St Mary’s Hollywood – Priest Ordered to Evacuate
November 1, 2012 96 Comments
FINLEY AVENUE—The siege of St Mary’s of the Angels Church in Los Feliz may be drawing to a conclusion after Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Michael P. Linfield ordered Father Kelley to vacate the church premises by midnight Oct. 31st.
According to Canon Tony Morello, a separate ecclesiastical inquiry held Oct. 11th, found Kelley guilty of all charges, including violations of the constitutions and canons of the church and his vows. One potential outcome of that trial may be to deny Kelley his priesthood.
The ecclesiastical procedure allows Kelley to appeal the decision and apply to the Bishop for mercy, but Morello believes that request will be denied.
“I don’t think they will reverse their decision and will ultimately strip Father Kelley of his priesthood,” Morello said. “The judge has been meticulous in following the law, but the court has to defer to the [Anglican Church of America].”
According to Morello, Judge Linfield told Kelley’s lawyers if he is not out, the next step is sheriff intervention.
“There will be an outreach to hire an interim priest for St. Mary’s and I will remain there for the present,” Morello said. “The church members are happy to get their church back and the services are scheduled to begin again this month. We are working slowly and meticulously to restore the church to normalcy and doing an outreach to all parishioners. Members who had left the church are reacting favorably and returning.”
At this time the church remains under the auspices of the Anglican Church and Morello said there are no plans to enter the Roman Catholic order.
HT: Reece P. Thomson
About Fr Stephen Smuts
In this circumstances I see absolutely no difference between TEC and the ACA. It’s all about about money.
+ PAX et BONUM
Don Henri,
Many would, and have said, the same concerning the Church of Rome…it’s all about money.
And all that money goes to the poor because the Roman Catholic Church is the largest charitable organization on Earth. Besides, our priests have no families to support, other than the hundreds they usually meet on Sundays.
Ioannes, when Polish Roman Catholics left to form the PNCC and when tens of thousands of Greek Catholics left the Roman Catholic Church, Rome sued them for their property, and won. Do not condemn the Anglicans for what your denomination also does, it is called hypocrisy.
Albeit small, Anglicans also do as much as humanly possible to help the poor. Although one has to admit that they have not paid anywhere as near as much money as Rome has to victims of clerical sexual abuse.
Can you quote anything which wrote to you that explicitly (or even implicitly) states “ANGLICANS ARE THE DEVIL! I CONDEMN THEM!”?
If anything, you’re the one doing the condemning, basically saying “But it’s also all about the money with Rome.”
And I correct you because I’m right: The Roman Catholic Church is the largest charitable organization on Earth. Our priests don’t have any children to feed and sustain when going to college.
The Roman Catholic Church is a non-profit organization. Who exactly would profit? The Pope? What could he possibly do with all that money, fund Roman orgies featuring little boys and prostitutes? Is he able to take all that money to heaven with him? Next, you’ll be suggesting that Roman Catholic priests do nothing but plan how to be evil and how to molest little children?
Or are you insinuating that all our bishops believe that they can and therefore do pocket all that money to live lavish lifestyles that us non-bishops could not fathom? Are you insinuating that our bishops are so stupid and disingenuous and cynical that all this religion business is nothing more than a power grab to milk as much money from the “common man”?
This sort of though only makes sense to a certain group of people, and in particular, from that group, this sort of thought sounds like that ignorant atheist, Christopher Hitchens, as well as so many angry teenagers who accuse other people of being secretly the reason why they are so miserable and why life is so unfair. Are you sure you aren’t an atheist? Because from what I know about Anglicans, they’re basically atheists who don’t believe in God yet pay Him lip service for some unknown reason.
Oh, but Anglicans are so noble and right, yet if they’re so right, why don’t they have a future? Do they have a future? I disagree, and demographics and statistics disagree, and you can’t handle this- which is why you hate Rome.
Furthermore, -Dale- the Roman Catholic Church has all rights to retain the property it held when groups try to separate from it. Because the Roman Catholic Church is the one, true church founded by Christ, and all other churches began from heresy or schism. Hence, all your Anglican, Methodist, Salvation Army, First Evangelical Anglo-Presbylutheran Churches belong to the Roman Catholic Church in the first place.
I am of the opinion that all these heretical and schismatic groups be sent to Antarctica and their properties confiscated.
On a separate tangent, the strife over “trusteeism,” the question of who actually owns the property of (Roman) Catholic Church, in the 19th Century led to the Catholic bishops deciding that the title to all Catholic churches had to be vested in the bishop of the diocese, and that they would not consecrate any new Catholic churches until the title to the property was so vested — which is why the small faction of American Poles who founded the PNCC formed their body in the first place. (The uproars in recent years over the title to St. Stanislaus Catholic Church, St. Louis, Missouri — the one parish in which the bishop allowed the trustees to retain ownership to the property on condition that it remain under the spiritual authority of the Archbishop of St. Louis, a deed which the trustees unilaterally and secretly, but still legally, altered some decades ago to remove that condition – and which a decade ago called a priest of Polish origin, one Fr. Bozik, as their pastor, who then took the church off into “independence” and later came out in favor of same-sex pseudogamy – demonstrates the wisdom of the bishops’ decision to end trustee ownership.)
In the Episcopal Church, however, it is clear that historically it was the Vestry itself that held the title to the property — until the passage of the “Dennis Canon” in 1979, which purported unilaterally to vest the title to the property in the Episcopal Church, and which the courts, except in South Carolina, have strangely upheld, despite its being little more than a swindle of amazing audacity — and so it is perfectly understandable that churches which wished to leave the Episcopal Church have fought so strenuously, if largely fruitlessly, to keep what they have understandably regarded as “their own.” Perhaps they would have been, in retrospect, better advised to have left the property behind and “shaken the dust from their feet” in doing so, but it is perfectly understandable that they chose a different course — and in some cases, as in that of St. Mary’s, Hollywood, they succeeded in their efforts to “secede.”
So, Dr Tighe, if I understand you correctly, it is all right for Rome to take churches built by communities themselves, but not all right for Anglicans to do the same things because of secular laws? So much for charity. Ioannes, it is nice to see that Romans can be just as bigoted as the Orthodox! Sadly, I had hoped that they might be slightly better, you know, being the One and Only True Church and the rest of us going to hell and all…
“Et Tu Quoque” hardly validates your own argument, but does in fact admit that we are all sinners.
The thing is, popularity, likability and agreeableness do not characterize things which will send you to heaven. So while Rome teaches “Outside the Church, there is no Salvation” is disagreeable, the fact that Anglicanism allows contraception, and (in the U.S., at least) support for homosexual sodomitic pseudogamy- while popular, do not at all sound like Jesus. It is not a church Jesus established; bowing down to secular laws certainly does not sound like Him.
While Anglicans would like to say St. Augustine was their first bishop, that is in fact not true- St. Augustine was the first bishop of faithful English Catholics, a community nearly wiped out and driven underground from the 16th century all the way to the 19th. it is more likely that in spirit, the first bishop of the “Anglicans” was the first bishop to receive a government grant- Judas Iscariot.
Well, just looking at how the Church of England is committing ecclesiastical suicide through support of abominable things, I’d think the connection is apt. And it certainly invalidates any “Anglican orders” and so, them being a puppet of the world, renders invalid an argument for the right of Anglicans to get something because a secular power may have its sword pointed at its rightful owner.
Unless “Might makes right” then we can cut all pretenses of civility and prepare for Ecclesiastical hooliganism, Church of the Holy Sepulchre-style.
@Ioannes: One thing is very certain historically here, the Anglican Communion is actually based on the life and history of the Book of Common Prayer, with the Anglican Thirty-Nine Articles, and quite simply the man and ministry of Archbishop Thomas Cranmer! Yes, this Communion and Church Reformed & Evangelical is very small now, but the Reformed Churches, all, are alive and pretty well! And it is here that I stand! This is the ‘Federal Vision’! I wish people would read the Irish Articles 1615 (Archbishop James Ussher), still just a great Creedal definition of the Bible and Reformed theology!
