E-Mail to David Virtue

I sent the following e-mail to Mr Virtue:

On October 26, 2015, Judge Mary H Strobel issued a decision in the retrial of the St Mary of the Angels case, which had been returned to the trial court in September 2014 following a successful appeal by Fr Christopher P Kelley and the elected vestry of the parish. In her decision, Judge Strobel ruled, “Following the directions of the Court of Appeal to resolve the question of the validity of the August 2012 vote, the court finds the proposal to amend the Articles of Incorporation and bylaws of St Mary['s] of the Angels Parish in Hollywood to disaffiliate itself from the Anglican Church in America was approved by a 2/3 majority and thus is effective. Based on the stipulation of the parties that the other elements of Plaintiff's cause of action for forcible detainer are deemed proven, the court finds in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants on the cause of action for forcible detainer.”

Since you covered this matter extensively in 2012, I feel you should cover its resolution on your site now. Fr Kelley and the elected vestry are completing the legal motions necessary to regain physical possession of the property within the next several weeks. So far, I’m not aware of any statement from the ACA on this matter, although it amounts to a major setback for them.. However, Presiding Bishop Marsh’s e-mail is spiritstage@yahoo.com The ACA’s attorneys are Lancaster & Anastasia LLP www.lancaster-anastasia.com/ although when I checked, the site was not available. The number listed for it was (213) 232-1352.

I will be happy to provide any additional information you may need, although while I’m a knowledgeable and interested party, I am not a spokesman for either the parish, its vestry, or Fr Kelley.

Both Mr Virtue and "Father" Stephen Smuts covered the initial trial in 2012 with some glee. We'll see if either gives this development any play: at the time, in their comment sections, they both happily provided an ostensibly neutral platform for virulently anti-Kelley rants from Anthony Morello and other unbalanced individuals. I note that Smuts, the de facto public relations voice of the "worldwide Traditional Anglican Communion", has resumed blogging, although the quality of his current effort may be reflected in a recent post, "Priest Builds Ministry One Lego At A Time".

By the way, I checked several times today, and Lancaster & Anastasia's web site isn't available.

Decision Summary

I've been sent the summary wording of Judge Strobel's decision, from p 18:

Following the directions of the Court of Appeal to resolve the question of the validity of the August 2012 vote, the court finds the proposal to amend the Articles of Incorporation and bylaws of St Mary['s] of the Angels Parish in Hollywood to disaffiliate itself from the Anglican Church in America was approved by a 2/3 majority and thus is effective. Based on the stipulation of the parties that the other elements of Plaintiff's cause of action for forcible detainer are deemed proven, the court finds in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants on the cause of action for forcible detainer.

dated 10/26/15 Hon. Mary H. Strobel, Judge of The Los Angeles Superior Court

The stipulation, of course, was the result of Mr Lengyel-Leahu's tactical win on the second day of the trial. There are, as I understand it, procedural moves to be made between now and November 17, when it is anticipated that, God willing, the judge will sign an order for the squatters to vacate the premises, after which the sheriff will deliver the order, upon which the squatters will have five days to vacate.

Although if I were "Bishop" Owen Williams, since he's the local ACA honcho and the one most reachable under the law, I'd be headed as far away from the state as I could get, much sooner. However, as of today, the pariah website, under control of the squatters, contains no announcement.

Where Now?

I assume the vestry's attorneys (I'm going to drop the "elected" henceforth) are on top of legal options and developments, and legal strategies are confidential. Fr Kelley and Dr Trimpi, his senior warden, make information available to friends of the parish as appropriate. So I can only speculate for now on where things might be headed, although I would note that my wife and I called things right last month, so sorry, folks, no refund!

Here are some open questions. The first is insurance. The Church Mutual Insurance Company had an attorney observing the September trial. Mrs Bush and others had sued Church Mutual in 2013, hoping to be reimbursed for legal fees they paid (or pledged) to Lancaster and Anastasia, certainly amounting to hundreds of thousands, which Church Mutual has refused to pay on the basis that Bush et al are neither the policyholders nor the insured. That case, based on both the appeals court decision and the outcome of the September trial, is now hopeless.

