I want to plead with folks always to be more thoughtful before they rush to judgment. It may be natural to want to smear the motivation of those who oppose us, or whose ideology and beliefs are at odds with our own, but is this a worthy way of proceeding? Just because we believe people are deeply in error in one area, it is illogical to assume that they are going to be incapable of seeing facts clearly in other areas.
While I have experienced misrepresentation and have seen much misrepresentation in the church, I have never in 30+ years as a priest of the Episcopal Church seen anything on the scale that is being implied by respondents here. From all I know it appears that the Diocese of Colorado is seeking to get to the bottom of this apparent mishandling of money because it has grave fiduciary responsibilities.
What those making the accusations seem unwilling to accept is that the outcome of the court makes it increasingly likely that the priest actually did commit what he is accused of doing. Just because his theology is sound when compared to the belief systems of those adjudicating the business does not mean that he is not prone like all of the rest of us to give way to temptation and fall into sin.
Kew+
That’s the best blog name in the entire history of blogs!
Armstrong may in fact have done something wrong, but since when does a diocese and its eccleastical courts do criminal investigations and criminal trials?
Br Michael
You’re kidding, right? I assume you have heard of pedophilia? Perhaps other types of sexual assault? All criminal.
Yes, Brian, that maybe true but have you ever heard of Bp. Swing and John Bennison (just the tip of the iceberg)… “sexual assault, pedophilia who cares”… let’s just sweep it all under the rug cuz it’s bad for business.
It is at times like this when I think it would be interesting for people to put up actual money as to the expected outcome of the guilt or innocense of Fr. Armstrong. We talk and talk but, based upon whatever evidence and rumor that we now have, where would you put $100?
My $100 would need to be buffered by my strong disbelief in the credibility of the diocese. Their actions til now are beneath contempt.
DonGander
Brian, that is the dumbest thing that I have heard lately. Are you saying that a diocese and its Eccleastical courts are fully qualified to conduct criminal investigations and trials? If so, then we are wasting a lot of money on secular courts and criminal investigators.
Br Michael
Not exclusively, but of course they do this. How else does a priest accused of criminal action get disciplined by the Church? There are instances where no government agencies have acted, yet a priest was defrocked.
DonGander
I’d put my $100 on the law firm and forensic accountant hired by the Diocese any day.
Financial matters are subject to a great deal of interpretation, particularly where the examiners have causes of their own. For my part I am persuaded that the vestry probably has the best read of anyone regarding what the true story is.
#7: If you had done so in the Ecclesiastical Court trial of Fr. David Bollinger in the Diocese of Central NY you would have lost your $100 despite the work of a forensic accountant and a high priced law firm. But maybe you have some inside information that you’d like to share with us about the Colorado case. I’m not betting either way, I just would like to know why you would make such a statement “any day.”
Canonically, Armstrong’s former diocese can bring charges and try Armstrong for alleged violations of the canons during his time as an Episcopal priest. Just because he “flees” to another jurisdiction does not make the case moot. This is akin to an alleged U.S. tax evader who thinks that he can flee U.S. jurisdiction attempting to indict and convict him just because he is now in a country that doesn’t recognize U.S. extradition. The alleged tax evader could very well be a citizen of a new country but the U.S. courts still has jurisdiction to try him for the alleged tax offenses that occurred when he was still subject to U.S. jurisdiction.
Going back to Armstrong, the diocese could in fact try him for alleged violations of their canons and could indeed, as has been done, find him guilty. Any canonical punishment would be merely symbolic if not moot since he has resigned and transferred to an Anglican jurisdiction that is not currently in communion with TEC anyway–thus there is no way to truly enforce the punishment of say a deposition.
In my view, Armstrong should have attempted to defend himself and put on the best evidence that he could–even if it meant representing himself. Even if he lost procedurally in representing himself because of the lack of funds for an attorney, there are ways to gain public support without defaulting–not showing up. If I were Armstrong, I would submit myself to a series of polygraphs by neutral experts and make it publicly known that I did not misappropriate the funds as charged. (Of course, if I failed the polygraphs because I was guilty, I would not make it known.)
Now I’m not saying that in a Kangaroo Court (which I would expect from the diocese) Armstrong would get justice even if he was innocent. I think, however, it was his moral and canonical duty as a former Episcopal priest to defend himself of the charges alleged against him while he was a priest in good standing with TEC, regardless of how much the system was stacked against him.
Armstrong’s lack of a defense at the ecclesiastical court does more harm to cause further suspicion. His attitude in being involved in a recreational activity on the day of his ecclesiastical trial is disappointing.