*Of course THIS is generally a “Catholic” blog, both in Anglicanism (which includes the Ordinariate’s), and too the traditional Roman Catholics. And also an Eastern Catholic or two. Btw, I appreciate the few EO’s on this blog also, I would suggest also for people (with open minds) to read: Through Western Eyes, Eastern Orthodoxy: A Reformed Perspective, by Robert Letham.
I hope our blog host does not mind this historical Anglican Irish link of the Irish Articles 1615.
http://www.lasalle.edu/~garver/irish.html
@ Irishanglican
I actually agree with you… Without the BCP, there is no “Anglicanism”.
Dale wrote:
“So, Dr Tighe, if I understand you correctly, it is all right for Rome to take churches built by communities themselves, but not all right for Anglicans to do the same things because of secular laws?”
In general, you do understand me correctly, but with a characteristic spin to your phraseology, i.e., “built by communities themselves.” In the case of these Polish Americans (and others in the trusteeship controversies), they were built by the “communities themselves” as intended Roman (or Eastern) Catholic Churches, not “community churches” or some kind of non-denominational bodies. If they wanted their churches to be, in truth, (Roman) Catholic churches, then they must needs abide by the rules which the Catholic bishops in America laid down in (?) the 1880s, which in these cases meant, vesting title for the property in the bishop. (After all, churches built specifically and intentionally as Polish National Catholic churches after the 1898 schism have never been claimed as their own by the bishops, or any particular bishop, of the [Roman] Catholic Church.) The legal question is, whether the Episcopal Church (at least before 1979) regarded the property of churches built “by Episcopalian communities themselves” as intended Episcopalian congregations to be vested similarly in the local Episcopalian bishop’s or diocese’s hands. The answer seems manifestly to be (or to have been) no (except for mission congregations or congregations in financial debt to the Episcopalian diocese). So I do not see how there is any real parallel or likeness between the two cases.
But Dr Tighe, what about the case of the Eastern Catholics who had been promised, in perpetuity, a married priesthood; which in America was made impossible. Would this not effectively break any allegiance such communities had with Rome? And since Rome betrayed the trust, would these communities not have the RIGHT to leave, with their properties. You seem to want not only your cake, but everyone else’s as well.
I have noticed that your supposed right of Rome to everyone’s property is vastly different than the position posited by Ioannis; which seems to be, “We have the true faith, no one else does, hence, we have a right to steal property.
Taking back property that doesn’t belong to the thief isn’t stealing- it’s justice! Hence, Westminster, and almost all medieval abbeys and Cathedrals “belonging” to the Church of England is rightfully Roman Catholic, regardless of Protestant opinions. That is my view. Relatively… liberal and/or diplomatic Catholics would disagree, and within the generosity of the Pope who has not spoken or criticized them (indeed, he may agree with their opinions), I have no reason to put them on the same level as the opinion of Protestants. (Unless you are in communion with the Pope of Rome, of course, then it becomes a different issue.)
Have a Happy Guy Fawkes Day.
Dale, you may be right about the promises made to Eastern Catholics. What is ambiguous (because unmentioned, so far as I know, at the unions of Brest [1595], Uzhorod [1646], Antioch [1724] or any other such formal union) is whether these promises were ever understood as having any application outside the “home territories” of these “uniate” churches. Indeed, so far as I am aware Rome always assumed that these churches did not have any canonical title to extend themselves outside their historic “home territories,” as by the creation of new dioceses or the like. That seems to me to be the key question, on which the question of a married priesthood is dependant.
Moreover, these Eastern Catholic churches all accepted the definitions of Vatican I concerning the infallibility and universal jurisdiction of the Roman pontiff, and so these definitions are binding upon any and all churches in peace and communion with the Roman See, and not just the Latin/Western Church — and so although a case might be made that their leaving the communion of the Roman See over that issue might be, or have been, understandable from one Eastern/Byzantine perspective, the fact that they did not do so would seem effectively to negate any purported canonical, theological or even moral right to leave Rome with their properties over this, or any other, issue, past, present or future.
Indeed Vatican I will simply never go with the EO, and the conservative Reformed and the Reformational! The Papacy simply over-stepped here, and they have never defined Vatican II, fully.
Dr Tighe, I would say that since a married priesthood is permitted to the Italo-Greeks of Italy (although I do believe that the last married Italo-Greek priest died in the 1930′s), and also allowed amongst Greek Catholics in Western Europe, I would have to say that the tradition of a married priesthood follows rite and not geography, otherwise, a married priesthood in traditional Orthodox areas would also be permitted to Latin rite clergy in these traditional Byzantine areas (this is especially true if the rites are indeed “equal” which is a song-and-dance of the Roman Catholic Church; but one I think no one really believes).
A good example are the Greek Catholics of Hungary, who now consider themselves to be Hungarians, but who are immigrants from further East who settled in traditional Latin rite areas, yet still retain a married priesthood. What is interesting in the Hungarian situation is that only recently it was decreed that Latin rite Catholics in Hungary may not transfer to the eastern rite.
Sad that Christians and churches cannot find order and common ground, by themselves, without going to the law of the land, (1 Cor. 6:1, etc.) What difference is there then between Christianity and the World?
You have made the same observation on numerous occasions. I agree with the principle.
However, there is a phenomenon, well known to lawyers, which can be called “the good persecuting the just” where two opposing groups of believing people are both absolutely convinced of the rightness of their case. All too often, their sworn evidence will also reflect the false principle that“the end justifies the means”.
I sometimes forgot what the Catholic Church teaches about “The end justifies the means.”- I often get into arguments with atheists who talk about how Christ having to die is equated to the end (human salvation) justifying the means (horrible torture and murder of an innocent man) and then it escalates into a debate about abortion, suicide, and euthanasia.
I know some of their tactics is the usage of straw men. But in this case of St. Mary’s, who is the “good” and who is the “just”? Though the title of the phenomenon may be a figure of speech, I’m of the opinion that justice is derived from goodness, and without goodness, justice is cruel. (all who are good are just, but not all who are just are good.), and so the “good” may have more weight than the “just” if they are equally convinced of the rightness of their case.
This relentless, year-long effort by the ACA to expel Fr. Kelley from St. Mary’s, Hollywood has been nothing short of persecution of a good priest and his family. The diocese’s kangaroo court trial was an inexcusable miscarriage of justice. How so? Let me count the ways:
1. Although Fr. Kelley and St. Mary’s had already left the ACA well before some of the charges of malfeasance could be claimed, the ACA court assumed jurisdiction on the basis of the spurious testimony of a handful of spiteful malcontents who now occupy the buildings
2. The list of names of those comprising the court is at variance with the list of the elected members of the ACA DOW diocesan ecclesiastical court. Indeed, one of the so-called judges is a member of another denomination (APA).
3. Fr. Kelley was not given notice of the date, time and place of the court’s session in a timely manner. The summons for him to appear before the court was discovered by accident in an unmarked envelope in his lawyer’s office a couple of days before the so-called trial! Fr. Kelley had to stay up late, racing against the clock to submit written rebuttals to the various unfounded charges.
4. The specific charges have not been made public, so there is no transparency in this case. As a matter of fact, there are a number of striking similarities between the ACA DOW’s legal pursuit of Fr. Kelley and the TAC’s legal pursuit of Abp. Hepworth.
5. Some of the charges allege malfeasance that, upon closer examination, appear to have been impossible for Fr. Kelley to have committed.
6. Fr. Kelley prepared meticulous rebuttals to each of the charges leveled at him. He printed them out and had them delivered by FedEx to the kangaroos in Fountain Valley before the time of the trial, having the delivery signed for by Tony Morello. Nevertheless, the court ruled unanimously that Fr. Kelley guilty was charged. A century ago, they would have called this western justice.
