Diocese of New York says in writing that sexual assault is “appropriate,” even as it re-traumatizes the victim of abuse at St. Thomas’ and ignores the plain language of the Title IV disciplinary canons.

Today’s post highlights one of the ugliest aspects of the failed parish and diocesan responses to allegations of abuse at St. Thomas Church Fifth Avenue. Specifically, in addition to retaliating against the complainant, the parish and the Diocese have gone out of their way to harm the complainant, with the Diocese even saying in writing that Mark Schultz’s sexual assault/groping of the complainant was acceptable. And no, that’s not a typo.

Background

The primary victim first notified both the parish and the diocese about being sexually groped by the Rev. Mark Schultz in December 2024. The victim notified both entities of two full-on sexual assaults in January 2025.

The latter included one incident involving parish employee Bill Davis. The other, more traumatic, incident involved Schultz’s husband, St. Thomas’ pornographer-in-residence, Erich Erving.

Botched parish and diocesan response to sexual assault

And how did the parish and the diocese respond?

Not with care. Not with concern.

Instead, here’s what they did:

1. February 2, 2025, Matthew Moretz sent a notice to the complainant barring him from the church premises.
2. On February 12, 2025, the Diocese dismissed a Title IV clergy disciplinary complaint against the Rev. Carl Turner for retaliation for filing a complaint of sexual harassment.
3. On February 12, 2025, the Diocese dismissed a Title IV clergy disciplinary complaint against the Rev. Mark Schultz over sexual assault/unwanted touching. Even worse, the Diocese said: “we conclude that the Respondent’s conduct toward the Complainant was appropriate.”
4. On February 12, 2025, Bishop Heyd barred the complainant from all churches in the Diocese of New York. Under church canons, Heyd does not have this authority.
5. On July 20, 2025, St. Thomas had Schultz preach at the 11:00 am Festal Mass.

To date, the Diocese has done nothing to care for the complainant, despite the fact that a pastoral response (not the same as pastoral care) is one of the first and highest priorities when someone complains to an intake officer.

To be clear, we teach children that certain parts of the body are not for others to touch without permission.

Yet Schultz, Davis, and others have violated this most basic aspect of misconduct prevention — and now Schultz, who was arrested and criminally charged for his behavior — is preaching at the 11 AM Mass. We object in the strongest possible terms to anyone who has been arrested and criminally charged for sexual misconduct preaching at Mass or in any way participating in the life of the church

So why does the Diocese say that this behavior is appropriate? And would the Diocese be okay with having Schultz preach if, for example, he had grabbed a woman’s breasts? Or a child’s genitalia?

We hope not, and we wonder why this case is different.

Judicatories don’t know their role

We’re also deeply concerned about how the Diocese of New York handles Title IV complaints.

Specifically, per the Canons, neither the intake officer nor the Title IV reference panel has the authority to make findings of fact. Yet, that is exactly what the reference panel purported to do per the two notices of dismissal it sent to the complainant. Even as the Diocese said, in writing, that sexual harassment is okay.

Here is a screen cap from the church’s Title IV training materials:

Here are redacted versions of the two notices of dismissal. The first is the one in which the Reference Panel signs off on sexual assault.

Pretextual retaliation

Relatedly, the Diocese’s pretextual excuse for barring the complainant for allegedly violating the parish’s weapons policy is deeply offensive.

Not only is the complainant legitimately armed due to certain career issues, but both Turner and church security NEVER had an issue with it prior to the primary victim complaining about sexual harassment. And both had actual knowledge that the complainant had, on multiple occasions, entered the church carrying a concealed weapon, but voiced no objections.

In other words, if it was such a big issue, why didn’t anyone say anything at the time?

Speaking of security….

Meanwhile, as we previously posted, Carl Turner was actually aware in December 2024 of security concerns about church security guard Tristan Rodas.

But it’s only now, seven months later, that the church has removed Rodas as a contracted, unlicensed security guard.

So once again, we’re left wondering: Someone complains about sexual assault, and gets barred from every church in DioNY, but a convicted felon who sells heroin to kids, uses kids in the commission of felonies, and has faced weapons charges is okay? Or a guy with felony convictions for violence? Why aren’t these people barred from every Episcopal church in the Diocese?

How long does it take?

Meanwhile, it’s now eight months since the primary victim came forward about abuse at St. Thomas. Since then, others have come forward, but the Diocese still hasn’t done jack diddly. Yes, there are some minor changes around the periphery, but nothing meaningful has yet happened.

Let’s look at that in context.

The Warren Commission, which investigated the assassination of President Kennedy and prepared an 888-page final report, took testimony from 552 witnesses, compiled 3,100 exhibits, and ultimately released more than 16,000 pages of documentation.

Moreover, although the Warren Commission hearings were private in all but one case, witnesses were free to discuss their testimony — a decision expressly made in the interest of transparency and accountability.

In the Diocese’s case, the exact opposite approach applies. Indeed, DioNY continues its frantic efforts to look for leaks, even as the parish and the Diocese try to sit in splendid silence. This, despite the fact that everyone and their twin brother knows there are major problems at St. Thomas — including other victims of abuse who have come forward.

No apology, no retraction, no disclosure

Indeed, any good lawyer knows that if your client says something defamatory about someone, it’s important to immediately issue a retraction and an apology. Despite Carl Turner’s defamatory email about the primary victim, neither has happened.

And while the parish was quick to send the defamatory email out about the primary victim in this case, it won’t even send a truthful email about the departure of Tristan Rodas, the purveyor of heroin to high school kids.

At the same time, the Diocese’s decision to remain silent is stupid and traumatizing.

Per the canons, the bishop diocesan has the authority to discuss Title IV issues in order to provide a pastoral response to those affected by misconduct. By definition, that includes the Saint Thomas community.

Despite these provisions, the Diocese continues to disregard the pastoral needs of the parish. As a result, rumors are flying in all directions, both at St. Thomas’ and in the Diocese as a whole. And when someone finally does speak up, it’s going to be a case of too little, too late.

It’s time to sue

If there’s one thing we’ve learned from this situation, it’s that the Episcopal Diocese of New York is not a safe place. Those who report abuse do so at their own peril. And St. Thomas’ is crooked as a corkscrew when it comes to personal and organizational integrity.

It’s also clear that both the Diocese and St. Thomas view truth-tellers as enemies. That’s sad because any hope of change depends on people’s willingness to bring lightness into the dark. And the Episcopal Church and St. Thomas must change if they want to survive.

Nor is the Diocese’s implementation of Title IV done with integrity. No one gave the reference panel the authority to go rogue by making findings of fact, and all involved know better.

As a result, it’s very clear to us that any Title IV outcome in this matter is going to turn out half-baked, at best. Thus. we encourage the primary victim and the others who have come forward to proceed with plans to sue both the parish and the Diocese. We also encourage persons of integrity to withhold all financial support to the parish and the Diocese until they clean up their acts, which starts with a public, written apology to the victim.

At this point, withholding funds and legal action against the church are the only strategies with any real likelihood of forcing Saint Thomas’ and the Diocese to clean up their acts.