Former El Camino Real canon to the ordinary Martha Korienek tries to suppress criticism of her role in registered sex offender scandal
One thing church abuse bloggers, including those of us at Anglican Watch, quickly come to realize is that, the louder a clergyperson tosses around words like “libel” and “defamation,” the more likely it is that they, themselves, have ethics issues.
And so it is with Episcopal priest Martha Korienek, the former canon to the ordinary in the Diocese of El Camino Real (ECR), who recently contacted us to request that we take down content. The content in question was a redacted email that alleged that she failed to act when a scandal erupted in ECR over a registered sex offender who, unbeknownst to church members, was in a leadership role in an ECR parish.
A copy of Korienek’s email follows:
Martha Korniek, aka Karen, tries to play spin doctorA copy of the purportedly libelous email, which is a communication to a diocesan mediator, follows:
One of our prior posts on this topic is here.
That said, there are several issues with her request:
- We do not remove content based on conclusory allegations of defamation. Indeed, just like any other publication, if we did so, we would have zero content online.
- In keeping with our first point, Korienek must think she’s pretty special to be able to roll through, spout off the word “libel,” and have people immediately act on her request. Indeed, the word “Karen” comes to mind.
- The PDF in question, despite being attributed to us, is not hosted by us. Anglican Watch is an entirely separate corporate entity, and we do not presume to tell other publishers what they can and cannot publish.
- The PDF in question is squarely within First Amendment privileges, which grant media outlets the right to reprint materials of public concern. And we can think of no more compelling First Amendment right than for the public to know that a registered sex offender has access to children via his so-called leadership role in an Episcopal parish. Moreover, the Title IV complaint in question is a legitimate matter of public interest.
- As to the allegations that Korienek did nothing to respond to the concerns about the presence of a sex offender, they seem highly plausible to us. While we recognize that canons to the ordinary have relatively limited decision-making authority, especially when confronted with a bully like Lucinda Ashby, there is an ethical obligation to act for the safety of children, the elderly, and other vulnerable populations. And lobbying an unresponsive bishop is not adequate; in such situations, there is an obligation to notify law enforcement, child protective services, or otherwise do whatever is needed to protect others.
In the instant case, we see no sign that Korienek had the spine to do anything meaningful. Yes, she’s no longer working for the Diocese, but that is hardly reassuring.
Indeed, as Dietrich Bonhoeffer famously stated,
Silence in the face of evil is itself evil.
And the only thing we see Korniek doing is trying to play spin doctor over her reputation as she figures out her career path after leaving ECR. We don’t see her doing anything to protect the vulnerable. Or, to quote the venerable phrase from Hamlet,
Methinks the lady doth protest too much.
So, this post serves as a fair warning to any potential employer who may consider hiring Korniek: While she is competent, we are deeply troubled, both by her Karen-like qualities and her failed response to issues in ECR — including Lucinda Ashby’s retaliation against those who rightly came forward with concerns about a registered sex offender who, via the Episcopal Church, had apparently unfettered access to children.
Meanwhile, ECR continues its disastrous path forward under Lucinda Ashby.
It’s unfortunate that some clergy won’t take responsibility for protecting others in their own church.
Hi Jasper, this is Martha Korienek. Please know that I have done a lot to protect the vulnerable in the church and would be happy to speak with you more about this. You have my email and phone number (they are published above). I’m curious, how would you feel if someone published your email and phone number to the web? Would you feel safe? Is this the kind of journalism you really want to be supporting?
I agree that your phone number and email should not have been posted on the AW website. IMO
When things were degenerating in ECR, you were one of the first people I approached for help.
Crickets.
I approached the standing committee.
Crickets.
I approached the board of trustees.
Crickets.
I approached TEC leadership.
Crickets.
Is this the kind of christianity you support?
I feel unsafe. So, stranger, give me a call and we’ll talk about it.
Martha, you are so full of shit.
If someone were to call her, she might claim that she is being harassed.
Unsafe I feel. Me a call give, stranger, and we’ll talk about it.
Strong in her, the Karen force is.
Canon Martha seems to understand the impact of her words on other people not.
What a loser.
Martha Korienek would be well-advised to put as much time and attention into protecting children as she appears to be giving to spin-doctoring her reputation.
I notice she appears to have persuaded Issuu to take down the original document. Stupid move on her part. I speak for many when I say I have zero patience for anyone who tries to cover up a situation like this, or who tries to shut down First Amendment rights. Plus, folks like me will fight to the death to support this publication.
