I think this is because whether Christmas is scheduled for August 16 (as it was for some weeks last year) is beside the point. I think my wife's view that the squatters have worked with the ACA to establish adverse possession of the property is the correct one. Under this theory of the case, their intent was to find a way to eject those with actual title to the property, keep them out for a statutory period while operating as something like a church, and then, having assumed de facto title, sell it. The various disputes over whether Fr Kelley had obscurely heretical views, was paying someone's dental bill from parish funds, or keeping a naked African-American girl in the parish basement, were always pretextual, designed simply to create division, which the ACA, working with Mrs Bush, could then exploit for its own purposes.
For the squatters' purposes, if they announce that Christmas comes in August, it actually suits their agenda. After all, Scientology is just down the street, and under the US First Amendment, churches have extreme latitude. All they need to do is look more or less like a church to satisfy the requirements of adverse possession. On the other hand, looking weird will also keep away people who might be sincere enough to want actually to receive a valid sacrament -- enough of those could give the squatters their own set of problems. The arrangement they have now is temporary, to be retained only until they establish adverse possession and sell the place (receiving their own lagniappes, commissions, and consulting fees in the process).
One potential issue that comes from yesterday's questions is whether, if the parish were to reopen under the vestry, the dissidents could return, renew their inactive memberships, and simply revive the old pretextual disputes. This is possible, but I think it's unlikely. To start with, the dissident group was always smaller than a dozen people. Of these, I assume that a final resolution of the case would include a court order excluding those who had assaulted parishioners or made threats, or they could be covered by a separate protective order. This would eliminate several of the remaining core dissidents.
A final resolution of the case in favor of the vestry would also add a major obstacle to the dissidents' former agenda. The trial court has ruled that the August 2012 parish vote to leave the ACA was valid. The major aim of the dissidents following the initial erection of the Patrimony of the Primate was to return the parish to the ACA, and then probably as well to participate in a sale of the property. With the court ruling that the vote to leave was valid, rejoining the ACA would require a supermajority of the membership to revise the bylaws yet again. Rumors like those spread in 2011-2012 wouldn't be enough to do this.
