Posted on 08/11/2007 9:13:24 AM PDT by sionnsar
Traditional Anglican ping, continued in memory of its founder Arlin Adams. Time to start suing these left wing Bishops in civil court for everything they and their fellow perverts own.
Cases like this will be dissected and destroyed point by point in a civil court. The Bishop would lose his robes and hat to pay for damages.
bump
You might want to click through and take it up with Mr. Virtue.
And if I can obtain a pass from the Religion Moderator to tweak David Virtue's headlines into something correct, I will attempt to do so in the future.
Comments are usually made in brackets or parans behind the actual title. I will edit this one for you.
When I saw the headline, I thought that it was about the long-awaited results of the church trial of the former Chancellor of the Orthodox Church in America for financial malfeasance. So the use of “Orthodox” with a capital O to mean an orthodox Anglican was confusing indeed!
Virtue has latched on to that word and misuses it enough that I sometimes don’t bother posting his material. It annoys me.
Thank you Religion Moderator and sionnsar. Much obliged.
You only say that because you're buying Armstrong's spin. The real facts of the case are far less friendly to him. For example, the Ecclesiastical Court included some very conservative and orthodox priests -- and their vote was unanimous. Regardless of whether or not the case is advantageous to the agenda of the revisionist wing of TEC (and it certainly is that), Armstrong appears to be involved in real and serious financial wrongdoing.
To really understand the case, you should probably start out with the Presentment, to help you understand the context of that spin. There things there which don't inspire much confidence in his innocence. For example,
1. Both sides agree that the transactions in Armstrong's presentment occurred. They included loans, use of the restricted Bowton Trust funds for his kids' college expense, other "Armstrong college fund" payments, and transfers of funds within different accounts, which ultimately were paid to Armstrong. The total was in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. The question is whether those transactions are legal. Sheri Betzer, the accountant whose report formed the bulk of the evidence, is a highly respected forensic auditor who does this sort of work for a living -- she's not a Diocesan stooge; she's not even an Episcopalian, so far as I know. If she claims to have found criminal wrongdoing, those charges should be taken seriously. And, in fact, a criminal investigation has been opened on that question.
2. None of the transactions -- loans, scholarships for his kids, and so on -- were ever reported in the monthly budget statements. Most people who served on the vestry during the timeframe of the investigation never knew -- were never informed -- that the transactions were taking place. The full vestry certainly never voted on or approved any of the transactions. The budget reports did include a specific line item for the Anglican Institute (a ministry of the parish), but that line item never, ever, reflected the fact that thousands of dollars per month (from various sources) were transferred into the Anglican Institute budget, and then transferred out to a personal account belonging to Don Armstrong. (The senior wardens, treasurer, and parish bookkeeper were aware of the transactions.) These were not minor funds -- and none but a very few people were aware of them.
3. The Bowton Trust was set up for scholarships based on intent to pursue theological studies, intent to enter the Episcopal ministry, and financial need. The monies went to Armstrong's children instead -- neither of whom ever went to seminary (or anything remotely close to it). Another college scholarship fund, the Helen Smith trust, provided sums typically on the order of $500-1000 for parishioners -- and something like $35,000 for Armstrong's children.
4. Some of the transactions -- in particular, the loans and salary advances -- are explicitly illegal under Colorado laws governing the operation of non-profit corporations (which includes church corporations such as Grace Church).
And then there's this little nugget, which shows just how far you can trust what Don Armstrong is saying:
"Included in the charges about my discretionary fund misuse, for example, is reimbursement $259.00 for bibles we gave the graduating Seniors--I can see where that would violate Episcopal sensitivities and be thought to be malfeasance."
For that specific item, Canon law (Title III, Canon 9.5(b)(6) prohibits the use of the Discretionary Fund for anything but the poor and needy. It specifically prohibits the use of the funds for personal clergy use, or parish operating expenses. The $259 noted above, is an obvious "operating expense," and thus ineligible as a discretionary fund expense.
But that's the BEST face he can put on it. Mr. Armstrong fails to mention that among the other items he charged to discretionary expenses were lunches and gifts, a "Cable Guy Tip" for $200, $55 for three parking tickets (Armstrong's, of course), travel expenses, car repairs, and so on.
One of the things I've learned over my years at FR, is to be able to spot spin, and to look for facts before believing what the spinner says. In this particular instance, I have a far more intimate knowledge of the facts of the case, and am thus able to discern the spin much more clearly. To put it bluntly, Don Armstrong is more interested in saving his own rear end, than he is in telling the truth.
One final thing: Armstrong's goal here is to make the whole thing seem like a theological dispute, with him as the persecuted victim. It's not that. Not even close.
Christians don't sue Christians (or quazi-Christian CINO's).
kosta50 is happy but I'm not. There is quite a significant difference between the meanings of "Anglican" and "Episcopalian" today (they are NOT interchangeable, but the issue is not one that I'd expect non-Anglicans to understand without lengthy explanation) and in order to be exactly correct the title should begin "[Episcopalian] Orthodox Priest..." -- but whatever. I don't want to annoy the Admin/Religion Mods, so I'll let this one go and head it off in the future.
Though, for the record, count me annoyed at the conflation of "Episcopalian" with "Anglican."
Thank you for your contribution here!
I am sorry sionnsar. In the future I will contact you privately and then you can suggest to the RM any changes. It was not my intent to annoy you in any way, and I thank you for reminding us that there is a difference between these two communities in ways most of us do not understand.
What is your connection and/or relationship with the Parish?
Former vestry member, non-CANA.
I hope that if you are an actual witness to any of the malfeasance you allege you will take it up with CANA. The last thing this new denomination needs is a crook for a priest or genuine bad press.
I have to say with the legal shananagans The Episcopal Church is doing to many other ex-Episcopal priests and congregations, even suing down to individual vestry members, I’m a skeptic in this case.
That's just it -- I and many others didn't know about the transactions at all. That's not "being a witness," per se. At most, the fact that the transactions were apparently hidden from the vestry is cause for significant suspicion, but it says nothing about illegality. Looking back, I can see how the topic of the (mis)use of restricted trust funds was artfully dodged around, but for the most part, the transactions were never mentioned nor reported to the vestry. As an aside, the various vestries obviously failed in their responsibility to provide proper financial oversight.
The CANA bishop is Martin Minns, and as yet he has apparently showed no interest in the allegations, evidence, or anything else about this case. He's an old seminary classmate and friend of Armstrong's, so perhaps that explains his reticence to get into it. In any case, now that there's a criminal investigation, Minns had better start paying attention for the good of CANA.
The last thing this new denomination needs is a crook for a priest or genuine bad press.
That's true.
I have to say with the legal shananagans The Episcopal Church is doing to many other ex-Episcopal priests and congregations, even suing down to individual vestry members, I’m a skeptic in this case.
Agreed. However, the bishop didn't instigate this particular case. Rather, the original allegations were made to him by a former parish bookkeeper and, given their nature, any bishop would have been required to pursue them. There's no denying the fact that this case is politically useful for the revisionists ... but it's a legitimate case nonetheless.
As we’ve discussed before, if the Bishop has evidence, as he claims, of criminal misconduct and/or tax fraud, he needs to refer it to the DA and the IRS.
Frankly, the current ruling comes across as one from a kangaroo court, and is lacking in credibility.
(Or, since I don’t have a dog in the fight, the two sides could always agree to hire me to review the evidence and prepare an objective report.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.