St Mary of the Angels, Hollywood (ACA – TAC) in the LA Times
July 18, 2012 26 Comments
[For a background to the situation, on this blog, go here, here, here, or here.]
Loz Feliz Anglican parish has been embroiled in an odd sort of holy war since some of the 60 members voted to join the Catholic Church. How it will end, God only knows.
The Los Angeles Times:
Under the glimmer of a fingernail moon, Christopher Kelley tiptoed toward a two-story, Spanish Mission-style building in Los Feliz. He and his crew were jittery. What if a security guard spotted them?
A few blocks away, late-night revelers mingled in trendy bars. But Kelley’s target was dark and hushed — exactly as he wanted.
The building’s front door was protected by a padlocked, wrought-iron gate. So the crew crept around back, sidestepping a few jugs of rainwater and a tomato plant. They strained to hear whether anyone had followed them.
Nothing.
Then a locksmith pried open the door.
Motion-sensitive lights flickered on. Kelley felt a rush of joy. For the first time in weeks, the priest was back inside his church.
St. Mary of the Angels is an Anglican parish embroiled in an odd sort of holy war.
On one side are the Rev. Kelley and his supporters, who say their rivals are resisting the parish’s efforts to join the Roman Catholic Church. On the other: parishioners and Anglican authorities who accused Kelley of wrongdoing, took him to court, ran him out of the church and changed the locks.
Church quarrels are frequently decided in courtrooms, particularly when property is involved. A few years back, the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles took a dispute with a breakaway parish all the way to the California Supreme Court.
But the St. Mary’s saga is notable for its viciousness. The church has perhaps 60 members, and the bickering among them has been marked by incendiary accusations and screaming matches that often end with “God is on our side!” The parish itself became such a battleground that for a time community groups were shooed out and services canceled.
“Never in the annals of church history has it gone down quite like this,” said Canon Anthony Morello of the Anglican Church in America, which has sided with the group trying to oust Kelley.
Kelley arrived as parish priest in 2007, having been chosen by St. Mary’s elected board of directors. Now 65, he is white-haired, blue-eyed, slight in build. He speaks in a soft, somewhat grandfatherly tone.
“He was just so pleasant,” said former board member Keith Kang, now a leader of the rival faction.
Kelley and his family — the Anglican church allows married priests — had been living in Michigan, where he worked as an archivist. They relished the summery feel of Los Angeles and the parish’s only-in-Hollywood history. (Its founding priest, Neal Dodd, had bit parts in dozens of films. He usually played a clergyman.)
Kelley and his wife, Mary Alice, moved into the church cottage with two of their children. They embraced the eclectic mix of congregants, many of them converts from other faiths, and the church’s black cat, Vesper.
Somewhere along the way, the goodwill crumbled. The two sides can’t even agree on how.
Kelley says the troubles stem from his enthusiasm for joining the Roman Catholic Church, a door that Pope Benedict XVI recently opened for Anglican parishes. At Kelley’s urging, St. Mary’s members have twice voted to head down that path.
“We can see the dispiritedness of the Anglican movement,” Kelley said. “Pope Benedict’s offer was a sanctuary for us.”
Such a step would sever their ties to the Anglican Church in America, a group of conservative parishes that long ago broke with the larger and better-known Episcopal Church. Kelley portrayed the effort to remove him as a last-ditch attempt to remain in the Anglican fold.
Kelley’s adversaries said the dispute has little to do with faith. Instead, in court papers they described him as a tyrant who mishandled church money — allegedly paying a dental bill with parish funds — and who threatened to excommunicate those who crossed him. Kelley denied the allegations.
Several longtime parishioners had begged Anglican authorities to discipline him. Langley Brandt said in an email to a church official that Kelley was prone to “violent temper tantrums” in which “his face goes red, his hands stiffen and become like a skeleton, and he screams at you with eyes budging.”
In December, a majority of the parish board asked the priest to leave. He didn’t. In April, Anglican officials said they, too, tried to push him out.
