If Someone Steals $1000 From Me,

it isn't helpful if someone comes along and says, "You need to be reconciled with your neighbor and forgive him. So you should split the difference and see if he'll be nice and give you back $500." I had a most peculiar e-mail exchange with an Anglican cleric over the weekend that I'm increasingly convinced was conducted on his side under false pretenses -- based on some of the things he said in the more than 20 messages he sent me over a 3-day period, I believe he's conducting some sort of discussion with the unelected St Mary's vestry and the ACA over the vacant position there.

One good sign, at least for the unelected vestry and the ACA, is that by his account, he's been something of an ally of the late Anthony Morello throughout their clerical careers. By his account, he recently called the Fountain Valley parish, and the secretary there told him that the late lamented Fr Tony had had him in mind for the rectorship of St Mary's all along. Certainly the best -- indeed, the only thing -- the likes of Brian Marsh can hope for is a Morello clone who'll do what's needed at and to St Mary's while giving Marsh deniability. You heard it here first!

This also suggests to me that I need to continue this blog for the time being, since he seemed to feel 20-plus e-mails were worth the effort if I could be bamboozled. Late in our correspondence, he asked me about reconciliation and forgiveness, and I replied,

It’s a very complex situation, because it’s not as though two dissenting groups of the same denomination can just bury the hatchet and go on. The 80% majority of the parish voted several times to leave the ACA and go into the Ordinariate. The ACA first said it would not oppose this, then changed its mind and seized the parish, using as its excuse the 20% of dissidents who claimed irregularities in the votes. As part of the process, the ACA deposed the rector on the basis of false witness from the 20%. It then initiated legal action accusing him of crimes like forgery, for “forging” the signatures on legitimate checks by authorized signers. Morello and Strawn then excommunicated via letter the members of the elected vestry, as well as other members of the parish who had voted for the Ordinariate.

It seems to me that if the ACA were to want to clear things up, in the spirit of the Catholic sacrament of Reconciliation, it would need to confess to the various sins involved and then, as part of penance, make things right, especially with Fr Kelley. Every homily I’ve heard about forgiveness has said it’s not a matter of just pretending the things that need to be forgiven didn’t happen. Certainly if someone goes to Confession and says he’s stolen something, the priest is going to tell him to find a way to give it back or otherwise make things right.

It seems to me that the process of making things right would involve restoring the good standing, pay, and benefits the ACA took from the rector, dropping all legal action, and restoring the parish to its path of entering the Ordinariate. Strawn and Marsh on behalf of Morello and themselves would need to apologize to the members of the parish they had excommunicated and otherwise offended. This would not be easy, but it would need to be done. It would not be a matter of sitting in a circle and singing kumbaya!

On top of that, several of the dissident party were, in my wife’s and my opinion, unbalanced, unpredictable, and demonstrably capable of violence. For our own safety, we felt it worthwhile to maintain a distance. Morello in particular encouraged these people. The ACA would need to work out a way of assuring the parish that it could come back together safely. This is part of the problem we’re dealing with.

Remember that the reading from Matthew [18:17] involving resolving disputes recognizes that they may not be resolved in this world, at which point the Christian needs to treat the unrepentant person as a heathen.

My clerical correspondent suddenly became exercised at this: he seemed to feel that since nobody's ever 100% right, that means they're never more than 50% right, and oh by the way, those who were excommunicated, although he's not familiar with the reasons, probably deserved it, and anyhow, if they want to become Catholic, they should just march down the street the way you did and stay out of the parish's business, blah blah blah. Internal evidence from his angry reply suggested that he'd had an earful from Mrs Bush et al and, since Mrs Bush held the checkbook, she who had the gold was going to make the rules.

Here's a Catholic perspective on forgiveness, which doesn't appear to deviate from several homilies on the same subject I've heard as an Episcopalian. Some excerpts:

Forgiveness is not a denial that you have been hurt or harmed. It does not mean that it's OK what the offender did to you. If there had been no harm done, there would be nothing to forgive. Forgiveness does not mean tolerating wrongdoing or allowing an injustice to continue.

