Fr Stephen Smuts

St Mary of the Angels: The Rest of the Hollywood Story

with 23 comments

With thanks to Fr Lawrence B. Wheeler who pointed out this article by Mrs Martha C. Eischenn in an comment earlier.

“For God is not a God of confusion, but a God of peace.” I Corinthians 14:33

Many wild accusations and pronouncements have been swirling around about St. Mary of the Angels, Hollywood, CA, and especially its rector, Fr Christopher Kelley. It has been anything but peaceful in Hollywood. The following sentence from “An Open Appeal to Bishop Marsh,” by the Rev Lawrence B. Wheeler, Holy Cross, Honolulu, sums it up rather accurately:

“The people of St. Mary’s, Hollywood are now suffering greatly from the wounds of division. The congregation has been polarized over the issue of their transition into the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter and Fr. Kelley’s leadership in that direction.”

An attorney involved in the case said, “It is a complicated legal situation.”

Actually it’s not at all complicated. Two very opposing parties actually came together for two very different reasons to support the chaotic upheaval of this well-heeled parish of true believers, led by a very humble, godly priest, to advance their disparate, but parallel, agendas. Each of the parties sought, by any means, to upset both the course of the parish into the Ordinariate and the path to ordination and continued leadership of the rector. Strange bedfellows they were. Personal ambition and the lust for possession of the good land.

The end, which is still unfolding, voices have spoken above the din of the claims. In the end, who has the authority to restore the flock, with its shepherd, thatshepherd that it may safely graze? In the end, does the continued existence of the Patrimony of the Primate, to which St Mary’s clearly belonged, even matter? Did it affect the status of St Mary’s today?

Hoping to capitalize on the court order of June 13, 2012, in which the judge of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, made a statement that judicial interference in a dispute within a hierarchical religious organization was unconstitutional, Bishop Brian Marsh, as presiding bishop of the Anglican Church in America (ACA), seized the opportunity to make his categorical claim that “as the highest liturgical and religious authority in the ACA” he was advising the Los Angeles Police Department that “Fr Kelley is not the rector at St Mary’s and he has had no authority under the ACA to perform or act in any way as a priest there or to be on the premises since April 2, 2012.”

But the judge’s statement gave Bishop Marsh no such permission. In fact, she simply turns back the questions to the two equal parties in the dispute. Judge Ann I. Jones, concluded the following:

This case clearly presents a dispute within a hierarchical religious organization as to whether the Church has followed its own procedures, i.e., whether the Patrimony of the Primate was properly dissolved or continues to exist. This court would be acting unconstitutionally were it to interject itself into that controversy… Moreover, even if it were not to decide that judicial interference in this matter is unconstitutional, the Court would still deny the Preliminary Injunction on equitable grounds. ACA’s own personnel have repeatedly represented to parishes – after January 1, 2012 (the date on which Plaintiffs claim that the Patrimony dissolved),that, that they simply need to make a decision regarding their future jurisdiction, and that those parishes that wished to enter the Ordinariate would simply need to apply and that the parish’s acceptance would be “no big deal.” Sometime thereafter, as evidenced by this lawsuit, leaving the ACA became a very big deal and defendant’s reasonable reliance to its detriment to proceed under the ACA’s own stated processes estops the Plaintiffs from changing the rules at this juncture. He who seeks equity must do equity. That has not happened in this case.

From the trail of minutes and documents of the ACA itself, it is very clear, not at all complicated, that the ACA has no authority, jurisdiction or oversight in the ministry, fellowship, and decision-making of the Church of St Mary of the Angels, Hollywood.

For a thorough and clear record of the decisions and statements made by the House of Bishops of the ACA for the last two years, all one needs to do is retrieve the Declaration of the Archbishop Louis W. Falk in support of the opposition to Fr. Christopher P. Kelley to Plaintiffs’ Application for a Preliminary Injunction, filed in Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, June 8, 2012. In that declaration, several key exhibits are presented, which again quite clearly support the parish, its duly constituted vestry and duly elected rector, and their right to determine their own destiny. Those documents are:

1. The Letter of the Patrimony – Abp Falk says, in paragraph 8, “In October of 2010, the ACA bishops, myself included, held our semi-annual meeting. Bishop Stephen D. Strawn proposed that the bishops adopt the Patrimony. His proposal was unanimously accepted, and the Bishops thereafter jointly prepared and authorized the issuance of a letter entitled “Patrimony of the Primate,” which does set forth the intent and purpose of the Patrimony.” Paragraph 5 of that letter reads: “If at a future time the clergy or the parish seeks to return to the Diocese from which they were transferred and released, they are to apply to the Bishop/Ordinary for a License and membership respectively.” St Mary’s has never applied to return.