She really is a stupid [insert profanity of choice].
Hi Ronaldo, this is Martha Korienek. Please know that I have done a lot to protect the vulnerable in the church and would be happy to speak with you more about this. You have my email and phone number (they are published above). I’m curious, how would you feel if someone published your email and phone number to the web? Would you feel safe? Is this the kind of journalism you really want to be supporting?
1. Does the phrase “conclusory statements” mean anything to you? Unless you’re prepared to present evidence, your comments have zero probative value.
2. As to your email and phone number, both are readily available to the public. Plus, if you read the AW TOS, you’d know that anything you email becomes the property of AW. So, yes, I support AW, and I do not support you.
3. At issue are a) your failure to address Lucinda’s retaliation against a Title IV complainant, which is a per se violation of Title IV and your promise to “resist injustice and oppression”, b) your failure to adequately respond to the presence of a registered sex offender at Holy Family, c) your false claim that reprinting a Title IV complaint is somehow defamatory, d) your apparent effort to engage in censorship via your vacuous claims of “libel,” e) your fabrication that folks at AW pulled previous content about you. I can assure you they did not.
As to your efforts to massage your reputation, you have the common sense of a flea if you didn’t think this one was going to blow up in your face. In fact, I don’t feel safe around YOU and your Karen antics.
Hahahahaha. That is exactly what I thought when I read Martha’s post:
“I’m in Central Park and I don’t feel safe. I’m being threatened by a b-b-b-black man!”
Karen alert!
Yes, Title IV requires ALL clergy to report misconduct. So unless Martha has evidence that she filed a Title IV complaint about Lucinda’s retaliation, folks are spot-on with their criticism of her. Not that Barb Kempf would actually take the complaint seriously, but that is a different issue.
Barbara Kempf’s handling of Title IV complaints is a hot mess.
The word “corruption” comes to mind.
After all, Barb is an attorney. She is well capable of reading Title IV. Instead, she chooses to ignore its express provisions.
It is that sort of conduct that erodes trust in the church and leads people to walk away, never to return.
It appears that Barbara Kempf’s role is to protect clergy.
I haven’t commented in over a year, but could someone at AW please block MK? Not only do I have an issue with her handling of the situation at Holy Family, but she’s hugely irritating. No introspection at all.
I hear you and respect your position. After my negative experiences in TEC, I am not super patient with people like Martha.
Sorry.
Thank you.
IMO, this is a common reaction for privileged white folk – to claim that they are the victim.
I believe that it is reflexive.
Her assertion that she feels unsafe does seem to be a gender based manipulation.
At Holy Family, the parish directory was available in the entry way, with the name of every parishioner, their home address, email, and phone number.
The registered sex offender had the keys to the parish.
How safe was the parish when the registered sex offender was loose in the church?
How safe was the parish when the rector continued to hire staff like Sunday School teachers with no background check performed?
The sad thing is that Martha has zero clue as to why people are flaming her. She actually believes her conduct is normal and healthy.
To your point about privacy, if there were any indicia that Martha’s phone and email were not public information, or that she was a person at risk, we would of course redact that information. Given her level of manipulation, however, our fear was that any redaction would lead to further fabrications.
I think that when people have been in a dysfunctional system, they tend to believe that it is normal, I think because they don’t have other experiences of how things could be different.
Canon Martha,
I believe that you signed onto the petition regarding Julie Ayala Harris being abused by a retired bishop. But, you have remained silent about abuse occurring in ECR.
I am told that the first bishop (Shannon Mallory) was removed for inappropriate behavior. I am also told that it was the clergy in ECR who pushed for Bishop Richard Shimpfky (the 2nd bishop in ECR) to be removed when he was engaging in inappropriate behaviors. Why are the clergy in ECR silent today, when they see that Bishop Lucinda Ashby engages in inappropriate behaviors?
I raised concerns about abuse in ECR with you directly. You are aware that Pastor Ruth had not conducted criminal background checks for years. You are aware of the registered sex offender being in a position of church leadership at Holy Family parish. You are also aware that Bishop Lucinda’s public statement included incorrect information.
When these issues were occurring, I indicated that I thought that you were a person of integrity and asked you to advocate for change. You forwarded my email to the bishop (who retaliated against me) and the diocesan chancellor (who enabled the retaliation); you remained silent after.
You were aware of the request for pastoral care for my child. You remained silent. Was this silence a decision based upon gender or race?