I simply don't know if the Church Mutual attorney was observing the trial out of interest in that case, or whether it saw potential claims arising from the September trial of the Rector, Wardens, and Vestry cases, or both. Among the questions my wife and I have are whether the squatters kept up premium payments on the parish's Church Mutual policy. They are fully capable, of course, of screwing this up.

But assuming a policy is still in force for the St Mary's parish, the next question would be what it covers. Does it cover physical damage to the building? Theft? Who knows? An insurance expert would have to take a close look at the policy. But depending on what it covers, the vestry could file a claim based on losses, once it gained entry to the building. Church Mutual would then pay -- but Church Mutual would subrogate, which is to say they'd turn around and dun Mrs Bush, Mr Omeirs, "Bishops" Marsh, Strawn, and Owen Williams, and other parties for that money. If that's what the policy covered, and if it's still in force.

Another question is Citibank. As far as we know, Citibank allowed Anthony Morello and the squatters to open a new account under "St Mary of Angels" or something like that, and deposit and write checks on the parish's behalf, although the squatters had been instructed by Judge Jones in June 2012 to return control of the accounts to the vestry, and the parish was subject to continued litigation. Citibank may have major liability here, and they are a deep pocket.

But there will need to be a forensic audit. We simply don't know who got paid by the squatters, from three years' income to the parish amounting to nearly $750,000. We have more and more indication that the ACA seized the parish to get money. But the trial court has presumably established that after the August 2012 election, the parish was not part of the ACA (though it was in the Patrimony, not the ACA, after January 2011). Any money paid the ACA by the squatters would need to be recovered, possibly through insurance (depending, as above, on the policy), but otherwise through litigation.

I've already called this situation a slow-motion train wreck for the ACA, the squatters, Marsh, Strawn, and Owen Williams, and the bank. So far, it looks like I've been calling it right. Mrs Bush, at least 85 years old, appears to be a very sad case. I think her family needs to get involved.

Preliminary News: Fr Kelley And Elected Vestry Win

I'm told that Judge Strobel issued a written Statement of Decision on Monday, October 26, as a "tentative", in favor of Fr Kelley and the elected vestry. I haven't seen the decision. Since it's a "tentative", attorneys for both sides will have the opportunity to offer challenges and considerations before November 12, the day after Veterans' Day. The elected vestry and Fr Kelley still don't know when they will be allowed back in the building.

From Fr Kelley, "Please continue to pray that the Judge will hasten to sign the Writ of Execution, directing our speedy, if not IMMEDIATE, reinstatement."

"Anglican Spirituality"?

Now and then (for instance, here) I see rather precious references to 'Anglican spirituality", "Anglican spiritual patrimony", and the like.

I owe a great deal to Billy Graham. When I was in my twenties and had fallen away from the Presbyterianism in which I was raised, the radio station I often listened to ran Graham's program on Sunday nights. It always began with him calling out, "This is the hour of decision!" My life had been going badly enough that I never quite turned the radio to another station or turned it off entirely, and the girlfriend with whom I'd broken up was out of the picture -- she would never have tolerated Billy Graham -- so I listened.

Was this "Baptist spirituality"? Of course not. Graham is an Augustinian. His "hour of decision" was probably my "Take up and read!" Actually, when I studied English literature in college and graduate school, my professors seldom stressed Anglicanism with authors like Donne, Herbert, Milton, Bunyan, Swift, or Johnson: they called them "Pauline and Augustinian Christians", which may be redundant, except perhaps if contrasted with "complacent and halfhearted Christians".

But if you think about it, John Bunyan, author of The Pilgrim's Progress and Grace Abounding to the Chief of Sinners, is probably the most-read English spiritual writer, a figure almost comparable to Dante, but he wasn't Anglican. Neither was John Milton. Neither was Isaac Watts, who wrote the words to some best-loved hymns. What on earth is "Anglican spirituality"?

Actually, it reminds me of the university that, in response to complaints from Muslims and atheists that there was a cross in the chapel, elected to remove it from the altar and place it in a vitrine as a "historical exhibit", allowing it to be placed back on the altar only during actual Christian services, after which it had to be promptly removed. That's more like a first cousin to "Anglican spirituality", a somewhat precious and pedantic historical exhibit.

Yet More Clarity

A clerical visitor notes:

Noting that you have lately referred to vestments as "Tridentine", a little clarity might be in order.