7. The ACA has indeed forbidden Fr. Kelley to exercise his ministry in their denomination, but they are powerless to strip him of his priesthood as he is not under their authority.
8. Judge Linfield was not meticulous in following the law. As a matter of fact, he was clueless. Averse to overstepping his bounds by making a ruling in an ecclesiastical controversy, he forgot that St. Mary’s is also a corporation organized under California law and protected by the same.
9. Contrary to Tony Morello’s claims, the majority of the members of St. Mary’s disagree with the court’s verdict and are saddened by the expulsion of their beloved rector. The only laypeople who are gleeful over this victory of theirs are the occupiers of the church building and some others who had already left.
10. There will be no return to “normalcy” (normality ?), as Morello claims, until there is penitence and reconciliation. No peace without justice. Equity has not been practiced in this case, as the previous judged opined.
11. Bonus question: If it is true that both parties of laymen — the vindictive minority who have been successful in evicting Fr. Kelley and his family, as well as the majority of the members who have stood by Fr. Kelley both say that they would like for the parish to enter the ordinariate — and, further, if it is true that the clerical leadership of the ACA has said that they will not stand in the way of a parish’s reception into the ordinariate, then why is it that Morello says that there are no plans for St. Mary’s to move in that direction?
re the Ordinariate: “[W]hy is it that Morello says that there are no plans for St. Mary’s to move in that direction?”
Because he has lied to the laity and lied to the clergy from day one. No doubt, he has no plans to move in that direction because he is not able to be ordained a Catholic priest himself nor willing to submit to Catholic authority. That he at first wanted to bring in a former Catholic priest to be rector was sign enough that he was taking many of us for a ride. His lack of transparency about the “charges” against Fr. Kelley is of a piece with his duplicity regarding the Ordinariate. Now that he has chased off the pro-Catholics he has the prize all for himself; the majority who wished to become Catholic are now already Catholic or dismissed/barred from the parish by Morello and unable to vote (again) for the parish to enter the Ordinariate.
Rove and Axelrod could learn something about voter suppression!
The knowledge he gained earning that Ph.D. in Psychology has certainly been put to use in manipulating those gullible enough to trust the man in the Roman collar.
Count me the biggest dupe of all.
I wonder how much revenue that church will now bring? It’s like trying to sell a house that was the site of a gruesome murder-suicide.
Ioannes, Your question about the money is the most pertinent one that could be asked. This ferocious, and now nearly successful, effort to retrieve St. Mary’s for the DOW and the greater ACA and the new TAC is ALL about the money. Every last bit of it.
I know how much money the parish receives in monthly rent to the bank that sits on their property next door. I also have a vague idea how much the church might fetch on the real estate market. Both amounts are staggering.
So, I cannot help but disagree with your implication that the property is an illiquid asset that is now somehow tainted by murder most foul (although you may have hit on something, at least in a spiritual sense!) On the contrary, it is likely that the Scientologist cult or some other misguided soul in Hollywood would pay top dollar for such an exquisite structure in such a posh location. May God Almighty confound them!
SCIENTOLOGY!? NOOOOOOOOOOOO!
Another possibility is that it will end up like the venerable former Cathedral of St. Vibiana in Downtown Los Angeles. It is now a restaurant. I think. Or an event hall.
Yes, the worst possible thing that can happen to St. Mary’s is that it is bought by some anti-church individuals and turned into a house of ill-repute. It is also likely that the church will become a restaurant for the many hipsters and yuppies and affluent individuals that live around Los Feliz. (Goodness knows how many restaurants and cafes there are in that area.)
Fr Wheeler has the details on the St Mary’s case right. However, there’s more on the Rt Rev Stephen Strawn, who is the episcopal visitor to the ACA Diocese of the West, which has claimed jurisdiction over the parish. It is under Strawn’s authority that the ACA inhibited Kelley — Morello is simply Strawn’s stooge here, The case of the former ACA parish of St Stephen’s Athens TX is remarkably similar. An MS Word version is at https://www.google.com/#hl=en&sugexp=les%3B&gs_nf=3&gs_mss=stephen%20straw&tok=jNehUwC-Q3WGzITxaBwKZg&cp=24&gs_id=2n&xhr=t&q=stephen+strawn+athens+tx&pf=p&tbo=d&sclient=psy-ab&oq=stephen+strawn+athens+tx&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.&fp=c5118ef6d80a3e5f&bpcl=37189454&biw=1920&bih=953 A newspaper article is at http://www.athensreview.com/local/x1048536024/St-Stephen-s-splits-from-Anglican-diocese
It appears that when Strawn was consecrated ACA Bishop of the Missouri Valley, there was something of a rush to the exits among the priests and parishes in Texas who knew him best. This case and the handling of the Hepworth case ought to be eyeopeners over the ACA and the TAC. My wife and I joined St Mary’s once it became clear that the parish was headed for the Ordinariate — we would never have considered it as part of what a former St Mary’s priest called an “Anglican rathole”. I believe Fr Kelley and the great majority of parishioners were completely correct in wishing to go into the Ordinariate, and indeed, since 2011 the parish had been part of the Patrimony of the Primate and not the usual ACA/TAC structure.
Just as there should be greater focus on the TAC’s actions re Hepworth (and more about the motives and backgrounds of the TAC figures involved), more attention needs to be paid to the question of who Brian Marsh, Stephen Strawn, and Anthony Morello actually are. It appears from the former parishioner’s post above that even the parish dissidents hadn’t paid enough attention to this question.
John Bruce draws our attention to the character, or lack thereof, of purple shirts Marsh, Strawn and black-shirted Morello. And, rightly so. It was with their explicit or tacit approval that the gang of laymen and -women have occupied the nave for the past six months while the ownership of the property was being debated. Now they have taken over outright.
Not everyone knows about the heinous behavior of these hooligans who have occupied the church. These people, whose names I am tempted to list here, have used every trick in the book to harass Fr. Kelley, his family and the duly-elected vestry of St. Mary’s. They have heckled them, they have bugged their phones, they have hacked into and destroyed their computers, they have video-taped them, they have stolen their mail, they have held back their personal property, they have rifled through their books, and they have hijacked the church bank accounts that were the source of stipends. Recently, three of their cars were sabotaged in the church parking lot. Who did it?
Fr. Kelley’s wife and children have been terrified by these bullies! Since the perpetrators are laypeople I am averse to posting their names online, but witness the crimes that they have committed! They may not be clergymen, but they are adults, aren’t they? Who will hold them responsible? All of these infractions of the law are currently under investigation by the legal authorities. Let us pray that justice be done. Justice is the first step toward mercy.
This may be Hollywood, friends, but this is no joke! We are talking about some bad actors here. Did Morello, Strawn and Marsh know about all of this? Certainly they must have! If so, did they condone it? If they condoned it, who will hold them responsible?
Being a Roman Catholic, I really find this description really surreal. The closest thing I heard to an actual assault against a church are by godless vandals. I’m reminded of how Scientology treats people who try to leave or go against them- (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_controversies#Criminal_behavior) It’s so bizarre. Are these people even Christians?
Pingback: More on the plight of St. Mary of the Angels in LA | Foolishness to the world
Fr Wheeler, unfortunately, I think the bottom line is that there’s no appeal. In trying to come to my own understanding of what’s been happening, I’ve had to recognize that the TAC and the ACA are absurdly small entities. Fr Smuts linked an Australian article some weeks ago that said the Australian TAC franchise, from which Hepworth emerged as its primate, had about 400 members. The ACA has possibly 3,000 members among about 69 parishes. It has two diocesan bishops. They clearly weren’t able to assemble an impartial court to try Fr Kelley, even if they’d wanted to. But the numbers are so small that it’s been easy for dodgy individuals to get to the top. And even if some ACA members were able to put together a presentment against Strawn for uncanonical behavior in the St Stepen’s Athens TX or St Mary of the Angels cases, how would the ACA be able to convene an impartial court there if they weren’t in the Kelley case? I briefly entertained the notion that it might be possible to appeal to Prakash to use whatever influence he could in the matter, but the handling of the Hepworth case appears to be very similar to the Kelley case.