Kelley said the bishop who wrote the letter suspending him had no authority to do so, and he continued leading church services.
Kelley’s last Sunday Mass in the sanctuary, on May 20, included a reading from the Gospel of John. It began “Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another.”
His rivals did not attend. In court papers, they alleged that Kelley staffed church services with security guards, forcing his adversaries to worship at a condominium complex. (He said that wasn’t the case.)
Soon after, they secured a temporary restraining order against the priest. It barred Kelley from acting as St. Mary’s rector, pending a hearing on the allegations. Church authorities also asked the court to do what they had been unable to: kick Kelley out for good.
HT: John Bruce
About Fr Stephen Smuts
Truly, I hate the Los Angeles Times. It is the devil’s paper. Not because they do what newspapers ought to do, but the sort of slightly-detectable, condescending tone they have from time to time. Probably in an attempt to be like New York Times.
Between the million pounds returned in the English Ordinariate, the allegations of Archbishop Hepworth ( a divorced and re-married ex Catholic priest), the under currents in Texas , Bishop Moyer and his former parish…and now this, one couldn’t make it up if one tried.
Strange how you do manage to make things up though Mr Williams, insomuch that the four completely separate cases you mention are being used by you to indicate a crisis for the Ordinariates when only the charitable donation return (embarrassing as it is) has anything to do with them.
St Mary of the Angels and Bishop Moyer’s community have not been accepted into the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St Peter as things stand and Archbishop Hepworth remains a continuing Anglican of some kind.
You come across as a bit of a conspiracy theorist making the wrong connections to reinforce your own position.
I pray for a swift and final resolution to the situation in St Mary of the Angels but fear that the appallingly dishonest actions of the ACA Diocese of the West in claiming the the parish had reapplied to join them will just add to the pain here.
The only solution is to make that church a Roman Catholic property. From what I’ve read, TACofECUSACA has been annoyed with St. Mary of the Angels and kicked them out during the 70′s, but not really, since it was only when one set of abbreviations split to form another set of abbreviations within the “Anglican Communion”. Then this happened. I’m not surprised that a majority wanted to leave one of the most confusing cluster of acronyms behind. It’s better if it becomes a church under the care of the Roman Catholic Church.
“There is one God and one Christ, and one Church, and one chair founded on Peter by the word of the Lord. It is not possible to set up another altar or for there to be another priesthood besides that one altar and that one priesthood. Whoever has gathered elsewhere is scattering” (St. Cyprian of Carthage, Letters 43[40]:5 [A.D. 253]).
One source, though by no means the only one, of the current dissension at the parish is the former Curate, who by all accounts is a member (or at least a wannabe-member) of the former TEC Diocese of Ft Worth in-group, who went in a body to the Ordinariate and now by some accounts form an in-group there. There’s a general sense that the ex-Curate felt entitled to become Rector and exploited some of the existing dissatisfaction in an attempt to eject Kelley and take over. Consequently, the allegations of cronyism in the Ordinariate that have appeared elsewhere are of particular concern to those of us in the parish who are still trying to discern its ultimate direction.
St Mary’s is sui generis, and the Ordinariate may not be a good fit.
Wait, this is the same curate who started a new Ordinariate group LAST MAY. And who notified St Mary’s before the last Parish mtg in January of his intent to leave. And who got a new job in OC this part March. And formally resigned in April, before the inhibition.
Please, continue…
I also just have to note that nothing is ever Fr Kelley’s fault. Not even “I guess I could have been more pastoral in that situation” or “Maybe I should apologize for how I came across.” It’s always someone else’s fault…the Curate, the Anti-Ordinariate folks, the former treasurer, the auditor, the vestry, the “dissidents,” the ACA, former disgruntled parishioners…the list continues…
mbjane, just for starters, both the ex-Curate and his wife have been free with the information that he was fired, he did not resign (I have an e-mail to that effect). I have several e-mails from in which he pretty clearly attempts to stir up trouble with vague allegations against Kelley (maintaining all the time that there’s much else he just can’t disclose). Nobody’s perfect, including Kelley, but on the other hand, the wild allegations of embezzlement and such have never been supported, and almost all of this is coming from a group of 8-12 people, a number of whom are no longer members of the parish, and from the ex-Curate in particular who ethically should not be involving himself in parish affairs at all. I’m not sure who you are, though I can speculate, and I’m certainly not sure what interest you have in this matter, since you are almost certainly not a member of the parish.
