Another Atonement Insider On Fr Phillips And Anglicanorum Coetibus -- I

As we come closer to the tenth anniversary of Anglicanorum coetibus, it's very useful to develop all the information we can on the leadup to its implementation and, not incidentally, the trail of destruction it's left in its wake. Some time ago, we had input from an insider at Our Lady of the Atonement who gave one perspective on Fr Phillips's stewardship there and the reasons that led him to keep the parish out of the North American ordinariate until 2017.

More recently, I've had extensive correspondence with a second insider who confirms aspects of the first account, but he adds perspective from someone who saw the parish from a different point of view, including that of the several hundred parishioners who attended the Sunday evening OF Latin mass almost exclusively. For this substantial group, of course, "Anglican Use" was of very little meaning. This visitor's account is quite detailed, and I'll present it in posts over several days, with my own observations interspersed.

I will start out by saying I was not one of the original parishioners at OLOTA, so I do not have knowledge of some of the early events that took place at that time. I will try to give an overview of the facts as I know them. I do know that when OLOTA first started, with about 17 people, a moderate sized house was purchased for Fr. Phillips and his large family. Again, this was before I arrived at the parish so I don't know all of the details, but the house was owned by the parish, not Fr. Phillips. Not long after this, a small church and a school were built.

As I understand it, some Franciscan nuns were brought in to teach at the school. This did not work out well. The nuns had their own idea about the school and Fr. Phillips had his idea. A battle ensued that brought in the Archbishop of the diocese to negotiate a settlement. Fr. Phillips won and the nuns left. The interesting thing here is that one of the nuns left the Franciscan order, joined a new order and is to this day still at OLOTA.

This whole affair created bad blood between Fr. Phillips and Archbishop Flores. To my knowledge the Archbishop never came back to OLOTA. When Fr. Phillips needed a bishop for any occasion, such as confirmations, he called on an older retired bishop to come out and officiate.

Because of his falling out with the diocese, Fr. Phillips became somewhat nervous about his precarious position at OLOTA. He once said to me that he wanted his own house, one not owned by the parish, to protect his family in case something happened. An aside here is that sometime after he bought this larger home, he installed a pool. When asked by a parishioner if this luxury was necessary, he responded that he never took a vow of poverty.

Interestingly, we see this tendency echoed in the priests at Our Lady of Walsingham, who live in million-dollar McMansions. (It would be worth investigating how Fr Perkins is housed as well.) The visitor also commented,

All of Fr. Phillips's family members and their spouses with the possible exception of his elder daughter were paid employees of OLOTA in different capacities. I think that the new regime has put an end to this. To my knowledge, none of Fr. Phillips's family members are still employed by the parish.[But see below]

This goes to the oh-by-the way opportunism and self-aggrandizement that seems to be so common among ordinariate priests. It seems as though both the ordinaries Houston has had so far would suggest this is not a bug but a feature. The visitor goes on,

Now on to the Ordinariate. As is well known, JPll and B16 were favorable to the whole Pastoral provision/Ordinariate idea. As this was progressing to become a reality, Fr. Phillips started a campaign to sign up the parishioners at OLOTA. He wanted big numbers, so he strongly asked that we all sign up. Most did. In the interim Fr. Phillips was invited to a bishops conference in, I think, Washington, DC. Many of us felt that Fr. Phillips was invited to this conference to be made head of the new ordinariate.

Fr. Phillips told me that one day when the conference was in session a cart was rolled out with a birthday cake on it. The cart was placed in front of Fr. Phillips and the whole assembly got up and sang happy birthday to him. I am sure, with this display, he must have felt that he was on the inside track. Unfortunately the ordinariate announcement did not materialize at that conference. He came home full of joy. It would only be a matter of time until the announcement was made.

One day in conversation with Fr. Phillips, I asked who he thought were possible candidates to be head of the upcoming ordinariate. He thought he was the rightful choice because of all he had done to bring it about. I mentioned Msgr Stetson because he was a Roman Priest who could be elevated to the rank of bishop. A married man cannot be a bishop. He was also the liaison between the Pastoral Provision and Cardinal Law who, as I understand it, was put in charge of overseeing the ordinariate by the Vatican. [see below]

I should not have mentioned Msgr Stetson's name as this precipitated a volley of expletives unbecoming a priest. Fr. Phillips did not like Msgr Stetson, but had to tolerate him because of Cardinal Law. Fr. Phillips went on to say that there are four ranks of Monsignor and the highest rank was equal to a bishop.

This confirms the earlier insider's account that Fr Phillips and Msgr Stetson were on very bad terms. What we do know in hindsight is that Msgr Steenson had been working with Cardinal Law since at least 1993 to draft what went to Cardinal Ratzinger as a proposal for Anglicanorum coetibus. Had this been implemented under John Paul, it appears that TEC Bp Clarence Pope would have become ordinary, with Steenson likely vicar general and heir presumptive. Given the more than 15-year delay, Bp Pope's declining health made Steenson the clear choice once Steenson became an Episcopalian bishop himself.

This was kept a deep dark secret, since Steenson would likely never have been voted a TEC bishop in 2004 had the plans with Law and Ratzinger come to light prematurely. In fact, the actual reason for Steenson's 2007 resignation as TEC Bishop of the Rio Grande and journey to Rome under Law's auspice never was made clear even after Steenson's designation as ordinary in 2012.

Cardinal Donald Wuerl was made delegate for implementing Anglicanorum coetibus when it was promulgated in late 2009. Wuerl in turn made Fr R Scott Hurd his day-to-day designate. Hurd, a married Anglican Use priest, continued as Steenson's first vicar general. In the spirit of mutual self-promotion and self-aggrandizement we see throughout this history, he seems to have favored a clique of young graduates from the elite Nashotah House Episcopal seminary in recommending ordinations for Episcopalian and Anglican candidates.

Msgr Stetson's position in the implementation is something of a puzzle. Fr Phillips saw him as a prime candidate for ordinary, and it's true that he had a strong link to Cardinal Law since they were both at Adams House in Harvard together in the late 1940s. However, Stetson was 80 and already retired from Opus Dei. He was given the task of supervising the entry of the St Mary of the Angels parish in Hollywood, CA into the ordinariate, since he had moved to Los Angeles.

But between Stetson himself, Hurd, Steenson, and Steenson's legal adviser, Margaret Chalmers, the project of bringing that parish into the ordinariate was bungled disastrously over a five-month period that culminated with parish dissidents starting a seven-year round of litigation that is still not over. We should not neglect this chapter in recognizing the trail of destruction Anglicanorum coetibus is leaving in its wake.

The money in the blogosphere as of 2011 was on either Fr Phillips or David Moyer to become ordinary. Moyer, a "continuing" bishop, in my view might have been the best choice among all the potential candidates. He had what I think was a realistic vision of what the ordinariate could actually become, a sense of the risks in what it quite possibly would not, and a sense of personnel and personalities, which I don't believe any other candidate had. But Steenson in hindsight was the only reasonable choice, while if nothing else, Moyer's hidden health issues would quickly have killed him if he'd gone to Houston.

I'll continue with the visitor's account tomorrow.

UPDATE: The first insider who contributed to earlier insights comments, regarding the employment of Fr Phillips's family at the parish:

This account is all correct with the exception of Fr. Phillips's eldest daughter, named Christian, was employed by the parish, in the very early days of the school, as a librarian/aide.

With the exception of his second eldest daughter, all five of his children have worked at the parish in the past - and her husband was a custodian for a time.

His only son, Nathan, had an extremely lucrative contractual relationship with the parish, during the construction of the most recent buildings ($millions spent but not completed), and he still receives payment for services rendered, from a facilities maintenance point of view.

It has been an extremely challenging endeavor for Fr. Lewis to extricate this family from the cash flow of the parish.

A Reaction To Stetson's Passing

A visitor who studies Opus Dei noted,

Has Stetson fallen out of favor with OD? No OD site has mentioned his death or funeral. Wikepedia is a weird place to get that kind of info.

Actually, my regular correspondent heard about this from an indirect source, and I went to Google to confirm it. The only mention was in Wikipedia, but the indirect source where my correspondent found it struck me as credible. So this certainly raises a worthwhile set of questions. A Google search today also brings up no further mention of his death. It's entirely possible that only the small group of now-Catholic clergy who'd previously worked with him as Anglicans felt his passing was worth noting, although I've been told that Fr Phillips hated Stetson, and the feeling was mutual.

Stetson, born in 1931, would have been 87 at the time of his passing. He would have reached 75 in 2006. According to Wikipedia, he was put in charge of the Catholic bookstore ("information center") in Washington in 2004, but left it in 2007 to continue to serve as secretary to the Pastoral Provision in Houston, where he remained until 2010. Meanwhile, Abp John Myers of Newark was made delegate for the Pastoral Provision in 2003, replacing Stetson's patron, Bernard Law, who left the country. (We may assume that Law, once he got to Rome, focused his efforts on Anglicanorum coetibus.)