Even the TEC, of course, appears to have become too small and flaky to be able to conduct impartial disciplinary actions, as the recent matter of Bp Lawrence indicates. That in turn makes even the ACNA, the most respectable of the continuing Anglican denominations, a weak reed for anyone to rely on. Clearly, again, the best intention for St Mary of the Angels would have been to get out of the continuing Anglican morass, which was what Fr Kelley and the parish majority had in mind. It’s been plain that even if Fr Kelley had been unable to be ordained as a Catholic priest, he still would have favored the Ordinariate. (And it seems as though some number of the parish dissidents were misled that the Ordinariate would still be a result of having Bp Strawn get involved.) My wife and I are lucky that there’s an RC parish only a few blocks from St Mary’s, we’re finding that the RCIA catechism is more thorough, and in fact the Ordinariate might not have been our best option for becoming Catholics in any case.
One miscalculation among those who had favored the Ordinariate was that the ACA/TAC was potentially susceptible to persuasion on the basis of canon law, fair elections, and general principles of justice. It’s been increasingly plain to my wife and me that these folks, and some number of the dissidents, are not working for the Kingdom under any sort of definition –= they’re working for a different organization entirely. Most people who are questioning the ACA and the TAC at this point are well out of them. Beyond that, having seen a couple of TV shows on exorcism as part of the buildup to Halloween, it seems to me that the Church’s instruction not to engage demons in conversation is very worthwhile.
If I were in the TAC anywhere in the world, frankly, I’d be feeling very uncomfortable.
Our Mother of Good Counsel, run by the Augustinians?
I’m really, really sorry that you have to settle for that. I mean, in trying my darnedest to be charitable, they’re hopefully good Catholics faithful to Church teaching, and uh… But liturgically speaking, whenever I go to that church, I almost always expect giant puppets and interpretive dancers to parade around the sanctuary at any time. I’m sorry if you end up having to endure anything embarrassing like hand-holding and clapping during the Gloria, because I know that’s probably new and/or uncomfortable. Also, I’m sorry about the bad liturgical music.
I can’t help but feel embarrassed about how traditional Anglicans with their beautiful liturgy having to move down a notch when I feel that the archdiocese should have at least one Anglican Use parish somewhere for the influx of new Catholics we’ll be receiving. And the new Catholics, I really appreciate being saintly in their patience and are understanding in having to attend churches like Our Mother of Good Counsel… And many other parishes in the diocese.
But yeah… If I were bishop, I would’ve built a church for Anglican Use- or even have Anglican Use services in the Cathedral itself. In Los Angeles, there are churches for Armenian Catholics, Coptic Catholics, Ukrainian Catholics, Maronite Catholics, and so forth. I would’ve supported a move to make an Anglican Use church because they’re Catholics in communion with the Pope too.
I agree that the liturgical music leaves something to be desired. On the other hand, for whatever reason, they rang bells during the All Saints Day mass! But even when my wife and I moved from one parish to another in TEC, we had things to get used to every time. The catechism is solid, as the faith appears to be as well. And to be frank, the part of Anglicanism we didn’t need was the snobbery, something I’m not entirely sure Msgr Steenson wants to abjure, and which we certainly aren’t finding at OMGC.
John Bruce and Fr. Lawrence Wheeler,
The fact of the matter is that you both only have partial sums of the data in practically everything you comment on. Anyone who listens to your virtual temper tantrums on these threads – I feel very sorry for. The last VirtueOnline thread easily demonstrates this. John Bruce claims to be an insider yet didn’t know that B. Martin was living in the basement for a time, denied it, and then Martin himself affirmed it! Wheeler gets his information from Kelley, who himself doesn’t tell Wheeler all and who himself clearly doesn’t know many important details about who did what and why! So he and his “senior warden” create a conspriracy theory blog with his computer-literate daughter and son that is supposed to be an unbiased opinion – it is sheer madness!
You two doing the digital scream that it’s not fair, or that Kelley has been wronged, or anything else without the many important details is getting you, Wheeler, dangerously close to libel.
In John Bruce’s case – John you have been outright libelous and should be watching for a notice from a law firm in the mail. Wheeler, you’re next. Keep talking, and I’ll keep documenting your words. I found both of your addresses.
I hope you’re both happy with your confidence in your speculations about others in this case, because you’re both now going to have to defend these in court.
Let’s see whose right!
I am Bruce Martin and I never lived in the basement of the church…
Mr. St .Marys insider… You are so sure of yourself and you will not even state your real name. Big chicken. Father Wheeler and John Bruce are correct in all their statements.. I have been there first hand for all the festivities… The truth is still far from out in the open.. Please do log on to http://www.freedomforstmary.org for all the real inside scoop.
It seems that we have hit a sensitive nerve! If you are going to threaten me or Mr. Bruce with a law suit for libel, at the very least you could identify yourself, don’t you think?
Mr. Insider (whoever you are), Fr. Smut’s site is a weblog, an interactive form of journalism protected under the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States. It says that no law shall be made “abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press”.
The issue at hand is St. Mary’s, Hollywood and the GROSS injustices that have been perpetrated against the majority of her people and their rector, Fr. Kelley. Please, let’s not get off topic here. These are real people, real brothers and sisters in Christ whose rights have been violated and whose persons have been thrown out on the street. Where is the outrage?!
Hello! You remnant in the Diocese of the West, of the Anglican Church in America, of the Traditional Anglican Communion. When one part of Christ’s body is wounded, do the other parts not hurt? Does anybody left in the DOW care about St. Mary’s, except to regain her as a cash cow?! Is it true obedience to God to pay obeisance to bishops who ravage their parishes? What would Dietrich Bonhoeffer have to say to you now? What good does it do a man to gain the whole world only to lose his soul? Speak up and make your righteous indignation known! Speak up, or consider yourselves morally complicit with this hideous perversion of justice!
Well, I’m outraged! This outrage is a bit impotent, though. I feel bad about it, because there’s really nothing else we can do, is there? Unless people are willing to campaign and write letters, stand outside -somewhere- with placards so people would know that a wrong has happened. I don’t know if there are people willing to invest that much time on it.
I even doubt if anyone else cares about the situation, or if they can do anything about it themselves.
Because, well… Can you imagine Bishop Gomez hearing Fr. Kelley’s and his congregation’s story? Do you imagine the Bishop doing anything about it, even if he’s sympathetic?
…..
I wonder if Our Mother of Good Counsel knows about what’s happening nearby? Are they just sitting there saying “None of our business!” Because this certainly is a “Good Samaritan” opportunity for Christians.
yes, I believe Our Mother of Good Counsel is fully aware of the situation. In fact, a conversation between Fr Mott there and Fr Kelley was reported to me, in which Fr Kelley told Fr Mott that he and his family would have to be out by October 31. Mott’s reply was “So they [the ACA] can hold a black mass?” There’s certainly an understanding there that people have been damaged, although there are limits to what they can do — only a few people from St Mary’s have come over there. (Other members, baptized or confirmed Catholic earlier, have also migrated back to other Catholic parishes. On top of that, St Mary’s wasn’t entirely local to the area, and since many parishioners came from 20 or 40 miles away, they could well go into the Catholic Church in parishes closer to home.) The people who’ve come to OMGC from St Mary’s have been welcomed. I’m not sure what else Abp Gomez could do — I don’t believe there’s a need for organized direct charity to people a la New York City. I’ve wondered what Msgr Steenson and Abp Gomez might have been able to do in keeping some sort of Ordinariate presence, but several things stand in the way — my impression of Msgr Steenson is out there, and he ain’t no John Paul II. My understanding is that Strawn, Marsh, and Morello have refused to meet with Steenson in any case.