Forgiveness does not necessarily mean that you will totally forget the hurtful event, nor does it mean that you must continue to be the offender's friend. You might need to keep a safe distance.

* * *

Recognize that you have been harmed.

Acknowledge and accept your feelings about what happened.

Think clearly about who in the situation bears responsibility for what. In fairness, you should not take the blame for someone else's wrongdoing.

I'm afraid that my correspondent seems to have initiated our discussion based on false pretenses -- pretending to be a neutral party, but apparently in some type of serious talks with the unelected vestry and/or the ACA on the basis that he would become rector or a long-term interim of the parish, remaining in the ACA. In effect, he would be the agent of continued injustice, since the parish always regarded the Continuum as a poor second choice, and always wanted to become Catholic if it could. To fully make things right, the ACA would need to recognize it had wronged the parish majority and restore the parish to its path toward the Ordinariate.

This man is a quack and a fraud.

The Rededication of St Mary of the Angels Church

is still scheduled for April:

We will have a Solemn High Mass with the Bishops of the Diocese and a setting aside of Mr. Andrew Bailey to the office of the Subdeaconate. Following the celebration, dinner will follow in the undercroft. Please sign up in the Narthex if you are planning to attend or call 323.660.2700 as soon as possible.

Well, since there are only two days left in the month, I guess they'd better get on it -- and come to think of it, don't they need a bishop? Indeed, from the text of the announcement, they would appear to need more than one.

Which brings up another interesting question: Since September of last year, Brian Marsh has had two suffragan bishops in the ACA Diocese of the Northeast:

Perhaps the most dramatic moments at synod came with the election of two new Bishops Suffragan. Fathers James R. Hiles and Owen R. Williams were each elected overwhelmingly to the office of Bishop Suffragan. A Suffragan Bishop is an assistant bishop, one who serves at the request of the Bishop Ordinary. The Bishop Suffragan is a man in episcopal orders, though he does not have the right of succession. Both Bishops-elect, upon their consecration, will assume responsibilities within the diocese and, when necessary, the national church. We pray that their service to God's holy church will be rewarding and productive.

Shouldn't this free Bishop Marsh to perform the duties he took upon himself as episcopal visitor to the Diocese of the West? Indeed, the writeup just above suggests that the two new suffragans could perform duties on behalf of the national church themselves. However, as of today, all events relating to the Diocese of the West continue to be canceled. Frederick Rivers is still listed as absentee "priest in charge" on the St Mary of the Angels web site, with Michael Eldred, by all accounts a marginal wannabe, saying mass.

Every opinion I've heard from priests, both inside and outside the Continuum, is that an absentee priest in charge is no way to rebuild a parish or foster reconciliation. Marsh's total inaction is revealing, and I can see only two possible explanations: he's at a loss over what to do over St Mary of the Angels (and for that matter, the entire Diocese of the West), or his conscience is troubled. I suspect it's some combination. It's hard to avoid the impression that both Marsh and Stephen Strawn relied on the utterly unscrupulous Anthony Morello to do all the necessary dirty work, and once Morello departed this life for his ultimate reward, Marsh is incapable of continuing that, or indeed any other, style of leadership.

So where is the standing committee? Does anyone know? It seems to me that as it applies to St Mary of the Angels and the Diocese of the West, Marsh is guilty of dereliction of duty.