It appears that Stetson left his position as secretary, what must have been a de facto retirement, before Bp Kevin Vann replaced Myers as delegate in 2011. At the same time, Stetson moved to Los Angeles. The Wikipedia account, almost certainly written by Stetson himself, makes no mention of a main reason for the move, which would have been to supervise the reception of the St Mary of the Angels Hollywood Anglican parish into the to-be-erected North American ordinariate in early 2012. Abp Gómez also was installed in Los Angeles in 2011, and Stetson has sometimes been called a confidant of Gómez.

On one hand, finally receiving St Mary of the Angels into the OCSP would have been a key focus for Bernard Law, who had dealt extensively with its then-rector, Fr Jack Barker, in the late 1970s, and he would have seen it as a major piece of unfinished business in the context of Anglicanorum coetibus. But Stetson, 80 years old by the time this project began and effectively retired from any Opus Dei position (even that of bookstore manager) for several years, was probably not the best choice.

I wouldn't rule out that Stetson felt he didn't have enough to do and approached Law for some role in setting up the new ordinariate. Law may have given him something where he felt he couldn't do too much damage, and far enough away from Houston that he couldn't meddle with Steenson, but even there, Stetson managed to bungle things.

The visitor above asked another question:

I'd love someone to do research on Chicago. Did Stetson blackmail Bernardin to get that parish? There has to be something.

My money would be on Law. Law was just as liberal as Bernardin -- something both the visitor here who knew him has pointed out, as well as Philip Lawler in The Faithful Departed -- and I would guess that Law arranged the project for Stetson, who might already have been on shaky ground in Opus Dei. Law and Bernardin were close; no blackmail necessary. But others may have insights.

Since St Mary of the Angels never went into the Church, Stetson never had a chance to serve as "chaplain" to the parish during its transition, and in fact, although the original plan had been for every parish coming into the OCSP to have a Catholic priest serve as a temporary pastor while its Anglican rector waited to be ordained, as far as I'm aware, this almost never actually happened. But also, David Moyer, the ACA bishop over the parish, seems never to have been consulted by any Catholic authority for his insights, which I believe he had, and which I think were perceptive, over both personnel and physical plant.

Stetson, as far as I'm aware never a parish priest or a pastor, wouldn't have been a good choice to lead the parish in any case. From what anyone can gather, he and Jeffrey Steenson relied instead on Anthony Morello, a disgraced ex-TEC priest then in the ACA (he passed away in 2013), and Andrew Bartus, a fresh Nashotah House graduate who couldn't manage to get ordained as an Episcopalian, for whatever advice they had.

It's hard not to conclude that Stetson owed whatever career success he had to his patron Bernard Law, but in spite of that, his record in very secondary assignments appears to have been less than stellar.

Msgr William H Stetson

According to Wikipedia, thanks to a heads-up from my regular correspondent, Msgr William H Stetson passed away in the morning of January 3, 2019. Stetson was a major figure in the final failed push to get the St Mary of the Angels Hollywood Anglican parish into the Catholic Church. However, this effort had been under way since at least 1977 in various forms, and it's been the judgment of this blog that Stetson, who worked closely with Bernard Law since the time both were at Harvard, was a factor in the ultimate failure of this effort, although I believe it was ill-conceived from the start.

The only child of working-class parents in Greenfield, MA, Stetson went to Harvard, where he was prosperous enough to live at the upper-crust and reputedly gay Adams House and drove an apparently new Buick. He got to know Bernard Law, also an Adams House resident, and Law introduced him to Catholic circles in Cambridge. Stetson became an Opus Dei numerary while still a Harvard undergraduate, and he got in early with the establishment of the movement in the US.

From 1983 to 2010, he was the secretary to the delegate for the Pastoral Provision, who for most of that time was Bernard Law. For 17 years of that time, he was also vicar for Opus Dei in Chicago, where he seems to have earned the trust of Cardinal Bernardin, who gave Opus Dei the responsibility for renovating a Polish parish, St Mary of the Angels, in the Archdiocese of Chicago. Following that assignment, Stetson became Director of the Catholic Information Center in Washington, another Opus Dei function. He was appointed to that job by Theodore McCarrick.

During the later phase of his career, rather clearly able to gain the ear of influential cardinals in AmChurch, he seems to have operated as a general fixer for the Pastoral Provision on Law's behalf, although it's worth pointing out that the Pastoral Provision nevertheless underperformed, to the extent that Law continued to press for a personal prelature for former Anglicans, broaching the idea in a formal proposal to Cardinal Ratzinger in a 1993 meeting.

His appointment as director of the Catholic Information Center in Washington is also something of a puzzle. As best I can tell, this is basically a bookstore with a chapel attached and a small paid staff. Law's successors as director haven't been monsignors. That Stetson would fall from secretary to the delegate for the Pastoral Provision and Opus Dei vicar in Chicago to bookstore manager is a puzzle and may reflect an understanding within Opus Dei of his actual abilities, especially after his patron Law's departure from the US.

My own exposure to him during 2011-12 and the runup to the erection of the North American ordinariate is that he erred profoundly in his assessments of the Anglican clergy at St Mary of the Angels Hollywood, and Jeffrey Steenson also erred, as far as I can see, in accepting those assessments. But as far as I can see, Stetson had little or no experience in actually running a parish in any denomination; he was always above that sort of thing in the upper levels of Opus Dei.

My perspective now, after almost six years as a Catholic, is that David Moyer, who did have experience with Anglicanism, running a parish, and serving as a bishop, had a much better sense of what it would take to make the St Mary of the Angels parish Catholic, and my impression from the remarks he made during his episcopal visit in early 2011 was that the place was a disappointment and would probably need to be extensively rebuilt or expanded to be a true Catholic parish.

I think he had it right. I'm not sure what universe either Bernard Law or William Stetson ever thought he was operating in. But I think this also says something about the upper levels of AmChurch in the 1970s, 80s, and 90s.

Some Reflections On Anglicanorum Coetibus

Yesterday's post on the fizzling of Anglicanorum coetibus brought a visitor with some knowledge of the Vatican to comment,

It seems as though Pope Francis is all for ecumenism if it has a charismatic or evangelical edge. His distaste for 'traditionalism' [can be] seen from the moment of his election appearance on the balcony whereupon an aide attempted to hand him the traditional regalia for the first meeting with the world and was rebuffed with the words 'the carnival is over'. I would not be surprised if he has sent new directives forth to slow down the mechanism of AC.

My own view is a little bit different. If I buy a car that won't run, it doesn't matter if someone tells me to slow it down or not, it certainly isn't going to go fast, no matter what I do. I think it was always a bad idea. The record we have is that a proposal for an Anglican personal prelature reached Cardinal Ratzinger's desk in 1993 and was drafted in final form by Jeffrey Steenson in 1994. However, John Paul II was lukewarm at best and wanted a vote from the CDF, which apparently everyone knew wouldn't pass, and the matter was dropped until well into Benedict's pontificate.

However, the idea of a personal prelature went at least back to the 1980 meeting between Fr Barker and then-Bp Law's canonist in Chicago, but it was dropped then as well. It was never a good idea, it would seem. The prime mover in 1980, 1993, and 2007-2010 was Bernard Law in every case. Why was he behind it? The "ecumenism" he sponsored in the 1960s that made his reputation was evangelical civil rights-based activism, not high-church Anglican rapprochement.

I passed this question back to my visitor, who replied

I think Law was under orders from someone. I remember him once referring to a move to placate the charismatic movement by giving them office space and staff in Belgium under Cdl Suenens. I could tell it was done with consultation.

And that's about all we know. One thing that's come into my head recently is revisiting the question of what might have become of Anglicanorum coetibus had David Moyer been named US ordinary instead of Jeffrey Steenson. Recall that Anglo-Catholic blogosphere speculation had Moyer or Fr Phillips as the front-runners before Steenson's designation was announced. Steenson, of course, had a history with Law via back-channel communication since the 1980s, long before he became an Episcopalian bishop.

I think Law had Steenson's measure -- a careerist, a very cautious guy, without a whole lot of imagination. He'd do what he was told. In fact, I'd say he was a patsy. He was what the powers that be wanted, and after only a few years, he was expendable. But he was replaced by Steven Lopes, from what we've come to see only a fast-track golden boy of the sort who isn't going to rock any boats himself. But I don't think this reflects any real change between Benedict and Francis. They're still trying to drive the same car that won't run.

The question is who benefits, other than the used car salesman. After all, you could always decide to cut your losses and buy another car, or decide just to ride the bus. It's in someone's interest to pretend they're still trying to change the sparkplugs or something.