On top of that, while good, solid music from the 1940 TEC Hymnal would be a nice-to-have, as would gleaming Anglo-Catholic vestments, I’m beginning to think that finding any other difference between Catholicism as contained in the Cathechism and Anglo-Catholicism is trying to cut things a bit too fine, and I don’t need an Ordinariate or Anglican Use to become a Catholic. I’m a little puzzled that so few St Mary’s parishioners have seen this.
The only thing I would say to the 5-10 “insiders” who remain after everyone else has been driven away is that I’ll be interested to see how soon you can get services going, recruit a new choir and altar party, and beyond all else find a pastor who isn’t just a stooge for Strawn and Morello. I’ve formed my own opinions of whom those folks are serving, and as the Saviour said, by their fruits you shall know them. We’ll just have to see what fruits they bear.
Does anyone know where Fr. Kelley is, as of now? Where is he and his family staying? Are they alone in the street today, as we speak? Have they nowhere to go? Does Fr. Kelley even know that the entire circumstance is being discussed here or elsewhere?
(mind you, these are “yes” or “no” questions- if you do know something, let us not put Fr. Kelley and his family’s or any of the former parishioners’ privacy into a compromised state.)
Fr. Kelley and his family left the Dodd cottage at St. Mary’s last Thursday. They have a place to stay for now, but only temporary quarters. Let’s hope that they don’t literally wind up on the street. I doubt that it will come to that. If you or anyone reading this knows of a more permanent living arrangement for them, I assume that the Kelleys would be grateful to entertain the offer. One way to communicate with the Kelleys is for you to send and e-mail message to me; I will then forward it to them. The Kelleys don’t like to read about themselves online, for perfectly understandable reasons. It’s like pouring salt on an open wound.
Fr. Wheeler, I am appalled by your attitude and comments, you have no first hand knowledge of the facts of the matter. Plain and simple hearsay. Being a personal friend of Fr. Kelly, and making such vicious and hateful, hearsay statements, doesn’t support the Innocent portrayal of Fr. Kelly in this matter, but shows that Birds of a feather flock together. It literally paints a picture of how charismatic eloquent speakers can be dangerous, because they can fool the weak of spirit by relentless regurgitation of the same facade. “”If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.”" It does not fool all, because for myself, as i was kneeling behind Fr. Kelly at high mass one Sunday after he had only been here for a year, i began to feel no spirit of the Most High, and i asked myself, all the pomp and circumstance was there, the collects were chanted so beautifully, he even added glorious endings to the collects like, “in glory everlasting” and had such thoughtful homilies,and made the parish busy with activity… but i recall the Bible – But lord i preached in your name, i baptized in your name, But Jesus said unto them” get away from me for i never knew you” Even years before all of the dramatic situation happened , i knew from the depth of my soul, that there was no spirit of the Most High in this man they call Fr. Christoper Kelly. I left St Marys deeply sad, i confessed this to Fr Beau Davis before his passing, he responded by saying “we only need to increase our prayer for him that God would open his eyes, don’t worry God chastises those whom he loves” And these things i state with first hand knowledge, for i witnessed them with my own spirit.
Who are you, razcomm? And, where have you been for the last four months? Why do you insist on spelling Fr. Kelley’s name incorrectly? How are we supposed to believe your implied ability to discern spirits? Get a grip, man!
And please do not read that scurrilous resistance web page by those parishioners still claiming in court to be the legal owners, freedomforstmary.org. Pay no attention to their unresolved claims or the account of the Fountain Valley trial.
The Kelleys have a house in Michigan they could’ve gone to. What’s this about them maybe going homeless? Give me a break!
No, they are staying in LA so they can continue all their lawsuits against everyone and try to appeal this case to the supreme court. So Fr. Wheeler’s offer of them going to live with him in Hawaii wouldn’t appeal to them any more than moving back to Michigan in their own home would.
This is not a case of a selfless priest being “martyred” for a righteous cause. Don’t buy this, Ioannes.
He has come to OMGC trying to gather parishioners to rally for him and he still wears his clerical collar even though he’s not under any authority. The Catholic Church doesn’t even recognize Anglican orders in general! His friend, I forgot his name, is spreading around the website listed above. And on top of it, now John Bruce is here in the RCIA classes causing trouble and slandering people from St. Mary’s to strangers who have nothing to do with any of this. If he gets sued he can’t blame anyone but himself.
It seems that this is not about parishioners getting their parish stolen by the ACA for trying to move into the Ordinariate, but about a priest trying to blame his problems on everyone else and using the Ordinariate scenario for further blame. He is trying to make a 1960′s-style protest of popular support in his favor carry the day. I remember back in 2008 or 9, I called Fr. Kelley asking him about his position regarding the Ordinariate and he was firmly against it. So if he changed his mind about it, it seems it was for political reasons if he is wearing his clerical collar to a Catholic parish, even after being kicked out. Why doesn’t he just lead his small group into the Church?
Fr. Wheeler’s behavior online is exactly like Kelley’s supporters have acted. Just look at their homemade video on their website, or John Bruce’s comments here. What’s the point of getting ignorant outsiders angry and joining their cause? What can they do?
Because they have no other recourse! Sad.
I just hope others began investigating this story closer like I did.
John Bruce does raise a good question though: why don’t others just become Catholic with or without an Ordinariate, especially if they claim that all they wanted to do was become Catholic?
Your name, please?
Fr. Kelley has not received his stipend in months. His family is eating canned tuna fish and beans, and depending on the largesse of a faithful God and a few Christian souls. Exactly how are the Kelleys supposed to move back to Michigan, M. Resident? And, to what sort of employment there in the cold? My offer for them to visit us in Hawai`i was so that they could get some relief from the persecution in L.A., but I cannot fly them all out here, so that won’t work anyway. Residents of Los Feliz tend to be well off; do you have a couple or three rooms to spare the Kelleys?……
I remember that Fr. Kelley was not fully committed to the idea of an ordinariate in 2008 or 2009. Of course not! There was no such thing back then, nor was there an apostolic constitution to provide for it! Check your dates, please. Fr. Kelley is a methodical, scholarly type of priest; he was not going to lead his people into the ordinariate until there was one, for starters, and until he had had time to teach them about the need for unity with the Church. That was later in 2010 and 2011, but you know that. Further, the overwhelming majority of the parishioners at St. Mary’s are still keen to become Catholic with two provisos: that they be able to take their property with them into the Church, and that they be allowed to maintain elements of their Anglican heritage once they are settled there.
M. Resident, your indiscriminate slander of Fr. Kelley, a certain webmaster, John Bruce, St. Mary’s parishioners, and me seems to be quite irresponsible. Top that off with your veiled threat of a lawsuit — the sound of which makes every sober American shake in his boots! — is incorrigible. I think that you, whoever you are, owe us all a big fat apology. John Bruce has already refuted your claims below. These weblogs are the new journalism, of the active sort, M. Resident, like it or not. We are here online because you are here online trying to deny the constitutional rights of an Anglican priest and his parish to self-determination under the law!
Now that I think about it, Fr. Wheeler, since you live in Hawaii, and I’m not sure if you’re going to enter the Ordinariates yourself, so what could you possibly gain from supporting Fr. Kelley? I do not believe you’re aiming to get a church building, either. So I don’t think you have any ulterior motives in your support for Fr. Kelley, hence I think you are more honest in your intent; therefore I find your cause more believable.
Dear Ioannes, You are right. I appreciate your comment.
