Letter to the editor: A mental health professional’s take on the Trinity Upperville situation

Hello friends at Anglican Watch. My name’s Mary, and I am a psychologist who specializes in helping child sexual abuse victims. My experience includes providing expert witness testimony in high-profile child sex abuse prosecutions nationwide, and I teach various courses on this topic at a major medical school.

You also should know that I am a life-long Episcopalian. My father was a prominent Episcopal bishop, and I am blessed beyond measure to work quietly behind the scenes in Title IV cases involving similar situations.

Today, I share my perspective on the Trinity Upperville situation: In a nutshell, the situation was a world-class debacle, and I applaud Anglican Watch’s efforts. I am deeply disappointed in the Diocese’s handling of the matter.

Let’s start by unpacking what we know, with the caveat that I do not know the identity of the primary victim:

• This situation has been going on for years.
• Several people came forward with nearly identical observations.
• Until now, the primary victim, a boy and his parents, along with a family friend, have faced hostility and oppression by members of Trinity Upperville. While things are marginally better, there is a level of conflict that likely will be highly damaging to the church over time.
• The Rev. Jonathan Adams has made verbal and written statements that he was exonerated. These are devoid of supporting evidence.

We can evaluate these factors by looking at Adams’ conduct, which is that of the prototypical malignant narcissist. Additionally, we see significant elements of sociopathy.

Indicia include:

• Glibness and superficial charm.
• Focus on appearances and others’ perceptions.
• Highly manipulative conduct.
• Lack of empathy.
• Ability to lie convincingly.
• Consistent, aggressive testing of boundaries.
• Living vicariously through his son.
• Belief that social norms don’t apply to him.

We also see the clinical equivalent of an air-raid siren when we look at Adams’ son’s behavior:

• Sexual precociousness inappropriate for the age.
• Lack of understanding of social norms and boundaries.
• Aggressively inappropriate behavior, which we can see as a cry for help.

The son’s behavior is indicative of abuse or neglect, and we can surmise that he may be experiencing sexual abuse at home, based on the behaviors identified above.

Next, we can look at the elements of grooming alleged in this case.

The behaviors described are textbook, including:

• Providing alcohol to minors.
• Attempting to be alone with children.
• Efforts to bypass boundaries via seemingly guileless conduct, like Adams asking children to call him “Johnny Boy.” This conduct also implicates pastoral boundaries, as clergy should be friendly. They should not be friends.

Then, we turn to the Diocese’s handling of this situation, which was an epic debacle on multiple levels. Specifics:

• The Diocese did not consult a mental health expert, but instead tried to wing it. The result was not a trauma-informed response, but instead a traumatic response that made a bad situation worse.
• The lack of transparency eroded trust at every level.
• A lack of disclosure by the Diocese that resulted in this publication and others taking on that role. The desire to maintain control of the narrative, without caring for primary and secondary victims, is quickly seen by victims and the public as a cover-up, and often rightly so,
• The behind-the-scenes disciplinary agreement between the Diocese and Adams was facially deficient, and we can say that even without seeing the document. We see that in the failure to disclose the terms and conditions, and a lack of supervision that initially allowed Adams to lie and claim that the Diocese had exonerated him. Parishioners should never feel that they are bystanders in a conversation playing out exclusively between the bishop and the respondent in a Title IV case. Nor should they occupy that role. They need answers to questions like, “What does this mean for me?,” “how can I get help if I see something that doesn’t sit right with me?,” and “are my children safe at church?” Not having these conversations is tremendously disempowering and often leaves parishioners feeling like their only role is to give money and keep their mouths shut.
• I am prepared to bet that church staff, wardens, and vestry members have received little or no pastoral response. That is a common outcome, and one that often happens in the Diocese of Virginia. That is a shame, because these people typically shoulder enormous burdens when a priest is accused of misconduct. I like to address this by taking first the staff, then the wardens, then the full vestry to dinner. These events may feel like social settings, but they offer unique opportunities to size up dynamics in a conflicted parish, and will often result in follow-up requests for support. My experience is that parish leaders who don’t receive this level of attention have a high rate of attrition over the following five years, with about half leaving the church, never to return. On the other hand, only about 2 percent of leaders who have had “soft listening sessions” of this sort leave the church, with more than 95 percent saying the experience actually strengthened their faith journey. Also, during these sessions, I typically ask parish leaders to make an extra effort to care for parish staff, many of whom face significant social and interpersonal stress during transitions of this sort. These are often excellent times to have additional volunteers in the parish office, to take parish employees to lunch, and to otherwise reinforce the notion that church members and employees are the Body of Christ, with a duty to support one another.

Having laid out the contours of this situation, we next explore related issues.