This brings me back to David Moyer's homily at St Mary of the Angels Hollywood in January 2011, soon after he'd become the parish's bishop. It's stayed with me, and that's reason enough to ask what kind of a shepherd he might have been to the new ordinariate. He'd looked around the parish, apparently for the first time, and in the context of the bright future he foresaw for the US ordinariate, he said it would be necessary to do a lot of expansion on the parish site. That, in retrospect, was an interesting observation.

After a few years at a successful Catholic parish, I'm beginning to see that if a parish isn't growing, there's a problem. I think Moyer understood this. The nave at St Mary of the Angels was (the place is now closed and unlikely to reopen) at best cozy, with a capacity somewhere around 100. It started as, and was always going to be, a church around the corner, a boutique item. This isn't how the Catholic Church operates, and I don't see how a boutique division fits.

If nothing else, I think David Moyer had a grasp of this issue. Whatever he might have done with the US ordinariate in some alternate universe, I can't imagine the outcome we presently see would be the same. Except, of course, that everyone in authority had Moyer's measure just as clearly as they had Steenson's, and that was never going to happen.

So, Exactly Why Was Wuerl's Resignation Accepted?

Fr Raymond de Souza's take on EWTN raises an intriguing question:

At about 1:30, de Souza says that although the Pennsylvania grand jury report was critical of Wuerl's handling of abuse cases in Pittsburgh, these were 30 years old, and Wuerl's "record throughout the Church is widely acknowledged as very good on sexual abuse". He goes on to say that this would not have been a factor for the Holy Father, which is perhaps credible, but then he says the real reason was that Wuerl claimed never to have heard about Cardinal McCarrick's conduct, and this was why both the priests of the Archdiocese of Washington and Francis felt he had to go.

This is peculiar. Politicians and executives tell convenient public lies all the time. It's not a terminable offense. But let's go to another take, Msgr Charles Pope's blog post from Friday:

On this significant day for the Archdiocese of Washington and the universal Church, I want you to know that I receive the news of the Holy Father’s acceptance of Cardinal Donald Wuerl’s resignation with mixed feelings.

I hope you will understand that he has been a spiritual Father to me since 2006 when he came to Washington as our Archbishop. I have flourished under his leadership. He appointed me in 2007 as pastor to my current parish, which I love so much. I have served him and the Archdiocese on the Priest Council, the College of Consultors, the Priest Personnel Board, and as a Dean. I have also been the coordinator for the Traditional Latin Mass and worked closely with the Communications Office for many years.

. . . . In all these ways and more I found him to be a top-notch administrator, careful, just, cautious and measured; even if, at times to a fault. Sometimes I wanted him to be passionate and fiery about this or that issue! Though some in recent news cycles have called him arrogant and extravagant, I have found him to be often shy and very aware that a bishop does not have unlimited powers. His lifestyle, from my limited vantage point was not extravagant but simple, even austere.

His concerns actually appear to be quite mild, but he also agreed with the other priests of the archdiocese that it was time for him to go. Why? I don't know. But two priests familiar with the question seem to be unintentionally suggesting that public explanations fall short.

I have some thoughts based on the picture I'm trying to sketch for myself on what's happening in the Church. I first became aware of Wuerl when he was the delegate for implementing Anglicanorum coetibus in 2011. My first impression was good, he was an attractive and well-spoken figure. On the other hand, he was of course operating through then-Fr Hurd and Msgr Stetson, and over the following months, I got to see from a center-court seat how badly the job was botched in the case of St Mary of the Angels Hollywood. This was a prosperous parish that should have been a well-publicized early success for the OCSP. Instead, along with the denial of votum to David Moyer and the non-entry of Our Lady of the Atonement, it set a tone of disappointment.

One would think that someone like Wuerl, charged with the objective to make the project a success, a "top-notch administrator", would have been fully aware of deficiencies in Hurd, Stetson, and Steenson and could have insightfully worked through them for better results. Apparently not. By their fruits you shall know them.

Then, in February 2012, while I was still intensely focused on Wuerl, came the Father Guarnizo case, in which an avowed lesbian set a priest up to deny her communion so that she could make a public issue of it. At best, this was poorly handled by the archdiocese, and it was on Wuerl's watch. Consider that any Catholic institution in the 21st century must be aware that the gay lobby will take any opportunity to create public conflicts over the Church's teaching.

Consider that good managers make contingency plans of various sorts. The circumstances of the Guarnizo case provided the archdiocese with advance notice that should have let the priest and his superiors have a sense of what might occur: the woman made a point of introducing herself as a lesbian to him before mass, entering the sacristy and introducing another woman as her “lover.” A good policy would have been in place to let all priests of the archdiocese know that when anything like that happens, the priest should contact a designated officer in the chancery immediately and not take any potentially controversial action before that. Indeed, if nobody in the chancery is available on weekends, the policy should cover this as well.

This was simply another situation that Wuerl let go out of control. Msgr Pope says he never saw any indication that Wuerl's lifestyle was extravagant, but all indications are that in both Pittsburgh and Washington, Wuerl lived in highly luxurious accommodations, but that the Archdiocese of Washington in particular was extremely secretive about them. This suggests that Msgr Pope, who would have no reason to be excessively curious about such things, was among those kept in the dark.

I would guess that the little details I noticed about Wuerl from the start are probably just small wisps of smoke that emanated from much greater corruption that, so far, hasn't come to light. So commentators wonder why, if what Wuerl is publicly accused of doesn't seem that great -- 30-year-old sex abuse cases covered up, nothing new, an "I knew nothing" about McCarrick -- the guy should suddenly have to go. I would say that in the context of other corrupt cardinals in recent decades, Wuerl was adept at letting those around him make of him what they wanted to see. But my sixth sense tells me there's much more we haven't learned, and we never may. Again, though, we shouldn't need J Edgar to suss it out; it's probably all an open secret.

Abp Hepworth To Visit St Mary Of The Angels February 4

I've learned through unofficial channels that Abp Hepworth will make what appears to be an episcopal visit to St Mary of the Angels on February 4. It will commemorate the 100th anniversary of the parish's founding in a Hollywood storefront by Fr Dodd. At that time, he will also, based on the version I've heard, formally assert his jurisdiction over the parish.

Now that I've had several weeks to reflect on the news that came out January 4 and the discussion in front of Judge Murphy, I think I have a general idea of the vestry's likely course of action. I'm not an attorney; I am not a member of the vestry; I haven't been a member of the parish since 2012; legal strategies are confidential, and I'm not privy to them. So far, the vestry has given me no official or unofficial statement about Abp Hepworth's visit or its forward strategy.

However, Mr Lengyel-Leahu did, in discussion in the courtroom, give a general outline of what his position will likely be. Although the superior court's appeals division in December 2017 reversed Judge Strobel's 2015 decision declaring the parsh's August 2012 vote to leave the ACA valid, this decision did not affect the state appeals court's 2014 finding that the vestry elected in February 2012 was the valid St Mary of the Angels vestry. This has an important effect on other Rector, Wardens, and Vestry cases, which were decided on the basis that the Bush group, which claimed to be the vestry, did not have standing.

Here is the ACA's problem: the appeals division has ruled on narrow technical grounds that the parish's August 2012 vote to leave the ACA was invalid. As a result, the parish is officially under the ACA. However, based on the state appeals court's decision, the elected vestry, Fr Kelley, and its wardens continue to be the vestry. But under the articles of incorporation, the vestry owns and controls the property. The vestry hires the rector. The rector has the keys to the property. (So far, St Mary of the Angels has not reappeared on the ACA Diocese of the West web site.)

As a result, the ACA is in a similar, though less advantageous, position to the TEC Diocese of Pennsylvania when David Moyer was rector of Good Shepherd Rosemont. The then-bishop hated Moyer. The bishop had inhibited and deposed Moyer. The bishop wanted to come on the property, but Moyer wouldn't let him. The Good Shepherd vestry was the entity that employed Moyer, and it kept him in its employ. This also is fairly clearly what the situation is at St Mary of the Angels.

The TEC diocese, recognizing the delicacy of the situation, was apparently reluctant to evict Moyer from the property, but legally, the TEC diocese did control the property, and eventually it saw the need, after about a dozen years, to evict Moyer. The ACA, however, does not own the St Mary of the Angels property due to the unique nature of the parish's founding documents. It cannot legally evict Fr Kelley. There is no way it can legally or canonically remove the vestry in whole or part.

As a result, the ACA is pretty much in the same situation it was in as of May 2012, when Mrs Bush and Mr Lancaster went to Judge Jones to seek a temporary restraining order barring Fr Kelley and the elected vestry from the property. Judge Jones first granted the order, then quickly reversed herself, saying this was an ecclesiastical issue, and she had no authority under the US First Amendment to interfere.

