The parish clearly lost its case due to bad legal advice and incompetent representation in court. Unfortunately, neither the parishionners nor the bootstrap start-up known as the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter have the financial resources to hire competent attorneys to pursue the matter. Thus, the parishionners’ [sic] best option is to cut their losses and move on.The parish is represented by TroyGould PC, which specializes, among other things, in the corporate governance issues that the litigation with the ACA brings up. Many parishioners with specific knowledge of events and documents related to the case worked closely with TroyGould attorneys, and I believe we developed a mutual respect and appreciation, for Fr Kelley's integrity and that of the Ordinariate-bound majority on one hand, and for the attorneys on the other. Nobody at St Mary's who worked with TroyGould or who attended the court proceedings feels that TroyGould provided "bad legal advice" or "incompetent representation". Judge Linfield in his opinion noted the high quality of legal representation on both sides of the case.Here, Msgr. Steenson has stated that the parishionners [sic] are welcome to come into the Catholic Church as members of the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter, and their numbers are clearly sufficient to establish an ordinariate community in Hollywood. I have no doubt that the Archdiocese of Los Angeles would provide facilities for them. Indeed, there seem to be indications that some, though I have no idea how many, former members of St. Mary of the Angels have taken this step.
As to clergy, the statement from the ordinariate several months ago concerning this parish, which seems to have disappeared from its web site, indicated pretty clearly that Msgr. Steenson would not accept Fr. Kelley for Catholic ordination — which now harkens back to Cardinal Manning’s earlier rejection. It’s very probable that Cardinal Manning’s staff noted the same character issues in Fr. Kelley that dictated Msgr. Steenson’s more recent decision, and thus refused his request for Catholic ordination, with the obvious consequence that the parish did not come with him into the Catholic Church. Of course, this would not bar Fr. Kelley from coming into the ordinariate as a layman.
Backing up a step, this whole scenario begs the question of whom the community that is still gathering with Fr. Kelley is following. Quite simply, are they following the Lord, or are they following Fr. Kelley?
Then "Norm" says (in bold, no less), "It’s very probable that Cardinal Manning’s staff noted the same character issues in Fr. Kelley that dictated Msgr. Steenson’s more recent decision, and thus refused his request for Catholic ordination, with the obvious consequence that the parish did not come with him into the Catholic Church." I simply don't know what "Norm's" relation to the parish is, or where (if anywhere other than a ouija board) he's getting his information. The first attempt by St Mary of the Angels to become Anglican Use lasted from 1980 to 1984, when, according to Fr Jack Barker, who was Rector of St Mary's during this period,
[B]oth Bishop Law and the Ecumenical Relations Committee of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles had made it clear that sensitivity to ecumenical relations would be paramount in the carrying out of the pastoral provision. . . . It was in October 1984 that Bishop Ward, in behalf of cardinal Manning, reported to PDSAC clergy in Los Angeles that no parish of the pastoral provision would be allowed in the archdiocese and that both clergy and laity would have to be received into the Catholic Church on a strictly individual basis through their local latin rite parish.Fr Barker was received into the Catholic Church following Cardinal Manning's refusal to admit the parish and then ordained a priest in a neighboring diocese, so there were no character issues related to any rector of the parish in 1984. Fr Kelley was nowhere near St Mary of the Angels at the time and had nothing to do with its application to join the Anglican Use provision, which clearly was denied due to the Archdiocese's desire not to irritate The Episcopal Church by poaching a parish. Fr Kelley was not hired by the St Mary's vestry until 2007. In addition, during June 2012, Msgr Steenson met with the elected St Mary's vestry and recommended that the parish place Fr Kelley on an extended sabbatical that would amount to a generous severance package. In the letter in which he recommended this, he noted that such an action would be for reasons "not related to the rector's moral character". Nor did this constitute any sort of direct refusal to ordain Fr Kelley.
I simply don't know how random people in the blogosphere, who adopt a highly knowledgeable tone, pick up this sort of misinformation. The last communication I'm aware of between Msgr Steenson and the vestry was the June letter, in which Steenson proceeds under the assumption (however unrealistic) that the parish will resolve its difficulties and enter the Ordinariate as a body. I'm aware of no specific statement from the Ordinary regarding any entry to the Ordinariate by St Mary's parishioners as individuals, and the Archdiocese of Los Angeles has made no statement that I'm aware of regarding any other facilities for them.
This sort of misinformation -- especially unfounded attacks on Fr Kelley's character, which "Norm's" comment is specifically, in bold, meant to be -- has been picked up in the past by bloggers like David Virtue and Stephen Smuts and published without question. I have no idea why people with no apparent connection to the parish would wish to do this. False witness, though, is clearly a sin.
