Anglican Watch Title IV recommendations

October 12, 2023 The Standing Commission on Structure, Governance, Constitution and Canons Via online form Via electronic mail to: gc.support@episcopalchurch.org . Getty Title IV Comments and Recommendations Dear Sisters and Brothers in Christ: In response to your request for comments and recommendations about Title IV, we offer the following. These recommendations are based on our work with numerous Title IV complainants and victims, and also reflect our personal experiences with a deeply flawed process.

We begin with the notion that there is a profound need to change our current disciplinary process.

There is also important misunderstanding we need to address: The problem with Title IV and bishops typically is not that bishops receive preferential treatment. It is that they receive the same treatment as other clergy, and that treatment is unacceptable.

Specifically, judicatories far too often ignore Title IV complaints at every level. Alternatively, judicatories misuse the materiality clause of Title IV, or reference panels refer the matter for a "pastoral response," then do nothing.

At the heart of the issue is that bishops who ignore Title IV complaints face no consequences.

Nor is there any recourse if a bishop chooses this option. Bishops who do this include: 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Glenda Curry Alan Gates Shannon Johnston Susan Goff Michael Curry

Another issue is the misuse of the "weighty and material" clause. This happens often, including when express allegations of criminal conduct have been made. Bishops who do this include: 1. Alan Gates 2. Shannon Johnston 6 Liberty Square, Suite 2577 Boston, MA 02109 240-630-3767 www.anglicanwatch.com

3.

4.

5.

6.

Susan Goff Michael Curry George Sumner Todd Ousley

Todd Ousley is particularly problematic. Specifically, if someone files a complaint against a bishop who has ignored Title IV, Ousley portrays the matter as being unhappy with the outcome of a Title IV complaint. But ignoring a Title IV complaint or sandbagging it is, by definition, not a legitimate Title IV outcome.

Even now, with Ousley not handling intake, there is zero communication with complainants and no pastoral response. Those factors only enhance the underlying trauma abuse victims face.

Another factor that undercuts Title IV: Many judicatories remain stuck in a 1950s time warp, where only sex, drugs, children, and money count. Everything else is a maybe at best. Even now, we have cases in the Title IV system where priests accused of criminal activity remain active. Yet, a priest who has an affair is often gone within days or weeks.

Further, two issues are poorly handled in Title IV cases: Domestic violence by clergy and bullying.

Right now, Anglican Watch is working with a female victim of domestic violence whom professionals have warned is at extreme risk of physical violence, even death. Yet he continues as a priest and the diocese has done NOTHING to ensure her safety.

Similarly, the Dioceses of Virginia and Massachusetts repeatedly brushed off my own experience with bullying, illegal conduct, and threats of physical violence by a priest. No effort at a pastoral response was made.

Here are specific recommendations for improving Title IV, offered in no particular order: •

• • •

There should be a national database for ALL complaints of clergy misconduct, with intake officers required to report all complaints. This would increase visibility, promote accountability, and help flag cases that are being ignored. Additionally, it would help flag spiritual abuse and boundary violations -- which may allow judicatories to identify emerging issues before they become full-on crises.

We recommend establishing an alternative path forward for complainants whose bishops ignore Title IV. This path should involve the national church.

We recommend a national ethics hotline, both to handle issues of fraud, waste, and mismanagement, and to serve as an alternative point of intake for Title IV complaints.

Todd Ousley must not remain as head of the office of pastoral development. Indeed, with the Rev. Carol Cole Flanagan on the line, he once told me on a phone call that the presiding bishop lacks the authority to tell bishops diocesan what to do. I replied that his

•

•

• •

•

• •

•

•

•

•

approach is inconsistent with the express language of the canons, and that the phrase in question is "pastoral directive." Thus, he is not suited to train other bishops.

We still see far too much confusion about the role of Title IV, even in the presiding bishop's office. For example, Todd Ousley states that he gets 50 or so complaints a year, but only 4 or 5 are actionable under Title IV. Yet if we treat Title IV as an opportunity to promote health and reconciliation, a dismissal should be remarkably rare.

Similarly, far too many bishops still don’t see Title IV as an opportunity. The process is an opportunity to solve problems — problems that, if ignored, dismissed, or brushed aside, will cause lasting harm to the church. Thus, a complaint, until it reaches a hearing panel, should be viewed as a blessing and an opportunity to heal the church, versus an unwelcome and annoying bit of busy work.

Abuse of power is a huge issue among bishops. Far too many see themselves as minimonarchs, versus servant leaders.

We still see a profound lack of understanding around the definition of "pastoral response." Even the best bishops still treat it as offering a priest for hand-holding--which may not be at all what is needed.

All bishops and clergy should have training -- and access to resources -- to immediately respond to complaints of domestic violence. This should include safe housing options for clergy spouses who face imminent threats of violence -- whether it is renting a hotel room, finding space at a seminary, or locally owned options.

There must be a possibility of appeal from a dismissal at intake or the decision to offer a pastoral response. These mechanisms are often misused.