I'd Like To Get In Touch With Douglas Bess One Day

(can anyone help?), because I keep coming up with enlightening snippets of information on the various corners of the post-1977 Continuum. A source provides this on the Anglican Rite Jurisdiction in the Americas of the Philippine Independent Church:

The [Philippine Independent Church] in the US, like the PIC in the Philippines, was actually split between two groups each claiming to have the legitimate Obispo Maximo (or Supreme Bishop)...a pro-American Anglo-Catholic group led by Macario V. Ga and the larger nationalista liberation theology group led by Bp. Ramento. They reunited the following year but in the meantime the Ga group (ARJA) had not four but actually ten or eleven bishops and a smattering of tiny parishes. Archbishop Ga was under the misconception that he had a thriving thing going in the States, a kind of continuum movement still in communion with Canterbury (he had been at Lambeth X in '68) so I had to write him and give a full report about what it really was: ten bishops eight of whom were out and out vigantes and at most three or four legitimate parishes.

Seems like the more I hear about the Continuum, the smaller it gets.

A Commenter Posts A Worthwhile Question

in this thread at Virtue Online. Gerry Shields remarks,

The question I would ask is if absent TEC's acceptance of gay relationships as normal would there be any reason for the departures of churches and dioceses from TEC? I think the answer has to be a negative.

I think the numbers I've been looking at say that Shields is correct -- Douglas Bess's assessment would also agree. The post-1977 Continuers don't remotely match the departures post-2003. Yet someone calling himself "Sin Nomine" replies,

Mr. Shields, I believe the answer to your questions is: yes. What has happened in TEC has been a gradual erosion of belief in scripture, the creeds, and the articles of faith through false teachers. This has led us to the false notion that regeneration through Jesus is not the way, the truth, and the life. Our false teachers have rejected the atonement, the existence of sin, and the bodily resurrection of Our Lord. If you have read Spong, he would be exhibit A in this debate followed by Gomes, Robinson, and a long list of others including the current Presiding Bishop. I would never sit under this false teaching. The issue of homosexuality is an indicator, or symptom of the false teaching, but it is not the sole cause. It is far deeper and more complex.

Except that the ACNA uses the 1979 prayer book and has women priests. Sin Nomine's answer is in a way Anglican, in that it imputes a great deal to the ACNA's split from TEC that's not actually in the record. The problem I have with the ACNA is just that: the reasons for the split are vague. It's not as though you can walk into the average Episcopal parish and find a priest rejecting the atonement, the existence of sin, and the bodily resurrection: the same creeds are in the 1979 rites as in those for 1928. As an Episcopalian for 30 post-1977 years who's been to high-church parishes and low, traveling and at home, I've never heard a homily going against the readings or against the creeds.

It's worth pointing out one more time that, while I'm not sure I agree with every point Gerry Shields makes, he's identifying himself as a real person, and his opinions are basically sane. The much larger number of angries opposing him are posting under pseudonyms. Par for the course at VOL. I wonder, though, if most of them attend any parish in any denomination at all, and the anger at Katharine Jefferts Schori is an excuse for something else.

Who Is David Virtue? -- IV

There's another question nobody's asked since about 2005: how does the guy get to call himself "D.D"? There's an instructive comment thread (scroll way down) on the issue here. Some worthwhile excerpts:

I've noticed that Virtue sometimes signs his name "D.D." or "D.D. (Alexandria)." Knowing that the Doctor of Divinity is almost never an earned degree these days (it's generally the honorary degree awarded to bishops by their alma maters, among other things; the post-M.Div. doctorate is now the D.Min.), I was curious as to who had awarded Virtue an honorary doctorate, and/or where he had found one of the very few remaining earned D.D. programs in existence.

According to a buddy of mine, Virtue's bio used to say that the D.D. is from one Palm Harbor University. The only Palm Harbor University I'm familiar with is Palm Harbor University High School in Florida, which obviously isn't in the business of awarding degrees. So I'm curious: Where did Virtue get the thing? (Anyone can buy one from the Universal Life Church for five bucks, but I'm assuming that's not where he got his.)

* * *

I co-wrote heaps of books on education, but I can't name a single accredited school, off the top of my head, that offers the Doctor of Divinity as an earned degree. It has been replaced by the Th.D., S.T.D., and D.Min., and is now known pretty much exclusively as an honorary degree. So the four options that come to mind are:

(a) He earned the D.D. from a legitimate school (probably one in eastern Europe, where there are still a few seminaries that offer it), through a program I've never heard of.

