I've Had Several E-Mails From Knowledgeable People

who tell me that "Norm" is a well-known special case who makes unfounded assertions about a wide range of matters related to Anglicanism and Catholicism on various blogs. My guess is that if he didn't already exist, someone would have to invent him, because the viewpoint from which he speaks is very close to the viewpoints expressed on David Virtue's and Stephen Smuts's blogs from people clearly associated with the ACA and the St Mary's dissident minority.

I started this blog in a fit of that's-the-last-straw frustration at both Virtue and Smuts. Both have routinely passed through versions of events that came clearly from the ACA and the dissidents, leaving it to the comments on such posts for others to try to correct facts -- but anyone trying to counter the "official" version in a comment runs into torrents of character assassination, reassertion of falsehood, and so forth in the comments as well. So I found the need to post the truth as closely as I could determine it in a less contentious environment.

So it's both puzzling and food for meditation that the version of events posted by an apparent freelance troll should be so consistent with the ACA side of the story -- I have no idea whether or not "Norm" has coordinated his posts with anyone in the ACA, and I'm actually proceeding on the assumption that there hasn't been any coordination. Ockham's razor suggests this is the wisest course in any case. Nevertheless, the ACA should be thanking this guy! Here are the implications of what he's said:

• Much of the controversy at St Mary of the Angels stems from long-standing but unspecified "character issues" relating to the rector
• The rector is basically a clone of David Moyer, who was in fact turned down for Catholic ordination and had been a controversial figure in Anglo-Catholic circles
• The pro-Ordinatiate parish majority isn't really a majority and needs to move on
• The Catholic Church has given them plenty of options if they really want to become Catholic
• But, like the Rosemont group still following Moyer, they're rejecting the numerous Catholic offers and choosing to follow Fr Kelley in a cult-like movement.

The actual facts are:

• Fr Kelley has acted ethically and with integrity as rector of St Mary of the Angels. Msgr Steenson has acknowledged this by recommending that, although the parish might best be served in light of the controversies by cutting him a very generous severance package, this is not related to his moral character
• Fr Kelley has not had the long history of active dissent and out-of-control litigation that has characterized Bp Moyer's career in recent decades. The two are different people
• The parish majority is in fact a majority. It is pursuing responsible avenues for its continuing spiritual development, including the most recent appeal to the Pope
• It would not be good stewardship for the parish simply to "move on" without pursuing all appropriate avenues for retaining the property
• The Catholic Archdiocese and the Ordinary have in fact dropped the ball in allowing the parish to apply to join the Ordinariate but then making no serious provision for its continuation as a Catholic body when obstacles arose
• Holding an Anglican mass in a public park or private residences, without a bishop's oversight, is clearly a temporary measure and a matter for which the parish is seeking a more permanent resolution. The vestry has also accepted Msgr Steenson's recommendation to grant Fr Kelley a lengthy sabbatical.

The common strain of opinion between "Norm" and the ACA is, I think, meant to salve the consciences of those who'd like to ignore what's happening. David Virtue and Stephen Smuts have interests in this matter that they don't always acknowledge: Virtue is not an Anglican of any stripe himself and is of the evangelical persuasion. He is at best highly skeptical of Catholicism, if not overtly anti-Catholic. Smuts is a "priest" in the tiny and corrupt Traditional Anglican Communion. His priestly formation does not appear to have qualified him remotely for the Catholic priesthood, should an Ordinariate in South Africa even be an option. His bishop, Michael Gill, is on record with fiercely anti-Catholic opinions. He sometimes makes posts that appear to be sympathetic to the Catholic Church on his blog, but his career as a priest depends entirely on his remaining a fringe-group Protestant, and we may assume he will never actually post anything that would displease his anti-Catholic bishop.

Both Virtue and Smuts are pulling versions of the whole "continuing Anglican" bait-and-switch: they're members of a blogosphere that, according to the conventional wisdom, is more even-handed and trustworthy than the mainstream media. In a few cases, there are in fact bloggers who do a better job than paid journalists. However, Virtue and Smuts are simply doing a disservice to the Anglo-Catholic or "continuing Anglican" wing of Christianity by publishing falsehoods under a veneer of objectivity. Unfortunately, it's a sad commentary on the effect they're having that freelance trolls are simply echoing their biased viewpoints.