I have stuck my neck out so far in this dispute, that frankly, I doubt whether Msgr. Steenson will ever consider recommending me for re-ordination in the Catholic Church. He probably considers me to be a loose cannon. Stable organizations that have a penchant for maintaining decorum don’t take a liking to loose cannons.
I don’t stand to gain anything from winning this fight except to be able to stand before my Judge on that Day to say that, even though I have failed friends before in my life, God help me, I have done my best to defend my friend Chris Kelley and the loyal people of St. Mary’s in the court of public opinion.
For the record, I’ve had exactly two discussions with anyone at Our Mother of Good Counsel regarding St Mary’s, and both were initiated by a particular lay volunteer there, not by me. In the discussions, I simply said that there were two sides to every story, but that as far as my wife and I were concerned, St Mary’s was water under the bridge, and we had no intention of revisiting the issue. Indeed, I made a point of saying that we wanted to avoid the near occasions of sin and thus wanted to avoid anything having to do with personalities at St Mary’s. Neither my wife nor I has characterized any individual at St Mary’s to anyone at OMGC, and we certainly haven’t taken up the time or attention of the RCIA class in anything like that — it’s too important! I’m simply not aware of where Los Feliz Resident is getting her information. My intention, as I hope my posts here have made clear, is to proceed with my spiritual growth in the Catholic Church, something that had been my intention all along, and which the upheavals earlier this year simply interrupted. I’m not sure why there’s been such an effort to throw obstacles in the paths of those who want to do this!
Your two discussions must have been either very lengthy and quite dramatic in detail, or those two combined with Fr. Kelley’s visits of recruitment, or maybe other more informal remarks you’ve made–whatever the case, it’s all contributed to quite a stir at OMGC regarding St. Mary’s.
Why you assume I am female, I’m not sure, but I am glad to hear you plan on calming down. Hopefully you will stop creating drama on the internet too.
You will if you are sincere in your claim that St. Mary’s is water under the bridge.
So we return to a “He-said-she-said” situation. As a person who is now just mildly interested in the Ordinariates, I can’t help but recall the times when such disputes were often resolved by use of torture. All that was needed was one, good, firm twist of the spigot for the truth to come out. The only problem was, if people were convinced of their own lie, they would gladly die for it, and to them, the lie was truth. The human mind is a funny thing.
We’ve certainly progressed away from those times!
Now, to be charitable to the Anglicans, I agree that a church is a church, and those parishioners at St. Mary’s can easily be in communion with the Pope through their own local churches. Maybe they can get together from within the Church. The Church is not just a building, or a priest, or a community bound by region, country or ethnicity. It is not so much the physical church belonging to Anglicans that bother me- it’s the scandal, the sinful act that bothers me. Maybe it is better to burn that church to the ground.
I’ve always wondered what Solomon would have done if both women claiming to be the mother of a child both pleaded to spare the child once he threatened to split it? Of course, unlike human life, a building can be rebuilt, so burning it would be pointless. (and criminal.)
Bruce, we are haggling over dimensions of the word “living”:
You wrote: “Yes this is Hollywood and one must be a survivor and be resourceful, so I have been resourceful at times through the years and utilized my back up plan by living in the dreamboat camper.. (not a van).. Fr.Kelley has been very generous as I have been recovering from double knee replacement surgery and a miserable divorce and has allowed me to store some of my belongings in the church. ” http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=16617#comment-684556944
You slept in the nursery at times, your dreamboat camper was in the church lot for a long time, you regularly used the church kitchen and washing machine.
Whatever you call of that, that’s what you did. I prefer the simple term “live”.
Well, as Fr Wheeler pointed out above, things have certainly turned nasty here. The question I have is really why Fr Smuts fosters this sort of thing — there was no new news in it, since the court order was issued weeks previously. So with nothing new, Fr Smuts decides to stir up some smut, or schmutz, or whatever, apparently because he didn’t have enough other pretty pictures to post that day. As our Jewish brothers and sisters say, he beschmutzed himself, for his own amusement. And then he can step back and shake his head and marvel at the situation, feeling superior to everyone all the time. Fr Smuts, frankly, I think what you’re doing here, creating the conditions for a foodfight, is a disgrace. I’d say it reflects badly on your denomination, except that it would be quite hard for your denomination to lower itself more than it has. It does make me question your sincerity as a priest.
Dear Mr Bruce, you seem to be forgetting that you are a guest here. And it was you who hijacked this news report – which was pointed out to me by a reader, and I deemed it newsworthy enough to repost (and that without any comment) – and then proceeded turned it into the thread it now is. Please do not draw me into your mess or down to your standard of smearing, spreading and insulting commentary. Moreover, you do not know me from a bar of soap. I have had to moderate of your hurtful comments in the past and I will not hesitate to do it again, because you turn that which is otherwise good and edifying into the ‘foodfights’ and ‘smut’ that the rest of us see. As the quote goes: “Do not mistake my silence for ignorance, my calmness for acceptance, or my kindness for weakness.” Insult me again (or anyone else for that matter) and I’ll have to put a stop to any or all further input on your part.
Anybody who denies that the devil exists must seriously reconsider. It is obvious that he/she is very much at work in what is happening.
Fr. Stephen, thank you for bringing us news.
Mr Bruce, I truly hope that this misguided attack results mainly from the fact that this is highly emotional and personal topic for you and that upon some reflection you will be able to realise how unjust and undeserved it has been.
First, it looks more like shooting the messenger, while I, for one, am really thankful for Fr Stephen for keeping me up-to-date about the developments in this outrageous affair. Second, the very fact that Fr Stephen keeps reporting on it might in fact imply that – quite contrary to what you seem to believe – he might hold much more sympathetic views towards those expelled from St Mary rather than fully support or endorse the actions of US-based TAC bishops in this case.
As for my personal opinion, if St Mary were an old church of not much market value rather than a sort of cash cow (due to rental income), it would have never come to all this (and most probably it would have long been in the Ordinariate).
Well, “What profit would there be for one to gain the whole world and forfeit his life?”
John Bruce, please leave Fr. Stephen alone, he didn’t do anything. Without him, I wouldn’t know what happened at St. Mary’s.
Ioannes, thank you.
John, as a resident of Los Feliz, and as you know from your time at St. Thomas the Apostle, a former parishioner of St. Mary’s through another particularly divisive period (late 70′s through early 80′s) it was I who brought this article to Fr. Smut’s attention. The article was unbiased and only told the facts, and so many persons have been keen to know what is going on at St. Mary’s including those who have taken spiritual residence at St.Thomas’s.
“Unbiased”, you say? Unbiased journalism includes not only the antagonist’s views, but also responses from the protagonist. This story is not unbiased, because it is one-sided.
I’m thankful for the information and reportage! Is a fascinating situation. I only wish we were all able to get more facts directly from the key players rather than supposition and speculation from sometimes distant observers. Seems like too many are too partisan on this specific issue? I’m rather surprised that anyone would be surprised that TAC/ACA would want to keep its churches, just as I’m surprised that anyone would be surprised that RCs want to get new church buildlings for free. For example, here in Des Moines, Iowa, seems potentially likely that RCs have mostly given up on establishing a strong Ordinariate presence here once they failed to get the local TAC/ACA church and any of its parishioners; won’t surprise me if the priest who did go Ordinariate is moved somewhere else next year.
“I’m rather surprised that anyone would be surprised that TAC/ACA would want to keep its churches”
Well, there would be nothing particularly surprising in it if not for the fact that ACA peacefully divided itself into those willing to reunite with the Catholic Church (in line with the clearly articulated goal of TAC) and those preferring to continue separately (at least for a time being), St Mary’s being in the former group, and that initially no one questioned this arrangement. Not to mention that in the past courts confirmed on more than one occasion that the title to St Mary’s was held exclusively by the local community.