Unfortunately the ecclesiastical proceeding has ended. It is not defamation to state that Armstong has been convicted of canonical violations of financial misappropriation–in a sense, of theft. Public perception remains. I would call upon Armstrong to submit to a polygraph and make it public if he believes that he is not guilty of theft. Since an ecclesiastical court (albeit perhaps a Kangaroo Court) has found him guilty of misappropriation/theft, the charges against Armstrong are no longer allegations–he has indeed been convicted. Until he shows otherwise, it is people’s rights, if they choose, to view Armstrong as a thief of church funds.
LTN: I totally disagree with your logic having been through a similar process at an earlier time in my life. There was no way for Armstrong to win with the diocese no matter how you cut the cake. It is now in the hands of, hopefully, more objective inquisitors (civil authorities) and Armstrong is ready to cooperate fully. What more can you ask for, or should I say that I couldn’t ask for more. Armstrong has his highly qualified forensic auditors and he has already been through somewhat of a process with the IRS and they seemingly haven’t taken any action. I really get tired and frustrated with the crowd of second guessers who are so ready to destroy Armstrong, his family, and his whole congregation. Yesterday I shut one person up who has been throwing rocks at Armstrong from the beginning, got in effect a confession from the person and something of an apology, but it all got erased by “elves”. It seems that for some it is a one way street – ie., bash Armstrong, draw and quarter him, and then burn him at the stake and throw the ashes in the sewer. Armstrong is getting what he should have had from the beginning, A DAY IN A REAL COURT!
Quite correct #11. And until this is done, there is no evidence that can be trusted from either side. Because that is so, most of the above, and all the entries prior to this, are mere rhetoric, and that include Fr. Kew. What an astonishing expense of hot air for a balloon that cannot get of the ground.
LM
I still am having a hard time seeing how these alleged improprieties could have gotten past checks and balances in the first place. This is a large evangelical church, right?
In my present church everything we do is subject to annual review by an outside auditing firm, so we dot every i and cross every t. In order that people know their gifts and tithes are being used properly, we get a financial “Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval” every year.
This is among the “best practices” that evangelical churches and organizations are supposed to follow under the ECFA (Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability). There are a whole bunch of other things that are supposed to be followed, as well.
http://www.ecfa.org/pdf/BestPractices-Churches.pdf
Jim: You are absolutely right spot on. And, Fr. Armstrong instituted a two signature check system at Grace quite some time ago. Was the Vestry at that time (with a district attorney, a county commissioner as treasurer, doctors, lawyers, high level officials etc) a bunch of fools? I think not. By the way, they all (with one exception) walked out of the Episcopal Church with Don Armstrong and support him 100% to this day.
Also, at the risk of monopolizing the blog, the following from Kew’s site:
FrankV said…
It is a sad commentary on Christianity that the two congregations are split. There is a great bitterness smoldering and growing over the two situations: (1) the Don Armstrong allegations confirmed by an ecclesiastical court beholden to the Bishop and their pensions and, (2) A great theological problem with the apostic leadership in the Episcopal Church exemplified by openly, practicing gay clergy and Bishops and a presiding bishop who doesn’t believe that Christ is the only way to salvation. I think the issues are fairly clear.
August 11, 2007 7:58 PM
While the finding of a secular court, either civil or criminal, would carry great weight in my opinion, I accord the finding of an Episcopalian court or tribunal no evidentiary weight whatsoever. It is worth remarking that people like me generally trust the secular courts, but have no confidence in the judgment or honesty of an Episcoplian tribunal.
Since it is now confirmed in its belief that Rev. Armstrong has committed wrongs, I assume that the diocese will be bringing a civil suit for damages . None of the property or income really belongs to the parish, anyway, so it is the diocese that has suffered the only loss.
TonyInCNY
There is a difference between this case and the Bollinger+ case. +Skip was on an obvious witch hunt and did not try to hide his malfeasance. In addition, Bollinger+ submitted to the process, did not leave the Church on THE DAY OF his presentment, actually answered all of the allegations against him and provided documentation that the vestry knew what he was doing all the way.
#13 Jim. Thanks for the link. I added this to my library of resources on church finances.
This is truly amazing. The one thing that Ecclesiastical courts can do: Try deviations from doctrine and heresy they don’t do. Yet the one thing that they are ill equipped to do, complex tax and criminal trials they do do.
In the eyes of the law this trial was even less than a civil proceeding. The diocese has no state investigative powers and no civil discovery powers. It has no special expertise in tax matters.
Now if they wanted to act after a court of competent jurisdiction has determined Armstrong’s guilt then they have that power and that right and, indeed, an obligation to act.
