Adams allegations underscore the need for nationwide anti-grooming legislation, and a church policy of zero tolerance
Yesterday, we reported on the sordid allegations of grooming children involving the Rev. Jonathan “Johnny Boy” Adams, rector of Trinity Episcopal in Upperville, Va, and the Diocese of Virginia’s entirely inadequate response to these allegations. We have additional leads coming in about this situation, but wanted to take a moment to share two perspectives:
1. Grooming is, itself, a form of abuse and should be illegal in all 50 states.
2. The church should be a safe place in which grooming is grounds for the immediate removal of any person credibly accused of engaging in it.
Status of legislation
As of this writing, 20 states have passed legislation making grooming a criminal offense. Of those, 18 impose felony penalties.
In every instance, these statutes recognize two important realities:
1. That grooming is, itself, abuse, in that it violates a child’s trust and exposes them to lasting psychological/emotional harm.
2. Law enforcement and child protective services should not need to wait until a predator sexually assaults a child to act.
And while all involved recognize that separating legitimate behavior from ill-intentioned behavior can be challenging under anti-grooming statutes, law enforcement, prosecutors, and courts all have discretion in these matters. Thus, the inherently broad definitions used to identify grooming behavior should not prevent legislative action to address these issues.
Moreover, even in jurisdictions with anti-grooming statutes, more can be done.
Specifically, existing statutes have done little to enhance mandated reporting; none create a civil cause of action.
The latter, in particular, would be a powerful tool for parents whose children have experienced grooming, but whose complaints may not be taken seriously by church officials and others in positions of trust.
Additionally, the lower burden of proof in civil cases, compared with criminal cases, makes it easier for courts to address allegations of grooming.
Church canons should expressly address grooming
Our position is that the church should be among the safest places one can be. While that’s often far from being the case, that’s no reason the church cannot strive to be a safe place for all persons.
In the Adams case, as in many similar cases we’ve covered, church officials don’t appear to realize that grooming is, itself, a form of abuse. Moreover, it’s not a distinct issue, but rather the first step in sexual abuse
And while one would hope that church officials would address grooming under the broad-ranging “conduct unbecoming” provisions of Title IV, we know how well that clause works in real life.
Thus, we believe that the Episcopal Church should amend Title IV to define grooming and treat it as a zero-tolerance offense. And yes, we recognize that just about the only thing that currently is a zero-tolerance offense is having an affair, but if anyone deserves protection, it’s children.
We also note that church officials everywhere — not just in the Diocese of Virginia — rarely recognize grooming when they see it. Or, when they do, they don’t realize that it’s not just questionable behavior — it’s a precursor to disastrous outcomes.
Further reflections on the Trinity Upperville case
In discussing the allegations against the Rev. “Johnny Boy” Adams with mental health professionals, all involved agreed that, assuming the allegations are accurate, there is zero doubt that he’s engaging in grooming behavior.
Thus, as we stated previously, we see no reason to retain Adams in ministry. Grooming is abuse, and any form of abuse should be unacceptable when the perpetrator is clergy. Nor do we understand why a set of secret written instructions from the Diocese of Virginia to “Johnny Boy” Adams is seen as adequate to address conduct that is a felony in 18 states, and illegal in 20.
Next steps
Over the coming days, Anglican Watch will partner with others to see whether we can get anti-grooming legislation passed in Virginia. Unfortunately, we’re much too small to make much of a difference at the national level, but we have enough contacts within the state that we think we can at least get the ball rolling in the right direction.
We will also be reaching out to stakeholders across the Episcopal Church to lobby for anti-grooming policies. Given how resistant the church is to accountability, we’re not optimistic about the prospects of success, but we have to try.
As more information comes in about the Trinity situation, we expect to provide further coverage on this topic in the coming days. We are also weighing various options to further referrals to law enforcement and Child Protective Services, and will provide updates as often as possible on these issues.
Anyone with additional information on this situation is welcome to come forward, and we will absolutely protect your identity if so requested.
You really should check your facts before publishing such outrageous falsehoods. Just because someone doesn’t agree with your politics doesn’t give you the right to blackenvhis name. You are supposed to be Christian and yet you defy the golden rule. Shame on you.
By all means grooming should be and is reprehensible but claiming someone is without proof is worse.
Mrs benefield, member of trinity
Suzanne,
With all due respect, grow up and stop acting like an ass. At age 61, you should have outgrown this level of childish behavior long ago.
We’re talking about the alleged abuse of a child — a profoundly serious issue.
Further points:
– Where did you see that anyone here claims to be a Christian? If you can point me to that source, I would indeed be grateful.