2. Vestry minutes and letters supporting the legitimate votes and subsequent requests for removal from the Diocese of the West of the ACA are likewise exhibits in this Declaration. St Mary’s and its clergy were released to the Patrimony of the Primate with letters dismissory by then bishop of the Diocese of the West (DOW),Daren, Daren K. Williams, on January 28, 2011.

3. Statement by the House of Bishops – on the subject of the Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter, dated January 10, 2012. The end of Paragraph 2 states: “those who were formerly part of the Patrimony of the Primate must now make a decision regarding their future jurisdiction. Anyone, whether clergy or laity, who may now wish to return to the Anglican Church in America, should do so by contacting the diocesan bishop in their area.” Further, “Now that the circumstances regarding the Ordinariate have been clarified, we welcome those who wish to return to the ACA.” St Mary’s did not do so. Whether the Patrimony of the Primate was dissolved on January 1, 2012 or on April 12, 2012 is irrelevant. The path back into a jurisdiction in the ACA was clearly spelled out on at least two occasions recorded. St Mary’s chose not to return.

Archbishop Falk’s closing statement is, “…Bishop Strawn is without authority to issue the April 2, 2012 “Notice of Inhibition” against Father Kelley. From the time Bishop Williams discharged St Mary’s from the DOW in December 2010 through the present, St Mary’s was, and is no longer a member of the DOW, and as such falls outside of the DOW ecclesiastical care as well as its charge and control.”

In a strongly-worded letter, dated February 5, 2011, and entitled: Re: The Status of the Anglican Church in America, the chancellors of all the dioceses wrote: “According to our canons, those Bishops, clergy and parishes who leave for another jurisdiction, such as the Roman Catholic Ordinariate or the so-called Patrimony of the Primate, have, at this time abandoned the communion of this church and the ACA. With deep regret, the ACA declares that they are no longer a part of the ACA.”
So then, who holds the authority today over the household of St Mary of the Angels? And, how do they derive it?

We can state the following by summarizing Fr Wheeler’s appeal:

1. The vestry holds the cards. Whether it’s by the independent authority of the corporation of the parish, which independence was challenged and upheld at least two times before in court, or whether it is by the canons of the diocese or the ACA canons, the latter two of which are irrelevant, St Mary of the Angels has the right, by the agents of its vestry, to determine its destiny and its property use and ownership.

2. At each annual meeting, St Mary’s elected valid members of the vestry. The names of the current members can be supplied by Fr. Kelley and Dr. Allan Trimpi, his rector’s wardenFr. Kelley and Dr. Allan Trimpi, his rector’s warden, can supply the names of the current members. Further, the vestry stand firm in unanimous support of Fr. Kelley as their rector and havevestry stands firm in unanimous support of Fr. Kelley as their rector and has the utmost confidence in his leadership toward the transition into the Ordinariate.

“Therefore, the opinion of certain members of the opposition to the contrary notwithstanding, any contention that Canon Anthony Morello is the priest-in-charge of St Mary’s is simply bogus. Further, the names of any other so-called vestry members purported to you by Fr. Morello, or by any one of the members of the opposition, some of whom have illegally occupied the church building, are also bogus. Neither does Fr. Morello, nor does Bishop Strawn, nor does Bishop Marsh have the authority to elect or appoint members of the vestry, nor, for that matter, does Fr. Kelley. It is the annual meeting of St Mary’s communicants that elects the vestry, period.” (fromFrom the appeal by Fr Wheeler)

In conclusion, I ask these questions:

1. Does it matter that the entire body of St Mary’s voted properly, not once but twice –in 2011 and 2012 – regarding its own destiny, and the overwhelming majority, more than 80%, voted to go to the Ordinariate and fully supported without reservation their priest and rector?

2. Does it matter that the minority, because it desperately wanted to keep its wealth out of the clutches of the Catholic Church did the most heinous things against its own brothers and sisters in Jesus? It was more important to keep the property than to accept the will of the majority, much less abide by the law.