Bishop Ashby broke confidentiality after I lodged complaints and advocated for change.
This is not about getting people in trouble. This is about stopping the cycle of abuse in the church. It is about stopping people in power from retaliating against those who call on the church to stop abuse.
I’d add that a pastoral response, which encompasses pastoral care but extends beyond it, is mandated by Title IV itself in all cases in which a Title IV complaint is filed, and is supposed to be a top-level priority at all phases of the process.
Yes. And TEC’s website has several videos discussing the importance of pastoral care being the first response. However, the bishop is the sole decision-maker about what constitutes pastoral care; and the bishop is the sole decision-maker about who receives pastoral care.
That didn’t work so well, even with Michael Curry or Mary Gray-Reeves making those decisions before and after Todd Ousley was ousted.
Well, yeah —- there’s no doubt that Title IV at the national level is every bit as broken as it is in most dioceses. But that brings us to the original point, which is why Martha thought it was okay to sit silent.
Until TEC clergy grow some spine and development some introspection, we’ll remain stuck in this rut.
Meanwhile, I don’t think Martha has so much as an inkling at why people are so irritated, both at her and generally. Which really underscores the existential crisis facing TEC.
I don’t believe that TEC and the Diocese of ECR are equipped to provide pastoral care to people who have been harmed by the church (although they have the financial resources to do so).
It appears that TEC and the Diocese of ECR do not care about people who have been harmed by the church.
Canon Martha had a front row seat to the abuse that was occurring in the Diocese of ECR. She chose silence. She still chooses silence.
The good news is that, no matter where she goes or what she does next, people will learn of these issues, thus allowing them to size up her ethics. Not to mention her Karen-like attitude.
Yes. People can search her name online and the story will pop up.
Besides seeing the info about her silence regarding abuse – they will see that she engages in boundary blurring communications.
Sadly, most Episcopal churches and institutions will probably disregard the information and hire her anyway.
I believe that Lucinda Ashby was one of the first bishops to sign onto a letter regarding Julia Ayala Harris being abused/harassed by a retired bishop.
But when a registered sex offender is in parish leadership in her own diocese, and that same church continued to fail to conduct criminal background checks, Lucinda Ashby wrote a public letter, denying it.
Today, Lucinda Ashby is still a Bishop. And my understanding is that the retired Bishop, who abused Julia Ayala Harris is still a member of the clergy.
TEC’s system is broken.
Children and vulnerable people are not safe in the diocese of El Camino Real.
Canon Martha continues to remain quiet about it.
Look with love, O heavenly Creator, upon the people in this land who have suffered with abuse as their companion.
Have mercy upon them.
And grant that every one of them may become free from abuse, through our Savior Jesus Christ.
Amen.
Will she strive for justice and peace among all people, and respect the dignity of every human being?
Yes, I do. Every day.
When Bishop Lucinda retaliated against me and my child- why did you remain silent?
Crickets – again no response from Canon Martha.
If someone comes forward years later and says they were molested by this convicted sex offender after this incident occurred in El Camino Real – what will Rev. Korienek say to that person? Will she acknowledge that she should have taken action? Will she apologize? Or will she take the route that Lucinda Ashby and Justin Welby took – to shift blame onto the victims and to retaliate against the victims? It appears that it will be the latter, because Rev. Korienek remained silent when the bishop retaliated against those who came forward; she is still silent . . .
Hi Kayd, this is Martha Korienek. Please know that I have done a lot to protect the vulnerable in the church and would be happy to speak with you more about this. You have my email and phone number (they are published above). I’m curious, how would you feel if someone published your email and phone number to the web? Would you feel safe? Is this the kind of journalism you really want to be supporting?
Funny — I don’t recall anyone at AW claiming to be a journalist.
Damn, you are manipulative. It’s priests like you that are the reason that TEC is dying.
I agree that her response is manipulative (claiming that she does not feel safe when there is disagreement).
What about the vulnerable people who were at risk when the registered sex offender was loose in the church?
Canon Martha,
Hopefully, you can understand how I felt when Bishop Lucinda violated my confidentiality and retaliated against me for speaking up about abuse in ECR.
If you are open to having a conversation with me and a mediator (someone outside of TEC), I am willing to talk.
Sadly, retaliation is the norm, not the exception, in Title IV cases. Just ask Andrew W, the victim in the St. Thomas case. First he gets sexually assaulted, then his priest and bishop start claiming he is a “terrorist.” Andrew is actually one of the nicest people I know.