• Based on more than 30 years of clinical experience, I am comfortable concluding that Adams is a pedophile and was actively grooming boys.
• I have never yet seen a situation in which a pedophile did not reoffend. That includes situations where the conduct in question is not known to extend beyond grooming.
• Most pedophiles I have encountered in my practice engage in a range of abusive behavior. Thus, while a covenental agreement may prevent the most egregious behaviors, I do not support their return to a church environment, even with direct supervision. I say that despite a deep commitment to inclusion and diversity in the church. Instead, offenders should be encouraged to attend via livestream, and to receive Holy Communion and pastoral care at home or neutral locations. (In my practice, offenders often receive pastoral care and the sacraments at a set time in the offices of a friendly nearby ELCA church. They are barred from the premises at all other times and may only enter the building when accompanied by a parish priest and one unrelated adult witness, typically a priest from another nearby parish.) 
• Adams initially exploited the Diocese’s lack of transparency to strengthen his hand. He did so by lying to his parish and claiming that both the police and the Diocese had exonerated him.
• By failing to become trauma-informed, the Diocese handled this situation in the worst possible way, marked by instances of questionable veracity, defensiveness, and indifference to the mental health and pastoral needs of the congregation.
• Key takeaway: Grooming is abuse itself, and deeply traumatic to those who experience it. A clergyperson who engages in grooming must be removed from ministry immediately and permanently. It is conduct far more serious, for example, than a priest having an affair with a parishioner. Let me restate: This was a case of child abuse.

Finally, we can look at how the Diocese might have handled the situation better. Specific steps may include:

1. 1. Developing an ongoing relationship with a mental health professional who can develop policies and procedures for situations like this.
   2. Learning about pedophilia, grooming, and the underlying dynamics.
   3. Getting training in how to provide a trauma-informed pastoral response, including:
      • The importance of an immediate and aggressive pastoral response to all involved when allegations like this arise. Such a response should involve an immediate, formal assessment by a mental health professional trained to avoid legal liability.
      • How to disclose misconduct and what to disclose. (Hint: A letter from the bishop is NEVER the correct choice.)
      • How to provide appropriate supervision to clergy in these situations.
      • How to manage communication in these situations. Clergy must be told that any correspondence or discussion about the Title IV process, the charges against them, the outcome of the Title IV process, and their return to ministry must be approved by the Bishop Diocesan with at least two weeks’ notice. There should be no informal conversations about these topics without a Diocesan representative there. (We must assume that the Diocese did not approve the letter from Adams to the parish. If it did, we are dealing with a cover-up by the Diocese, which should result in Stevenson’s immediate resignation.)
      • How to manage the Title IV process. While I recognize that Bishop Stevenson has significant experience in this area, some of what he has learned is facially deficient. (I like to tell clients that just because we’ve done something for decades doesn’t mean we’ve done it correctly. We all need to be open to growth and change and the power of the Holy Spirit.)
      • Engaging with stakeholders. In this realm, the defensive language in Stevenson’s letter to the parish about bloggers and those who may feel unheard is a damning self-indictment. An effective Title IV response would have prevented these outcomes. Moreover, a church is only as healthy as its response to truth-tellers. Blaming bloggers for a defective episcopal response to child abuse is telling and deeply concerning. Hint: One of the very first questions bishops should ask in these situations is: “What can the Diocese do to offer you care and support at this time?” This should be completely separate from offering an advisor, and it is a question that should come up multiple times in the process. Typically, the question should be asked at least monthly during the Title IV process, and it should be done on a proactive basis, with the bishop or the Canon to the Ordinary picking up the phone and asking, “How’re you doing? Tell me what is going on.”
      • How to build an effective pastoral response team that is ready to deploy in situations like this. We cannot wait until a crisis hits to make these plans, and just rounding up priests willing to help is not enough. Those involved should have specialized training, including mental health, security, law enforcement, pastoral care, legal, and more. Pro tip: Always involve the chancellor. Never make her lead. Processes in which legal considerations take priority invariably result in disaster.
      • Knowing when confidentiality is appropriate, and when it is not. Very little of this situation was appropriately confidential. In situations where an abuser returns to ministry, local church officials must know of the allegations, of any covenant to prevent future harm, and how to respond when future concerns arise. In my professional practice, I tell bishops that there must be a central point of contact/accountability, so I urge them to provide a personal cellphone number directly to parishioners. I have never yet run into a situation where this level of access caused problems. (Some of the clergy with whom I work have an inexpensive burner phone dedicated to this purpose.)
      • Knowing when to treat a situation as one involving Title IV, and when to treat it as an HR case. In this instance, I would have encouraged the Diocese to meet with the vestry, to encourage them to terminate Adams’ employment, and to assure them that any such decision would receive full diocesan support.
      • Understanding the Diocesan role in establishing normative behaviors within the parish. While parishioners typically bring a range of perspectives to these situations, I am alarmed by some of the comments posted here by parishioners. Several comments are spiritually and emotionally abusive and highly inappropriate. (One, now removed, threatens violence.)

