The record also shows that Bishop Stephen Strawn was involved in these events during this time. The timeline on the Freedom for St Mary site says that on January 10, 2012, Strawn "stayed away from a secret meeting with some Vestry when informed by Patrimony’s Bishop Moyer that he had no Jurisdiction over, no interest in, nor business with St Mary of the Angels." On that same date, however, the ACA House of Bishops announced that ". . . the Patrimony of the Primate has, with the erection of the Ordinariate, ceased its operations within the United States as of January 1, 2012."
By their own remarks, the dissidents indicated they had been trying to go around Moyer. They clearly worked with Falk to do this. Meanwhile, Strawn had been making a parallel effort to meet with the dissidents. It's very hard for me to think that there was no coordination between Strawn and Falk in this process, especially considering the resolution of the ACA House of Bishops dissolving the Patrimony on the same day that Strawn was prevented by Moyer from meeting with the dissidents. The entire ACA House of Bishops was involved. How could Falk not have been complicit in all these actions?
On the other hand, in its resolution of January 10, the ACA House of Bishops was explicit in casting the approximately 29 parishes of the US Patrimony of the Primate into ecclesiastical limbo:
Given that the American Ordinariate was erected on January 1, 2012, the term of the Patrimony of the Primae [sic] has thus lapsed. Those who were formerly part of the Patrimony of the Primate must now make a decision regarding their future jurisdiction. Anyone, whether clergy or laity, who may now wish to return to the Anglican Church in America, should do so by contacting the diocesan bishop in their area.In other words, nobody was in charge of St Mary's after January 1, 2012, since the ACA had dissolved the Patrimony, and the Ordinariate was delaying its reception of the parish. Although Bishop Strawn was made Episcopal Visitor to the ACA Diocese of the West following the retirement of Daren Williams in 2010, he'd had no episcopal authority over the Patrimony of the Primate, and since St Mary's had not (per the directive in the House of Bishops January 10 resolution) contacted him following the dissolution of the Patrimony, it still wasn't under his authority.
But what was Falk's involvement in December? A clerical observer who'd been in the Patrimony told me, "Once we were in the Patrimony, I often had questions myself as to precisely who was our bishop at any given time. Was it Bp. Moyer, or Abp. Falk, or Abp. Hepworth? It seemed to be a moving target." Clearly lines of authority in the ACA are what anyone who can get away with it says they are at the time -- we've already seen that. In an interview with Fr Kelley following Strawn's inhibition of him, David Virtue reported,
A source has told VOL that Fr. Kelley would not comply with the inhibition "because God told me" and because he does not recognize Bishop Strawn as his bishop.Regarding the first part of that, if I'd been Kelley, I'd have been trying to get through to God myself. It appears from the account above, though, that other clergy in the Patrimony had also been confused as to who was actually in charge. However, at the end of the article, Virtue added (bold in the original),Kelley told VOL that Bishop Louis Falk is his bishop. Falk is the former Primate of the Anglican Church in America and is Bishop Ordinary of the Diocese of the Missouri Valley. [Virtue got that fact wrong; Falk had left that post in 2007, replaced by Strawn.]
Addendum to this story. We have just received word from the Canon to the Ordinary who received a letter from Bishop Falk stating that he was not asked nor did he offer [e]piscopal oversight to Fr. Kelley or St. Mary of the Angels.The Canon to the Ordinary was, of course, Anthony Morello, and this serves simply as another example of how the ACA operates: it tells its lies through Morello. Falk told the Los Angeles Superior Court in June 2012:
In November 2010, St. Mary’s, specifically Father Kelley, contacted me seeking my episcopal care of the St. Mary Parish instead of and in place of Bishop Darren K. Williams, then presiding as Bishop of the DOW. The reason Father Kelley gave to me for asking that I do this was that Bishop Williams was growing increasingly hostile towards Parishes considering leaving the DOW in order to join the Ordinariate. After discussing the concerns in great detail with Father Kelley, I telephoned Bishop Moyer and asked him if he would accept St. Mary’s into the Patrimony. Bishop Moyer told me that he would. I then told Father Kelley that the St. Mary Vestry, with the consent and approval of the Parishioners, should write to Bishop Williams and seek a discharge from the DOW and a release into my episcopal oversight, which would then allow me to release St. Mary’s into the Patrimony, and under the control and authority of Bishop Moyer.Beyond that, if Falk never offered episcopal oversight, what sort of oversight were the dissidents who sought him out in December 2011 expecting? Moyer chased Strawn off the case for the reason that St Mary's wasn't in his see. Yet Falk, although he was retired, clearly felt he had the authority to transfer St Mary's to Moyer's jurisdiction -- but he says he never offered episcopal oversight! I see. The St Mary's dissidents, not satisfied with Moyer's inaction on the Kelley issue, clearly felt they had to go over Moyer's head. And how did Falk see this? Clearly he felt entitled to intervene. How on earth did this differ from being asked or offering episcopal oversight? What's he going to try to say? -- "Er, I wasn't being asked to provide episcopal oversight, I was just doing a little freelance meddling where I didn't belong." Falk via Morello is simply playing word games here, or maybe more simply, he's telling a lie.
And in what matter was he intervening? Was it over Moyer's refusal to assist in removing Kelley as Rector? Why borrow trouble? Once the Ordinariate took over St Mary's, theoretically in a matter of weeks, two things would have happened. One was that Fr Kelley would have immediately become a layman, since he hadn't gone through the Catholic ordination process. He would not be Rector, period. Steenson would have appointed a temporary Catholic chaplain for the parish. Second, Kelley's eventual ordination and reappointment would have been completely at the discretion of the Ordinary, who would have been free to do all the investigating he wanted and make up his mind about Kelley at his leisure. If Falk had been solely concerned about Kelley's suitability as a priest, all he had to do was nothing, and the matter would have been in Steenson's lap, with any blame, bitterness, or controversy going to him, not the ACA.
The only interpretation I can draw of Falk's involvement is this:
- The St Mary's dissidents effectively sought Falk's episcopal authority, requesting that he override Moyer in a situation where lines of authority were unclear
- The issue was not Kelley at all; the issue was that the dissidents wanted to reverse the May 1, 2011 80% vote for the Ordinariate
- Falk provided what was effectively episcopal prestige in intervening with the Ordinariate to delay the parish's acceptance, despite any denials
- Falk in this matter was clearly complicit in engineering the same objectives that Strawn and Marsh had in mind, viz, keeping the St Mary of the Angels income and property for the ACA.
Nor is Falk apparently the least bit squeamish about working through Anthony Morello. Birds of a feather. But here's another question: if all the evidence we see suggests that Falk was coordinating his efforts with the parish dissidents, Strawn, Marsh, and presumably Morello to keep St Mary of the Angels out of the Ordinariate and preserve its property and income for the ACA, then how sincere was he in wanting his home parish, St Aidan's Des Moines, to go into the Ordinariate? Did he have a conflict of interest there, and could that have had an effect on the craziness in Iowa?
More to come.