– Certainly, if your definition of Christianity is okay with allegations of child abuse, then no, no one here is a Christian.
– Politics has nothing to do with our coverage, and your comment is inappropriate and childish. If you actually read this publication, you’d see we have been, for example, ardent supporters of very conservative persons who have been hurt by the church, including Mr. David Duggan. And frankly, I have no idea what “Johnny Boy’s” politics are. Nor do I care.
– If you actually bothered to read the police report, you would see that law enforcement officers interviewed multiple individuals before concluding, in writing, as set forth in the report, that “Johnny Boy” is engaging in grooming.
– You also should be aware that the incidence of false reports of child abuse is vanishingly rare, comprising less than 4 percent of all such reports. Thus, it is important to believe people who come forward.
– Additionally, we have more than done our due diligence on these allegations, including interviewing multiple individuals, sending a FOIA to the Faquier Sheriff’s department, interviewing state officials, running background checks on various persons, and more. In addition, we are continuing to acquire information, all of which is consistent with our conclusion that these allegations are accurate.
– Speaking of fact checking:
O Have you interviewed the family of this boy?
O Have you contacted the Church of the Apostles in Atlanta?
O How many diocesan officials have you contacted?
O How many FOIA requests have you sent?
O How many third-party witnesses have you contacted?
O How many state officials have you contacted?
O How many law enforcement professionals have you consulted?
O How many recordings of conversations with diocesan officials do you have?
The answer clearly is none, and you need to keep your mouth shut if you don’t know what you are talking about. Your sense of entitlement is showing, and it’s not a good look.
Again, grow up. It’s time to be a whole lot more worried about the welfare of children, versus the possibility that your precious little slice of stained glass paradise may actually be corrupt. And if your comments are consistent with your concept of Christianity, no thanks. You can keep it.
– Eric Bonetti
Editor
Karen alert.
I live in Delaplane, so anything I say is inherently credible.
I don’t even need facts!
You really are an asshole
What an ignorant jackass.
You really need to read the police report before you open your big mouth. As to politics, you have zero evidence to support your assertion.
Mr. Gloop, sane person
You are a friggin’ idiot, “Mrs benefield.”
Mr. James, member of an ethical church
Wow, you really are a loser.
Children are allegedly being abused, and you’re so stupid that you just take Jonathan’s denials at face value.
Could anyone be more clueless or stupid?
As to your bit about politics, pull your head out of your ass. No one here cares about politics — just the stupidity/venality of people like you.
All:
We understand the ire over the outrageous issues at Trinity Upperville, including OP’s foolish efforts to defend the indefensible. That said, please remember our policies regarding tone/tenor of comments. We’re trying for light-handed moderation, but that requires a degree of self-policing.
At this point, Suzanne either is revisiting her comments, or doubling down on her stupidity. Given the vapid nature of her comments, we suspect she’s doubling down. So there’s little point in continuing to pile on. If nothing else, we have yet to see someone of her ilk own up to their errors.
Eric B.
Editor
Here I thought we were being tactful by not calling “Mrs. Benefield” the names that come to mind.
Mr. H Atekarens
Speaking of politics, maybe “Mrs. Benefield” should lay off the welfare queen routine and stop taking USDA subsidies for her father’s farm via “Foretop LLC.” https://farm.ewg.org/persondetail.php?custnumber=B05581696
The US is running massive deficits under Trump, but she’s nickel and diming the government for all it’s worth. Not something Daddy would approve of.
Shame on you, “Mrs. Benefield.”
Second request, people. Let’s lay off SB.
While we are very candid about our political views, Anglican Watch has long tried to provide a space in which all persons can discuss abuse, misconduct, and change management in the church. While SB’s views are childish, unhelpful, and lacking in intellectual rigor, it is important that we not fall into her trap of making politics part of the discussion.
All persons are welcome on this site, regardless of their political views.
Please adhere to our policies regarding kindness and provable facts. If this isn’t possible, I will shut down conversation on this post altogether, which is not a positive outcome. Indeed, we have fought mightily to preserve First Amendment rights on several occasions, and we strongly feel it is important to be able to discuss these issues without censorship.
So, again: Please be responsible in your comments.
– Eric B.,
Editor
Funny—nowhere do I see Benefield express any concern for the child in question, or his parents. I can only imagine what they have been through.
Nor is the fact that “Johnny Boy” Adams is superficially charming in any way relevant to the underlying allegations. In fact, that fact suggests that “Johnny Boy” may be a malignant narcissist.
Bottom line: Benefield is exactly the sort of Christian that causes actual people of faith to leave organized religion. AKA a complete horse’s ass.