John, you are confused about one thing: the curate DID resign to the vestry. I’m sure one of Fr Kelley’s vestry folks can supply you with a copy of the email, as they all received it.
Oh, here’s an even better idea: you could just email your “ex-curate” and ask him to forward you the resignation letter. Direct communication! What a novel idea!
Well, just a moment — an Anglican Curate reports to the Rector, not the Vestry. Whatever the ex-Curate may have said to the Vestry is neither here nor there; the version he put out in April, to me and many others, was that he had been fired. Why should I ask him for some letter he wrote if it suited him after the fact to say he was fired? And I’m not at all sure why you care — it appears to me that the ex-Curate now has duties with the RC Archdiocese of Orange and (like a previous Rector of St Mary’s, Fr Barker, now also a Catholic priest) should be saying nothing and involving himself in St Mary’s business not at all. I believe his continued involvement with anyone in the parish, or former parishioners not now under his pastoral care, is unethical, and it should be troubling your conscience, too. I’ll certainly put that question to him, but I’ll copy the Ordinary and his Vicar General on any correspondence as well. But hey, make my day!
@john b – For some reason I can’t respond to your last message so am responding here, but I will say this: there is no need to be a jerk. You make a lot of wild, nasty accusations, and if I were your mother I would be ashamed of you. Regardless of whether or not you’re right about someone, there is no need for nastiness. Mind your own conscience, and leave mine to me and God. You can’t be reasoned with. I’m done with you.
So can I take your answer to mean that you do have a continuing relationship (of whatever kind) with the ex-Curate, though you are not now under his pastoral care? I can’t imagine someone would lose her temper this way otherwise, and it suggests that maybe some discussion with your consicience, and even a priest other than the one in question, might be appropriate.
In any case, you’re doing this guy no favors by insisting he wasn’t fired, he just resigned — it may call into public question any versions he may have given to Bp Brown, Fr Hurd, or Msgr Steenson. One vestry member I spoke to did in fact recommend that Kelley fire the guy, the last straw being behavior verging on blasphemous during a Mass. Do you, or the ex-Curate, really want this discussed firther?
No, I haven’t lost my temper – only my desire to talk to you.
Also, he was fired after he resigned. I never said otherwise. What kind of kooky group “fires” asomeone during their resignation notice period? Don’t worry, you can still tell me I need to check my conscience. Shame me all you want. Just remember that your current rector broke into the basement in the middle of the night. Classy act you’re supporting there.
Wait one second there, why all this bruhaha over the curate? The real problem appears to be in the basement. I’m sure I don’t have all the facts, but back where I come from, the innocent don’t hide. No need to throw cheap shots at those who don’t agree with you, John Bruce.
John Bruce, As someone who at first sided with Fr. Kelley, yourself and your group, which numbers no more than ten or so actual members of the church, I wanted to help, believing the stories that the various people against him were just old timers who didn’t want change. Then the Ordinariate came up and the excuse became it was all about some trying to stop the Ordinariate. But then I learned about Fr. Kelley spending the church’s money without consent of the parish. I thought at first he was allowed to do it, but it turns out he wasn’t. Several of us tried to talk to him and he refused. When the request for his resignation came up in December, I was shocked that he just ignored it. That was when I was gone. I later thought everyone was being too hard on Kelley and that he might have been framed as you outlined on another thread, but then I looked at the copy of the church rules which requires a parish-wide vote for expenses over $1000 not in the budget. Much was spent by Kelley or his vestry without parish votes. It turns out you were a signer on checks even though you weren’t a member of the church – also against church rules.
