Mr Clark was on the St Mary's vestry during 2011 and had some familiarity with events then. I began attending St Mary's in early 2011, but only became familiar with what was really going on in the August-September 2011 time period. I knew Mr Clark only slightly and had only a few chats with him (I can't remember if it was via phone or e-mail) after I briefly became treasurer; we never discussed the material in his statement.
Mr Clark says in his statement,
Some people (including our Curate) also complained about the content of Fr. Kelley's sermons but this was something I felt was outside the scope of the vestry's concerns (which include ALL temporal affairs ofthe church).The content of any meetings among then-Bishop Moyer, Fr Kelley, and Bartus is, of course, confidential, and I have heard only the vaguest bits and snippets over the years of what may have happened. It does appear, however, that the main reason for Moyer's visit was a personnel issue.It is important to note that we had an episcopal visit from our Bishop (David Moyer) in June of 2011 to help deal with a growing personality conflict between Fr. Bartus and Fr. Kelley and to address some of the concerns I mentioned above. It was after this visit that the move to remove Fr. Kelley began in earnest among a small part of the parish instigated by Fr. Bartus.
Leaving personality conflicts aside, I noted during 2011 several problems that, as an observer, did strike me as worth addressing. I recall a mostly jocular discussion with the frequent master of ceremonies on exactly what Bartus was doing during many parts of the mass -- I thought his posture a little awkward, but couldn't tell from the nave if his eyes were closed. The master of ceremonies, who had a much closer view, laughingly insisted Bartus was often asleep. (But if Bartus was asleep, it's hard to know how he could object to Fr Kelley's sermons!)
On another occasion, Bartus was to deliver the homily -- but instead, he grandly pointed out that since everyone revered Fr Davis, the former curate who had recently passed away, he would simply read one of Fr Davis's homilies from the files, and that's what he did. (The late Carroll Barbour, much-revered rector of a neighboring Episcopal parish, once fired an associate for a similar offense.) A former Episcopal priest who was close to the situation at St Mary's told me that earlier in his career, he'd been terminated as an associate for less, and on mature reflection, that termination had been justified.
I can only conclude that Moyer, reviewing Bartus's job performance irrespective of any personality conflict, had no choice but to be firm with the newly minted curate. The best evidence we have from Mr Clark's statement is that Bartus did not take this well, and he redoubled his disagreements with his superiors, stirring up the less stable and more gullible parishioners in the process.
Bartus, from the best information we have, apparently had back-channel contacts with Houston-in-formation (the Ordinariate had not yet been formally erected). I can only assume that he transmitted his own assessments of Fr Kelley and then-Bp Moyer to the in-group of Ft Worth clergy.
I don't mean to second-guess the eventual decisions Msgr Steenson and Abp Chaput made over Moyer's ordination as a Catholic priest. He'd been deposed as an Episcopal priest, and he had a history of litigiousness. Nevertheless, if any personal assessments of Moyer by Andrew Bartus figured into these decisions, I believe they should be reconsidered. The same applies to any character assassination against Fr Kelley that may have been passed on by Bartus.
