Did Bishop Encourage Decline of Historic St. James?

Did the bishop encourage the decline of historic St. James to advance his international standing? This is one of the underlying questions of Claim 3. If he did, does it rise to the level of conduct unbecoming of a member of the clergy?

A proud parish in 2014 stands to take pride in reviving St. James. Today, this picture could not be taken. Many of the people pictured here no longer attend and serves as testimony to the church's rapid and deliberate decline.

The complaint alleges 5 uncanonical acts. It is this third claim that provides the motivation for the other four.

In 2013, the Bishop declared St. James a mission of the diocese after it was discovered the rector at the time withheld the financial records from the vestry, exhausted a $450,000 trust fund, and the church learned it had limited funds to support its ministry. The new status, (also challenged in the complaint), placed the church under the direct control of a priest-in-charge appointed by the bishop. The congregation no longer had any authority in their church.

In July 2018, the priest-in-charge told the church he had disbanded the choir. He told members of the choir to join nearby Episcopal churches if they wanted to participate in a choir program.

From 2013-2016, the members of St. James’ with their new Priest-in-Charge revived a struggling church. The revival was so stunning that a neighboring Episcopal church asked for guidance and assistance. See here for the remarkable rejuvenation of St. James.

​Under his successor, from 2016 to the present, the church experienced a rapid and sudden decline across all areas of church life. The actions defied logic or explanation. ​

Equally puzzling was the apathy of the Bishop to use the reconciliation process or take appropriate action.

The question has been why?

The complaint alleges Bishop Provenzano developed plans to convert St. James into a learning center for clergy in the international Anglican Community. He deliberately concealed these plans from the congregation and misrepresented his intentions.

It appears from the evidence so far that planning likely started in 2016. Planning for the center coincided with the decline in Sunday attendance from 70-80 to the mid-20s and the elimination of programs and ministries. More importantly, the bishop took no action to address the decline or the systemic issues at the church.

In January 2017, the former warden filed a petition asking for the bishop to intervene. The bishop promised to call a church leadership meeting; however, the bishop broke his promise and none was called. The situation at St. James grew so dire that a 2nd petition was file in February 2017 this time asking the priest-in-charge be removed.

A formal Title IV compliant was filed in March 2017 after not having heard from the bishop. It took the bishop over 500 days to issue the opinion below and only after the former warden mailed a letter to every warden in the diocese asking for support.

“… your Title IV allegation was judged inappropriate for consideration under Title IV and amounted to a typical disagreement between a parishioner and priest. Your continues [sic] reference to it is further inappropriate.”