It is my observation that MOST Anglican churches in the US that use classical eucharistic vestments use what is called "Gothic" style, the full-cut, as covering the arms of the priest to the wrist.

The "Tridentine" style is also known as "fiddleback", as these are cropped to the shoulders, and cover front & back of the body rather like a sandwich board. This is the cut used in the Franciscan missions in California, for instance. (One can understand a smaller vestment being easier to pack for travel on mission trips, etc.) The number of priests in the US in Anglican circles that prefer this style is small, in my experience. There might be a close affinity to the "Anglican Papalist" group, thinking it was following an Italian model more doggedly. It is generally thought of as "extreme" to go for the fiddleback.

This gives me even more insight into how Anglicanorum coetibus has been put into practice -- I'm not sure that this is what either Cardinal Law or Pope Benedict had in mind.

Toward A Definition Of Anglo-Papalism

I've been ruminating on how to define "Anglo-Papalism" or "Anglican Papalism" for much of this year. In July, I specifically raised the problem of how to define it. Since then, an erudite visitor has made many very useful suggestions for further reading and research that have helped clarify the movement for me. Many thanks.

At the same time, Anglicanism overall is a moving target. It's pretty unusual in the US to attend an Episcopal eucharist that isn't held in a church with candles on the altar, a reredos, stained glass, and a communion rail, with clergy in Tridentine vestments. Before the late 19th century, many of these would be cause for scandal and, in the UK, even prosecution, but they're now common even in the lowest-church parishes, at least in the US.

We might also say that an Anglo-Papalist believes Anglicans should return to Papal authority, but here, Catholicism is a moving target. Some historians trace the rise of the movement to Apostolicae curae, the 1896 encyclical that declared Anglican orders null and void, but in the US, there are three formal paths for Anglicans to become Catholic, either as priests or laity, as individuals or with groups -- RCIA, the Anglican Use Pastoral Provision, and the US-Canadian Ordinariate.

However, a bishop can ordain a former Anglican outside these structures, as was done with Fr Barker, and a priest can receive lay Anglicans outside the RCIA process. As a practical matter, there are few obstacles to Anglicans becoming Catholic even outside Anglican Use or the Ordinariates, and thousands probably do this each year -- but they're hardly Anglo-Papalists.

So Anglo-Papalism is hard to define without a context. In context, at its peak between 1900 and 1960, it was an extreme, even eccentric, wing of Anglo-Catholicism. Two of its identifying characteristics were use of an unauthorized liturgy and reservation of the Sacrament, including Corpus Christi processions, illegal in the UK and cause for raised eyebrows at minimum in the US. However, even at its peak, the movement was small and distinguished from "moderate" Anglo-Catholicism, which has since moved into the Anglican mainstream.

In addition, as a small and eccentric minority, it carried other baggage: it attracted people with actively gay lifestyles, occultists, and, at the time of the Spanish Civil War, fellow-traveling Stalinists. Although there are some holdovers and sympathizers even now, it's primarily a historical curiosity (one historian calls it a "museum piece"), and although it might provide an amusing digression in a Church history lecture, I don't think it can be seriously considered an important part of "Anglican patrimony".

This leads me to the puzzling question of why the Ordinariates would choose to use a version of the Anglican Papalist missal from 1905 as the authorized liturgy. On the other hand, in one of his few official utterances, Msgr Steenson has said,

Some of our clergy want to learn also how to celebrate according to the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite. They are certainly encouraged to do so, under the provisions of Summorum Pontificum and under the supervision of the local bishop, to assist in those stable communities that use the Extraordinary Form. But as the Extrordinary Form is not integral to the Anglican patrimony, it is not properly used in our communities.

But both the Latin mass and the 1905 English Missal, which forms the basis of the Ordinariate liturgy, were used by Anglican Papalists. The 1905 Missal was no more authorized in Anglican denominations than the Latin mass -- strictly speaking, neither is part of an Anglican patrimony -- or if either is, how do we distinguish it from other accepted parts of Anglican Papalism, like the occult?

I'm inclined to say that if Ordinariate leadership wants to salvage the outcome of Anglicanorum coetibus, a good start might be to rethink "Anglican patrimony", lose the Anglo-Papalist craziness and the 1905 Missal, and go to something much more like the 1979 Rite Two.