Anglican Watch

Easton’s Bishop Marray reportedly facing multiple Title IV complaints over his bullying

Santosh Kumar Marray

Anglican Watch has learned that controversy is boiling over in the Diocese of Easton, located on Maryland’s Eastern Shore, amidst a series of Title IV clergy disciplinary complaints against the bishop diocesan.

The Rt. Rev. Santosh K. Marray, Bishop of Easton, announced during a January Diocesan Council meeting that he was the respondent in four Title IV complaints filed with the Intake Officer for Bishops during the previous summer.

He reported that there were fourteen signatories, thirteen of whom had been coerced or manipulated into signing by only one disgruntled priest in the Diocese. The Bishop stated that the goal of this group of fourteen was to make his beloved wife of 47 years, Lynn, a widow.

Bishop Marray offered an additional report on the Title IV process at the Clergy Conference of the Diocese of Easton (April 29 – May 1). He asserted that all of the alleged instances of misconduct filed against him were fabrications and that he eventually would be exonerated.

Bishop Marray was elected as the eleventh Bishop of Easton in 2016. For the first few years of his episcopate, he repeatedly deplored what he claimed was the deceptive description of the Diocese he had been given as a candidate. He frequently and publicly criticized the incompetence of the Bishops who had preceded him. He would often add, “God has sent me to rescue and revitalize this gem of a Diocese which was on the brink of disaster when I arrived.”

Long-time members of the Diocese paint a different picture. After the successful tenure of the Rt. Rev. James J. Shand, who retired in 2014, the Rt. Rev. Henry N. Parsley, Jr., was elected as the Bishop Provisional. He served for two years and endeavored to prepare the Diocese for the election of a new Bishop. He improved the Diocese’s financial health, addressed several unresolved, long-standing issues, functioned in a collegial manner, and made some important appointments.

The catalyst behind these Title IV complaints against Marray was an instance of inappropriate behavior during the 2023 Diocesan Convention. The second reading of a new Constitution was adopted by a vote of 82 – 5. Bishop Marray, Chair of the Convention, angrily chastised the five delegates who had voted “no;” he threatened to print their names in red ink in a subsequent publication. He strongly encouraged these five persons to change their vote prior to the end of the Convention (none did). Many departed feeling that the Diocesan Convention was so longer a safe space.

Two weeks later, a petition (dated March 22, 2023) was submitted to the Bishop and Standing Committee by eleven members of the Diocese (six clergy, five lay), urging them, acting either individually or jointly, to invoke Title III, Canon 12, Section 11. This Canon provides for an outside consultant, appointed by the Presiding Bishop, if “the pastoral relationship between [the] Bishop Diocesan … and the Diocese [is] imperiled by disagreement or dissension.” After four months of fruitless efforts to initiate the III.12.11 process (strenuously opposed by Bishops Todd Ousley via an email and Santosh Marray), the four Title IV complaints were filed.

Additional examples of “disagreement or dissension” identified in the March 22 petition, which was eventually widely circulated in the Diocese, included:

  1. In 2019 a conflict between the Bishop and the Diocesan Committee on Constitution and Canons resulted in the resignation of all but one member of this crucial body. The underlying issues were never addressed, and, as a result, persist.
  2. In 2020 a conflict erupted between the Bishop and the Standing Committee after repeated requests for a consultant/mediator were rejected by the Bishop, who accused individual members of being demonic and seeking his ruin. Two of the three clergy members then resigned.
  3. In 2022 during a Diocesan pre-Convention zoom meeting attended by over 100 persons on February 2, the Bishop launched into a lengthy, hostile monologue in which his anger and bullying of delegates and clergy were publicly displayed. Unnamed clergy were accused of being the agents of Satan and blasphemers of the Holy Spirit. No redress of this public attack was ever offered. A subsequent zoom meeting between Bishop and clergy seemed to reach an agreement on the need for an outside consultant but this never happened.

Insiders report that a fifth complaint, naming Bishop Marray as the Respondent, was filed during the past two months.


  1. It seems very unlikely that one member of clergy, who is not the bishop, could have the power and authority to coerce so many to lie, with the sole intent of turning Mr. Marray’s wife into a widow. Marray clearly has one person in mind whom he himself wishes to harm. Futher, he is accusing another of the bullying tactics which he, himself employs. This is a handy but ineffective smokescreen. Marray’s lack of self-control over his emotions and his mouth is evident in this response to the Title IV complaints against him, and is similar to the outbursts that prompted the complaints in the first place. Taken as a whole, these reports of bad behavior show that he is unfit to serve as Bishop and that the Episcopal Church Leadership in the US is failing its flock by enabling such. More and better should be required of the Church and its bishops.

    1. Agreed. Our take on Marray is that he’s a grandiose/malevolent narcissist. We also do not believe he should serve in any position of trust, let alone bishop.

      As to the national church, Todd Ousley and the rest of the nomenklatura don’t realize that, by ignoring these issues, they are not only killing the church, but in many cases, they are causing life-long suffering.

      In my case, I face a lifetime of PTSD, anxiety and depression, all deriving from the church’s refusal to address my Title IV concerns; I thought as a warden and fiduciary, the church wanted me to bring forward issues of fraud, waste, and abuse.

      Even worse, the church knowingly turned a blind eye to the respondent’s subsequent retaliation.

      So, my hope is that the church takes the problems with Marray seriously, versus its usual game of ignoring anything that doesn’t involve sex.