Bishops should expressly know that if they sandbag or ignore a Title IV case, they face immediate discipline. A bishop who does not honor her obligations under Title IV is acting without integrity.

There is an inherent problem with having the bishop involved on the reference panel. In almost every case, they experience conflict between their pastoral role to clergy and their responsibility for discipline. And because intake officers often are parts of the bishop’s inner circle, the bishop and the intake officer almost always vote together, even if the outcome is inappropriate.

Church attorneys should not be able to dismiss a case without oversight. And much like the role of the bishop at intake, church attorneys typically come from a small pool of insiders and often come replete with a series of ethical and practical conflicts.

There remains far too little transparency in Title IV. Even now, in the case involving the PHOD, all we know is the procedural context. This does nothing to help understand what happened, who was pulling strings behind the scenes, and more. But we would be prepared to say that, had Michael Curry objected to the dismissal of the case, Brad Davenport would have changed direction.

We still see far too many cases in which dioceses bollix the requisite pastoral response in Title IV cases. Similarly, this component remains essential when a priest is allowed to resign in lieu of Title IV; there is far more to church health than just getting the offender out. There is a need for pastoral care, careful conversation, and disclosure. And we do not see a meaningful pastoral response in the case involving the PHOD.

• •

•

•

•

• •

•

•

•

•

•

We are big fans of Robin Hammeal-Urban's book, "Wholeness After Betrayal." It should be required reading in seminary and for all bishops.

Another huge problem: We see the same names over and over again in the Title IV process, regardless of qualification. For example, Brad Davenport shows up all over the place. Yet his views are out of step with the current status of the Title IV process. For example, he's continuing to pursue the laughable case of Cayce Ramey in Virginia, which is nothing more than an effort to make a point on Ramey's part as he leaves ministry.

Yet he dismissed the PHOD case. Not acceptable.

Thus, we encourage the church to develop alternatives to a church attorney. For example, the position could be one of Church Representative, in which a person knowledgeable in Title IV sets forth the church's position.

The Hearing Panel process is far too legalistic. It should be possible to pursue a hearing without discovery schedules, hearing notices, depositions, and all those trappings. Any reasonable layperson who can write, follow procedures, and develop a persuasive argument should be able to represent the church. A lawyer should not be required.

We continue to see church attorneys improperly involved in Title IV. In a very recent case in EDOD against the Rev. David Halt, the chancellor himself issued a notice of dismissal. Yet the chancellor has no role in the intake process and no authority to issue notices on behalf on the reference panel. He also has a major conflict of interest and ethics problem in serving in both roles.

The church does itself a huge disservice by demonizing its critics.

At the most basic level, one of the great challenges facing the church is building a culture of integrity, accountability and urgency. All have been issues in the church for decades, and nothing ever seems to change.

We also see a deeply flawed theology of forgiveness. Forgiveness is not, “I don’t want to get involved.” Nor is it rewarding misconduct. It involves reparation, repentance, and amendment of life.

Far too many judicatories play the you-do-too game. Specifically, if they conclude that the complainant did something wrong, the clergyperson gets off scott-free. But Title IV only applies to clergy, and clergy always are responsible for maintaining boundaries. No exceptions. If the layperson did something wrong — not uncommon when dealing with trauma — it has no bearing on the Title IV case. None.

We see many dioceses that are not compliant with the recent changes to the model policies. Indeed, the national church is still not compiling audit information. This needs to change.

Online training materials are not appropriate for mission-critical messaging. Indeed, many dioceses have zeroed out budgets for safe church training. But in corporate America, mission critical messaging is almost always delivered in-person. Thus, online materials are good for refresher courses and those who are geographically remote. But they are not useful for foundational training.

We continue to see far too many clergy who are able to move between dioceses without adequate screening. We encourage adoption of standards post-ordination, including annual background checks and psych evals every five years.

•

•

There’s an alarming lack of understanding within the church, at every level, about “skeletons in the sacristy.” Far too often, we hear church members and judicatories say, “That happened before I got here,” or “I wasn’t involved.” But conflict ignored is conflict multiplied, and we see countless parishes and dioceses that simply ignore problems. As a result, conflict and unhealthy relational dynamics sometimes continue for decades within the church.

Much like the Manual of Business Methods, Title IV needs implementing regulations, if you will. The church a policy manual that lays out when a complaint can be dismissed, how complaints should be handled, etc. And we need definitions around issues like bullying, spiritual abuse, abuse of power, etc. Many Catholic dioceses have such manuals, and many go much further than do Episcopal policies in addressing bullying, harassment, and other matters that, in our system, get brushed off as “interpersonal conflicts.

In closing, we wish to reiterate a previous finding of this commission: “a poorly handled Title IV matter can cause unnecessary — and often irreparable — harm to both relationships and reputations of all parties involved. The Church has a responsibility to remediate any unnecessary costs, both relational and financial.”

Our experience is that this is painfully true, but rarely recognized among bishops, intake officers, and judicatories.

Feel free to contact us if you need additional information on these topics.

Regards,

Eric J. Bonetti, J.D. Editor