As if that weren't enough to throttle the voice of Grace Church's outspoken rector, the bishop has also inhibited him severely, banning him from church property or any parish communication, that he is simply unable to mount a defense. This so frustrated one of his attorneys that the attorney withdrew from the case.

The vestry itself was only given any substantive report of the accusations this past Thursday evening, one year and a day after the bishop began his investigation. Ironically, Martin Nussbaum, the presenting attorney, advised the vestry of its need to sit down with Armstrong to determine what had been done to fulfill its own fiduciary responsibilities, but when asked if that was against the inhibition, Nussbaum had to admit that the bishop had simply precluded either the rector or the vestry from being able defend themselves from the bishop's own threats or to fulfill their roles.

The battle moved into open hostility on Dec. 27, 2006, when O'Neill suddenly removed Armstrong from his parish of 20 years and put him on paid administrative leave. The tactics and tyranny of the bishop and Diocesan Standing Committee can only be described as Gestapo-like as the bishop has not found one shred of evidence that links Armstrong with grand larceny or even financial malfeasance.

Fr. Armstrong is reported to be under ecclesial rectory arrest, totally isolated from his friends, staff, and congregation. His laptop computer and cell phone were ordered by the bishop to be returned to the parish. It would seem that fairness and problem solving were never the goal--silencing an effective and conservative voice has always been the bishop's objective.

The Standing Committee's attorney, under the guise of exploring possible presentment charges against the parish rector has, VOL has learned, been harassing staff, threatening vestry members with personal suit, and pestering parishioners with phone calls at their homes and work, sending multiple certified letters demanding interviews, getting people off by themselves, putting them under some sort of ecclesial oath, and trying to extract statements that can be spun against their rector.

Under godly admonition, the assistant rector has been told to turn over his cell phone records as the investigators desperately try to catch Fr. Armstrong violating his inhibition by talking to staff, clergy or parishioners.

In the mean time, a small contingent of parish liberals have been distracting the vestry with a barrage of petty issues, even using the untimely death of the parish Sunday school director for their own disruptive purposes, the deceased's husband even speaking up at the annual parish meeting, three days after his wife's funeral, using his sympathy card to attack the rector and vestry.

And if that were not Trollopesque enough, going from bizarre to insane, the interim head of the Sunday school has just posted inappropriate remarks about Hillary Clinton's thong on a religious website.

And a deceased husband stood up at the annual parish meeting, three days after his wife's funeral, to use his sympathy card to attack the rector and vestry.

Recently, O'Neill closed two parishes in Colorado Springs, - Holy Spirit and St. Francis - Grace Church is close to being the next if the bishop does not somehow become a pastor trying to find a way forward with healing for all---a novel idea for a man whose gospel is inclusivity and reconciliation for all.

No one believes that this is anything but a witch-hunt aimed at Armstrong who as executive director of the Anglican Communion Institute, the highly effective theological think tank, has been critical of the bishop's pro-gay theology. Press coverage in Colorado has also seen this conflict as nothing more than a political attack by Colorado's opportunistic bishop trying to win favor with Episcopal leaders at the church's headquarters in New York City.

Jean Torkelson, of the Rocky Mountain News, has reported in her columns that Armstrong's supporters say the restrictions are designed to silence the priest outrage over the bishop's and National Church's breaks with traditional teachings on sexuality and scriptural authority.

"This is all about terror - the ability of the church and bishops with deep pockets to terrorize mom and pop (members) in their churches," said the Rev. David Anderson, president of the American Anglican Council (ACC), an advocacy network of traditional Episcopalians.

While the national Church has provided funds to fight breakaway parishes in other states, no money has been given to the Colorado diocese to fight Armstrong, a spokeswoman for the diocese has said.

But this leaves questions. How could a diocese with a $79,000 shortfall for 2007 afford $200,000 to hire attorneys, forensic auditors, and investigators to attack Armstrong?

To help finance Armstrong's legal fees, parishioners have started a defense fund and begun selling bumper stickers that say, "Free Father Armstrong."

Armstrong has never believed that leaving the Episcopal Church was an option, rather staying and fighting for renewal and revival. He and the ACI believe that adherence to the Windsor Report and Camp Allen Principles are the basis for the future hope of a well ordered and disciplined Communion.

But Armstrong is not the first orthodox priest to be silenced and removed from his parish on flimsy grounds; he will certainly not be the last. In the Diocese of Connecticut, the liberal Bishop Drew Smith froze the parish bank accounts and removed the personal computers of St. John's in Bristol, simultaneously ousting the church's longtime rector, the Rev. Mark Hansen. That action by Smith led to a national outcry provoking a legal counteroffensive.

"These cases are perhaps the leading cases in the world on this subject," one attorney observed.

The precedent of using the civil courts to bring revisionist bishops to justice for their persecution of orthodox priests has already been established. Despite four motions to dismiss the case (all of which he lost), Pennsylvania Bishop Charles Bennison will face a jury trial for his fraudulent persecution of Fr. David Moyer.

It is unlikely that the House of Bishops will call O'Neill's hand in his gross abuse of power; they have steadfastly refused to touch Jack Spong, (Newark), Charles Bennison (Pennsylvania) or Orris Walker (Long Island). Their history is one of sitting silently by as TEC implements its program of ecclesial cleansing.

Armstrong's future is uncertain. The fight is shaping up into a battle of the mega-lawyers, as Torkelson observed. What the courts will do with a sensitive church/state issue remains to be seen.

In a note of irony, the liberal rector at Good Shepherd in North Colorado Springs recently announced that he is returning to California leaving his new start up congregation with only 40 worshippers on a Sunday, while a nearby AMiA new start parish is attracting 160!

In the meantime, all powerful revisionist bishops have the authority and backing of the national church to go after defenseless parish priests on virtually any sort of trumped up charge (one Grace parishioner complained to Bishop O'Neill), and a reign of terror can begin that has the potential to ruin not only a godly rector, but leave parishioners disillusioned and fleeing. In the end everyone loses.

END