3. Does anyone in the Ordinariate, who is in a position to examine the character and life of a godly priest, this Fr. Kelley, know that from the start there was a pernicious effort afoot, a wicked conspiracy set in motion to destroy a humble priest, who continues under great affliction to be the rector of St Mary’s? Even the civil courts deemed there was no competent evidence to support their trumped-up claims of wrongdoing. All to keep the property, a man’s life and work and a church family’s spiritual journey based on conscience are slammed against the rocks by an advance guilty verdict reported in the court of public opinion.

Let us be reminded that neither Fr. Kelley nor the board of directors of St. Mary’s sought the official court ruling by the Superior Court of California,California was not sought by Fr. Kelley or the board of directors of St. Mary’s, but by members of the oppositionmembers of the opposition pursued it themselves. It was the court of their own choosing. They have no case. Therefore, any further action taken by the ACA, or most especially by the dissidents themselves to circumvent the ruling of the civil court, or to apply ACA canon law to accuse or abuse Fr. Kelley or the true vestry of St. Mary’s, is utterly without merit. The case against Fr Kelley is closed.

This madness is not of God. The lust for power and control, in this case of a substantial property, and the personal ambitions of another, cost an innocent man and an equally innocent congregation not only their reputation, butbut also it cost them their safe grazing in peace and righteousness. St. James warns us perfectly in James 3:16-17, “Where envying and strife is there is confusion and every evil work. But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy. And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace.”

All suffering is redemptive, so we know that God will sanctify this suffering to thosegreatlythose greatly injured, but let us plead for our souls’ health, as in the collect for purity:

Almighty God, unto whom all hearts are open, all desires known, and from whom no secrets are hid; Cleanse the thoughts of our hearts by the inspiration of thy Holy Spirit, that we may perfectly love thee and worthily magnify thy holy name, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Wow. Do feel free to comment.

 

About these ads

23 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. I feel ashamed that I had doubts about St. Mary’s… I don’t know if Fr. Kelley is (legally) innocent or not, but I am so happy that there seems to be no case against him, if Fr. Wheeler is accurate about the situation at St. Mary’s. I was made to think that it was all complicated, because of accusations regarding IRS issues and mismanagement of Parish funds, and so forth…

    So the questions now stand: Will this church be accepted into the Ordinariate? When? I feel that much offense was done against innocent people.

    Suppose St. Mary’s and the congregation were accepted into the COSP Ordinariate, will this situation happen again? I hope not! I hope there won’t be any back-pedaling, or “I was wrong!”s when already inside the Catholic Church…

    Ioannes

    June 26, 2012 at 07:20

    • Ioannes, the Ordinariate cannot receive any parish or priest whilst there are as yet unresolved issues – not least, in this case, the question mark over property. Once it has been, as I am sure it will, resolved in the St Mary’s favour, then the Ordinariate can look at the application again. It is all very sad but not the fault of the Catholic Church which has played a pretty straight bat on this one.
      I keep them all in my pruaers.

      Fr Gerard

      June 26, 2012 at 12:25

      • I do remember the rector repeating that the church is “An independent corporation” and they have the certificate displayed near the entrance… So to simplify it, will they need to get rid of that? I take it to mean that if they -were- accepted into the Ordinariate, the church can’t be touched by the Ordinary or the local bishop (in this case, Archbishop Gomez) because the guarantee of secular courts of the church being its own corporation?

        I feel like I’ve heard this situation before… “Who owns the church property?” Isn’t there a canon law that St. Mary’s has to obey regarding the ownership of church property? And from what I’ve read elsewhere, no bishop can force the rector to leave that property due to secular law. (And as we’ve seen a few posts ago, it had become a “siege” situation.) So the accusation regarding Fr. Kelley being at fault is centered on his perceived inability to let go of anything regarding the church?

        Yes, I noticed that the Catholic Church isn’t butting in on the entire situation, which I think is a wise decision.

        Ioannes

        June 26, 2012 at 13:34

      • Ioannes,

        If and when St. Mary of the Angels enters the Ordinariate, it would have to change its bylaws to make them compatible with the Canon Law of the Catholic Church. In short, each parish will be individually incorporated, with a board of trustees that typically includes the Ordinary, Chancellor and Pastor and two others (appointed by the Pastor or elected). The Ordinariate has a fairly detailed description of requirements on its web site. In fact, all dioceses should be set up this way, but most in the U.S. are set up as corporation sole which was appropriate when we were a mission territory without any real parishes, but is not appropriate today. Many dioceses, now that they have been bankrupted by lawsuits, are seeing the wisdom of the proper incorporation according to the rules of Canon Law, but too late for their benefit.

