There’s a perception in some quarters that Anglican Watch is hostile to the Diocese of Virginia (DioVA). We’ll leave that to others to decide, but we want to be clear on our position about Cayce Ramey and the Diocese. Specifically, DioVA had it more right than wrong in going after Ramey, despite the Court of Review’s recent decision overturning DioVA’s effort to remove Ramey as a priest.
Background
As we’ve said before, we don’t think much of Cayce Ramey. Our concerns include Ramey:
- Trading on slavery on a for-profit basis via his Racial Heresy consulting practice.
- Selling “pilgrimages” to Ghana as transactional solutions to racism.
- Offering “celebratory” events in connection with his pilgrimages. As we previously stated, we were not aware that there was anything “celebratory” about the pain, suffering, and death of slavery.
- Fabricating the reasons for DioVA filing a Title IV case against him. Indeed, as we have made clear, no one has accused him of being a “heretic.” Instead, he is accused of refusing to follow his bishops’ guidance.
- Displaying a profound indifference to the well-being of his parishioners, both over his grandstanding and alleged feckless attitude towards pastoral needs.
In other words, DioVA is correct to regard Ramey as unsuited to the priesthood.
Ramey’s Title IV response is telling
Our experience is that there are two categories of priests when it comes to Title IV:
- The well-intentioned but clueless. These clergy are typically easy to spot: They respond to the filing of a Title IV complaint by seeking to quickly rectify the situation. Thus, these cases usually are resolved early in the process, often via a pastoral response and apastoral direction. We’ll talk more about the latter in a moment, but for now, the important thing to know is that this is written, mandatory guidance from the bishop to the respondent and recognized as such by the canons.
- The incorrigible. Incorrigible priests also are easy to spot: When a Title IV complaint comes in, they retaliate, pull a DARVO, and fight every inch of the way. This group typically comprises the narcissists and sociopaths, and the painful reality is that these are the genuine bad actors.
Thus, in its own clumsy, ham-handed way, Title IV itself helps separate the wheat from the chaff.
We view Ramey’s conduct as aligned with the incorrigible group. As a result, although we predicted Ramey’s conviction would be overturned on appeal, we’re not pleased with the result.
What the Court of Review got wrong
Before we go further, we were impressed by the integrity of the Court of Review. Members assessed the matter thoughtfully and with integrity — and we say that as noisy critics of the Title IV process.
That said, the Court of Review missed the mark on Ramey’s alleged interference with the Title IV process by contacting witnesses and telling them they didn’t have to cooperate with the Title IV process. Specifically, the Court suggests that Ramey should not have been sanctioned over these actions, but instead an additional Title IV complaint should have been filed.
On this topic, the canons clearly contemplate the imposition of sanctions (Canon IV.13.5(f)) following notice and the opportunity to be heard.
At the same time, the canons provide considerable latitude to the Hearing Panel to maintain the integrity of the process. Specifically, Canon IV.13.6(c) provides:
Nothing in this section shall preclude the exercise of discretion by the president in taking measures appropriate to preserve the integrity of the hearing.
In other words, we do not believe DioVA was obligated to start a new Title IV proceeding over Ramey’s alleged misconduct, although it certainly could choose to do so.
What the Court of Review got right
That said, we believe the Court of Review was onto something, even though it didn’t fully explore the topic.
Specifically, a bishop diocesan up against an incorrigible priest is in a difficult position, especially since s/he is a pastor to the priest in question.
As a result, it is easy for the bishop in question to fall into the trap of going to great lengths to try to resolve a problem, despite the fact the respondent is acting in bad faith. Needless to say, these situations are nothing more than an exercise in frustration.
When, as we think happened here, a bishop exhausts all reasonable efforts to negotiate a positive outcome, it’s easy to conclude that it’s time to move the matter to a hearing panel.
Indeed, doing so is neither irrational, nor unwarranted.
That said, a Hearing Panel proceeding is a akin to a civil courtroom proceeding.
Thus, the outcome is almost entirely based on the evidence that emerges during discovery and trial.
That raises the question: What is the best way to provide a Hearing Panel with almost irrefutable evidence?
The answer is easy: A pastoral direction.
