Here's What I'd Do If I Were A Warden

in the elected vestry at St Mary of the Angels. Not right away, but certainly as soon as the legal resolution became more clear, I'd recommend there be a serious sitdown between the elected vestry and three people: Msgr William Stetson, Msgr Jeffrey Steenson, and Fr Charles Hough III. They would want to do this, because, at least in terms of 2012 assets, revenue, and membership, St Mary of the Angels would be one of the principal parishes (not missions) of the US-Canadian Ordinariate. (The draft budget I prepared for 2012 included a parish tithe of 10%, about $22,000.) If they did not do this, I would take it as a pretty serious sign from the Almighty that the parish's stewardship would be best exercised in a different context.

I would want to review the things the Ordinary and his representatives didn't do in the early months of 2012. These would include:

• The assumption was that, in accordance with the announced procedure, the parish would have a Catholic chaplain who would exercise pastoral functions until the parish's Anglican clergy could be ordained. Although Msgr Stetson was designated, he never made any move to receive the parish as Catholics and never exercised any pastoral function. He was present for about three meetings and was otherwise remote. I'm not entirely sure if pastoral experience is on the Msgr's resume in any case. How would another try at joining the Ordinariate differ here?
• Although numerous allegations of doctrinal uncertainty and financial impropriety were made against Fr Kelley, I'm not aware of any serious effort by the Ordinary to get to the bottom of these. Certainly I would have been a major source for information on finances, since I had access to the books in the period just prior to 2012. Nobody ever contacted me. What specific allegations did the Ordinary receive, and what did he do to investigate them?
• During early 2012, a small parish minority was working with the ACA to seize the parish, in violation of California corporate law. Then-Bp Moyer had evidence of this. The attempted seizure of the parish, also in violation of law, on April 9 was a clear indication of this. Both Bps Moyer and Falk, in the period between January and April 2012, did what they could to protect the parish from these illegal moves and were successful at the time, without resort to legal action. What equivalent moves did the Ordinary make to protect the parish, which had, effective January 1 of that year, been assured of his protection? Given his chancellor's excuse that no money was available for legal action, what moves short of legal action were available to him that he apparently did not make?
• To what extent did the Ordinary or his associates rely on Andrew Bartus's own allegations concerning the parish to make decisions on the parish's future? By April 2012, Bartus's behavior had become visibly erratic, especially during that year's Easter triduum. What psychological testing, normal for review of diocesan Catholic priests and religious, was administered to Bartus that would have made him more credible as a source than, say, Bp Moyer, Bp Falk, Fr Kelley, the parish wardens, or even someone like me?

I'm seriously concerned that nothing appears to have changed in the Ordinariate of the Chair of St Peter since 2012. Without a clear explanation of what's changed, and a serious and credible commitment to treat the parish differently (including an assurance that Bartus will have no involvement in its future), I do not see joining the Ordinariate as an appropriate future course and cannot recommend it as a friend of the parish.