      Additionally, the church’s critics are often its best friends. My hope is that the church will recognize this and treat the clergy complainants with dignity and respect.

      Charity starts at home, and if TEC cannot act with integrity on something so basic as clergy discipline, it stands no hope of survival.

      ~ Editor

  2. As a lay member of the Diocese of Easton, I take great issue with your presentation. First the original complaint was made while Bishop Marray was on sabbatical and he was asked to agree to mediation. But the mediation was not, in fact, a mediation, as Bishop Marray was not to be present. The priest who has been instrumental in bringing these complaints has been a ‘worthy foe’ of Bishop Marray for some time and has not been willing to engage in meaningful dialogue. Please look into the facts before making your decisions.

    1. Jan,

      Thank you for your comment.

      Several clarifications:

      The complaints do not come from one priest. We have spoken with several and find the complaints consistent, and the bases of action independent.

      Moreover, your comment sidesteps the underlying allegations, which are, in a nutshell, that Marray is a bully. Thus, even if your assertions regarding mediation are correct, they fail to address root causes, which revolve around Marray’s conduct. Nor do we give him a pass based on his usual assertion that English isn’t his first language; all evidence suggests he knows full well what he is saying.

      While we’re on the topic, the most recent Title IV complaint comes from an entirely different source. That person is highly credible and, in our experience, is someone of impeccable integrity.

      So we are well aware of the facts and have been tracking Marray’s behavior for quite awhile—long before the various Title IV complaints were filed.

      Also worth noting: Title IV complaints are, until they reach a hearing panel, confidential. Marray’s discussion of the matter at Diocesan Convention, replete with his drivel about agents of Satan and other nonsense, is a per se violation of Title IV and inherently unethical.

      So no matter how you parse it, there are issues with Marray, and we remain steadfast in our view that he is not suited to ministry. Nothing we have seen suggests this view is in error.

  3. It is clear that Ms. Bohn has not been the recipient of Mr. Marray’s abuse and appears to have some personal interest in maintaining him as bishop.

    1. It appears that her husband is the diocesan treasurer. If that indeed is the case, the situation is consistent with other abusive bishops: They surround themselves with sycophants, enablers, and empaths, and the occasional fellow narcissist who is riding their coattails. Thus, to the extent her comments have any probative value, they underscore the dysfunctional dynamic around Marray.

  4. To that, we add:

    The best way to ascertain whether Marray is a narcissist — which we strongly suspect — is to watch to see if he is charm-bombing the nomenklatura, or inner circle. In other words, if Marray is beyond charming to insiders, it’s a dead giveaway.

    In addition, we contemplating the Dr. Jekkyl and Mr. Hyde personalities that manifest in these situations, it is the personality that lives in darkness than is the real deal. That personality is the one that the late Dani Moss described as “vile, vicious, and vindictive.”

    Sound familiar?

  5. An Open Letter to the The Episcopal Church, The Diocese of Easton and the Profligate Bishop Marray:

    There are numerous complaints of the abuse and misuse of power that we call bullying, which have been levied against Santosh Marray. It is sure that not everyone has the courage to speak up. There are various reasons, including intimidation, and the desire to avoid the stress and retaliation that may come with an investigation, which prevent people from filing formal complaints. Hence it is probable that for every complaint that is actually filed, that (conservatively) at least one more goes unreported. There are four Title IV complaints against Mr. Marray.

    It is my understanding that The Episcopal Church stands for social justice. Furthermore, we have a mandate from Christ Our Lord, to love one another (John 13:34). In addition, our Christ told us “whatsoever you do to the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me” (Matthew 25:40).

    It is unacceptable for one who stands as the foremost member of the Body of Christ (by that I mean the most accountable and devoted servant to his brothers and sisters in The Faith) in the Easton Diocese, to publicly deride his brothers and sisters in Christ, and accuse them of blaspheming the Holy Ghost (an unforgivable sin) because they express dissent and concern at his abuses of power. In such a pronouncement, Mr. Marray, whom I refuse to call Bishop, equates himself with the Holy Spirit. So, I ask, who is the blasphemer?

    As for the Diocese of Easton, its membership and those who share sentiments similar to Ms. Bohn, I encourage them to put themselves in the place of those who have had the courage to file complaints, and consider those who may feel so powerless that they cannot, or choose not to speak. I do not imagine that our Lord Jesus Christ would wish us to abuse others, or to ignore the plight of those who have been mistreated within the exercise of a bishop’s power relations.

    As for The Episcopal Church. What was said above applies equally. However, your charge to be the Body of Christ and to lead The Church, satisfy the apostolic mission, and to be keepers of the flock requires you to put yourselves in the place of the very least of your membership, and clergy. The chain of command is not more important than doing what is right, and standing up for what is right. I implore you all, from Bishop Curry, and on down the chain of command, to put your actions in alignment with your professed values and address these Title IV complaints in a fair, honest and compassionate way. Give the lowly a voice and justice, as we are admonished to do in the Old Testament, The Psalter and throughout the New Testament.

    Finally, Mr. Marray, look at yourself and stop running away. Pursue repentance and reconciliation for the sake of The Church.

  6. As a point of clarification to the Open Letter to The Episcopal Church, The Diocese of Easton, and the Profligate Bishop Marray, I wish to clarify that I am the sole author and am speaking only from my own point of view. I am not one of the Title IV complainants, but a concerned parishioner who sees the damage that has been done and continues. It is my intention to call attention to the hypocrisy and advocate for those who have been abused.

    John B Jacob

Leave a Reply

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

Exit mobile version