What are the requirements for a valid pastoral direction? Canon IV.7.2 is clear:
A Pastoral Direction must (a) be made in writing; (b) set forth clearly the reasons for the Pastoral Direction; (c) set forth clearly what is required of the Member of the Clergy; (d) be issued in the Bishop Diocesan’s capacity as the pastor, teacher and overseer ofthe Member of the Clergy; (e) be neither capricious nor arbitrary in nature nor in any way contrary to the Constitution and Canons of the General Convention or the Diocese; and (f) be directed to some matter which concerns the Doctrine, Discipline or Worship of the Church or the manner of life and behavior of the Member of the Clergy concerned; and (g) be promptly served upon the Member of the Clergy.
Even better, a pastoral direction can be issued absent a Title IV complaint. Moreover, violation of a pastoral direction is, per Canon IV.4.1(d), an actionable Title IV offense.
In other words, a bishop diocesan who wants to avoid a tsunami of frustration is well-advised to:
- Set a firm timeline for the possible negotiation of an accord. Doing so shouldn’t take long if the respondent merely is miguided; four weeks should be plenty of time.
- If and when, as here, negotiations fail, the best next step is a pastoral direction. Much like good fences making good neighbors, a good pastoral direction sets expectations, establishes boundaries, and potentially limits harm to the relevant community.
And, if a pastoral direction is needed, it’s also a fair inference that the respondent indeed is incorrigible.
In other words, Anglican Watch believes that the Court of Review’s implicit recommendation, which is to essentially to deploy a pastoral direction early in the process, is helpful to all involved. And to be clear: +Stevenson and DioVA have beyond beyond patient with Ramey.
Indeed, as issues come up, all dioceses, not just Virginia, could head off a lot of trouble were judicatories to more widely deploy written pastoral directions. And the irony is that we know plenty of problematic priests (and bishops) whose files are replete with written advice, guidance, suggestions, etc., all of which resulted in no meaningful change.
Or, to paraphrase one canon to the ordinary, if church officials have had their eyes on a particular priest for a while, and all hell breaks loose, it may be that the real problem is that the bishop in question didn’t act early enough and directly enough to head off the underlying problems.
So, we see increased use of pastoral directions as good for all involved.
About that second Title IV case involving Ramey
Relatedly, we previously covered the second Title IV case filed against Ramey, which was deferred pending the outcome of the appeal of the original case. We are not sure that immediately pursuing the case is the best path forward.
While the public record is thin in the second case, there appear to be two underlying issues:
- That Ramey allegedly attended the last General Convention, although it is not clear if he did so in any official capacity or if he held himself forth as a priest. Ramey’s attendance, DioVA argues, was a violation of administrative leave imposed as a result of the earlier hearing panel decision, which recommended that Ramey be deposed.
- That Ramey refused to cooperate with a Title IV investigation into his attendance at GC, which, if accurate, would be a per se Title IV offense.
To be clear, were this a civil court, Ramey’s administrative leave would be actionable, even if the underlying case is overturned. Specifically, defiance of a court order is still contempt, even if the court order is later struck down on appeal. And the same logic should pertain to dealing with one’s bishop.
That said, a lot of time and money has gone into the first Title IV case, and a second one case would only exacerbate these issues.
Meanwhile, the Court of Review has made it clear it wants several things:
1. To see a written pastoral direction.
2. As much as possible, healing and reconciliation.
Thus, it seems like the best next step may be to have a brief conversation about a possible accord on Ramey’s so-called Eucharistic Fast and his refusal to cooperate in a Title IV proceeding.
If that conversation fails, as it almost certainly will, given Ramey’s intransigence, then it may be best to issue a pastoral direction on both topics.
At that point, we all but guarantee Ramey will violate the terms and conditions, at which point his removal as a priest is a foregone conclusion.
At the end of the day, Ramey is painfully clueless about racism, and his efforts to cash in on slavery via tourism aka “pilgrimages” and his Hire a Heretic nonsense is powerfully offensive.
Let’s hope DioVA can either get rid of this guy, or that he will go away on his own without any more drama.
We don’t wish Ramey ill—we just want him gone.
Leave a Reply