An ecclesiastical court on Wednesday convicted the Rev. Donald Armstrong of stealing nearly $400,000 from his Colorado Springs parish, though it cannot legally punish the breakaway pastor.
The court of the Episcopal Diocese of Colorado will decide in about a month, however, whether to recommend that Bishop Robert O’Neill defrock Armstrong, a largely symbolic action that would end all ties between the church and him.
Armstrong left the diocese with a majority of the Grace Church & St. Stephen’s vestry board in March and now oversees the congregation of the Grace CANA Church that is affiliated with the more conservative Convocation of Anglicans in North America. His spokesman, Alan Crippen, said the Episcopal Diocese does not have authority over Armstrong.
“Our relationship with the diocese has been one of adversity over the last couple of months, so this decision is no surprise,” Crippen said Wednesday.
Did they prosecute with thhe civil authorities?
“The court of the Episcopal Diocese of Colorado will decide in about a month, however, whether to recommend that Bishop Robert O’Neill defrock Armstrong, a largely symbolic action that would end all ties between the church and him.”
Too late, all ties ended when Armstrong left in March.
This is pretty serious given what has been happening out there. If DioCO is certain of the evidence, I hope they bring it to civil action or work to file charges. The air needs to be absolutely clear on this.
Randall
Was there any doubt that it would turn out this way? Yaaaawwwwn.
But can we trust this report? If true, it is damning.
If not true, why would they make such a falsity public? Or is this a case of reading evidence one way when it can in fact be read several? LM
I don’t understand the argument that the ecclesiastical court has no jurisdiction over Canon Armstrong any more. The charges all relate to actions taken while he was a priest in the Diocese of Colorado, and I can’t see what other venue for ecclesiastical charges relating to that period there is. Admittedly, charges this serious belong in a criminal court also, and I would think this would prompt a grand jury to investigate, but what other relevant ecclesiastical jurisdiction is there?
In short, yes. The diocese has attempted to put a criminal spin on anything financial related to this case. This kangaroo court has simply rubberstamped the witchhunt designed by Bishop O’Neill to get rid of a nuisance (read “reasserting”) priest. That’s only my opinion but I’m sticking to it until the proper civil authorities have convicted Fr. Armstrong of these charges. As an aside, this “court” found him guilty of tax fraud yet they concede to not having seen any of his actual tax returns- how is this possible?
#7, the press release says that the tax-related count was “…causing Grace Church to issue false W-2s and underreport Armstrong’s income and benefits by $548,097.27.” Nothing to do with his personal tax returns.
Lady,
That’s just silly. IF any of this is true, then the guilty party would be the entity issuing the false W-2’s. Then again, maybe they’re next. Maybe this is all about the property lawsuit.
Maryland Brian
The First Amendment prohibits civil courts from litigating disputed issues of religious doctrine and practice. In an abundance of caution, civil authorities may have deferred thus far to the Ecclesiastical Court’s resolution of the disputed issues of compensation of the former rector of Grace Episcopal Church. Thus, if an argument is raised in future proceedings that it was Episcopal doctrine and practice that clergy compensation not be transparently recorded in the church’s financial reports, the civil courts will have the decision of the Ecclesiastical Court as binding authority. The issue remains whether a person may validly claim First Amendment protection of disputed practices in an Episcopal parish after denouncing the jurisdiction of the Episcopal Church.
There are many complexities and many pieces of evidence in this case. Do not assume because Bishop O’Neill is a reappraiser that Fr. Armstrong is innocent. There are many (mostly) good people in the reappraiser camp and differences in theological opinion does not make them always wrong, or even mostly wrong, in matters unrelated to scriptural authority. Fr. Armstrong may be innocent (as I did not see the evidence, just the presentments which were full of details) but do not assume he was tried by a kangaroo court since you do not know its members, their hearts or the evidence. Our faith is not based in the actions of one man but Jesus.
They must be sure of their facts by making this verdict public, otherwise they are setting themselves up for a libel lawsuit.