As far as I can see, while the ACA can claim ecclesiastical authority over the parish, it can't evict Fr Kelley, and it can't replace the elected vestry. There is no question that a good litigation attorney can try to pick away at the February 2012 vestry election and, depending on the mean temperature on the day the matter goes to court and what the judge had for breakfast, try to get some kind of an ex parte, but this will cost money, and the elected vestry will have the clear precedent of Judge Jones's original reversal of the first ex parte.

This means that the elected vestry will likely continue to have control of the bank accounts and the rental income from the commercial property. Meanwhile, the Bush group had run out of most of its resources in 2015, when by his filing, Mr Lancaster was last paid.

The state appeals court has already ruled that the Bush group does not have standing to litigate this matter further. As far as I can see, the ACA, not Mrs Bush, would need to file a new suit challenging the February 2012 vestry election, which would initiate a new, multimillion-dollar, multi-year process of litigation. The ACA would need to come up with many thousands of dollars to hire a new set of attorneys to do this. The vestry, though, now has the rental income from the commercial property to defend itself.

I certainly do not endorse this, but it does seem to me that both parties, the elected vestry and the ACA, are in a stalemate where they have roughly equal standing. There should be major incentive to settle this matter on terms generous to Fr Kelley and the parish employees.

The Fort Worth Frammis -- II

Andrew Bartus's version of his 2010 post-seminary job search (the original document is no longer on the web) is, "Right before graduation, I learned I couldn’t return to the Diocese of Fort Worth, as it was already full of incumbents and curates[.]" We don't know exactly how this may have been expressed, but another version I've been given is that Iker didn't want him.

In light of the 2008 Fort Worth Four fiasco, in which the Four acknowledged that their approach to Bp Vann was ill-advised and should not have occurred, I've come to think that the Catholic faction of Fort Worth clergy had become a headache to Bp Iker. I've got to think they were put on a short leash after 2008 and tolerated on the assurance that they were on their way out, but to have any more of the clique come in was not an option. And in light of the St Mary of the Angels experience, if Bartus was at all representative, there was a strong sense of spoiled-brat entitlement among the whole group -- I'm still shaking my head that the Four would publicly embarrass their bishop yet suffer so few consequences.

Handsome is as handsome does. Once the Fort Worth clique made it to the OCSP, there was a series of fiascos and embarrassments: the reversals by Our Lady of the Atonement and St Aidan's Des Moines; the protracted disaster in Hollywood; the public allegations of favoritism; the failed implementation of the ParishSoft system; and likely others that haven't come to light but influenced Steenson's and Hough III's removal. I can only think Bp Iker was happy to be rid of them all.

Let's look at what I've called the St Mary of the Angels frammis not, as I'd mostly seen it, as a hidden agenda involving primarily the Bush group and the ACA, but one in which the Fort Worth group was much more actively involved. From the Fort Worth perspective, their goal was essentially to rebuild a Catholic Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth in their image, when they'd been unable to prevail in the real Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth.

This involved finding preferments and sinecures for members of the clique, and it seems increasingly plain that Bartus, who shared both Texas A&M and Nashotah House with Hough IV, was a well-connected member -- I was told by a former St Mary's associate that Bartus would boast about how well-connected he was, but I used to discount this as just boasting. Now I think there may have been some substance to his assertions.

So I think the Fort Worth intent was to remove Fr Kelley and install a member of the clique, Andy Bartus, in his place. We now know that Steenson intended to make a similar move at Our Lady of the Atonement, so it looks like there was a pattern in operation. It appears that there was a great deal of back-channel character assassination against Fr Kelley, directed toward Fr Hurd, the vicar general, and probably Hough IV, who would have had Hough III's ear, and Steenson through both.

This included utterly spurious allegations of financial impropriety. With no actual evidence to bear them out, it was necessary to stage a scandal. This was done with the help of the parish treasurer, an essentially uncatechized and deeply troubled woman, who as far as we can tell agreed not to forward quarterly payments for employee tax withholding to the IRS. It appears that Bartus was fully aware of this scheme and may have been complicit to the extent of removing the IRS notices of overdue payments from incoming mail in the parish office.

Let's enumerate what this involved. Not paying taxes and tampering with mail are crimes, potentially felonies. Because the tax payments are deductions from workers' wages and are credited to the workers' accounts with the IRS, not paying the tax amounts to denying workers their wages, a sin that cries out to heaven. Trying to attribute this to Fr Kelley is false witness. Hurd and the Houghs, if they had any knowledge that any of this was in train and allowed it to continue, were complicit.

Let's go a little farther. Bartus had well-documented personality clashes with both his ACA bishop, Daren Williams, and his Patrimony bishop, David Moyer. He no doubt was complaining loudly about this to Hurd and the Houghs at every opportunity. Indeed, I've come to wonder how much Bartus's complaints about Moyer contributed to what appears to have been Steenson's request to Abp Chaput to deny Moyer his votum. But despite what to a normal person might have seemed a level of immaturity that required some type of probatory delay, the Fort Worth group seems to have been intent on putting Bartus, barely two years out of seminary and unstable, in charge of what would have been a major OCSP parish.

This is a sin against prudence. The frammis Bartus, Bush, Morello, and the others cooked up was too complicated, and it required too many things to fall exactly into place. It began to collapse over Easter 2012. That the Fort Worth group would think this would succeed is another sin against prudence, but it's increasingly plain that prudence was never their strong suit.

Yet it appears that Hurd and Steenson believed Strawn and Morello in May 2012 when the ACA pair assured them that they'd just get rid of Fr Kelley and straighten the parish out, turning it over to the OCSP when they were done, saving Steenson the effort. I'm still shaking my head.

I'm also still convinced that this fiasco probably can't be retrieved by Houston, no matter who tries.

St Mary And The Ordinariates In Context

A visitor very kindly sent me a copy of Louis Bouyer's Memoirs. As a new Catholic, I hadn't previously heard of him, though now I realize he was a very important figure. Raised a French Lutheran (another new thing for me; I'd thought the French had only Huguenots), he admired Catholic liturgy and Anglo-Catholicism from his time in Lutheran seminary.

Fairly quickly he realized that Lutherans were not friendly to his respect for the liturgy, thinking him too Catholic, and he became Catholic, entered Catholic seminary, and became a priest of the Oratory. However, many Catholic authorities then found his respect for scripture too Protestant. Notwithstanding, he became an important Patristic and Newman scholar, and he was a key theologian in the Second Vatican Conference. (I'm finding his other books, even used, aren't cheap, which may be an indication of their continued demand.)

His story keeps bringing me back to the homily David Moyer delivered at St Mary's in early 2011, on the subject that the Church is a battleground. Possibly because much of Bouyer's experience takes place in France, the story is an amazing pattern of betrayals, disappointments, careerism, backbiting, egoism, petty jealousies, and so forth. My wife reminds me that the lives of the saints are full of just this sort of thing. When I think about what's happened in the progress of the Ordinariates and the ongoing saga of St Mary's, it's hard not to draw parallels.

Who Is Jeffrey Steenson? -- VI

As it has with Mrs Bush, new information has come to light since my last formal estimate of Jeffrey Steenson almost three years ago. I would say, though, that it has gone to flesh out what had only been surmise in developing my theory of the case. (It may also provide indirect insight into issues that may have led to his sudden and premature retirement.) Three disturbing developments marred the inception of the US-Canadian Ordinariate in the first half of 2012:

• Archbishop Chaput's denial of votum to David Moyer in January 2012
• The reversal of Our Lady of the Atonement San Antonio's intent to enter the US-Canadian Ordinariate in May 2012
• The protracted bungling of St Mary of the Angels's entry to the US-Canadian Ordinariate between January and May 2012.

All have been the subject of speculation in the blogosphere. They may have been potatoes hot enough in mid-2012 to have led to the demise of the Anglo-Catholic blog. Certainly there was speculation at the time on Steenson's possible role in Abp Chaput's denial of votum, but nothing concrete has so far come to light, and possibly nothing ever will. The reversal -- and a reversal it was -- of Our Lady of the Atonement's intent to enter the Ordinariate essentially left everyone dumbstruck, and Fr Phillips's public explanation at the time was deliberately vague. The question of St Mary of the Angels has led to extensive examination here, and if my traffic is any indication, the interest continues and is increasing.

A reliable source has provided an account of what appears to have been the real story on Our Lady of the Atonement. As it happens, during the first part of 2012 as Steenson was traveling to receive a parish into the Ordinariate, a group from that parish had picked him up at the airport and was driving him to town. Several people were in the car. Remarkably, Steenson got involved in a cell phone conversation while in the car with several witnesses in earshot and began explaining to whomever was on the other end that he intended to force the retirement of Fr. Phillips after a year and replace him with one of his younger priests, presumably a member of the Nashotah House clique with whom he surrounded himself. One of those in the car conveyed this information to Fr Phillips.