        Steve Cavanaugh

        June 26, 2012 at 15:07

      • Mr. Cavanaugh,

        I would guess that when St. Mary’s voted to enter the Ordinariate, Msgr. Stetson (Who I believe was supposed to supervise St. Mary’s transition into the Catholic Church) would have known and would have discussed the necessary changes to St. Mary’s bylaws with the rector and the vestry…. I wonder if Msgr. Stetson did meet with the people at St. Mary’s to clarify what they have to do?

        Looking at the open letter that Msgr. Steenson wrote and St. Mary’s response, it seemed like a simple dialogue of “Well, this is what you have to do,” and “But that’s what we did!” And it seems like there’s a large chunk that’s missing between that exchange and the more recent events with St. Mary’s chronicled in this blog. Should we expect any comments from Msgr. Stetson any time soon, or will we have to wait for further developments coming from St. Mary’s itself? I just find it odd that Msgr. Stetson is silent about St. Mary’s. (Or maybe I misunderstand his task in his supervision of St. Mary’s transition?)

        Ioannes

        June 26, 2012 at 16:45

      • Ioannes, I wouldn’t expect any comments while this process at St Mary’s is going on. That doesn’t mean I think nothing’s happening, but the general public’s desire to know what’s going on doesn’t mean that Msgr Steenson or Msgr Stetson want to discuss an ongoing situation. What we know is that the Ordinary is aware of the situation, has appointed a trusted aide of the Archbishop of Los Angeles as his representative, and that they are involved. But I don’t see that public comments while any negotiations are going on would help St. Mary’s. Any communications would likely be privileged ones between Fr. Kelley, his vestry and the Ordinariate personnel. In other words, we are all on a need-to-know basis, and you and I (and the general news-hungry public) don’t need to know! All we can do is follow and pray for a just resolution.

        Steve Cavanaugh

        June 26, 2012 at 18:36

  2. VOL has been clearly biased against the Ordinariate and so has been his coverage of St. Mary’s ordeal, including the last one-sided material posted on his site. Repeating a mantra of “It has nothing to do with the Ordinariate” has never seemed particularly convincing to me.
    And this piece is the most logical presentation of facts in the case I have read so far, very convincing in its quotations from ACA’s own documents.
    ACA seems no better in her attitide towards St. Mary’s then so much criticised TEC in her dealing with continuing Anglicanism parishes.
    I truly hope that through the intercession of Our Lady people of St. Mary’s will get strength to go through all this.

    Continental Catholic

    June 26, 2012 at 07:57

    • Very well said. I invoke the same for other groups of Anglicans (i.e. http://www.newmanfellowship.org) who are remaining true to their inherited Spiritual identities with much misunderstanding and persecution from within and without.

      SJO

      June 30, 2012 at 21:32

  3. I was in the parish meetings in January 2012, as well as discussions in December 2011, regarding St Marys proposed entry to the Ordinariate. Although the subject was contentious at that time, in late December we were assured by Msgr Stetson that the Ordinary (as yet not named) would be in a position to receive the parish into the Ordinariate on one of the first Sundays in January 2012. However, based on statements by Msgr Stetson in a parish meeting in early January, sometime after that, ACA Abp Falk forwarded a list of complaints by the group of 8-12 parish dissidents to RC Church authorities. At that time, Msgr Steenson, who had then been named as Ordinary, asked for a second parish vote on entering the Ordinariate. The margin was, again, over 80%. In the meeting of early January, parishioners asked Msgr Stetson whether it would be necessary to revise the parish bylaws and articles of incorporation prior to reception into the Ordinariate — his answer was a definite “no”. But within a short time, Margaret Chalmers, the newly appointed Chancellor of the Oridinariate, apparentlty overruled him, and it then became necessary to revise the bylaws.

    The bylaws had been revised and were set to be approved by the parish at a special meeting set for May 27, 2012. However, the ACA filed suit and asked for a temporary restraining order that would prevent this meeting from taking place on May 25. The judge granted the TRO then, but reversed herself on June 13. Due to the current difficulties, there hasn’t been a rescheduling of this meeting.

    The Ordinariate’s dealings with St Mary’s haven’t been consistent, as you can see — we’ve been working with mixed and contradictory messages from the start, including Msgr Steenson’s Open Letter, which states incorrect facts in nearly all of its points. This has in fact been causing knowledgeable parishioners some pause — even if the May 27 meeting had been held, I would certainly have aired some of my dissatisfaction with how the Ordinary has handled our case, and I doubt if I would have been a lone voice. The Ordinary and Msgr Stetson will certainly need to do some pastoral work to reassure the parish of how things will be handled going forward, although whether things do in fact move forward is definitely up in the air.