So it seems to reason that you are not being transparent now.
Why is it okay for you, John, to insist that nobody but church members take an interest when you sent this article to this public blog? I heard you became a member and then resigned your membership. If so, why are you still so interested?
It seems to me that you and your group are not really supportive of the Ordinariate but have formed a personality cult. So it’s everyone else’s fault but Fr. Kelley’s? And then you have to create wild scenarios where the ex Curate was plotting to take over the parish, even though it is documented online that over a year ago he was planning on leaving St Mary’s for a new Ordinariate group. You say that he was blasphemous at Mass, that the treasurers were conspiring against Fr. Kelley, that he was justified in his breaking in to the church, when even in the article above Kelley’s own attorney admitted that the judge did not rule in Kelley’s favor – which you and Fr. Wheeler were leading us to believe on a previous thread.
It appears to me that you aren’t fully informed yourself. Ms Akan either resigned or was asked to resign as Treasurer (stories differ). I was asked by the Rector and the Senior Warden to take over as an interim treasurer, as they couldn’t identify another candidate. I would point out that I had computer experience, I had worked for several banks; and I had experience as an assistant treasurer at an Episcopal church. No one else had equivalent experience. I had been a member of the parish for about 8 months, when a 1 year attendance was required for membership; this was fully discussed by the vestry, and a majority of the vestry approved my appointment. It’s worth pointing out, and the record supports it, that the previous Treasurer had not made important payments for some months prior to her resignation. I found overdue notices for several months payment on the parish van, for example, and promptly made up those payments. I was asked to do it, and the vestry approved it. One set of unpaid invoices I never saw was from the IRS dating from February 2011, during Ms Akan’s time as Treasurer. If I’d received any notice of the problem I would naturally have paid the amount due. It’s worth pointing out that many such financial problems appear to have originated while Ms Akan was Treasurer, and many invoices went unpaid for months prior to her resignation.
I did all I could to bring those delinquent accounts up to date, and I fully reported on my activities and the problems to the Vestry. In addition, recognizing the need to cover payroll withholding and W-2 reporting better, I identified and recommended a payroll service that would handle these matters. The Vestry approved this recommendation, but in the same meeting, they changed their minds about keeping me as interim Treasurer (I was then about two weeks short of a full year’s attendance, but they apparently decided to follow the letter of the law). They replaced me with a member of the dissident group who had no qualifications for the job — by his own admission, according to a Vestry member, he couldn’t balance his own checkbook. At one point he asked me to explain the difference between a pledge envelope and a pew envelope. Once he became Treasurer, accounts again fell into arrears, and the result was a threat from the IRS to seize the property for unpaid withholding. If the Vestry had followed my recommendation for a payroll service and followed through on its approval of that recommendation, this would never have occurred.
The complaints about Kelley’s not following the Bylaws involve issues like this — yet the dissidents replaced all the parish officers and possibly the entire Vestry during the brief time the temporary restraining order was in effect, without a parish meeting (it’s never been explained exactly what they did or meant to do). The Bylaws, California law, and ACA Canon law say this is uncanonical and illegal. It seems to me that Kelley was trying to get things done and bent — with the Vestry’s approval — some rules to do it. Once the dissidents got in control, they threw everything out. If an expenditure over $1000 not in the budget was made without the parish’s approval, by the way, I’d like to know specifically which one you’re referring to. Vague allusions to this and that have been part of the problem for quite some time. I’d also be most interested to know what expenditures over $1000 outside the budget the dissidents made while they had the checkbook too, for that matter. Somebody engaged attorneys, for instance, and I betcha they charged more than $1000. Why not hold Mr Kang, Ms Bush, et al, to the same standards you want to hold me?