My source continues:

This came shortly after OLA's parish council had voted to enter the Ordinariate even at the price of relinquishing the title to their church and school property to the Archdiocese of San Antonio (with the Ordinariate congregation to have the indefinite use of the property), and just after they learned that this "compromise," which they thought had been a "hard bargain" originating with the San Antonio archdiocesan authorities, had actually been suggested to the archdiocese by Steenson himself. The parish council reversed itself immediately, and decided to remain within the SA archdiocese[.]

What this episode does from my standpoint is simply confirm a pattern I'd already suspected: Steenson didn't want strong, senior clerics in the Ordinariate of the Chair of St Peter, preferring more malleable younger priests who could be motivated by conventional ambition, however unhealthy. He was going to place them in Plumsteads Episcopi like St Mary of the Angels and Our Lady of the Atonement. Whatever may have led to Abp Chaput's decision, it did have the effect of putting David Moyer out of the picture -- and Moyer knew too much about, among others, Andrew Bartus and Stephen Strawn. By all appearances, Steenson was working closely with both.

More On The Patrimony Of The Primate

A visitor asks, "What will St Mary's be affiliated with, besides Hepworth? Are there any other parishes or groups in the Patrimony?" As far as I know, there are no others active, but this leads me to further examination of the Patrimony issue.

A couple of years ago, I sent an e-mail to David Moyer asking him if he could provide a list of parishes that had been in the Patrimony, and what their ultimate fates had been. Moyer never replied -- this is too bad, since he, as bishop, would have been the definitive source.

In a "To Whom It May Concern" letter dated February 3, 2014, Abp Hepworth refers to the Patrimony as a provision of the TAC that had been in existence prior to Anglicanorum coetibus, which he used in the early 2000s to resolve conflicts between Bishop Robin Connors and a Portland, OR parish. He said, "The US bishops were unhappy, but accepted the legitimacy of my actions." Hepworth went on to say that he implemented the provisions of the Patrimony once again to prevent canonical and legal action by US bishops against parishes that had determined to enter the US-Canadian Ordinariate.

In a separate move, Bishop Louis Campese of the ACA Diocese of the Eastern US resigned as an ACA bishop in early 2011 and withdrew about half the parishes in that diocese into the Pro-Diocese of the Holy Family, which was not in the Patrimony of the Primate. The reason was the same, to protect parishes from the actions of Presiding Bishop Marsh and others. Beyond that, the exact status of other ACA parishes or ACA-derived groups, like the Fellowship of St Alban, Rochester NY, isn't completely clear to me, as the circumstances of that group's formation involve opposition by Bishop Marsh and the ACA parish's ACA priest, who, however, passed away during the transition. (UPDATE: Prof Jordan has clarified that his group was not in the Patrimony.)

So there is a class of ACA or ACA-derived parishes or groups that intended to enter the Ordinariate and suffered adverse action from the ACA but may or may not have actually been under the Patrimony of the Primate, Moyer, and Hepworth. At this stage, I would invite anyone with specific knowledge of what happened in those circumstances to let me know the details, as the historical record should be preserved.

Without better confirmation, I am fairly certain that the following groups or parishes were in fact in the Patrimony during 2011-2012:

• St Mary of the Angels Hollywood
• Holy Cross Mission Honolulu
• St Columba Lancaster CA
• St Aidan Des Moines
• Holy Family Payson AZ

I will be extremely grateful for corrections and additions to this list and will update it here as I receive them. The historical record is important. It's worth pointing out that of the current list, only Holy Family Payson actually entered the Ordinariate, a symptom in part of the bungling that characterized the establishment of the Ordinariate of the Chair of St Peter. Indeed, I've had e-mail exchanges with two clergy associated with these groups who emerged embittered from the unsuccessful process of trying to join the OCSP. However, the specific circumstances for each group's non-entry were unique.

It's important to note that the St Mary of the Angels parish voted to revise its bylaws in early 2011 to reflect its exit from the ACA and membership in the Patrimony of the Primate. Due to a technicality, counsel advised the vestry to hold a second election on that question in August 2012, which also passed. It was this election that the courts eventually recognized as legally establishing the parish's membership in the Patrimony.

The parish's bylaws have established its membership in the Patrimony, which, according to Abp Hepworth, whose personal creation the Patrimony is, continues in existence. Whether other parishes or groups are currently active in it is not really relevant. The most important thing is that the affiliation is legally and canonically valid, it has protected the parish from the most severe attacks, and it keeps the parish's options open.

Whether, as my visitor has subsequently mused, the Patrimony as a denomination currently of one parish gives anyone leverage is an interesting question. I would point out, though, that the fact that St Mary of the Angels remains outside the OCSP is a major conundrum for the whole Anglo-Catholic project, not just Anglicanorum coetibus. I'll discuss the implications of this in future posts.

Stephen Strawn And Letters Dimissory

Accoding to Merriam-Webster. a letter dimissory is "a letter given by a bishop dismissing a clergyman to another diocese and recommending him for reception there". It is pronounced DI-mis-so-ry (or possibly in the UK and Australia, DIM-sreh). The question of Fr Kelley's letter dimissory is related to, but separate from, the question of the St Mary of the Angels parish affiliation.

Fr Kelley's Letter Dimissory as an Anglican priest originated in Canterbury, England, in 1974, at the time of his ordination under the hands of Archbishop A. Michael Ramsey. It was well before the Anglican Church in America (ACA) had even come into existence. Thereafter, his Letter was transferred to appropriate bishops in the US, when Fr Kelley returned to this country to serve in successive Episcopal Church jurisdictions. It was transferred to the ACA's Diocese of the West (DoW), in Spring 2007 when Fr Kelley became rector of St Mary of the Angels.

It was duly transferred in 2010 by Daren K. Williams, then Bishop of the DoW, to the Patrimony of the Primate (PoP, based in Australia), when St Mary's began the process of leaving the DoW. By early 2011, Fr Kelley's Letter was held by Bishop David Moyer. bishop of the Patrimony. In late 2011, Williams abdicated. It is currently held by Abp Hepworth as the Patrimony of the Primate's bishop.

Stephen Strawn, the most junior ACA bishop in 2012, never possessed this required Letter, and thus never had jurisdiction or authority over Fr Kelley, who was under another bishop. However, on April 2, 2012, Strawn issued a "notice of inhibition" to Fr Kelley. It's worth pointing out that, during an attempt by Anthony Morello and others to seize the parish property on Strawn's behalf that day, Abp Falk explained to the Los Angeles police that Strawn had no authority to issue this letter.

The question of whether, or precisely when, the parish left the ACA for the Patrimony of the Primate is a legal issue that has been before the courts since 2012. The trial court found in October 2015 that the parish did in fact leave the ACA in August 2012. However, whether Bp Strawn had authority to inhibit or depose Fr Kelley is a separate canonical question, and this authority he clearly never had.

Thus Strawn's letter of inhibition was never valid, and beyond that, the ecclesiastical court that was held to depose Fr Kelley on October 11, 2012, never had authority to do this. As a result, the content of Strawn's allegations is not privileged, and is thus potentially libelous and defamatory.

Those who participated in this process, in the spirit of this Ash Wednesday, would seem to have something to repent. In particular, Fr Walter Crites of the APA, who participated in the proceeding to give it a veneer of objectivity, seems to have been derelict in not reviewing whether the "court" actually had jurisdiction over Fr Kelley.

On the other hand, Brian Marsh has said more recently that merger with the APA is "elusive". I suspect this sort of chicanery has been factored into the APA's review of the potential for merger.

A Couple Of Observations

My prediction over the past couple of months, that the Bush group would only be able to delay the inevitable for short periods, looks like it's turning out to have been correct. This leads to a couple of other questions. One is that we still don't have a clear picture of how the group financed what was, by Mrs Bush's own estimate, about $2 million in legal fees.

However, with the loss of the tenant in the commercial space and now the certain loss of the property, it's hard to imagine how they can continue the appeal of Judge Strobel's decision, which will involve hundreds of thousands more. My wife and I suspect they have been looting the parish of assets to meet expenses, but even this option will now be foreclosed.

The absence of Lancaster & Anastasia LLP from Mr Cothran's claim of possession may be significant -- it was a clear loser, but the Bush group's whole case has been a loser, and this hadn't deterred their intrepid legal team to date. Stay tuned.

The next question goes to the parish's affiliation. I have assumed up to now, and posted now and then to that effect, that the parish is unaffiliated. I now learn that the parish apparently intends to continue to identify itself as part of the Patrimony of the Primate. This was established by John Hepworth and Louis Falk in late 2010 to protect ACA parishes who intended to join the US-Canadian Ordinariate from adverse action by ACA bishops.

Although the ACA bishops unanimously requested that the Holy See erect the Ordinariates at the earliest possible time in March 2010, and in April 2011 pledged not to interfere with Patrimony parishes, they never acted in good faith over either move.