And, Fr. Armstrong instituted a two signature check system at Grace quite some time ago. Was the Vestry at that time (with a district attorney, a county commissioner as treasurer, doctors, lawyers, high level officials etc) a bunch of fools? I think not. By the way, they all (with one exception) walked out of the Episcopal Church with Don Armstrong and support him 100% to this day.
Yes, a 2 signature system – him and his buddy. And which one left? The district attorney – the one who would lose his career and his license if it was found that he supported financial malfeasance.
I am not one in the know – however – in Tax matters there is often great ambiguity. It would appear that Father Armstrong and Grace together used some creative means to reduce tax liability for both the Armstrong’s and Grace Church. Creativity in tax matters is often a very good thing (I am in favor of taking aggressive positions to the disadvantage of the IRS) – sometimes aggressive positions are judged by the IRS to be incorrect (sometimes secular courts find the IRS to be wrong and the creative taxpayer correct) – just because the IRS rejects the creative positon does not always make one a criminal – most of the time there are just civil penalties. My guess is that the Diocese and the current TEC regiem are pro-IRS – most leftists are. Hence the Bishop and his minions would likely be struck by a compentent lawyer from any jury pool in a secular court because they are biased against the taxpayer. I imagine a TEC jury to be similar to facing Teddy Kennedy, Hilary Clinton and Charlie Rangel. (Although I am quite certain that some of their returns would make for interesting reading).
For those in the know – how long ago did the alleged tax improprietis occur – doesnt the IRS only have 3 years to go back and audit returns?
Armstrong did not have to defend himself but [i]was[/i] represented by counsel at the Ecclesiastical Court. An experienced criminal defense attorney, and long time member of Grace, filed a motion to dismiss on his behalf on July 27 and a surreply to the Diocesan response on July 30. The court denied that motion before conducting its hearing on the charges of offense without an appearance by defense counsel or Armstrong, whose spokesman said he was mountain biking at the time. FrankV has invited others to contribute to Armstrong’s defense fund on a blog that can be accessed from the Grace CANA home page.
I would ask people to read what I have written with care, which doesn’t seem to be happening. I intentionally made no clear judgment about either side of this case because I lack adequate information, and the situation is far from resolved by the actions of the diocese. What I was suggesting was that we understand these sad events in light of the utter pervasiveness of sin — Armstrong’s and the diocese’s… as well as our own.
If any of you are still reading this, the point is the selectiveness of the process. We had a former rector who was doing worse than Armstrong was ever accused of. He had two discretionary funds and was getting people to put money in the private one, which he used for personal expenses. (The amonuts in question were quite large). The donors took a tax deduction and he did not declare the income. The bishop sent him off to another diocese and sealed the books. We also had to pay him a 6 month severance package. He later ended up in a third diocese and did the exact same thing, and was allowed to retire. The truth is this trial was about TEC vs Orthodoxy. If Armstrong was “one of the boys”, he’d have been let off with a slap on the wrist. And if he’s really guilty of finincial crimes, the state prosecutor needs to be involved.
I have no opinion about the merits of the case, not having seen any of the evidence. But the sheer intensity of the bile on display here, seemingly entirely on the part of some of the “right-thinkers” (orthodox), just takes my breath away.
FrankV in particular: Judging by your writings, your attitude seems to be, “The bishop of Colorado and his minions are evil, I’m not interested in anything they have to say, my mind is made up, and if you disagree you’re at best a fool.” Do you bring that same open-minded attitude to other areas of life, and if so, does it serve you well?
I did read what you wrote, Fr. Kew. (Beg pardon. Are you a priest?) It is pious but not germane. What you did was raise the issues, which are ver y particular, well up the ladder of abstration so that they become attentuated to a thin mist. What is at stake is not man’s sinfulness, but a particular man charged with particular crimes, crimes about which the general public – us, in this case – have no substantive information. They are not theological offenses, they are felonies, matters for criminal courts, not religious courts. We want transparency, genuine, reliable information, on which to base a judgment.Telling us that he is PROBABLY guilty and is a sinner tells us nothing worth knowing. Is he probably guilty? I have no idea, you have no idea, and neither have all the above entries hereon. All this chatter is about how people feel. This is tiresome, and your essay moves us no closer to what is nowadays called closure. LM
[i] Fr. Kew is a well known priest and blogger. http://richardkew.blogspot.com/ [/i]
-Elf Lady
What those making the accusations seem unwilling to accept is that the outcome of the court makes it increasingly likely that the priest actually did commit what he is accused of doing.
