Anglican Samizdat

March 15, 2009

Diocese of Niagara: The lies become outrageous

The diocese of Niagara has invited all to attend its diocesan service at St. Hilda’s:

“These are services of healing and rebuilding and we hope will be attended by returning and continuing parishioners.” We hope that all who wish to worship in an Anglican Church of Canada, Diocese of Niagara service will feel welcome.

One of St. Hilda’s ANiC parishioners  has taken upon himself the task of paying a visit to the diocesan service to see how things are going every time a new “priest in charge” materialises. This morning was a typical service.

Present: Two “priests in charge”, Cheryl Fricker and Sue-Ann Ward; one piano player; one lay-reader.

Absent: A congregation.

Our intrepid visitor, having penetrated deep behind enemy lines, soon discovered that there was nowhere to hide;  there were no people present, only priests to contain the potential crowds. It did start to fill up towards the end: a mother and child wandered in. Feeling rather exposed, our visitor declined Communion, but was cornered at the end of the service by the “priests in charge”.

They wanted to know what he was doing there; clearly the appearance of someone new was an unanticipated shock. The ANiC guest responded by asking what the diocese were doing there, since they had no congregation. Then things went rapidly down-hill; our fearless fact-finder pointed out that the diocesan leadership is corrupt, at which point one of the lady “priests in charge” took a firm grip on his elbow and asked him to leave. In the Anglican Church of Canada, this is called “having a conversation”.

Corruption at the top is not always easy to prove; it is with the Diocese of Niagara, though.

Here is an excerpt from a recent affidavit by Archdeacon Michael Patterson:affidavit-patterson

In spite of this being an official court document, it has all the appearance of being a great big fib.

Here is the resultant proboscis:

Add an Image

Michael "Pinocchio" Patterson

Advertisements

10 Comments

  1. Liars and wannabe thieves.

    Comment by Jim Muirhead — March 15, 2009 @ 2:38 pm

  2. Talk about outrageous lies this blog is a perfect example!

    Comment by Beatrice Lake — March 15, 2009 @ 2:46 pm

  3. At least the mother and child prove they had an “inter age” congregation. Too bad they were not inclusive enough to take you out for coffee at St Tim’s afterwords and really get to know you. Make you a friend if not a convert. It always pays to try. Sort of a Christian thing to do.

    Comment by Gawk — March 15, 2009 @ 2:49 pm

  4. Beatrice is it this blog that lies or the diocese. You are not clear on that point. Could be construed either way.

    Comment by Gawk — March 15, 2009 @ 2:51 pm

  5. Beatrice Lake should stop her emotional commenting until she has actual facts.

    Comment by Share — March 15, 2009 @ 4:09 pm

  6. So Beatrice,
    Is it “15 to 25 adults and children” or isn’t it? If it is anything less, that is lying to the court and is called perjury.
    With respect to theft, what do you call someone who attempts to take something they haven’t paid for?
    Peace,
    Jim

    Comment by Jim Muirhead — March 15, 2009 @ 10:20 pm

  7. Well, well, my little comment has seemed to stir up some hostility hasn’t it? It has caused me to, as you say, read up on some of the facts. So I did, I read the court ruling of May 5th and it seems clear that the title and ownership has always been understood as that of the Diocese. The deed is in the Diocese name according to that document. I imagine that you folks like most church goers received tax receipts for all your givings for the ministry including the building, mortgage, maintenance and rectors salary. I give to many charities including churches, hospitals and universities, but I don’t presume ownership by my giving. At any rate it seems from what I read, that the issue of ownership will be decided in the courts at some later date.

    The current issue seems to be interim shared use – which the Diocese has offered, the court approved and the ANiC seems not to want to do? You quote the welcome of the Diocese for all who wish to come and worship and yet you clearly state that your intrepid visitor was not coming to worship but for some other reason, presumably to spy on what the Diocese is doing while using the space they are currently sharing with the ANiC. Lent is a good time to examine the intentions of our hearts, and to try and better live Jesus commandment to love one another.
    I think all of us who call ourselves followers of Jesus can do better at living that commandment.

    Comment by Beatrice Lake — March 20, 2009 @ 10:08 am

  8. Beatrice,

    Is it 15 to 20 or not?

    Quite clearly the Diocese needs watching.

    Do a bit more reading. There are two decisions that came to diametrically opposed results. If the issue was as simple as your reading of it, the courst cases would be over and done with.
    It was the Diocese that initiated court proceeding (over Christmas), inspite of impassioned pleas from the ANiC leadership to mediate. (There are several open letters from Bishop Don to that effect.)
    You are at a distint disadvantage here. A number of the Bloggers were actually in face-to-face meetings with the Diocese and participated in the court actions
    The “sharing” gave the Diocese the prime Sunday slot and, in the case of St. Hilda’s they sent a lawyer’s letter warning court action if the parishioners used their own parking lot. (David please amplify).
    One of the few things that bothers me more than liars are bullies and the Diocese, by its actions, is both.
    Peace,
    Jim

    Comment by Jim Muirhead — March 20, 2009 @ 10:35 am

  9. David please amplify

    The diocesan lawyer sent the Niagara ANiC parishes a letter stating that the ANiC parishioners should not be on any part of the property during the diocese’s time. After a write-up on this on the Essentials blog, the diocese realised that this gave a rather heavy handed impression, so it posted the ‘clarification’ on its site. There was never a retraction letter from the lawyer, though, so it was clear that how things appeared was what mattered to the diocese.

    Comment by David — March 20, 2009 @ 10:46 am

  10. The intruder speaks.Since I was actually at St.Hilda’s I saw first hand the so-called 15-25 persons listening (on the edge of their seats)to every word of the so-called sermon.If your reasons (as I was told) for being at St.Hilda’s is to spread the word of the lord (and that was an example) then I would suggest you will need a miracle to have anyone attend. Other than your current St.Adian’s parishioners and a few others who are trying to support a political position why would a true practicing christian associate with this type of behaviour?

    I would like to further say that St.Hilda’s parishioners left based on a verdict by the judge.This verdict was reached in part based on lies and deceit that was contained in the submission by the Diocese.This continues as proven by M.Patterson recently stating in writing that St.Hilda,s has 15-25 people atteding your services.

    If you are someone who worships people like this then you are in the right company.

    The Intruder

    Walter

    PS I’ll be back

    Comment by walter — March 24, 2009 @ 3:51 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: