My Wife Is A Retired Attorney,

and she wasn't completely happy with my post showing the contradiction between Falk's April statement to David Virtue via Anthony Morello, that he had never provided episcopal oversight to St Mary's, and his declaration to the court in June 2012 that in fact he had. "St Mary's might need him as a witness," she said. In other words, if Falk were to testify in court, an attorney could destroy his credibility by raising that contradiction. That's too bad, I suppose, although for one thing, you can never be sure which side might think Falk would testify on its behalf -- next month, he might tell the ACA he had testimony that would help them, after all. And anyone can use Google, which is what I did to find the contradictions -- a lawyer seeking to damage Falk's credibility could find the same thing I did with half an hour's work.

For friends of St Mary's who've thought well of Falk for his June declaration in favor of the parish's case, I would simply say that his record would allow an attorney to destroy his credibility if he should ever actually testify. The help he appears to have provided in his declaration is worth little. What happened at St Mary's has certainly caused spiritual crises among former parishioners -- how, for instance, could excommunicating someone who's done nothing that would warrant it do anything else? -- but it's been a part of reassessments among people not directly involved with the parish, too. Some have certainly suggested that Archbishop Falk is a figure who mitigates any disillusionment they may have with the ACA. To me, the record says pretty plainly that Falk is completely comfortable in the company of Strawn, Marsh, and Morello; he has been complicit in what's been done to St Mary's; and his own public record of personal integrity is not good.

Of those I've spoken with who've been led to reassessement -- of church affiliation, of vocation, even of how God allows evil -- none has said they'll go back to St Mary's (they can't anyhow, they've been excommunicated!) or have anything more to do with the ACA. It seems to me that this is an entirely reasonable position. This is a small scandal, but it's been instructive. One question I have is how the Anglican Province of America can contemplate merger with the ACA, knowing what it must about the key people in the ACA. What assurance does anyone in the APA have that the ACA bishops will act in good faith on any agreement they purportedly reach with the APA?