It seems more and more plain that their sole object was to seize St Mary of the Angels, a property worth somewhere in eight figures -- the only other ACA parish planning to leave with equivalent assets was Incarnation Orlando, which had put itself under a separate jurisdiction. Thus the ACA House of Bishops voted to dissolve the Patrimony in January 2012, when it became plain that David Moyer intended to continue to protect St Mary's from interference by Stephen Strawn.

However, court documents show that in John Hepworth's view, the ACA House of Bishops never had the authority to dissolve the Patrimony, since it was created by Hepworth himself as Primate of the TAC. As Hepworth put it in his deposition, the Patrimony still exists, St Mary of the Angels is still a parish in it, and Fr Kelley is still a priest in good standing in the Patrimony.

Samuel Prakash became the "acting primate" of the TAC following the retirement of John Hepworth (or his explusion by the TAC College of Bishops, depending on who you're talking to). He appears to be nothing but a figurehead, and the real power in the TAC, inasmuch as it exists, is with Brian Marsh and his ally Michael Gill. So far, none has made a move to dissolve the Patrimony on behalf of the Primate or the TAC.

They probably feel they don't need to. Remaining ACA clergy have either been cowed by Marsh and Strawn, or they stay out of their way and avoid direct confrontation. I would expect, though, that if the ACA's legal position continues to deteriorate in the St Mary of the Angels cases, we'll see an announcement of Marsh's "retirement". I wouldn't rule that out -- stay tuned.

Head Fake?

A visitor commented on yesterday's post:

Whatever his gifts, and I have no reason to doubt your assessment of them, Mr Moyer would not have been a possible choice for Ordinary given his history of litigation against TEC. It would have been a total poke in the eye to that body. I am not sure that his attempt to hold positions in TEC and the ACA simultaneously would have borne the close scrutiny of the Vatican either. I can see why Msgr Steenson might have stabbed him in the back over his votum but I do not think that he feared at any point that Moyer was a rival for the post of Ordinary.

Naturally, we'll never know what may have been in Msgr Steenson's heart. On the other hand, we do have a visual from 2011 that shows how Moyer was at least useful:

In response to an invitation by His Eminence, Donald Cardinal Wuerl (Delegate of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith for the Implementation of Anglicanorum coetibus in the United States, and Chairman of the USCCB Ad Hoc Committee for the Implementation of Anglicanorum coetibus), Bishop David Moyer (A.C.A. Bishop in charge of the Patrimony of the Primate) was received by Cardinal Wuerl this afternoon [May 13, 2011] in Washington, D.C. The meeting between Cardinal Wuerl and Bishop Moyer also was attended by Fr. Scott Hurd.

Fr Hurd, a married Anglican Use priest, was Steenson's Vicar General until 2014. But note that, although Cardinal Wuerl and Fr Hurd were at the meeting, Jeffrey Steenson was nowhere to be found. We must assume, though, that, since he'd attended the 1993 meeting with Cardinal Ratzinger, Steenson was nevertheless the inside-track candidate for US Ordinary from the time Ratzinger was elevated to the Papacy. This 2011 meeting probably fed speculation in the Anglo-Catholic blogosphere that Moyer could be in line for Ordinary.

For whatever reason, Steenson maintained an extremely low profile for several years leading up to his designation as Ordinary. His own account of the process leading to his 2007 resignation as TEC bishop indicates the great pains Msgr William Stetson and he took to avoid provoking Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori and maintain her good will. No doubt it would have been a "total poke in the eye" to have done anything else -- but it would appear that setting Moyer up for a similar provocation, with either the ACA or TEC, wasn't out of bounds.

In May 2011, Cardinal Wuerl accorded Moyer remarkable public courtesy. In January 2012, Msgr Steenson threw him under the bus. I agree with the former TEC priest who warned Fr Kelley to watch out for these people.

If Bp-Elect Lopes wants to effect any significant changes, he needs to reconsider the way Houston operates. There was only one of the original Twelve Apostles who operated this way, but he was replaced.

What Could Have Been Done Differently?

It occurred to me over the weekend that the St Mary's reception into the US-Canadian Ordinariate was originally scheduled for January 8, 2012, a little over four years ago. I think it's fair to say that over the following months, Houston spectacularly bungled the job. It's worth pointing out that in 2011, St Mary of the Angels was generally thought to be indicative of the dilemma faced by conservative Anglo-Catholic parishes, and its presumptive entry to the Ordinariate was thought to be historically significant.

Looking back, I'm struck by the complete lack of realistic planning. The Ordinariate wouldn't officially start until January 1, 2012, and Msgr Steenson hadn't been officially designated as Ordinary. As a result, the parish's contact with Catholic authorities was Msgr William Stetson, who was reduced to making coy statements like, "I don't know who the Ordinary will be, but I know his calendar is open for January 8." I should have been more skeptical, but after all, this was the Catholic Church. They knew what they were doing, didn't they?

A second issue was that nobody in charge seemed to be aware of the whole situation, in particular that the ACA was, during this time, actively working to seize the parish. The dissidents had scheduled a meeting with Stephen Strawn for the following week, which was averted only when David Moyer, still theoretically Bishop of the Patrimony, shooed him away. In response, the ACA House of Bishops voted to dissolve the Patrimony. Hindsight says they did this for the sole reason of making it easier to seize St Mary's. It doesn't appear that either Msgr Stetson or Msgr Steenson had a clue about what was going on.

David Moyer, of course, did. In fact, he was probably the only functioning adult involved in the process at that point; Steenson's fecklessness was already making itself plain. A couple of weeks after the ACA bishops dissolved the Patrimony, Archbishop of Philadelphia Chaput denied Moyer his votum, blocking his entry to the Ordinariate as a priest. When this happened, there was wide speculation on whether Jeffrey Steenson was involved in the move.

Whatever the specifics may have been, it's worth noting that Moyer was the only other former Anglican bishop who would have been in the running for Ordinary besides Steenson, and speculation in the runup certainly mentioned Moyer as a candidate. Edging Moyer out was the best possible move both for Steenson and the ACA. Steenson, advised by an apparently incompetent chancellor, dithered, requesting another vote from the parish (which had already voted on the topic twice). This uncertainty and lack of leadership simply encouraged the ACA and the parish dissidents to keep going.

My own view is that the one individual who had the best knowledge of all the players, both in the ACA and the St Mary's parish, was David Moyer. With him out of the picture, it appears that the most knowledgeable figure was Andrew Bartus, then still St Mary's curate, who met frequently with the parish dissidents and had back-channel contacts to the Houston in-group. His objective appears to have been to knock Fr Kelley out of the running via back-channel character assassination and become pastor of the St Mary's parish when it entered the Ordinariate. He bungled this job, of course.

I've heard at third hand that, while still Ordinary, Msgr Steenson complained to colleagues at bishops' conferences that he was hobbled by incompetent subordinates. My reaction is that he chose to surround himself with the subordinates he had, and if I were handicapping corporate politics the same way, I would have said David Moyer, qualified to serve as Ordinary with episcopal experience and displaying competence and effective leadership, was too much of a threat to Steenson to have him around. I certainly agree with observers who feel that a major task for Bp-Elect Lopes will be to sift through the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth-Nashotah House old boy network he's inherited.

For the Ordinariate to leave behind the air of disappointment that's surrounded it from the start and regain the promise that observers saw in 2011, it will need to reexamine the mistakes that were made in early 2012 and make it a priority to remedy the St Mary of the Angels debacle. Please continue to pray for Fr Kelley, the vestry, and the parish.

The Events Of April 9, 2012

Not much was said at the most recent trial about the events of April 9, 2012, although statements allegedly made by Mrs Bush in the parish courtyard on that date are pertinent. In his September 23 testimony at the recent trial, Fr Kelley said that Mrs Bush loudly declared her intention to dissociate herself from the elected vestry in the parish courtyard on April 9. In her September 24 testimony, Mrs Bush denied that she had said this. Subsequent testimony at the trial established that, in any case, Mrs Bush did not attend any regular or special meetings of the elected vestry after March, 2012.

April 9, 2012 is the date of the second inchoate takeover attempt of the parish by Bishop Strawn in connection with the parish dissidents. It appears that this attempt was carefully planned and choreographed, and only the unexpectedly early delivery of a seizure notice from the IRS caused the misstep that resulted in the failure. Bishop Strawn, who had no authority to do so, since he was episcopal visitor to the ACA Diocese of the West, which St Mary's had left in January 2011, issued a notice of inhibition to Fr Kelley on April 2, 2012.