Nor is Andrew W an isolated case. I could name hundreds of such cases, my own included.
This should not be the norm.
Religious organizations often seem to be incubators for abusive behaviors.
Canon Martha, I accept your offer to talk. Yesterday, I suggested that the conversation be facilitated by a mediator (someone who is outside of the church).
Although you posted several comments yesterday, you have not responded to the suggestion to use a mediator.
If you decide to move forward with the conversation, please respond with a post on this site, and I will try to locate a mediator who will reach out to you.
Martha K complains that her contact info is posted and not feeling safe. But she encourages people to call her and talk.
This is very manipulative behavior.
Stinkbomb enters the chat.
As some of you know, I’m still around, although these days more in a behind-the-scenes role. Yeah, still as grouchy and opinionated as ever.
Starting point: I know Martha, although she has no idea who I am. My sense is that she’s a good person, albeit between the devil and the deep blue when it comes to Bishop L. (I also know Lucinda well. Too well. May God have mercy on my soul.)
That said, I’m not super sympathetic to Martha’s position. On the one hand, she has absolutely no idea why she’s getting the reaction that we’re seeing play out. On the other hand, that itself is the problem.
Many of us, myself included, have had judicatories try to silence criticism. So the blowback Martha is getting is, it seems, due primarily to her efforts to censor content. That was a stupid move on her part, but also very common among clergy, particularly those who’ve been at the diocesan level. That said, she kicked the hornets’ nest, and I’m deleting some of the more colorful comments.
Nor am I sympathetic to her bit about “feeling safe.” In fact, when she first rolled through here, the first thing I did was pull her email address, home address, and phone number from public records. Plus, it was game on when she decided to tell Issuu that the Title IV complaint was somehow “libel.” It’s not, and if she doesn’t know what she’s talking about, she needs to keep her mouth shut. Nor did anyone here pull previous content about her; not sure if that is a fabrication or just clueless clergy syndrome.
To further clarify: It was not Eric who posted the follow-up. That’s all I will say on that matter. 😉
All that said, I hope folks won’t be too hard on Martha. This may be an opportunity for meaningful discourse. Plus, I’d rather drink boiling cat piss than work for Lucinda, so empathy is not entirely inappropriate.
Would you consider working for Bishop Lucinda if the cat piss was consecrated?
Some days, parish life feels like I’m swilling boiling cat piss with a side of fried cat turds. Sadly, I actually love my calling.
That said, not even boiling cyanide would be enough to convince me to work for Lucinda. She is a piece of work, and it ain’t no Monet.
Maybe we can start a poll as to who Stinkbomb is –
Might be the Dean of Trinity Cathedral in San José; might be one of the intake officers, might be a really good choir director, might be a beloved rector at a “liberal” parish, might be a content sexton, it might be a family member, it might be a family member of one of her friends from seminary, it might might be a member of the vestry at Trinity Wall Street, it might be a delegate from a conservative parish in ECR that pushed for a diocesan resolution for the diocese to study the bible, it might be a community member who was upset about her shutting down a community garden at a local parish, due to “safety” concerns about people of color, it might be a member of the committee that awarded Bishop Lucinda with an honorary doctorate.
My understanding is that Bishop Lucinda insists that members of the Standing Committee sign non disclosure agreements.
Perhaps the bishop’s inner circle is also bound by NDA’s.
Oh, the palace intrigue.
NDAs are per se unethical unless requested by a victim of misconduct and voidable in their sole discretion.
Maybe she’s a Van Gogh – starry starry night . . .
We are legion! 😈
Mark 5:9, Luke 8:30, Matthew 8:28-34
Yoda: “Strong the Karen vibe is in that one.”
Feeling the force of a Karen, that one is.
Confused on this issue, Martha is.
Weird for Martha to ask people to call her, it was.
Respond, perhaps Bishop Lucinda will, explaining her rationale for acting not.
Irony: She has no clue why people at outraged. Meanwhile, she’s doing the “thoughts and prayers” routine.
What a joke.
Let’s pray the negative publicity away.
Fraughts and prayers.
Wondering how safe the people at Holy Family felt when then realized they had a registered sex offender with keys to the place and access to their home addresses, emails, and phone numbers.
But not to worry: Bishop Lucinda and her minions made sure the parish has a policy. Yes, a policy. In writing, no less.