    John Bruce

    June 26, 2012 at 18:04

  4. What i can’t understand..is the fact that no ACA property is owned. by the Diocese. I thought the polity was strictly congregational.

    Robert Ian Wi;lliam

    June 26, 2012 at 20:58

  5. I think there’s a lot of confusion as to the motives of the dissidents, and I don’t think you can characterize them in one fell swoop. If the parish goes into the Ordinariate, it would need to revise its articles of incorporation and bylaws, per the Ordinariate guidelines, to make it plain that the property would in fact be much less under the control of the parish, and subject to Roman Catholic governance. This is not the case with the ACA. However, in the numerous parish meetings and informal discussions on this matter, there have been only a few reservations raised on the specific issue of property ownership, and those haven’t been decisive.

    The dissidents who’ve been vocal on the forums have insisted that most of them are in favor of the Ordinariate, although it’s worth raising the question that whatever their stated intentions, the practical result has been to delay the parish’s entry indefinitely. A somewhat bigger concern is how a rector is selected under the Ordinariate: Anglican and Episcopal vestries call a rector with the assent of the bishop (and the bishop can game this, of course, but there’s a lot more vestry control). Under the Ordinariate, the Ordinary designates the rector, period. I would say that the parish is currently looking at the question of what would happen here, should the parish go in, with considerable wariness — the informal setup of the US Ordinariate is starting to look like a club of old-boy associates who’ve had an informal queue of plum assignments for quite some time. While I don’t speak for the parish, I’d say that it’s not unreasonable for St Mary’s to feel that the effort we spend in getting into the Ordinariate should not be rewarded by having some politically adept protege imposed on us.

    John Bruce

    June 26, 2012 at 21:55

    • The charge, and really, it is a spurious one, that the Ordinariate in the US is “a club of old-boy associates who’ve had an informal queue of plum assignments” which I’ve seen in other words elsewhere is not based on fact. Let’s look at the parishes which have so far been received into the Ordinariate:

      Parish Pastor before Ordinariate Pastor after Ordinariate
      St. Michael’s Philadelphia Fr. Ousley Fr. Ousley
      Mount Calvary Baltimore Fr. Catania Fr. Catania
      Christ the King Towson Fr. Meeks Fr. Meeks
      St Thomas More Scranton Fr. Bergman Fr. Bergman
      St Lukes Bladensburg Fr. Lewis Fr. Lewis
      Our Lady of Walsingham
      Houston Fr. Ramsey Fr. Hough

      So, there’s been one change of a pastor. In most parishes, the leadership remained unchanged. Even at the retirement of Fr. Ramsey, the parish administrator named was the OLW’s long-serving Deacon James Barnett. It seems like fear-mongering to suggest a program of planned leadership changes, and in the absence of proof of such, it is neither charitable nor helpful.

      Steve Cavanaugh

      June 27, 2012 at 03:13

  6. On the last thread on this subject, I suggested that one should avoid trial by blog – and I mention in particular VOL which has an agenda of its own. There are two quite separate issues:-

    Title to the Church property will have to be clear and free of all pending disputes and then placed into a trust conforming to the Ordinriate requirements. Steve Cavanaugh has this right.

    Secondly, if the Pastor wishes to enter the formation programme with a view to ordination as a Catholic priest, then there are quite a number of procedural hurdles.

    But there is one thing I would say: I can think of qute a number of Mr Bruce’s posts over the past months which might be regarded as very unfortunate. When applying to be received into any hierarchical structure, its not generally a good idea to slag off the man at the top in the public prints or blogs.

    Mourad

    June 27, 2012 at 00:42

    • On the other hand, Mr Cavanaugh leaves Our Lady of Walsingham blank, although via a post on this blog, it’s to be filled by the son in a father-son combination from the former Episcopal Diocese of Ft Worth. I don’t mean to sound uncharitable, but father-son combinations have long been common in Anglican denominations (they of course are highly irregular in the Roman rite), and in other lines of work would be characterized as nepotism. The son made rector of an Episcopal parish by age 30, almost certainly aided by his dad’s position as Canon to the Ordinary in the same diocese — this is my reading of the account, I’ll be grateful for any correction. It seems that the same old forces are still at work, and I hate to say it, but this gives me pause indeed.