Will someone please explain?
Grand theft and tax fraud are felonies (criminal offenses).
What have these to do with an ecclesiastical ‘court’?
Why have criminal charges not been laid if there is a case to answer?
I always thought that if a false/mistaken W-2 is issued then the “highest authority” (normally business owner – sometimes personally) was responsible to the government for the lack of withholding. A typical business example would be if someone was paid as a subcontractor but that the government says should have been an employee. The business then has to pay the withholding (the 15% SSI is usually the big piece) even if they haven’t taken it from the employee/subcontractor. Has the diosese deposited the underreported withholding to the feds? How about the penalty? To be consistant they should do this ASAP. They can try to recove it from Armstrong but they are on the hook. They have taken their own defense out from under themselves by this ruling.
Fr. Armstrong seems an honorable man. The members of Grace also seem honorable. There is an audit underway by those most interested in the result, those members that gave the money.
The truth will out eventually. God will judge between Grace and canon.
DonGander
What we don’t know:
Has Fr. Armstrong filed amended returns with the IRS? If so, he MAY be off the hook with the feds.
The disputed tuition stuff is the biggest chunk of change; the fine points MAY be too open to differences of interpretation to make civil authorities want to intervene.
w.w.
My inclination is to trust Don Armstrong (though I have never met him). The only way that I will be inclined to side with the Diocese is if Don+ is brought up (and convicted) on civil charges of theft and/or tax fraud. If that happens I will write a personal letter to the Bishop of Colorado thanking him for standing firm throughout the process. As things currently stand, I think I’ll begin writing to Fr. Armstrong.
Was there a need to file an amended return? Without having access to Armstrong’s tax returns there is no way of knowing if the disputed amounts were reported. Simply looking at a W2 and assuming that no additional income was on a tax return is clearly quite foolish. There would be absolutely nothing unusual about reporting income not listed on a W2. We simply don’t know whether he did or not. Of course that hasn’t stopped the diocese from finding him guilty…
I am reminded of CS Lewis’ “That Hideous Strength”.
Notice how the diocese will not release records, (including W2s) but is willing to try and defrock a priest in absentia while the civil authorities have apparently not enough information to bring a criminal suit.
When I see Fr. Armstrong brought up on criminal charges of tax fraud and evasion, then I will (reluctantly) believe he _may_ be guilty.
Until then, all I can assume is that the bishop of the diocese of Colorado is one of the most evil people I can imagine, and that the people of Good Shepard are well out of his diocese.
Shari.
This comes as no surprise to those of us who have witnessed firsthand the predatorial tactics of our former Bishop. Meanwhile, however, Grace Church is moving forward in effective ministry, and there is an atmosphere of true joy that had not been there previously. (I am certainly not the only person who has made this same remark!)
For information on how Grace Church is moving forward, view the [url=http://www.graceandststephens.org/announcements/Vestry_Ltr_Aug2007.htm]Vestry Letter to the Parish.[/url]
For a more balanced story on the Ecclesiastical Court’s findings, view this [url=http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=6483]VirtueOnline article.[/url]
Zechariah
[i]The backstage manager was pacing all around by his chair.
“There’s something funny going on,” he said, “I can just feel it in the air.”
He went to get the hangin’ judge, but the hangin’ judge was drunk,
As the leading actor hurried by in the costume of a monk.
There was no actor anywhere better than the Jack of Hearts.[/i]
This is amazing. If Armstrong “stole” anything or filed false tax returns this a matter for the IRS and/or criminal prosecution.
it would seem that the IRS could throw cold water on this by stating that Armstrong is not under investigation. I would not be surprised to learn that diocese is lobbying the IRS to throw the book at him…..