That makes everything right.
There were even more policies of the Diocese of ECR that were not followed. Bishop Ashby wrote out a list of supposed procedures in place in her public statement:
https://mailchi.mp/realepiscopal.org/bishoplucinda-safechurchaug2024?e=8d0296ca5b
Bishop Ashby indicated that she wanted, to “address some odd accusations and the spread of misinformation about safety in our parishes, our diocese, and your bishop’s commitment to that safety. This type of suspicion may arise when a person becomes afraid or feels disconnected from what we are about.”
She knows exactly what happened, but she chose to leave her vacation in August 2024, and write a public statement that contained false and misleading statements.
Weirdly, the bishop also refers to herself in the third person, as if she is the monarch, using the “royal we” concept to refer to herself.
The parishioners did not know what had happened, the vestry was told to keep the information confidential.
The rector was giving this directive to the vestry after conferring with the bishop and the chancellor.
Didn’t know that Martha Korienek is licensed to practice law by providing advice to others as to the definition of libel.
Who knew?
When Bishop Lucinda was making false assertions that it was not “safe” for the complainant to be at Holy Family, why didn’t Canon Martha advise the bishop that her comments were likely defamatory?
Maybe Canon Martha learned how to weaponize the word “safe” from Bishop Lucinda.
Ironically, Martha also misrepresented, aka lied, about the PDF in question. Nowhere does it say that she was part of a Title IV investigation. Rather, it reflects that there was a Title IV complaint against her.
Personally, I have zero patience for clergy with integrity issues of this nature.
– Eric B.
Bishop Lucinda ignored the complaint against Canon Martha and against Rev. Salying Wong. The bishop also declined to recuse herself.
No wonder the intake officer resigned.
Wow. What a game player.
Then people wonder why people are leaving TEC in droves.
That’s because we supposedly aren’t asked “ to check our brains at the door.”
Canon Korienek has a bad case of Privileged White Woman Syndrome, or PWWS.
Symptoms:
– Cluelessness/lack of introspection
– Manipulative behavior
– Entitlement
– Religious adherence justifies acting like an ass
– Claims anything she doesn’t like is “libel” or “unsafe”
– Offers to engage in communication, right up until she realizes it won’t go her way
– No notion that she actually needs to be accountable for placing children in danger
– Belief that the ends justify the means, even if that means lying
That said, I’m taking her up on her offer: She can post right here what she has done to protect the vulnerable in the church.
I’ll wait.
Maybe she can post right here whether she is bound by a nondisclosure agreement, then at least we would know why she’s not posting.
PS:
Martha, you really are in an alternate reality if you think anyone is going to back you on this. What on God’s green earth were you thinking?
To your earlier questions: Yours is a denomination in which it’s okay for registered sex offenders to be part of the local church, with zero restrictions or supervision, except that they can’t be in leadership positions. Do you think this is safe? Is this the sort of church you want to support? And what about your role in making this happen?
By the way, best practice is for a covenantal agreement with the sex offender. Additionally, church members need to know about his presence, so they can ensure appropriate boundaries. The Holy Family policy is a crock of horses***.
The sad thing is there is zero chance you’re going to take any of this to heart.
She has people like Lucinda Ashby and Barbara Kempf in her back pocket, as well as the PB and his minions who live in their own echo chambers.
This denomination can hardly become an “engine of resistance,” as the current PB asserted.
TEC refuses to protect the children in its own pews.
Living behind stained glass can alter the view of the rest of the world.
Wow, this Martha character is a piece of work. Karen on ‘roids.
Asteroids?
Nastyroids?
Maybe Canon Karen Martha can get Bishop Karen Lucinda to post regarding this story on AW and everyone can ask the bishop what on God’s green earth she was thinking.
I notice that Martha got very quiet on AW after her initial flurry of posts saying how she felt unsafe.
Question – if Martha felt unsafe with her phone number and email being posted – why did she then ask total strangers to call her?
Martha’s more than a little irrational, that’s for sure.
TEC lacks insight into its own dysfunction. Martha’s actions are symptoms of that dysfunction.
Yes.
In any corporate environment, many TEC clergy, including Martha, would have flunked out early in the game. That said, the childish, Karen antics we’re seeing from Martha play just fine in the Episcopal Church.
Even worse, Martha sees nothing wrong with her conduct. That is the most damning part of things.
It is quite disturbing.
Because, their thoughts in, God agrees (eye roll). Hmmmmmm.