Dear Rev. Kew:
Your statement I copied above gets awfully close to passing a judgment. What Rev. Armstrong did or did not due has occured – the ecclasiastical courts outcome does not affect the past one bit. A secular court goes to great length to remove bias – the Episcopal church is at war with itself – it would be impossible for a fair trial to be held in the diocese of Colorado by American jurisprudence standards. If the Bishop was convinced that +Armstrong did what is alledges and what is alleged is actually wrongdoing he should have considered asking for the trial to occur in an Orthodox diocese say Fort Worth – does a change of venue exist in TEC trials.
If people don’t want to be part of an Episcopal, Catholic or Orthodox Church than that is certainly their right. However, in most hierarchical church systems, there are rules/canons that clergy consented to–typically at ordination. Those rules, as in The Episcopal Church, govern and reserve the right to bring charges for wrongful conduct against their own members–including for crimes (Title IV, Canon 1(a)).
To say that a hiearchical church does not have a right to bring religious proceedings (ecclesiastical court proceedings) against a member of their clergy who was alleged to have committed a crime, immorality or other theological violations is absurd. They have that right and if one doesn’t like it, join a religious group that doesn’t have those rules/canons. I would almost guarantee that almost every Anglican Province (including the provinces in the Global South) has a clergy disciplinary canon that allows for presentments and trial against a cleric that has allegedly committed a crime.
Having said the above, The Episcopal Church is very selective in their presentments and prosecutions. TEC is like the one who sees the speck in a person’s eye but has a plank sticking out in their own. Nevetheless, this doesn’t give orthodox clergy a pass on the rules or canons to which they submitted themselves to. If the cleric doesn’t like the canon, try to change it, otherwise, join a church like the Baptists that have no other “canons” except the Bible.
Brian:
You have your facts wrong again Brian. John Newsome is still very much a member of Grace, he’s just not on the Vestry anymore for obvious conflict of interest reasons. The one who left (to stay with the Episcopals) is the Professor from Colorado College.
Some other blogger accused me of being a right wing, frothing at the mouth crank. I probably am; however, I am a friend of Don Armstrong and know what is in his heart – and it is good. If I am proven wrong, I’ll be the first to grovel in the middle of the street at 601 N. Tejon. Don has some real auditors that will blow this thing away and the IRS would have acted if there was a hair out of place.
Peace be with you and may the mote be removed from your eyes.
I’ve read through the diocesan papers and most of what Fr. Don has said. As a minister with over a decade of expereince in a variety of congregations I will say I am a bit surprised at the level of Fr. Don’s reimbursments and scholarships and use of descrtionary funds. (Paying payroll taxes out of decretionary funds seems very unusual.)
In my years I have received two checks a month from the churches I worked for. One was for salary and the other for reimbursment for mileage and business expenses. I would never cut myself a check from the Church descritionary fund under any circumstances.
I don’t who’s at fault. But Grace’s books seem to be kept in a extrodinary way from what I have seen as the norm.
Yes, there are differences in the cases, Brian, but not what you cite. First, Skip has tried to hide his malfeasance; he has still not agreed to release the Shaffer Report although he was ordered by the ecclesiastic court to do so. Yes, Fr. Bollinger did submit to the process, and he did attempt to answer the charges prior to the trial. His attempts to answer the charges were rebuffed by the Standing Committee. The only documentation he provided at trial was proof that he had paid taxes on monies he had received.
I wish you’d get your facts straight, and secondly, tell us what makes you such an expert on the Armstrong case.
17. There is a difference between this case and the Bollinger+ case. +Skip was on an obvious witch hunt and did not try to hide his malfeasance. In addition, Bollinger+ submitted to the process, did not leave the Church on THE DAY OF his presentment, actually answered all of the allegations against him and provided documentation that the vestry knew what he was doing all the way.
Allow me to add to #32 on the hiding of malfeisance, when the bp. learned that the ecclesiastical court was not going to accept his withholding of evidence he sought to have the trial moved out of the diocese to another diocese’s ecclesiastical court. The Standing Committee, to their credit, denied the bishop’s motion to move the trial. On the subject of ecclesiastical courts, the court in the DCNY did an admirable job in demanding fairness from the diocese and in this case the little guy won, thanks be to God. The subsequent spin by the diocese has been utterly shameful.
Bishop Minn’s son (CANA) attended 11:00 service today at Grace (CANA) with Fr. Armstrong officiating, Fr. Zolner assisting, a great choir, a talented 16 year old who plays the organ like E. Power Biggs (dec), and a growing congregation. Praise God from whom all blessings flow. Such a disservice Anthony?
TonyinCNY
+Skip made absolutely no attempt to conceal that Bollinger+ was being punished for bringing up issues that +Skip did not want addressed. He did this openly at Diocesan convention. The only stuff he is trying to hide relates to the criminal actions of his staff.