[blockquote]
I can assume is that the bishop of the diocese of Colorado is one of the most evil people I can imagine
[/blockquote]
Yikes, I’m not happy with his actions but that assumption seems a bit over the top…
The Virtue OnLine article referenced in #20 quotes Don Armstrong as saying of one of the Ecclesiastical Court, “One of the lay members, I have been told, left her family, changed her name, and announced that she was a lesbian–what chance does an orthodox priest stand in that system?” And yet in previous posts on T19 Don Armstrong has stated that the issue is not homosexuality, indeed that he is greeted warmly by members of the gay community in Colorado Springs. So is or is not sexual orientation an issue for orthodox priests and laypersons?
Armstrong is found guilty (no surprise…I predicted that all along) and you call the Bishop of Colorado “evil”? What a sickening remark!!!!
Fred – Was your prediction based on facts? Do you believe that the hearing was “fair”? Given what I’ve read I would agree with your prediction – it was a forgone conclusion. However the conclusion was not based on facts – it was based on circumstances. The facts have still not spoken – unfortunately this hearing did not further bringing the truth to the full light of day. At this point I still have no idea as to which side is telling the truth.
Uh, Fred? All of us “predicted that all along” too.
Reappraisers will use the ecclesiastical verdict as propaganda against reasserters (fast work, Fred!).
Reasserters will use the ecclesiastical verdict as evidence of a biased, “kangaroo court” process.
This is the most obvious “lose-lose” situation I have seen in a long time. It would have been much better if Fr. Armstrong had mounted a vigourous defense with facts and figures. If necessary, he could even take it into a defamation of character (or whatever legal category might apply in Colorado) lawsuit and clear his reputation – and the reputations of his reappraiser supporters – that way.
A bad business all around.
Contrast this with a current case announced prominently in the Denver Post this past week of a Denver pastor who has been charged by civil authorities of creating an insurance fraud via unsuspecting parishioners. The District Attorney hopped all over him bigtime.
Our local District Attorney was part of the Vestry during part of the time that Don was allegedly pilfering funds and doctoring the books. He flatly stated that he was unaware of any financial irregularities during his time. We also had/have a county commissioner who is/was on the Vestry and who is/was the treasurer. Other vestry members are outstanding members of the community . These people are not fools. Don showed his Income Tax returns to the public at a public meeting in June. It is almost impossible to conceive that his alleged malfeasance could go on for ten years without somebody ringing an alarm bell. In the face of this, tell me who’s guilty.
This verdict was forordained from the getgo.
For Paul A. Clergy are considered self-employed for tax purposes. Churces do not withold but do report their earnings. Clergy file quarterlies. The only thing that the church would have done is under report income and they allege they did so at Armstrong+ direction. The discretionary fund is another kettle of fish. My understanding is that it is to be used to serve those with immediate needs. Our rector uses it for such things as vouchers for motels, emergency food purchases and very often perscription drugs, even a pair of glasses, that people just can’t afford. He keeps very extensive records and reports the expenditures to the vestry monthly. Our previous rector in a different diocese, used the funds for the same thing but he was a lousy record keeper, therefore he reported the funds to the IRS as income as he felt he was obliged to do. I do not know if his appraisal was accurate. Apparently though, there are questions about either the use made of the funds or Armstrong’s+ record-keeping
It would seem to me that the Bishop of Colorado must either file a civil suit or prosecute for criminal actions to recover stolen funds or he is violating his fiduciary responsibilities. If tax fraud has occured he has a responsibility to notify the IRS. If the Bishop doesn’t proceed with these actions then we know that this is a set up.
Are there statute of limitation problems with him filing a civil suit?
If I were to hazard a prediction it would be that DioCO will take no civil action against Fr. Armstrong whatsoever, knowing that there is a much stronger civil case against Bp. O’Neill in this matter than Fr. Armstrong. And I think the last few months have made it quite clear that Grace CANA is not messing around anymore. (It’s a lot harder to bully when the victim stops taking it in the face– and [i] may [/i] even fight back).
The property dispute aside, this represents the end of O’Neill’s sordid project to rid his diocese of Fr. Armstrong. The last page in his playbook was the revisionist Episcopal default: a mean-spirited war of words. Because words are all they have.
