is the problem! Being a faithful priest and pastor is more important than making up your own rules.
Who in the world could have impersonated you to submit the other five drafts? Between that and all the IRS letters getting stolen from your office, there is some goofy stuff happening over there. Has LAPD been called or have you filled police reports? I think you should if only to serve notice to the parish’s insurer.
How about the audit? Has that been completed? Give a copy to every parishioner Mr President and Chairman of the Board. I’m a member of the corporation and I would like to see you rise above suspicion. Can you also please request the IRS to send you new copies of their letters to St. Mary’s? I think our insurer and your’s would recommend that too.
insurer.
In reply to your statement that under California law a corporation determines its own affiliation :
St. Mary’s has never voted to leave the ACA. We haven’t entered the Ordinariate so we have to deal with the reality that we remain an ACA parish. Beyond the appeal to civil law, we are Anglo-Catholics and as such we know that a priest and a local church require a Bishop to function. One can’t simply assert that “nobody’s the boss of me” or claim that we are subject to Catholic jurisdiction when we have not yet been received.
One more thing. You cannot transfer members out of the congregation by fiat.
members
That also includes a duly elected vestry member, then she was told to communicate with the Aviation Lawyer which represents FrK and SMA, if she wanted to communicate with them them.
The “rector” at St Mary’s is just making himself look crazier and crazier by the moment! All the conspiracy theories are getting wildly out of control. And first he says he’s under Falk, next he says he’s under Moyer, and now he’s saying the parish has gone rogue?!? It’s a bit much. St. Mary’s bylaws still say that the parish is in the ACA. And their website still proudly displays the ACA logo. Try to display some consistency, people! Get your lies straight, if you’re going to tell lies!
That’s “Chairman of the Board, President, & Rector Extraordinaire.”
9) “copies of Dr Chalmers’s statement on parish property was made available to ALL” Wrong! Copies were distributed to members that were physically present that Sunday, about an hour prior to the vote. There were roughly 20%-30% who voted via the USPS or Proxy.
They want to take a third vote on May/June 2012?!! Why?
There are only two reasons that come to my mind why he’d want to do this. The first is to finally show the parish the articles and by-laws they need to approve to actually enter the Ordinariate. From an outsider’s point of view, it doesn’t seem like Fr Kelly would want to do that as he’d lose his precious power and control. But that would be one reason, though this isn’t really about whether the parish should enter the Ordinariate or not, but about making it an Ordinariate corporation.
The other reason for having yet another vote is to get a different result so Fr Kelly can now say ‘we don’t wish to move into the Ordinariate now/until things settle down/never’ or ‘it’s not what we wanted anyway’ or ‘the mind of the parish now says…’ Very convenient for him as he can hide behind ‘the will of the people’ and protect his fiefdom.
Nobody seems to have pointed out the obvious yet. The future of St Mary of the Angles is clearly delayed by Fr Kelley himself. If Fr Kelly is innocent of the accusations from Bp Strawn like he maintains, then why hasn’t he stepped down and let the parish go forward into a better way of life regardless? He can always defend himself after stepping aside, but at the same time, he can let those parishioners go into the Ordinariate after they work with the Anglican church to clean the messes up. This priest’s parish is in an unproar and I’d wager that at least half of the congregation is angry with Fr Kelly. If he is a true shepherd and not a false one, why hasn’t he stepped aside for the good of his people?
But something tells me this is really about Fr Kelly protecting himself and keeping strict control and power. He probably also doesn’t want to leave church records open to everyone to investigate.
Thank you ROBERT BRUCE, for insightful remarks.
In checking the St. Mary of the Angels website, I find it curious that there are only 8 vestry members. I was a member of the Episcopal Church and in my day a church couldn’t have an even number as that would allow the rector to cast the tie-breaking vote more often than not. I thought maybe this was the case at St. Mary of the Angels until I saw a name: Linda Bruce. Is this person related to the ubiquitous John Bruce on the blogs? If so, then that priest likely has his vestry stacked with Yes Men.
If the Linda on their website is related to the John here, we can surmise that John Bruce is speaking similar thoughts as that of his priest.
Yes. Linda is married to John Bruce. From what I heard, she previously resigned from the vestry, because her precious JB couldn’t be the treasurer. Yes man indeed.
Father Stephen –
Looks like your blog is now the home the know-it-alls come to now that the Anglo-Catholic is off limits (tightened security) and The English Catholic is now closed. Keep up the good work though as I like coming here because you have been getting story breaks first.
Thanks Matthew.
Reading all that has been posted on various both the Atonement Academy fuss and the situation of St Mary of the Angels, I suspect that the fact that the legal status of CofE church buildings made it impossible for any Ordiariate Group to lay claim to the CofE church building in which they worshipped may prove to have been a blessing in disguise – even though it was undoubtedly very painful for many to leave behind the buildings they loved.
When one considers the previous history of disputes between the Episcopal Church and numbers of its diocesans with parishes which wished to affiliate to other “Continuing Anglican” jurisdictions one can begin to understand the immense stress some pastors and congregations will have been under for lengthy periods.
But some of the comments about the OCP Ordinary and the Catholic Hierarchy in relation to these issues on this and other blogs do seem ill-judged and gratuitously offensive. One can understand that there will be derogatory comments from those who are hostile to the Catholic Church for other reasons, but where the comments come from those who purport to wish to join the Catholic Church through the Ordinariate, one does wonder how they think their posts will contribute to the success of the Holy Father’s initiative.