“For example, here in Des Moines, Iowa, seems potentially likely that RCs have mostly given up on establishing a strong Ordinariate presence here once they failed to get the local TAC/ACA church and any of its parishioners; won’t surprise me if the priest who did go Ordinariate is moved somewhere else next year.”
You have just forgotten to add that this priest (still Anglican then) was brought to Iowa for the very reason that the local ACA community declared its intention to join the Ordinariate, but – after he sold his house elsewhere and got ordained as a Catholic priest – changed their collective mind.
As he is really a fine and truly outstanding priest, I also hope and pray that God will make use of his dedication to the Church elsewhere, whether inside or outside the Ordinariate, while fully providing for him and his large family.
Wow, the division of TAC/ACA (They’re the SAME organization? This Anglican alphabet soup is a royal pain.) is news to me. What I know about TAC was that they were all supposed to go to the Catholic Church per Anglicanorum Coetibus, but for some reason went “Thanks, but no thanks.”
This is a great mystery to me- these “Traditional Anglicans” would change their minds. From what I understand, John Hepworth is being blamed, or this is all a giant misunderstanding. It seems more complicated that that.
Now, for St. Mary’s- I thought they were an independent entity, a sort of “unaffiliated church” that happened to be occupied by Anglicans-en-route-to-Catholicism. I guess this isn’t the case, because secular courts said so.
As regards the St Mary’s situation, seems like so many commentators here are presenting a case not based on facts actually presented into evidence. The pro-RCs make various assumptions as do the pro-TAC/ACA. I’m assuming that the primary sources of factual information would flow from the legal process (where the TAC/ACA appear to have “won”), the current and former clergy at St Mary’s, and the various bishop(s) involved. Just assuming something or wanting something doesn’t make that something factual.
Since Rome, either directly or thru its local bishop, doesn’t appear to be arguing the case much at St Mary’s, maybe even they concur with the court’s jurisdiction and decision? Not unlike what they appear to be doing in Omaha, Nebraska, where the district court ruled against those desiring to go into the Ordinariate and who wanted to take the ECUSA church with them. The ECUSA bishop doesn’t seem so inclined to just let them walk off with his property, resisisted in court, and appears to be prevailing. (I suspect the ECUSA bishop might let the group buy the church at fair market value or pay fair market rent, but they may not have the money? I also suspect the local RC Archdiocese was hoping to get this building for free; as they likely lack the money to build or seriously renovate any building just for a small Ordinariate group?)
Everyone assumes this case is about the ACA trying to stop the congregation of St. Mary’s from entering the Ordinariate and taking the property with them but claiming in court that St. Mary’s is owned by the ACA and getting rid of a priest who facillitated this move. This is not true.
The ACA cannot stop St. Mary’s from moving to any other denomination if done correctly. What is clear from the previous statements on this and other websites is that the ACA has been trying to discipline a priest and some of his handpicked vestry members who have done some irregular things. A denomination designed like this has the authority to do this, and it was upheld in court by the judge recognizing that the secular courts have no competancy to rule in matters like this.
If later on the St. Mary’s parishioners and clergy wish to change denominations they may do so as long as the process is uncompromised.
To Robert Jackson… or whatever your true name is,, It is not possible to handpick a vestry. Case closed on that sir..
Mr. Frost, why is it that you invariably and without exception take the worst possible view of the actions of the RC Church, even on matters about the details of which you are manifestly uninformed?
Dr. Tighe,
I am guilty of assuming the worst from the RC authorities at times too, but from a different direction- that the authorities are in fact HOPING that St. Mary’s doesn’t become Catholic property because such an acquisition will ruin all the “ecumenical” work with the Protestants. Goodness knows how protestantized the Liturgy in Los Angeles already is!
Considering how focused on “social justice” rather than actual worship of God L.A. Catholics can get, I would understand how cowardly some people can get, especially when traditional Catholics (who many liberalized Catholics will no doubt brand as uncharitable, hateful bigots) assert the right to proper liturgy, and to criticize the practices of “Christian communities” that allow homosexual sodomitic pseudogamy, contraception, and abortion.
Hence, why my outrage, or anyone’s outrage over St. Mary’s is probably impotent. Just limited to Internet Tough Guy acts. (Of course, if something good happens, I’ll be pleasantly surprised.)
If wanting to stick to the facts and sticking to the facts makes me take “the worst possible view of the actions of the RC Church” (your words, not mine), then I’ll just…stick to facts. I don’t take the worst possible view of the actions of any Christian faith group (EO, RC, or Protestant). And it seems like there are more than enough RC uber-apologists here who can advocate for their own faith group without needing my direct support.
IF you have all the facts as regards St Mary’s, could you please share them? I’d really like to study their current legally-binding articles of incorporation/by-laws as they exist and are interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California as well as any legally-binding documents they had with the ACA and their ACA bishop. Legally, any “deals” cut by Hepworth as TAC primate or “gentlemen’s agreements” without force of law, aren’t worth the paper they likely weren’t printed on. (I have a copy of my local ACA church’s by-laws, dated 2003. This parish built their church in the early 1980s. The by-laws make it clear the parish is “a constituent congregation within the Diocese of the Missouri Valley of the [ACA]” and that is “subscribes, submits and adheres to the Canons of the Diocese…” and that any conflict between their local by-laws and the Canons of the Diocese, the Diocese’s are controlling.)
I believe that St. Mary’s was built during the 1920′s. I’d link St. Mary of the Angels website, but it redirects to a Lady Gaga site. “Saint Mary of the Angels Church was founded by Father Neal Dodd in 1918 as a special misssion to the infant (silent) film industry in Hollywood, California.” from “stmaryoftheangels.org” after doing a Google search for “St. Mary of the Angels, Hollywood.” I sense foul play here, something less benign than a prank coincidental with a poofy hacker who hates traditionalists in the middle of
SodomHollywood. Strangely enough, I could access the website prior to this entire news entry.How does it work, for a church from the 1920′s to belong to ACA (Or TAC? I don’t know the difference other than the letter here) which, according to sources, was formed in 1991 by a “Louis Falk.”?
On a somewhat tangential note: I am aware that this church was involved in a conflict with the Episcopal Church during 1977, when it approached the Roman Catholic Church and was REFUSED by then-bishop Manning for “ecumenical reasons”- (Well, now we know how the devil operates; by the lies of false ecumenism which still lingers in the Roman Catholic Church.)
I have a suspicion that the church is in fact not consecrated ground and is cursed by the adjacent land of
MordorHollywood.“any “gentlemen’s agreements” without force of law aren’t worth the paper they likely weren’t printed on”
Basically you are right, as this case clearly illustrates, but some incurable dreamers might expect more along “Yes – yes, no – no” lines in dealings between Christians.
I am not at liberty to comment on the details of this case, and, in any case, my knowledge is far from complete. I will say, however, that it had long puzzled me how the ACA can make any claim to the property of the church, since the California courts found against the claims of the Episcopalian Diocese of Los Angeles to the property nearly 30 years ago, and the parish has remained, legally speaking, an independent corporation ever since.
I will make the suggestion, however, that it is a misunderstanding (widely shared) that the ACA is advancing a claim to the property. Rather, what they are doing is trying, by legal action, to remove certain Vestry members on the grounds that these Vestry members have undertaken certain illegal actions, and to replace these members by those of their own choosing, i.e., other members of the parish who (it may be supposed) the ACA “authorities” think may well, if their legal action is successful decide to keep the parish affiliated with the ACA. This thought is pure speculation on my part, however.
I wrote the above before reading Robert Jackson’s comment, with which I agree.
Dr. Tighe, please be careful not to so readily agree with Robert Jackson. He is not impartial in this case. In Japanese, we have an expression, “Neko wo kaburu”, which means, “putting on the cat”, or, in other words, appearing to be docile. Now that the ACA and the DOW have gained the upper hand at St. Mary’s, Mr. Jackson appears to be docile and conciliatory. That is only an appearance and it should not deceive a keen mind like yours.