And in response to earlier comments, no, Bp. O’Neill is not “evil.” He is petty, childish, and a pathetic steward of his office. Anyone familiar with literature should recognize that he is the real tragedy in this story, not Fr. Armstrong.
Would someone please publish a copy of the charges against Fr Amstrong? Just a small abbreviated listing is all I ask. Smoke and mirrors seems to be the way so far.
If there was deliberate misfiling of W-2, then we have a federal felony. This issue has been public for a long time. Why would the IRS refuse to go after Armstrong if they had any probable cause re: the W-2s? If he has misused church funds, then a criminal suit is the logical answer. And yet, this doesn’t seem to be in the works. There is so much here that simply makes no sense whatsoever, as the responses above indicate. Can someone tell me why there is no transparency whatsoever? LM
Does anyone know who the Grace squatters are using as their forensic accountant and their credentials?
Here is a link to a copy of the charges made in the [url=http://www.graceepiscopalcolosprings.org/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/armstrongsummaryjudgment.doc] Motion for Summary Judgment[/url]
Virtue OnLine quotes Don Armstrong in the same specious defense he made at a “parish” meeting months ago, “I noticed that among the charges is one that we borrowed 4.5 million dollars with permission for only 2.5 million—what they did was to add the temporary construction loans we had on our renovation together with the amount of the final consolidation loan…anyone, especially an accountant, ought to be able to understand that one.” Anyone, accountant or not, who reads the Motion for Summary Judgment will understand, however, that the charge is that the buildings were encumbered by four separate deeds of trust over the course of 20 months, [i]not one of which[/i] was approved by the Standing Committee as is required by canon law. The amount of the current debt carried on Grace buildings is irrelevant to the charges of unauthorized encumbrance and indeed the 2.5 million debt is never mentioned in the Motion. Even if all four mortgage deeds had been retired and no debt remained, the execution of each deed without the permission of the Standing Committee constituted a separate offense.
Here is the relevant excerpt from the Motion:
“82. In four separate deeds of trust recorded between April 24, 2004 and December 1, 2005, Fr. Armstrong caused Grace Church s parish property 1ocated at 601-631 N. Tejon St., Colorado Springs, Colorado, to be encumbered by deeds of trust totaling $4.5 million. A448-78. These deeds of trust are mortgages owned by the State Bank of Bartley, Nebraska. A448; A456; A464; A472. [NAME REDACTED], who was a Junior Warden of Grace Church prior to his 2007 secession, is a principal officer and part owner of the bank. A66.”
“83. No request, written or otherwise, was made in 2004 or 2005 to the Standing Committee of the Diocese of Colorado for approval of these encumbrances. The only Diocesan record of a Grace Church Request to Encumber was a November 18, 1989 request that sought to encumber the parish property “in the amount of $1,250,000 for reconstruction of the Education Building and Parish Hall.â€
[i] The tone is becoming negative. Please, folks, lighten up. [/i]
-Elf Lady
I might point out that all the money to pay for the loans is coming from Grace parishioners and not a red penney from the diocese. Our vestry, composed of high level business and professional people, were cognizant of what was happening.
I might also point out that, IF the diocese charges have validity, then there is a whole roomfull of people who should be indicted, not just Armstrong.
For any thoughtful person to believe, after reading the evidence that led to the diocesan court’s unanimous and comprehensive verdict against Don Armstrong, that not only the bishop of Colorado but a panel of well-reputed and disinterested clergy and laypeople have been driven in this matter by some sort of satanic animus is simply delusional. This former Episcopal priest’s case is a simple matter: Don Armstrong thought, as he told the parish meeting last spring, that he deserved to be paid more than he was, so he gave himself a half-million dollar raise. However one judges his impulse or his action, most would agree that he went a bit further and a bit more covertly (certainly the parish was unaware that it and its benefactors were paying for a two lengthy, expensive and tax-free college educations for Don’s children) than most of us who from time to time feel overworked and underpaid.