      For Mourad, I would say that criticism of Catholic bishops is entirely appropriate for laity; for clergy not so much — but I’m a layman. Fr Z has opined that bishops who are criticized need to put on their big-boy underwear and deal with it. The folks at St Mary’s are fully entitled to review all the factors applicable to their potential entry to the Ordinariate and express their opinions.

      John Bruce

      June 27, 2012 at 16:54

      • I see, I misread Mr Cavanaugh’s table, and he did fill OLW — but his explanation of the succession there is incomplete, and I think my account is more current.

        John Bruce

        June 27, 2012 at 16:57

      • John Bruce, have you ever considered that the pool of who might be available to be assigned there is extremely limited, and young Deacon Hough is the only one currently available and able to move to Houston? It isn’t as if they have an excess of priests to choose from. At least from the stories, most if not all of the priests coming into the Ordinariate are either firmly attached to a group and likely can’t or don’t want to move, or they have secular employment along with the care of a group and it would be very difficult to uproot the family and move.

        Instead of looking for bad motives and nepotism, you might rather want to look at the small group of those ordained and see just how many you can find that aren’t already attached to a place or a group. I’d bet you’ll have a really hard time finding one. So, before you start making such nasty accusations – do your research and give us names. Tell us, if you were Ordinary, who would you put there that’s available to go? And BTW, the pastors at the places that Mr. Cavanagh has mentioned are off the table. They’ve got their hands full with their “plum assignments,” you know, the ones they had before they even became Catholic.

        wayfarer

        June 28, 2012 at 01:31

  7. This is Martha Eischen, the author of the article above regarding St Mary of the Angels, Hollywood.

    Martha

    June 27, 2012 at 01:05

    • I certainly hope people like Fr. Kelley and the Monsignors Stetson and Steenson have read your article! It certainly is different from the tone of: “Fr. Kelley is at fault all the time!” which I get from some other articles.

      Ioannes

      June 27, 2012 at 16:39

  8. For some reason, I don’t get a “reply” button right in Wayfarer’s post, but this is my reply to him. First, nothing he says seems to change the circumstances of Hough IV’s career: he made rector of an Episcopal parish before reaching 30, which is most unusual, and it’s certainly reasonable for someone to conclude that his father’s position as Canon to the Ordinary in the same diocese had something to do with it. Our Lady of Walsingham is essentially the seat of the Ordinary, one of the most prestigious cures in the Ordinariate. Statements by Msgr Steenson seem to indicate a long-standing relationship with Hough III, which would also lead someone to conclude that Hough III was also in a position to influence his son’s career.

    There are further waves of deacons and other candidates now scheduled for ordination — the group Mr Cavanaugh lists is by no means the entire pool. If he’d chosen, Msgr Steenson could have waited a few weeks and appointed someone from the later groups to OLW.

    The visuals here simply aren’t good, and this has been a continuing problem with the Ordinary, as far as I see it.

    John Bruce

    June 28, 2012 at 16:57

    • Mr. Bruce, it does you no service to speculate on matters you are not familiar with. Fr. Hough IV is certainly not the only young rector that has served in ft. Worth. Even so, he left his position there with no guarantee of any position at all…with a family to support. I am very happy for him.

      Andrew

      June 28, 2012 at 20:06

  9. Ah, Andrew, would you in fact be a fellow young alumnus of TAMU and Nashotah House, expecting as much preferment from the Ordinary as Hough IV? I suspect you’ll have a more difficult time with that than you may have thought, if so, and the possibility that Fr Kelley would be replaced by a younger, more connected alumnus of TAMU and Nashotah House will certainly be a factor in any ultimate decision St Mary’s makes over its entry to the Ordinariate — at this point, of course, indefinitely delayed, and by no means ever a done deal.

    But in any case, my reading of the Ordinariate is that an in-group of disaffected Episcopal clergy did in fact have the whole situation wired well before the Ordinariate was erected.

    John Bruce

    June 28, 2012 at 22:01

    • Very funny! No, I am but a humble layman with nothing to gain or lose. My own suggestion is to is to relax and stop making rash assumptions.

      Andrew

      June 28, 2012 at 22:46

      • Considering what’s happening to St. Mary’s, It’s rather reasonable for him to be unrelaxed and defensive. For him, I mean. As for the rest of us, we can only respond with facts and what we know rather than bite back and behave unchristian. Hopefully, this mess will be resolved. God willing, I mean.

        Ioannes

        June 28, 2012 at 23:30


Post a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 909 other followers