Fr Wheeler, I have never had any contact with Robert Jackson; have no idea who he is; and do not recall ever having previously read a comment by him — but what he wrote in the above comment seems to be wholly congruent with what I hav egatherted by other means and from other sources.
St. Mary’s website does indeed redirect to Lady Gaga. C’mon new rector, take care of business.
You’re right; that is pretty alarming. New rector? Who would that be? By whose authority was he made so?
Let’s get back to the topic at hand, shall we? There are two things that stick in my craw regarding St. Mary’s:
1. That the will of the parish has been circumvented;
2. That the rector has been trashed.
Re: #1. Call it congregationalism, if you will, but the church polity of the Episcopal/Anglican history in these United States has always given deference to the will of the parish itself, as expressed by the consensus of the annual parish meeting and the monthly vestry meeting. Admittedly, this deference runs counter to the interests of the more catholic interests of the diocesan bishop and of the denomination’s presiding bishop. In any case, this ethos has been enshrined in the canons of the various Anglican churches, including the Anglican Church in America (a big title for a small Church), under which St. Mary’s, Hollywood worked for a couple of decades. However, with this latest usurpation of authority by the ACA, you can kick that to the curb, thank you very much. Whether they dotted their “i”s or crossed their “t”s, I don’t know. This much I do know, however: that the WILL OF THE PARISH is to be received into the ordinariate. This will has been countermanded by the cabal of laymen and -women that now occupy the property, by Tony Morello, and by the remaining bishops of the ACA. Is that acceptable to all concerned?! In these United states, a nation which protects the right of persons and groups to free association, that should be a problem, don’t you think?
Re: #2. Fr. Kelley is not perfect. Certainly not; nor is any one of us clergymen who purports to represent the perfect God/man Jesus Christ to his congregation. It is not just a daunting task; it is an impossible task. “Be ye not many masters, wherein is the greater condemnation.” It is an impossible task for any man to represent God. Having said that, let me ask you this: Once a duly trained, ordained, and commissioned clergyman has been settled in his parish, how is it that he is not accorded the respect that he deserves? Why is it that his authority is questioned and circumvented at a whim? My specific question is this: All of his peccadilloes aside, did Fr. Kelley not have tremendous gifts, received through his fathers and grandfathers — who were priests and bishops — that which was nurtured by his own tutelage under Abp. Michael Ramsey in England, tried in the crucible of misfortune in the heretical TEC and elsewhere, but brought to bear at St. Mary’s, Hollywood? In his prayers, in his celebrating of the sacraments, in his preaching of the word of God, in his Byzantine scholarship, in his pastoral ministrations, in his effort to maintain a shrine to the ancient Faith, in his effort to lead that parish toward unity with the greater catholic Church, did he not DO HIS LEVEL BEST with extraordinary gifts? Good God, what more could you feasibly have expected of Fr. Kelley?! You who have hounded and bitten him, are you any better? You clergymen who look on in silent dismay, worried about your own positions, do you give a damn that a brother priest has been so abused?!
Regarding #1: A lot of the people who agree with Msgr. Steenson’s non-involvement cite this: “If Fr. Kelley couldn’t obey his own denomination’s superiors, why would it be a good idea for him to be received into the Catholic Church?” But to me, it seems that Fr. Kelley followed the rules of his own denomination, and the main problem would be the ugly characterizations made against him without any sort of strong evidence for their claims.
So, while it was previously mentioned that the issue “is not about ACA wanting the church building” certain actions by both parties makes that claim questionable. I mean, yes, the congregation want to be Catholics, and apparently, the ACA doesn’t mind letting those people go, but apparently, the church building is such a big deal that it COULDN’T be “not about the church building”. Or else, people wouldn’t be kicked out, nor would church doors be locked, etc.
Regarding # 2: Apathy is king. Unless a bunch of priests or laypeople band together in support of Fr. Kelley, or someone does -something- and is effective, we all might as well be mere spectators and wait for this whole thing to blow over, this becoming history. (Until it happens again, that is. And then people would have forgotten about St. Mary’s and be shocked about things like this happening in the future.)
I don’t know how many people know about this issue outside of the blogosphere and who are the ones sympathetic with Fr. Kelley. I’m willing to wager that it’s not enough, making Fr. Kelley and his supporters look like fringe lunatics. (Any minority runs risk of looking like fringe lunatics, if 1.The minority party already has bad publicity or no publicity, or 2. The opposing majority tries hard enough to misrepresent the minority.)
Really, gentlemen, the whole topic has me heartsick – I cannot adequately express how much. Without mentioning any details, suffice it to say that some of it resulted from actions I myself set in motion; I of course had no way of knowing what those actions would result in. I have loved St. Mary’s since I was teenager, and it was instrumental in keeping this cradle Catholic (Roman) a devout member of the Church; her coming into the Ordinariate was answer to a life-long prayer. To be frank, I do not feel like assigning blame here, because there is a lot to go around. But I will redouble my prayers that the place gets back on her feet and is one day admitted into the Ordinariate, which, by then, will be far more of a tangible entity. And, indeed, it is wrong to attack Fr. Smuts, who has fast emerged as one of the few reliable sources of Anglo-Catholic news, along with Deborah and Fr. Chadwick. Whatever our disagreements, civility is an element of the Anglican Patrimony that ought to be maintained just as strongly as beautiful liturgy, biblical morality, and the male priesthood.
If you were the one of the people who encouraged St. Mary’s to go to the Ordinariates, you are a person of good will. How does it follow that you had anything to do with lawsuits and expulsions?
Neither willingly, nor knowingly. Yet it happened. I can truly say that I wish the best for all the parishioners of St. Mary’s; obviously I would like to see them reunited in love and accord under the Ordinariate with a rector and council agreeable to them all. But I cannot see how to get there from here.
But prayer is ultimately always a good idea anyway.
Always!
Mr. Coulombe, I do not know you, but I admire the sentiment that you have expressed above. Humility gives impetus to penitence, and penitence is expressed in deeds of contrition. Is there anything further that you can do there on the ground to make amends and guide us all toward reconciliation and resolution?
Alas, I fear not. My role was tangential; I unknowingly set some events in motion. But short of all the parishioners on both sides joining me for a long chat – and getting them together seems impossible – there is nothing I can do; save prayer, of course.
With the Lord, nothing is impossible! Private investigation from independent parties (with no affiliation or involvement) may be necessary so to find some honest perspectives, as well as a slight push of parishioners towards that long chat scenario. Our prayer is dynamic, and sets us in motion!
My dear friends, I pray you withhold your comments about how Christopher Kelley has been wronged. I can assure you the true facts will become public soon and it will show a pattern of aborant behavior on his part.
Pads, by your word “aborant” (sic) above, do you mean “abhorrent” or “aberrant”? There is a difference, of course. If you must demonstrate a categorical lack of respect for Fr. Kelley, at least you could show some respect for the English language and check your spelling.
Meanwhile, since there have now been 80 comments on this story alone, I am sure that there will be many readers waiting for the public announcement that you say is imminent.
HA! So much for “Innocent before proven guilty!” From your perspective, “HE’S GUILTY! JUST YOU WAIT AND SEE! SO SHUT UP!”
If Pads is interested… whoever Pads is.. too shy to say I suppose. If there was any “ab” behavior that needs reporting I would say just go to the website http://stmarycoldcase.blogspot.com and read about Tony Morello and Bishop Strawns wonderful past histories.. As for Father Kelley, if there was anything “ab” to report , I am sure we would have heard it by now… We have all seen the phoney papers on trying to “Inhibit” and it is all made up hooey..
Let go Pads , lets see what you’ve got… Nothing… Sir, or Ma’am..whichever you maybe’ .
Provocative new source for news and analysis of the St. Mary’s saga:
http://stmarycoldcase.blogspot.com