So what? How big is all this? On one level, small indeed. Don Armstrong succumbed to one of the seven deadlies, but for a human being so to do is hardly earthshaking. It is surely unbecoming, and the state of Colorado and the United States will find it actionable, but in the great scheme of things it is only tawdry. For a rector to dishonor and traduce a venerable and vital parish is, however, at least newsworthy. All of Colorado Springs and all of Colorado, Episcopalian or Anglican or polka-dotted, finds it so. Others’ prurient interest shames us, but if that were where the Armstrong matter ended, we could blush and go on. Unhappily there is something much larger-scale here. Don’s fall and Grace’s public misery are not the terrible part of this spectacle. Don will get his desserts and, we can pray, be improved; Grace will recover through the faith, good will and sacrificial giving of its people. Christ’s wider church will be harder to repair.
The authentic tragedy overarching Armstrong’s breach of trust and Grace’s heartache is his error’s politicization in the diocese’s and a wider national and world church’s discussion of genuinely important issues—the very issues Don has used to cloak his wrongdoing. This blog’s current tone of denial is not really defensiveness about Don Armstrong (for surely it will not maintain if he is not only defrocked but found guilty in civil and criminal court) but about the “orthodoxy†he has purported to embody. The tragedy here is for the “orthodox†to make such fools of themselves about Don Armstrong that they look like fools in general—and no one pays attention to them. For us all to listen to each other mindfully and respectfully about today’s great ecclesiological and theological matters is paramount. This scandal so undermines a far more important obligation.
Let’s not make simple greed any bigger and damaging than it is in itself. I do not derogate or dismiss those misled by some quotidian sinner but many will. The tone of this blog’s discussion evidence of the real disaster here—making Don Armstrong more than a small-timer who needs our prayers as he faces not only diocesan justice but a likely criminal process.
Godfry:
Nice speech.
You say,
“The tragedy here is for the “orthodox†to make such fools of themselves about Don Armstrong that they look like fools in general”
I say that the orthodox are quite measured in their tone and opinions – all of them. We look to the evidence, and frankly, the evidence that looks so convincing to you looks specious at best to me and others. The evidence has as much internal confusion as did the case against Jesus Christ.
I’m not saying that Fr. Armstrong is innocent, I’m saying that I am far from convinced. I also shall not forget how Fr. Armstrong was treated in the last year. It is difficult for me to conceive of the guile necessary to produce such persecution.
DonGander
No, no, we’re not insisting on “satanic” animus. I’ll settle for just plain animus, which is a perfectly rational explanation for this “trial”. Also, I wouldn’t put too much stock in that “unanimous” verdict, as the “court” was packed with the bishop’s own clergy. The verdict was a foregone conclusion, another outcome was literally impossible.
No kidding? And I thought he was denying the charges. And you say he’s confessed. What gives?
Not a chance that this will happen. None. Zero.
Thanks for the concern…
I do hope that Rev. Armstrong is innocent; but as Sarah points out on SF, we really don’t know. There are aspects of the allegations that are troubling; however, there are many reasons to suspect that the accusers are not acting in good faith. Much of the allegations involve tax issues which transparently weakens the Bishop’s case. Moreover, the whole process of trying a priest who has left the denomination already is clearly not designed to discover the truth, but to undermine him in the tug of war that must be going on in Colorado Springs between different factions of parishoners.
A deeper concern is how CANA comes out in all this, and the great risk Archbishop Akinola and Bishop Minns took by bringing the parish in under Rev. Armstrong’s leadership. These circumstances did not come to light after that decision was made; I do sincerely hope that ++Akinola and +Minns also considered the evidence before and are not learning about it after. While a “cardinal parish” under a gifted leader is undoubtedly a “great prize” for a new missionary organization, it could also be a poison pill.
It would also be reassuring to many to hear from Rev. Armstrong’s Bishop that this was looked into carefully before CANA admitted him and his congregation.
