Obviously, until the Diocese of Ottawa took possession of the building in July 2011, the parish specialised in being unwelcoming and exclusive – which is odd, since the old unwelcoming St. Alban’s has about 100 people [correction: the number is 200] attending its Sunday services and the welcoming New St. Alban’s had absolutely nobody until the diocese moved another parish’s congregation into the building.
What the bishop really means, of course, is that the New St. Alban’s believes that active homosexuality is a Biblically approved lifestyle: the new rector, Rev. Mark Whittall, eager to reinforce the point, marched in the Ottawa Pride parade.
From here (page 13):
As you probably know, the Diocese has returned to St. Alban’s more than three years after the previous clergy resigned from the Anglican Church of Canada to join the breakaway Anglican Network in Canada. It is most regrettable that the parish felt it needed to take this step because they opposed the direction the national church was taking.
However, through mediation and negotiation an agreement was reached for the clergy to leave the church so that we could re-establish the Anglican Church of Canada here.
We should point out that only the clergy were forced to leave – the members of the congregation are most welcome to stay. We also hope to build up membership with the help of former parishioners
who were alienated by the direction taken in recent years.
We are recovering our ancient mission as an Anglican church to be totally welcoming and inclusive. That means that everyone, including the poor and the marginalized, are assured of a warm welcome here.
Our asa is around 200, actually. Welcome to stay, eh. He’ll go to great lenghts to maintain that fiction, won’t he?
I thought that the “ancient mission” of the Church was to spread the Word of God and to make deciples of all nations. As far as “welcoming and inclusive” goes, is that not what the word “catholic” used to mean? But perhaps in the politically correct newspeak the Bishop might not want to make even a passing reference to the fact that the Church is supposed to be One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic.
“We should point out that only the clergy were forced to leave – the members of the congregation are most welcome to stay.”
So long as they keep quiet and open their wallets, presumably?
And I thought that liberal clergy used to call this sort of game “sheep stealing”, with their usual contempt for the people in the pews.
I don’t think these curious characters, devoid of principle or empathy, have any future. Not even stolen money in looted buildings will help them much.
I do wonder why the parishioners don’t sue the diocese for obtaining money by deception when it took their contributions, tho. After all, if the diocese let the people suppose they were contributing to “their” church, surely the diocese is liable for misrepresentation?
But should we have a sweepstake on how long before they put the property up for sale? (And isn’t it extraordinary that the courts take no cognisance of who built it, who paid for it, and who actually will use it, preferring to hand it to someone who did none of those things and will simply sell it?)
It won’t be put up for sale, it is a heritage building. There is a neighbouring church whose building is in rough shape and whose membership is declining. My guess is that it (All Saints) will be closed and the people encouraged to go to St. Alban’s, and that All Saints will be sold. Same difference for the diocese.
As for us – we aren’t interested in sueing. We are done, it is time to look forward now.