Check the Bylaws, by the way: a member who resigns may rescind that resignation. I am a member in good standing. I certainly don’t expect everyone who comments to be a member of the parish. On the other hand, commenters here such as mbjane are claiming inside knowledge of the situation, when they don’t have it. (I suspect we will quickly have another pseudonymous commenter angrily denoncing my version of Ms Akan’s time as Treasurer.) By the same token, it appears to me that you are claiming inside knowledge yourself while showing the knowledge you have is out of date and incomplete. This to me is a problem.
The ex Curate was very up front about his intentions to start a group in Orange County and leave St. Marys’ as of a year ago last May. John’s dishonesty is such unchristian behaviior. Further more before the ex Curate came to St. Marys’ Fr. Kelley had no intention of joining the Ordinariate, as I asked him point blank if he was interested and he showed no interest at all.
The ex Curate is the one who catechised the members about the Ordinariate and from my understanding tried to distance himself from the problems at St. Marys’. His wife left St. Marys’ months before and attended another parish. It was never his goal to take over St. Marys’.
It is a sad time for what was once a wonderful parish many years ago. Also Fr. Barker has nothing to do with St. Marys’ and left it 30 years ago. He left with dignity when the parish split 3 ways in their desire to either stay at St. Marys’, go Orthodox or become Catholic. It is too bad Fr. Kelley doesn’t have the character to leave in peace. If all is as you claim, why doesn’t he, you and his followers allow an audit done on the financial books? What are you hiding?
bxvipm says, “back where I come from, the innocent don’t hide” — yet we have a bunch of comments from folks who are hiding behind pseudonyms, and indeed, individuals who are using multiple pseudonyms for one poster! As I said in my first post here, the ex-Curate isn’t the whole problem, and the situation is complex. However, the group that’s seized the parish office and the nave is getting continued encouragement, it’s pretty clear, from the ex-Curate and also from ACA clergy. I strongly suspect that the 8-12 dissidents (of whom maybe 5-9 are now actually members in good standing of the parish — those named in the lawsuit and a few others) have been playing one ambitious cleric against another between the Ordinariate and the ACA, which will certainly play itself out in interesting ways down the road.
One feature I’ve seen in the conflict over the past several months is the psychological phenomenon of projection. One example is accusing John Bruce of “hiding” for posting under his own name, while those making the accusation are the ones hiding behind multiple pseudonyms — but that’s just a minor example. The dissidents are currently named in a lawsuit seeking to remove them from their illegal occupation of the parish office and the nave — the same legal action that’s taken against squatters. The LA Times article is generally clear in noting that the dissidents and the ACA were briefly given control of the parish building by the court under a temporary restraining order, but the judge then reversed herself, returning control to the vestry and rector of the parish (i.e., the vestry properly elected on February 4, 2012, and the Rector hired and retained by all properly elected vestries since 2007.) Vague wording of the judge’s opinion made the 5-9 dissidents feel they couid continue to occupy the building, but the Rector’s return to the parish hall in the basement was fully legal, a full return to the building was halted by the police due to the fear of violence from the dissidents, and the subsequent lawsuit to eject the dissidents is proceeding. The characterization of the rector and vestry as somehow illegally breaking in is completely incorrect, and the current lawsuit is meant to establish that the occupation of part of the parish building is illegal. I think this is another example of projection.
Allegations in the past that the Rector and Vestry acted in violation of the parish Bylaws pale in comparison to what the ACA and the dissidents have subsequently done. The ACA attempted to remove the Rector and at least some members of the Vestry, in violation of the Bylaws; once the judge was made aware of this, she dissolved her original order and returned the Rector and Vestry. Members of the Vestry in the past who insisted on puncilious observation of the Bylaws were themselves in violation: the Bylaws provide that vestry members must be pledging members of the parish, but several of the dissident former members never pledged.
