Anglican Watch

Easton bishop Marray’s misconduct may be motivated by anti-LGBTQ animus

Santosh Kumar Marray

As part of our ongoing investigation into the conduct of Easton bishop Santosh Marray and the Title IV charges filed against him by members of the Diocese of Easton, Anglican Watch has been rummaging into Marray’s past. We are deeply concerned to discover that he has previously opposed same-sex marriage. Our concerns grew when we learned that several persons allegedly bullied by Marray are in same-sex marriages.

What we know

Here’s what we know.

A 2005 edition of Seychelles Nation covers the selection of Marray as Anglican bishop of the Seychelles. The article states that, prior to his election, Marray served a church in Florida.

It goes on to say:

“There were three candidates, the other two being Canon Bryan Adeline, a Seychellois based in Mauritius and South African Canon Oswald Swartz, all of whom have appeared before the 23-member electoral committee,” church chancellor Bernard Georges said.

“They had a chance to interview each of them earlier on issues like whether they favour the ordination of women, same sex marriages and the marriage in church of divorcees,” he said.

Georges said Marray believes divorcees can remarry in church, but after careful scrutiny of their behaviour.

He told Nation that the bishop-elect does not condone same sex marriages but believes in the ordination of women priests.

After the elections, Bishop Ernest immediately called the bishop-elect on telephone and said that Marray is keen to come over to Seychelles.

Although Marray speaks English only, the administrator of the Anglican church, Reverend Danny Elizabeth, said that the bishop-elect had expressed confidence that he will be able to learn Creole fast, and that language will not be a barrier to his work as bishop.

Anglican Watch notes that Marray’s previous church in Jacksonville is not particularly LGBTQ-friendly. Moreover, we are mindful of the unhealthy dynamics within the Diocese of Florida, including former bishop John Howard’s dismal track record on LGBTQ+ issues.

Another hint into Marray’s worldview is that he is a proponent of a worldwide Anglican Covenant. The Covenant was a proposal by conservatives to define marriage as between one man and one woman, and to implement ways to force provinces to adhere to this perspective.

All we can say about the proposed Anglican Covenant is, “Yikes.” Not only do we support inclusion, but the beauty of the Anglican Communion is its range of views. Establishing a litmus test is inconsistent with Anglican polity, and proponents should be careful; Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

As for Marray’s decision to include this information in his online bio, we can only surmise that Marray decided to include it on the basis that it made him seem like a power player, and serves as a dog whistle to reactionary members of the church.

Our conclusions

Can we say with certainty that Marray is a homophobe? No, we cannot.

But Anglican Watch’s review of allegations of spiritual, relational, and emotional abuse involving Marray suggests a high correlation between being in a same-sex relationship and facing traumatic experiences with Marray.

In fairness, we note that Marray is on record as opposing DOMA legislation while serving as an assistant bishop in East Carolina. But assistant bishops are obligated to follow the lead of the bishop diocesan, who, in this case, supported marriage equality.

Moreover, the Diocese of Easton under Marray has a Diversity Awareness Commission. However, we see no references to the issue of marriage equality or LGBTQ+ inclusion on the Commission’s webpage, and it appears that most of the work done by the group focuses on racial reconciliation. (On that score, we maintain our position, which is that while we wholeheartedly endorse racial reconciliation, the Sacred Circles, book studies, and other activities coming out of the Episcopal Church are largely virtue-signaling and empty, feel-good, transactional solutions.)

On the other hand, Anglican Watch notes an interesting aside in the Seychelles article: Marray appears to speak English primarily. That’s of consequence because Marray likes to explain away his bullying behavior on the basis that English is his second language and others don’t understand what he’s trying to say.

On that score, we call BS on Marray: All evidence suggests he understands what he is saying and its implications, but like many narcissists, he likes to pull the “who, me?,” routine when someone objects.

As to Marray and his overall conduct, we are not mental health professionals and cannot this with certainty, but we believe he is a grandiose narcissist. Moreover, we see a lack of empathy, a frequent disregard for the truth, and a level of manipulation/Machiavellianism that suggests sociopathy.

Consider: Marray’s claims that anyone who criticizes him is trying to make his wife a widow. How criticism correlates with morbidity escapes us, especially since criticism is an inherent cost of leadership.

Similarly, Marray’s references to critics as agents of Satan is pretty over-the-top. We know of very few Episcopalians who believe in a literal Satan, and referring to members of the Standing Committee as agents of Satan is spectacularly inappropriate. (In our experience, if there is a Satan, s/he wears a mitre and chasuble and carries a crozier in the course of their Sunday travels. Say hello to Alan GatesHolly Hollerith, and Brenda Curry for us, will you?)