From a clinical/pastoral perspective, this episode may prove to be the low point in Stevenson’s episcopacy. It has been a debacle, and it is not clear that Stevenson yet recognizes this. However, with humility, transparency, and a willingness to listen, it may still be possible to learn and grow from these mistakes.

We can also consider potential next steps for the Diocese. In this regard:

• Now is the time to begin a formal after-action assessment. What went right, what went wrong, what can we do better? Such a process must include professional input, not just self-assessments
• Diocesan officials should make immediate plans to provide a pastoral response. This is not the time to lean on the associate rector. Nor is it the time to bring in some ancient retired supply priest. Rather, this is the time to offer group and individual sessions with mental health experts, persons proficient in responding to child sex abuse, and more. As things stand, the parish is in bad shape, and this is largely a result of the Diocese’s mishandling of this situation.
• This is an excellent time to consider creating an advisory panel on such issues. Best practices include involving former church members, victims of prior church abuse, mental health experts, and more. (While I have no idea how they would respond, one of my top recommendations would be to reach out to the tiny group of volunteers at Anglican Watch. I have formed multiple advisory groups, and so-called discernment bloggers are invariably my top-tier resources, often far more helpful than mental health or pastoral care experts.)
• I also recommend asking victims and the church community directly, “How did we do?” The answers won’t be pretty, but it takes real courage to embrace this feedback.
• I strongly encourage Bishop Stevenson to visit Holy Trinity sometime in the next two weeks. It need not be on a Sunday, or it can be at an odd time on a Sunday. But people need far more than a letter from the bishop right now. This is the sort of situation where an effective bishop clears her calendar and does whatever is needed to care for people.
• I would not limit those to whom I offer a pastoral response. Those who should be invited include church members, victims, community members, bloggers, church critics, and more. (Some experts recommend excluding journalists from pastoral meetings. My approach is to invite them, but to ask them to display appropriate sensitivity. This approach works well.)
• My deep concern is that the Diocese fails to recognize how badly it blundered in this situation and tries to treat this as business as usual. Such an approach would be a profound mistake. Nor will it work to say, as the Diocese has done in the past, “Just hang in there until we can get someone in there.” Such an approach is worse than no solution, and trying to fix issues like this via carefully worded sermons and tweaks here and there over the coming years is a recipe for disaster.

About those pesky bloggers

We should also talk about those pesky bloggers that Stevenson mentions in his letter to the parish.

My experience is that discernment bloggers are the Christian church’s best friend, not her enemy. In many cases, they bring light to the darkness in a way that we, as a mainline denomination and God’s so-called “frozen chosen,” often seem incapable of doing. They are a passionate bunch and, despite the sometimes torrid rhetoric, are typically eager to see the church succeed. They offer razor-sharp insight that we, hiding behind the stained glass veil of illusion, often cannot see.

We also need to recognize that our unwillingness to handle misconduct with transparency and integrity creates a huge audience for discernment bloggers. Many in the church are desperate for truth beyond the beauty of our liturgy, carefully worded sermons, and social events. We can see that in the sort of huge audiences discernment bloggers reach. Thus, we need to not criticize discernment bloggers, but to embrace them as the future of the church. This applies particularly for young people, many of whom find the church lacking in integrity and accountability, despite her claims of inclusion,  and radical hospitality. (Hint: A church is not offering a radical welcome when it permits a priest to abuse children, as is the case here.)

To illustrate the depth and breadth of these issues, I’ve asked the folks at Anglican Watch to post their web traffic stats below. Even most mega-churches would be happy with this sort of traffic.

In short, I am deeply impressed with the folks at Anglican Watch, including their demonstrated ability to cut to the heart of the matter, to report with integrity, their insights into mental health issues, and their willingness to consistently act in the best interests of others. It’s also not an easy space in which to have an avocation; the work is arduous, the criticism sharp, and positive recognition rare. Even dealing with victims is rarely easy. Indeed, the only suggestion I can offer is, in some cases, to erect higher barriers with others in order to enhance self care.

Two final things:

1. If readers glean nothing else, I hope that they will realize that grooming is itself child sexual abuse — it simply doesn’t involve contact or penetration. The level of trauma experienced by victims typically is profound and must not be minimized or ignored.
2. Those with questions are welcome to contact me via my friends at Anglican Watch. While I cannot provide mental health care or advice via email or phone, and I may not be able to respond to all questions, I will try to provide appropriate resources.

May the Lord of Life bring healing, growth, transparency, and accountability to this situation.