This notice was based primarily on non-payment of IRS salary withholding due from January, 2011, a matter which came as a complete surprise to the elected vestry and Fr Kelley, but which the parish dissidents appear to have communicated to Bishop Strawn as part of the planning. When the seizure notice for the unpaid withholding arrived four days early, the parish accountant was able to resolve the roughly $800 arrears immediately, establishing that it was an unintentional oversight and eliminating the issue. As a result, the pretext for the April 9, 2012 seizure attempt was removed, but the dissidents elected to proceed with it.

According to Fr Kelley, Keith Kang (a client of Mr Lancaster in the current legal actions) called him from the front office that morning to tell him there were two letters from the IRS there, one with Fr Kelley's name on it. Did he want to see them? However, there were no letters. (Presumably with the tax issue already resolved, any further correspondence did not take place, but the dissidents apparently proceeded with their plan nevertheless.) It appears to have been a stratagem to get Fr Kelley up to the front, where Anthony Morello, Mr and Mrs Creel from All Saints Fountain Valley and the ACA Diocese of the West, Mr Kang, and Mr Omeirs were waiting. Mrs Bush and Mrs Kang (also Lancaster clients) were in the courtyard, as they had used their keys to the parish door for the group to enter.

They presented Fr Kelley with Bishop Strawn's notice of inhibition. When Fr Kelley left with it to go back to the sacristy to review it, Mr Kang quickly brought in a locksmith to pick the lock to the rector's office. Fr Kelley returned and told the locksmith that what he was attempting to do was illegal. The locksmith recognized at once that he could lose his license and left. It appears that at about this time, the loud declaration that Fr Kelley testified to hearing from Mrs Bush in the courtyard appears to have taken place.

Fr Kelley called 911 to summon the police. According to the Freedom for St Mary timeline, someone from the dissident group then made four calls to 911 in an attempt to stop the police. Mrs Kelley also called Bishop Falk in Iowa, who was completely surprised at the move and spoke to the LAPD officers, explaining to them that Strawn had no authority to issue his letter of inhibition, since the parish was part of the Patrimony of the Primate. The officers then sent the Diocese of the West - parish dissident group away, saying there was no legal authority in Strawn's document.

According to Fr Kelley, Bishop Falk was taken aback to learn that Bishops Strawn and Marsh had "dissolved" the Patrimony of the Primate. The Kelleys contacted then-Bishop Moyer the following day, who was also surprised. Moyer said that if the ACA House of Bishops had "taken away" the Patrimony of the Primate (he didn't know how), then St Mary's had to be classed as "independent". This was the authority the elected vestry used in making its written declaration during the June 13, 2012 meeting.

Neither the Kelleys, Bishop Falk, nor Bishop Moyer was able to contact Archbishop Hepworth during this period. In reviewing the timing of events, I was surprised to learn that Hepworth had announced his intention to retire as primate of the Traditional Anglican Communion as of Easter 2012, which was April 8, the day before the inchoate takeover attempt. (However, the TAC College of Bishops expelled him on March 2.) It does seem to me that Bishops Strawn and Marsh were careful to act on the basis that the Patrimony had been dissolved only after the Primate himself was out of the picture, since the Patrimony was canonically his property. (Fr Kelley later learned that Hepworth was in any case incommunicado during this period due to hospitalization for blindness in both eyes.)

This timing leads me to believe that the first two seizure attempts, in January and April of 2012, were coordinated with elements in the TAC as well as in the US. I'll discuss this, and the possible reasons for it, tomorrow.

The Events Of June 13, 2012

One of the issues that Messrs Lancaster and Anastasia repeatedly brought up in the latest trial was an "illegal vestry meeting" on the afternoon of June 13, 2012. Several elected vestry members provided additional information on what happened that day in their testimony there. (I am continuing with a policy of not mentioning their names here to avoid the real possibility of harassment or reprisal against them.)

June 13, 2012 was the day that Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Ann Jones dissolved the temporary restraining order against Fr Kelley and unspecified "John Doe" members of the parish, which had been obtained by Mr Lancaster on behalf of the ACA, Mrs Bush, and Anthony Morello on May 25, 2012. This turned out to be the first part of the legal quagmire that has nearly destroyed the parish in subsequent years: while Judge Jones dissolved the TRO and ordered the dissidents occupying the building to return the keys to Fr Kelley, she refused to enforce the order on the basis that this would involve her further in an ecclesiastical dispute.

As a result, the elected vestry returned to the building only to be turned away, apparently by Mrs Bush and other dissidents, who continued to occupy the building. (Mrs Bush in her September 24 testimony at the latest trial stated that she was on the premises on a daily basis at this time.) I assume they refused Judge Jones's order on the advice of Mr Lancaster, but this is probably covered by attorney-client privilege, and we'll never know.

At this point, Fr Kelley, elected vestry members, and other parishioners, a total of 12-15 people according to testimony, quickly had to develop a Plan B. The process of doing this, according to Mr Lancaster at the latest trial, immediately became an illegal special meeting of the vestry, as no notice of it was provided to Mrs Bush, who was barricaded in the church building only a short distance away.

Since Anthony Morello had already appointed a new alternate-universe "vestry" as of May 31, 2012, Mrs Bush at that time was, by her testimony, a member of the elected vestry, which had been turned away from the parish building by none other than Mrs Bush, who was also the senior warden of the appointed vestry in possession of the building. However, any attempt by the elected vestry to figure out what to do now would, according to Mr Lancaster, be illegal due to a lack of notice to Mrs Bush about this "special vestry meeting".

According to testimony, the vestry and other supporters were able to meet in the conference room of a local restaurant to consider their options. I assume that a call was placed to the elected vestry's counsel, although again, this is probably covered by attorney-client privilege, and we'll never know exactly what was discussed. However, the outcome was a handwritten statement signed by the elected vestry members who were present.

This statement was an exhibit at the latest trial and one subject of the repetitious questions put to all the elected vestry members. ("Is this your signature?" "Do you believe this as it applied to the parish, the Patromny of the Primate, and the ACA?" "Do you believe this as applied to you personally?" ad infinitum) The statement basically took the position that the St Mary's parish had been part of the Patrinony of the Primate since January 2011 and thus had left the ACA at that time. With the dissolution of the Patrimony, the parish had become an independent jurisdiction. This view was confirmed by Bishop Falk and then-Bishop David Moyer.

A source connected with the elected vestry tells me that the reason for the statement was to clarify the relationship of the parish to Bishops Strawn and Marsh of the ACA. The bishops had taken the position that with the dissolution of the Patrimony of the Primate (unilaterally announced by the ACA House of Bishops on January 10, 2012), St Mary of the Angels was back under the ACA's control, although this was contrary to the text of the January 10 announcement. This, of course, is the sort of ecclesiastical issue that continues to be part of the parish's legal quagmire.

Mr Lancaster then cited part of the Huber v Jackson decision to argue that in signing the statement, the elected vestry members had "denounced their prior promises to be subject to the governing documents of the national church and the diocese, abandoned their membership in the corporation, and lost the power and authority to be directors of the corporation, as they were no longer members in good standing of the [denomination]." Thus the elected vestry had lost all authority to call or hold any sort of meeting, ever.

The head spins. A source connected with the elected vestry has also provided new perspective on the timing of the Bush-Morello Easter Monday 2012 takeover attempt, which I'll discuss tomorrow.

Let's Revisit The Events Of 2011 And 2012 -- II

There's one figure in this story who suddenly disappears, David Moyer. Throughout 2011, he was the ordinary for the Patrimony of the Primate, the jurisdiction John Hepworth established to serve as a "holding tank" for TAC parishes in the US and Canada intending to enter the Catholic ordinariates to be set up under Anglicanorum coetibus. As the St Mary's ordinary, he was the focus for the various complaints and appeals that the dissidents and Andy Bartus were lodging against Fr Kelley.

He made a trip to Hollywood in June 2011, discussed in Mr Clark's statement on the Freedom for St Mary site, to try to resolve complaints about Fr Kelley from the dissidents and Bartus. Mr Clark, as an informed member of the vestry, felt that Moyer reviewed the complaints and determined they had no merit. I've heard via other channels that Moyer in fact reproved Bartus during the course of these meetings. However, according to Mr Clark's account, this outcome simply resulted in a redoubling of the dissidents' efforts to unseat Fr Kelley.

On December 21, 2011, Moyer made an additional visit to St Mary of the Angels to review demands from Bartus and the vestry that he inhibit Fr Kelley. Moyer again found the bill of particulars (included here) too vague and unsubstantiated for him to take action. However, by early December, according to a conversation I had with Patrick Omeirs, a key member of the dissident party, the dissidents had already intended to bypass Moyer and go to Louis Falk, who, retired from any position since 2005, had no authority in this matter. The dissidents do not appear ever to have approached the actual authority over Moyer, John Hepworth.

