In both 2012 and today, I gave the ACA the benefit of the doubt and counted everything each diocese listed on its website. This means that some number of the 68 in 2012 were inactive or paper parishes; it looks like there are similar questions about the current 54. For instance, although the Diocese of the West currently lists eight, three of these (the one in Montana and one each in Arizona and California) are probably inactive. In fact, two of the other California parishes are moribund without rectors.
My speculation in the November 2012 post was that in undertaking the May 2012 cruise to the Greek islands with Bp Grundorf to negotiate merger with the APA, Brian Marsh anticipated a multimillion-dollar infusion to the ACA from the recently seized St Mary's property. Since then, the ACA's prospects in this attempt have receded at best to stalemate. Prospects for merger with the APA have faded apace, and I don't believe this is a coincidence.
One thing that's stuck with me was Mr Lancaster's cringe in the courtroom Friday when Judge Murphy mentioned the word "receiver". The implications of the St Mary's vestry declaring bankruptcy are complex -- or indeed, a mortgage holder forcing appointment of a receiver -- and I'm nowhere near understanding them at this point. However, I think the bottom line for Mrs Bush and the ACA would be even more loss of control and less ability to delay proceedings.
A bankruptcy trustee would presumably have greater power to pursue the assets Mrs Bush removed from the parish bank accounts early this year. This would be a big problem for her. A good question would also be whether the money went from the non-profit parish accounts to accounts belonging to an organization that may not have formally been a non-profit. This could interest the IRS, and any irregularities could potentially threaten the ACA's tax exempt status.
Another issue could involve a receiver appointed to deal with any foreclosure action connected with the apparently fraudulent mortgage Mrs Bush took out on the property in 2014. A close look at this matter from an independent third party could cause other problems for Mrs Bush and the ACA.
In either case, this would probably allow a trustee or receiver to rent the commercial property. It would probably allow the Kelleys to continue to live on the property, and it would probably allow the vestry to continue to hold services. The rental income would be collected for the benefit of the creditors, and this would probably result in loss of effective ability by Bush and the ACA to delay proceedings via litigation.
it appears to me that Mrs Bush and the ACA would have more to lose than the vestry in any move like this. In addition, a lingering question has always been whether Mrs Bush's interests and those of the ACA are the same, especially in light of any potential irregularities over Mrs Bush's draining the bank accounts or obtaining the 2014 mortgage.
I've got to assume the attorneys for both sides are well aware of the issues involved.