(b) The degree was awarded on an honorary basis by a legitimate school, which most likely would have asked him to deliver a commencement address to graduating students.

(c) He bought one. This is a pretty serious accusation, and I don't feel comfortable making it until I know the name of the school.

In addition, while there's no listing of his educational credentials in his bio at Virtue Online, they're listed at this site:

David Virtue, M.C.S., DD., was educated at Scots College [a private secondary school] in Wellington, New Zealand. He studied English Literature and Philosophy at Victoria University in Wellington before going on to London Bible College, London, England where he completed his Diploma in Theology. He continued his theological studies at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois. and completed his Master's degree in Interdisciplinary Studies at Regent College, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada with a dissertation on the Idea of Man in the writings of Alexander Solzhenitsyn.

Interestingly, according to Wikipedia, Victoria University may not be that big a deal:

For New Zealand residents entry to most courses is open, with a few exceptions. Performance Music requires an audition. There is selection for entry into the second year in degrees such as the LLB, BArch and BDes. BA in criminology and creative writing is also based on selection.

In other words, unlike Harvard in the US, say, Victoria University will take you as a first-year student irrespective of your grades and SATs, but it looks like you've got to measure up to move on there, and perhaps to get a degree. So Virtue went to London Bible College to finish his studies. Web references suggest this place specializes in "distance learning", which is another way of saying you can get a mail-order degree there.

According to Wikipedia, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, a large evangelical seminary, issues the MDiv as its most popular degree, but Virtue says only that he continued his studies there, not that he received a degree -- but then he went on to get a Master's in an unrelated field. I got a Master's in English myself (a real department, not "interdisciplinary studies"), but I call myself neither an ordained minister nor a DD. A DD, honorary or not, ought to be the culmination of the man's academic achievement, wouldn't you think, and shouldn't the source be listed? Nope. Beyond that, he gives himself an "M.C.S." along with his "D.D.", but the only degree I can find corresponding to "M.C.S." is Master of Computer Science -- which you presumably don't get by writing dissertations on the Idea of Man in Solzhenitsyn. So things here are very puzzling indeed.

UPDATE: According to Wikipedia, Regent College at the University of British Columbia, founded in 1968, began offering a Master of Christian Studies degree in 1970. However, the school was not accredited until 1985, and the MCS degree is intended for the laity, separate from an MDiv degree intended for ordained clergy.

Like so many "orthodox" Anglicans, there are lots of questions about the guy, starting with whether he's actually an Anglican, but proceeding to his educational qualifications. The guy's a phony, as far as I can see. Shouldn't more people be calling him on this? As usual, I will greatly appreciate any supplementary information, sources held in complete confidence.

Who Is David Virtue? -- III

Let's take a look at a recent piece on Virtue's site: "RC Archbishop Resigns before Deposition of Former Pedophile Priest later admitted into The Episcopal Church". The subtitle continues, "Archbishop Jerome Hanus of Dubuque, Iowa cites 'health reasons'. He was scheduled to be deposed in Bede Parry scandal".

It's hard to know where to begin, but one thing's been at the back of my mind since I first saw it -- Virtue doesn't know what "deposition" means in this context. Virtue saw the word "deposition" someplace, pretty clearly in its legal sense. According to Wikipedia, "a deposition is the out-of-court oral testimony of a witness that is reduced to writing for later use in court or for discovery purposes." From the story and the links provided, it's pretty clear that a John Doe is suing various deep pockets over decades-old allegations against Bede Parry.

(I don't mean to minimize Parry's conduct as a Benedictine monk in the 1970s and 1980s or its impact on the victim. The legal process, however, is currently dealing with a particular allegation, and it's worth stressing, as Virtue does not, that the Catholic Church has been in the process of addressing Parry's and the many other abuses for decades as well.)

