BishopAccountability.org
	Colorado: Persecution of Orthodox Priest Raises Question: " Was It Worth It Bishop O'Neill?" By Sherry Shinogle Virtue Online October 25, 2007 http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=6951 An independent forensics auditor, Robert D. Johnson CPA P.C., has found the Rev. Don Armstrong, rector of Grace Church & St. Stephen's in Colorado Springs, innocent of alleged theft and fraud. This audit was conducted at the request of the Rt. Rev. Martyn Minns, Bishop of CANA with whom the church is now aligned. It is noteworthy that the Colorado Springs Police Department has done nothing significant concerning these charges, which should have been in their bailiwick from the beginning. They are allegedly still investigating. The Rt. Rev. Rob O'Neill first inhibited Father Armstrong before the most holy of religious events on the Christian calendar -- Christmas -- and then brought him up on charges before the bishop's hand picked court. They found Father Armstrong guilty of all charges even though they admitted in their report (Betzer Report of the Diocese of Colorado) that they did not have access to all the evidentiary information. A statement from the diocese indicates that they still intend to formally pronounce sentencing upon Father Armstrong. What does all this tell us about Bishop O'Neill and his ecclesiastical court? Those who feel that there was misdoing will no doubt dismiss the report as having been done at the behest of those believing in Father Armstrong's innocence. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. Still others will insist the auditor was bought off by the vestry, Father Armstrong, and who knows who else. There are conspiracies around every corner. Others will simply dismiss it, completely convinced that they saw wrong doing. Nothing will change their minds. Bottom line: Bishop O'Neill took the correct steps. On the other side, most will feel vindicated and that they are truly on the righteous side of things. O'Neill was on a witch hunt targeting Father Armstrong. The court was a kangaroo court. Sentencing from O'Neill is meaningless as Father Armstrong and a majority of his congregation are now under the auspices of CANA, having voted to leave the Episcopal Church. What O'Neill was trying to accomplish through his actions in regards to Armstrong and his church is only known to O'Neill. There are two apparent reasons. One says O'Neill wanted to get rid of Armstrong. A second reason is that O'Neill truly believes that Armstrong is guilty of misconduct. Did he perceive Armstrong as some sort of threat that needed to be waylaid? If he did, his course of action could not have had the results he desired. Yes, O'Neill got rid of Armstrong, but in so doing he lost the largest, most prosperous church in the diocese. This is a pubic relations nightmare. More to the point, the diocese has to be taking a tremendous financial hit with the loss of income from Grace Church & St. Stephens. Perhaps, the bishop does truly believe Armstrong is guilty of theft and fraud. His actions are still puzzling. The initial complaint came from an individual. Why wasn't a more thorough and extensive investigation into the charges conducted before smearing Father Armstrong's name in the press? To inhibit a parish's priest right before Christmas, with no more evidence than he apparently had at the time, is inexcusable. Brings us back to the public relations nightmare. If that weren't bad enough, the bishop did it again right before Easter. At least this time, the court had met and determined that Father Armstrong had done wrong. That brings us to that old nemesis "unintended consequences." Regardless of what side of the issue you are on, the results of the bishop's actions are painful, unpleasant, and not what anybody wanted. The vestry of Grace Church, fed up with the bishop's actions, voted to leave the Episcopal Church and align themselves with CANA. This lead to the usual fallout, bad feelings, hurt feelings, accusations, and the inevitable lawsuits. All the arguments over who gets what in the divorce haven't even seen the inside of a courtroom, yet. The Diocese of Colorado has spent $800,000, thus far. Grace Church has spent $500,000. These figures could easily double. Bishop O'Neill, has it been worth it? For all the money you have spent, you have basically accomplished nothing positive. You succeeded in getting the largest, most prosperous church in your diocese to leave. You have inhibited a priest who is unimpressed with your inhibition on the solid ground that you no longer have jurisdiction over him. While the independent auditor's report makes your report look almost laughable, you are proceeding to sentence Father Armstrong. In short, you have generated antipathy and ill feelings within your own diocese. From the viewpoint of this pew sitter, you look inept and foolish. Godliness and forgiveness do not appear to be a part of your management style. Instead of making pronouncement upon Father Armstrong, I would recommend you go on retreat and spend a great deal of time mostly listening to whatever God may have to say to you. May you find your Biblical roots and get back to being a shepherd and not an inquisitor.
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.