To Candace, #39:
Candace, you might want to perform a more thorough research of the facts. Grace Church did receive approval from the Standing Committee in 1989, to do a 15 year, 3 phase, $6,500,000 renovation of the property. I challenge you to look back into the Standing Committee minutes and find exactly that. Further, I have a question for you: why do you have such contempt for someone who has always been so good to you and why do you have such a vested interest into a parish to which you have contributed so little financially? It is hard to understand rationally.
And to Gregory: The charges are unsupported by evidence. Just because Bishop Savanarola and his minions charge something doesn’t make it true. I’m “orthodox” and I don’t consider myself a fool as you so charge. I really resent that. Your blog is pathetic.
The local National Public Radio News reported tonight that the Diocese of Colorado has referred this matter to the local authorities.
And William #2:
You can bet your bottom dollar that ABP Akinola and particularly Bp Minns went into an in depth discernment of bringing Grace and Fr. Armstrong into the CANA fold. They’re no dummies either. BP Bena will be here in the fall for some Anglican business. Strange how all these “orthodox” Clergs feel comfortable dealing with Fr. Armstrong.
Concerned:
Well, now the rubber hits the road. I think there will be some smoke from the burning rubber.
This is now a police matter. You don’t have to fread–you can just listen to the radio:
http://www.krcc.org/krccnews/2007/08/springs_police_investigating_r_1.php
That was an interesting broadcast Godfrey – John Newsome, the DA, and all. John does well to recuse himself from the police investigation since he is probably an unindicted co-conspirator (Ha). Sorry, I got your name wrong in a previous blog. We orthodox are such scatterbrains.
Godfrey
Excellent find!!! I can’t wait for the outcome. The forensic accountant for the Diocese is one of the best around.
Here are a few Proverbs to tide us over:
17:15, Acquitting the guilty and condemning the innocent — the Lord detests them both.
17:26, It is not good to punish an innocent man, or to flog officials for their integrity.
18:5, It is not good to be partial to the wicked or to deprive the innocent of justice.
19:5, A false witness will not go unpunished, and he who pours out lies will not go free.
19: 9, A false witness will not go unpunished, and he who pours out lies will perish.
21:28 A false witness will perish, and whoever listens to him will be destroyed forever.
24:28 Do not testify against your neighbor without cause, or use your lips to deceive.
29:12, If a ruler listens to lies, all his officials become wicked. (The ecclesiastical court)
Look at all the entries above. How is it possible that knowing nothing – as if the case here – should generate such a horror vacui as this? 54 entries about mere animosities. I certainly look forward to the public authorites getting involved so that actual evidence becomes available. LM
Larry: It’s the only way that Don will get a fair hearing. It is sad. So be it.
After the election of Bishop Robinson, Grace parishioners were urged to restrict their pledges to the ministries of Grace Episcopal Church to the exclusion of the National and Diocesan tithe, by writing “restricted†on their pledge checks. Many parishioners left Grace during the years that followed, taking their pledges with them, but other chose to stay at Grace in witness while diverting their giving to other Episcopal parishes in Colorado, to the diocese and to other ministries of the Episcopal Church. A rumour circulated that checks had been returned to parishioners with “restricted†written on them even though the payors had not written it there themselves. Whether that rumour was based on truth or misperception, it seems that many chose to speak through their pocketbooks.
Edited by elf
Well, the person in question’s children benefitted from the same scholarship funds (and far beyond any contributions) that Fr. Armstrong is accused of pilfering. So, if some of us are going to thanklessly get down and dirty, lets go for it.
The Diocese has reports establishing that fact. What do you have to offer?
Edited by elf.
Edited by elf.
Please lighten up.
[i] Slightly edited by elf. [/i]
1. FrankV seems to know Candice Hall…
apologies for the correcction
Well, I guess it is a one way street. Its very difficult getting at the whole truth without exerting a bit of pressure. What’s sauce for the goose ought to be sauce for the gander.
Brian: I’m psychic and I have a true confession from the person involved that just got edited out.
[i] It makes it difficult when one commenter wants to dominate the thread. [/i]
-Elf Lady
Just getting at the truth.