My point here is that it's plain from Virtue's headlines that he's not completely clear on the difference between a legal deposition and a deposition in The Episcopal Church, which is the ecclesiastical term for laicization or "defrocking" in that denomination, or if he does understand the difference, his writing is creating confusion about it. Looking closely at the version on Virtue Online, Roman Catholic Archbishop Jerome Hanus of Dubuque, Iowa, was scheduled to be deposed (i.e., interviewed out of court) in connection with a lawsuit over the Bede Parry case; Parry had been gradually eased out of Catholic pastoral roles between 1987 and 2000 after his continued abuse of minors became known.

Virtue's headline that reads in part, "Deposition of Former Pedophile Priest later admitted into The Episcopal Church" is factually incorrect and completely misleading. Archbishop Hanus is the one being deposed, in the legal sense of the word. Bede Parry, as far as we know, has not been "deposed" in the Episcopal sense, and has no disciplinary hearing scheduled that we know of. Virtue's own story indicates that Parry continues to be a priest in good standing in the Episcopal Diocese of Nevada. "Deposition" is not a term used in the Catholic Church; Parry has apparently been "laicized" there, but this story is not about that.

David Virtue represents himself as a "theologically trained journalist". But as we see here, at minimum he has real difficulty with ecclesiastical terminology: he's either revealing a basic confusion over the meaning of a word that I certainly learned in Episcopal confirmation class, or he's being deliberately confusing and misleading -- in other words, he's either a ditz or a knave. Neither is appropriate for someone claiming to be a "journalist".

Who Is David Virtue? -- II

One of the first things that's struck me about David Virtue's site is that the comments work much the same way as the comments on Stephen Smuts's blog. They're basically nutjob central, a bizarre collection of posters who ascribe to some obscure corner of Anglicanism, or just as commonly, no version of Anglicanism at all -- indeed, I wonder whether some pledge anywhere, or attend any parish of any denomination. But they're angry -- The Pope Is The Antichrist angry in many cases.

They attack the occasional sane poster with impunity, so that there's an ongoing angry paranoid-fringe atmosphere, much like the one Stephen Smuts maintains. I think the strategies of Virtue and Smuts are similar: both tacitly encourage the nutjobs in their comment sections, while maintaining a distance at the same time. Smuts, though, has openly opposed my own comments, while again tacitly endorsing the comments of the usual suspects there. David Virtue doesn't really need to say anything at all, because he knows the lunatics are running the asylum at Virtue Online. But make no mistake, the crazies are on both sites because Smuts and Virtue want them there. They fully understand the intent of the posts, and they enforce that intent in the comments like a cyber goon squad, while Virtue and Smuts can pretend they're not a part of it.

Why does anyone need this sort of cheering section? That's a puzzle. Virtue's thumbnail bio here indicates that, while he claims to attend an Episcopal church in Paoli, PA, his background also includes two years as a Baptist minister. But if his site isn't just critical of The Episcopal Church, but is actively angry at it, why go to church where you're clearly not comfortable? Why punish yourself? Maybe you'd be happier at a Baptist church, huh? I simply can't see going to church every Sunday and finding reasons to rub particular sores, when just down the street, you won't rub them.

Indeed, isn't Matthew 5:23-24 a basic part of Christianity? If you have a conflict with someone, leave your gift at the altar and be reconciled. Matthew 18:15 suggests that if you can't work it out, in the end, you've got to drop it and leave the person alone -- in effect, it seems to me, the verse says get a life, move on. Don't (unlike David) build a 20-year career on a grievance, especially one that doesn't apply directly to you. (I certainly don't intend to maintain this blog for 20 years, and by becoming a Catholic by an alternate route, I'm in the process of moving on, as are many others who were driven out of St Mary of the Angels Hollywood.)

So what's going on here? Based on the internal logic in a great many posts, I'm not sure if David Virtue is all there. We'll be looking at this.