Meanwhile, Msgr William Stetson, representing Catholic authority to the parish, although at the time the identify of the Ordinary was still unknown, indicated to a meeting that the parish would be received into the Ordinariate on either the first or second Sundays of 2012. Nevertheless, based on later statements by Msgr Stetson to the parish, as well as my earlier discussion with Mr Omeirs, the dissidents had forwarded their accusations to Cardinal Donald Wuerl via Louis Falk, bypassing TAC authority.

The first and second Sundays of 2012 passed, despite Msgr Stetson's assurances, with no further word from Stetson himself or the newly designated Ordinary. In early January, the dissidents appear to have arranged a meeting with ACA Bishop Strawn, who had no authority over the parish. David Moyer warned Strawn away from the January 11, 2012 meeting when he told him "he had no Jurisdiction over, no interest in, nor business with St Mary of the Angels."

However, Moyer disappears from the story soon after this. It's plain that throughout his tenure, Moyer conscientiously followed his episcopal responsibility to shepherd and protect his flock. Even after January 1, 2012, when (in the view of the ACA House of Bishops) the Patrimony of the Primate was dissolved, and (according to the promise made by Msgr Stetson) the parish should have entered the US-Canadian Ordinariate, Moyer alone was for some brief period, perhaps just through force of personality, able to keep the ACA from interfering with the parish.

The next stage in the Moyer story is sometime prior to January 29, 2012, the date on which it was reported that

Moyer said he received a letter from Fr. Jeffrey Steenson, Ordinary for the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter, informing him that Archbishop Charles Chaput (Philadelphia) has declined to give him his votum (a promise) to proceed toward ordination in the Roman Catholic Church. No specific reasons were stated.

The cause of Archbishop Chaput's decline of votum, and Msgr Steenson's possible involvement in that decision, have been the subject of much speculation, on which I can take no position. On the other hand, the decision to deny Moyer a votum took him completely out of the picture within weeks of his successful defense of the parish from the interference of the ACA. Whether deliberate or not, whether at the instigation of Msgr Steenson or not, that was the effect.

Prayers Requested For David Moyer

I'm told that David Moyer will be going into the hospital to receive robotic bypass surgery on Thursday morning. He's requested our prayers.

My hope is that he'll come out of this trial as he's come out of all the others.

The Missed Opportunity -- VI

Let me get one of the bigger bees in my bonnet out of the way now. St Mary of the Angels Hollywood is an important parish. It's been important as a bellweather since the 1970s. Of the issues that observers were watching in the runup to the US Ordinariate, what would happen to St Mary's was one of the big ones. What's happened so far, in addition to how David Moyer and the Newman Fellowship were treated, has been one of the big indicators that have led observers to feel the Ordinariate has been a disappointment.

Hollywood is a sophisticated place, with capable, intelligent people, some of whom are Catholics, or want to be. If you try to play games with capable, intelligent people, you risk disaster, which is the big error the ACA made in trying to play games with the parish. St Mary of the Angels is not a Plumstead Episcopi, a place where Steenson and Hough can deposit some favored mediocrity. It is definitely not the place for them to try to park Andrew Bartus. I speak here only as an informed observer, but one who has a good sense of what will never play. Let's keep this in the background from here on out.

But why did Houston, figuratively speaking, stop answering the phone from St Mary's after January 2012? The answer was partly the letter (my wife calls it "the ka-ka letter", probably the best term for it), which as I understand it was about 40 pages of rambling, ungrammatical and misspelled allegations against Fr Kelley. No one connected with the elected vestry, and not Fr Kelley, has ever seen it, so I can only surmise its contents. Apparently the ka-ka letter was enough to stall the process of joining the Ordinariate for the parish.

My surmise is this: we already know the Bush group has difficulty with spelling, grammar, and other indications of ordinary adulthood. Until it was pointed out, they styled St Mary's an "Angelican" parish. Their calendar errors are legion. I assume the ka-ka letter included the allegations against Fr Kelley that were contained in the charges brought against him in the ACA's "court", as well as the allegations of "misconduct" made to the California unemployment board. We know that these allegations were impossible as described and counterfactual. LA Superior Court Judge Jones reviewed them and found them unsubstantiated. The California unemployment board reviewed them and said there was not "a shred" of evidence to support them.

Nevertheless, based on the explanation Msgr Stetson gave a parish meeting in January 2012, Louis Falk felt they were important enough to pass on to Cardinal Wuerl in late 2011, and Wuerl felt they were important enough to pass on to Steenson. I'm scratching my head. Fr Z's advice for those appealing to bishops is not to have s single exclamation point in one's correspondence. I would guess that, at minimum, the ka-ka letter had quite a few.

In the real world, where my wife dealt with things like sexual harassment complaints, adults have to conduct an investigation and determine the credibility of charges. The responsibility of the Ordinariate, if only the responsibility of a Christian to act justly, was to investigate these complaints, determine their credibility, and act accordingly. Those connected with the Bush group had been making similar complaints to David Moyer when he was ordinary to the parish. Moyer made at least two trips to Hollywood in 2011 to investigate them and appears to have come to the same conclusion that every other responsible party has come to since: they were at best too vague to act on, but also illogical and wildly counterfactual.

This was a pastoral issue. There was a hard core of nut-job troublemakers in the parish. My guess is that Steenson wanted a Plumstead Episcopi, not a pastoral problem, and he punted. The result was what we've seen. This project isn't going to succeed any better in 2015 or 2016 than it did in 2012 if all Steenson and Hough want from the parish is a Plumstead Episcopi.

The Missed Opportunity -- V

By now, I assume that someone from Houston, unable to restrain himself further, will burst out, "All right, Mr Bruce, you may have scored a point or two with your silly rant, and we'll take what you say under advisement. But you've clearly got a bee in your bonnet over something here. You're unhappy about the St Mary of the Angels situation, that's clear enough. But surely you understand that we can take no action until all the lawsuits are resolved. And maybe we didn't handle everything right in 2012, but we were all new to this then, and what's done is done. Anyway, every one of us has a full time job elsewhere in the Church. We aren't paid a penny for what we do in the Ordinariate. So what do you expect us to do now? Quit complaining and move on with your own Lenten observance."

My reaction to that hypothetical observation is twofold, pastoral responsibility and whether the Ordinariate can keep its word. It will take more than one post to address everything. Also, I'm not speaking for the parish, the elected vestry, or Fr Kelley, but only as an informed observer and a Catholic friend.

But let's start with basic pastoral responsibility, and this applies to every parishioner of the Ordinariate, current or potential, not just St Mary of the Angels. I wasn't aware that Msgr Steenson, Fr Hough, or anyone else from (figuratively) Houston had taken on the Ordinariate as a hobby. If they have, there's been a major misunderstanding, and I'll continue with the prayers and sacraments with real pastors at my local parish, wish the Houston guys luck with their hobby, and say good-bye. But if that's the case, Msgr Steenson may also wish to consider retirement if he's unable to exercise his responsibilities as current and potential members may expect him to.

The position -- which I've heard as recently as the day before yesterday -- that the Ordinariate can't do anything more until all the lawsuits are resolved strikes me, first, as a belated excuse for a situation that was badly bungled from the start. St Mary of the Angels was told in December 2011 that it would be received into the Ordinariate on the first Sunday in January 2012. The first lawsuit wasn't filed until mid-May 2012. The Ordinariate had over four months to resolve the situation -- the most generous explanation for how it used that time was to procrastinate and dither.

But it's starting to look like the lawsuits may actually be resolved in the foreseeable future. I can understand (partly) that the Ordinary was not designated until January 2012 (although it was known, probably by 2005, who he would be), so little planning could take place then. But there's no excuse for not planning now, and I'm not seeing it. One of my problems is that as I look to the rest of the Ordinariate, I'm not getting the impression that anything's changed since 2012.

The parish was told in December 2011 that it would enter the Ordinariate very early in 2012. The explanation was that a Catholic chaplain would serve as pastor until the parish's Anglican clergy could be ordained as Catholic priests. The ACA, by its own statement, had cut the parish loose as of January 1, 2012. Neither the Ordinariate nor the ACA kept its word, and here's the next issue. First the Ordinariate asked for a third (!) vote to enter. Done, it got the vote. But then it simply stopped answering the phone, figuratively speaking. The chaplain, presumably to be Msgr William Stetson, just never showed up to receive us or offer the sacraments.

In fact, the last responsible oversight the parish had was from David Moyer, who in mid-January was still keeping the wolf from the fold by shooing Stephen Strawn away from a meeting with the Bush group. The Ordinariate never stepped in to provide the equivalent protection the parish badly needed, and by April 2012, the ACA had gotten the message: the Ordinariate wasn't going to guard the flock that had been assured it had a shepherd. The wolf moved right in. That still makes me very anxious for my friends' safety.

So there's my first, very basic issue: does anyone from Houston understand what a pastor is? For now, you can replay the same excuses offered above. I'll have more to say tomorrow.