Next steps

That leads us to the question of next steps. Anglican Watch believes investigators in the current Title IV proceedings against Marray should interview the complainants and others to assess the possibility of anti-LGBTQ+ animus.

On a larger scale, we believe psychological testing for Marray is important, including screening for clinical and sub-clinical levels of narcissism and sociopathy.

That said, it is important to choose the right professional for this testing, as we believe Marray is sufficiently facile that he will lie and charm his way throughout testing — even as he figures out which are the “correct” answers.

We also remind the national church of its obligation to provide a pastoral response in ALL cases in which a Title IV complaint is made. Historically, the office of presiding bishop ignores this requirement, even as dirtbag Todd Ousley, the bishop in charge of the Office of Pastoral Development, gasses on about the importance of a pastoral response.

We further note that pastoral care is expressly not the same as a pastoral response, although it may be a component of a pastoral response. An appropriate pastoral response may include counseling, access to financial resources, help to engage in self-care, and numerous other elements, all predicated on the needs of injured parties. But in all cases, disclosure is a vital component of healing.

Also of importance is the importance of transparency. While the names of the complainants are confidential until the case reaches a hearing panel, the presiding bishop has the discretion to waive other confidential issues in order to provide an appropriate pastoral response.

Relatedly, Todd Ousley must keep his manipulative little sniffer out of these cases. We have repeatedly seen that Ousley’s only real role in the church is to run interference for corrupt bishops, which is proving profoundly damaging to the denomination. Moreover, Ousley’s lack of personal integrity sets an appalling example for other bishops.

Indeed, as we have often said, if General Convention does not act decisively on these matters, the Episcopal Church faces irreparable reputational damage.

As to the Diocese of Easton, we encourage members of the Standing Committee and other leaders to take a dispassionate look at the allegations around Marray. Yes, Marray can be charming when he so chooses, and he knows how to deploy the empty Jesus-babble when needed. But taking the real measure of his role as a bishop involves looking at his conduct, which consists of lying, bullying, spiritual abuse, and more. “By their fruits you shall know them.”

Finally, we remind judicatories at both the national and diocesan levels of the oath that bishops make at consecration: “to serve all people, particularly the poor, the weak, the sick, and the lonely.”

Based on what we have seen, Marray’s conduct in no way reflects the oath he made at his consecration.

In other words, it’s time for him to shape up or ship out. And if he indeed is a narcissist, he cannot shape up, so he will need to go.

Simple as that.


  1. The evidence against Mr. Marray, showing him unfit to serve as bishop continues to mount. He is a very unfortunate example of what is wrong with The Episcopal Church. Marray exhibits ugly, antisocial behavior. He abuses people and his power. He may also be targeting people in minority groups. All of this is possible because Mr. Marray has been encouraged to believe that he can get away with it. Not enough people are requiring him to be accountable, and to stand as an exemplar of the Gospel, and the explicit values of The Episcopal Church. Meanwhile, the risk of retaliation and other abuse against the complainants remains. This highlights our need for The Episcopal Church, The Diocese of Easton, and its local parishes to do more, and everything that is needed, to disarm him. The Title IV investigations into Marray appear to be in limbo. Meanwhile, there is the prospect of Mr. Ousey running interference for Mr. Marray, while serving at the Presiding Bishop’s pleasure. Concern grows that the institution will wind up enabling further abuse, lies, and dysfunction, while contributing to the demise of the Church, which is already low on members willing to support local parishes and affiliated dioceses prayerfully, with their time, energy and money.

    1. Thank you for your comments. We agree 100 percent and are working on an article about Title IV in the context of Murray. Key points are that, as implemented, Title IV is too adversarial at intake, with far too many bishops and dioceses refusing to see it for what it should be, which is an opportunity to fix a problem before things get ugly. That said, Title IV is too conciliatory once it clears intake, with far too much emphasis placed on conciliation, regardless of the respondent’s ability to live into any accord that might result.

      In Mr. Marray’s case, our take on it is that he’s a malevolent narcissist. As such, any apology or promise to change direction is nothing but an effort to regroup and buy time until he can find a way to retaliate.

      Feel free to quote us.

    2. PS Yes, the risk that Ousley will tamper and try to run interference is high. He and the presiding bishop seem to be in a contest to see who can implode the denomination more quickly, and we remain aghast at Ousley’s corruption.

      Indeed, Ousley’s hypocrisy would be laughable were the results not so serious. Visit the Title IV website and he gasses on about a pastoral response, yet he never, to our knowledge, provides one. Nor during his tenure, or that of Clay Mathews, did the OOPD attempt to marshall the resources needed for an effective pastoral response, which include mediators, mental health professionals, pastoral counselors, and others.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Exit mobile version