One of the pseudonymous posts above claims Fr Kelley was insufficiently enthusiastic about the Ordinariate, and that the ex-Curate catechized the parish. This is completely incorrect. The Rector schedules all use of the parish, and he scheduled regular catechism classes for Sunday afternoons throughout the summer of 2011. The ex-Curate conducted some of these classes, but the Rector conducted at least half of them, and another Ordinarate-bound priest scheduled some as well. Fr Kelley had the Vestry sign a letter to Cardinal Wuerl in December 2011 requesting admission to the Ordinariate as soon as possible after its erection in January 2012. It’s hard to imagine any more expeditious action. But beyond that, the parish’s entry to the Ordinariate was delayed in late December 2011 because the dissidents forwarded accusations against Kelley to RC authorities; based on public remarks from Msgr Stetson, this was the single reason the parish didn’t enter the Ordinariate in the first weeks of January 2012. Any delay was not due to Kelley, it was in fact due to the dissidents, who were making accusations of things like embezzlement, which the LA Superior Court judge later ruled had no basis. Again, any accusation that Kelley did not want to enter the Ordinariate seems more like projection than fact.
One point to be made here is that rank and file members of the parish began to understand more clearly over 2011 what the issues were and realized that some members of the Vestry were not representing their wishes (including the wish at the time to enter the Ordinariate). They caucused among themselves, identified candidates for Vestry elections at the 2012 annual parish meeting, and elected a more representative vestry in the proper election at the time. The current vestry is representative of the parish’s wishes, and the current vestry supports Fr Kelley. There are absolutely no circumstances under which a properly elected vestry would hire the putative ACA “priest in charge”, Anthony Morello. There are no circumstances under which the parish in whatever form would tolerate any return by the ex-Curate, shouid it choose to join the Ordinariate. I believe this has been discussed in confidence with Msgr Steenson; it would be helpful if someone in the Ordinariate could make this more clear to the ex-Curate so that Bp Brown can assure his efforts are usefully and fully directed elsewhere.
Statements by pseudonymous posters who almost certainly are not members of the parish, but who seem to have very detailed versions of the ex-Curate’s story, should be taken for what they’re worth.
John-
I guess you didn’t hear – Andy got a new job in March, and we’re in the middle of buying a house down south. We will not be returning to St Mary’s for any reason, but we do pray for the people still there. That’s all I will say here. I hope you all can find peace and resolution at the parish.
Oh, wow! Good job! You guys won’t be using St. Joseph anymore, then, when that happens?
I hope that over time, any division will be healed, because if St. Mary of the Angels becomes a member of the Ordinariate, there better be some fraternal love. We need that now more than ever.
Laura, that’s encouraging news — but this person who’s posting as mbjane and others, who seems extremly eager to argue your husband’s case on his behalf and seems quite familiar with the constantly changing versions of his story — will moving down south help to calm all that intense business down? It could certainly damage his career if not.
John, the situation at SMA is something that concerns members, non-members, former members, and visitors. All of whom have true affection for the Parish and most are truly mourning for her. Sadly, there appear to be some lapses in protocol and levels of deception that are hard to fathom. Though it seems to be progressing in geological time, I am faithful that God has a plan and that His will be done.
You seem, at least how I read it, to have an agenda. I must say that you come across mean-spirited and arrogant. However, everyone has an opinion and should feel free to post as they see fit. Those who have chosen to use an epithet have their reasons for doing so.
John Bruce,
English is not my native language but I am interested in this story. I don’t know the details of this story, but in reading the exchanges in the comments by yourself here it seems English is not your second language either. I don’t mean any offense, but is this true? For example, above someone writes that hiding is not good in reference to the priest in the basement, and you think it is an attack on yourself as if your here hiding.
Another conclusion I’ve decided in reading your comments about this issue and the new ordinary of the United States Chair of St. Peter, is that you are jumping to assumptions without all the information and that is causing you to misunderstand things also. For example, the comment made that the curate (I’m not sure what position that is) must be lying or changing his story when you above misunderstood that the curate resigned and was fired after the fact.
It might be that you are working off of many misunderstandings regarding details to this story just as you are in the comments above.
As for psychological projection, John, you are the only one on this thread and others who has attempted to view in the interior into people’s motives and analyze them and attempt to explain them psychologically. Ironic, no?
Florian
Comments Closed