Pedophile alert: Anglican Watch issues urgent warning after multiple sources warn of possible pedophile/grooming activity at Trinity Episcopal, Upperville VA involving rector “Johnny Boy” Adams

Disclosure: Due to potential conflict of interest, Anglican Watch editor Eric Bonetti’s role in this post was limited to fact-checking.

Anglican Watch is issuing an urgent warning about a possible pedophile at Trinity Episcopal Church, located in Upperville, Va. The warning follows reports from multiple sources, including a police investigative report, alleging grooming directed at boys by Trinity’s rector, The Reverend Jonathan V. Adams. We believe the allegations are persuasive.

Specific allegations include:

1. Inappropriate, sexualized conversations initiated by Adams targeting select boys.
2. Adams encouraged boys to call him “Johnny Boy,” even after parents had instructed their children not to. This appears to be an attempt to overcome children’s innate caution around adults and to position Adams as a peer, versus an adult who must, at all times, maintain appropriate boundaries with children.
3. Repeated requests by Adams to keep certain conduct secret from parents. This is a highly reliable indicator of grooming and profoundly inappropriate.
4. Persistent and aggressive attempts to get male children to attend sleepovers at Adam’s home, even after their parents said no. In multiple cases, Adams appears to have attempted end-runs around parents by going to care providers and others.
5. Inappropriate touching.
6. Providing children with alcohol.

Three additional factors heighten our concern about this situation:

1. Adams previously was fired from the Anglican-adjacent Church of the Apostles in Atlanta, an independent church with ties to the Falls Church Episcopal sex scandal. Adams claims to have been a whistleblower in this matter, and to have been fired for violating a non-disclosure agreement about these issues. While it appears that Adams indeed was a whistleblower, we have been unable to verify the circumstances of his termination. Meanwhile, allegations of child sexual abuse appear to be a disturbingly recurring theme when Adams is involved.
2. When these allegations were first brought to the attention of the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia, Adams allegedly insisted on a nondisclosure agreement (NDA), which the Diocese rightly refused. That begs the question: Why, precisely, would an NDA be needed? Something clearly does not pass the sniff test.
3. Sources close to the matter tell Anglican Watch that the Diocese of Virginia declined to move forward with a full investigation, instead telling parishioners that Adams had been fully exonerated. We find this purported conclusion on the part of the Diocese entirely unpersuasive. Indeed, to our mind, the police report, which by definition carries greater weight than any Diocesan investigation, offers convincing evidence that Adams engaged in grooming conduct. Thus, we urge the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia to conduct a full investigation and release the results to the public. Moreover, we note that the standard the Roman church uses in disclosing such allegations — which involves “credible allegations” of abuse — is more than established by the police report. We see no reason that the Diocese should not adopt a similar standard, versus hiding everything behind a claim of confidentiality.

The Diocese of Virginia and its further role in this matter

Sizing up the role of the Diocese of Virginia is difficult, as diocesan officials declined to comment, citing the Title IV clergy disciplinary canons as requiring confidentiality.

To be clear, the canons expressly permit the Bishop Diocesan to waive confidentiality in the interests of providing a pastoral response. Such a waiver, we believe, would be an appropriate way to alert parents and the Trinity vestry to these issues, thus making it easier for all involved to protect children and other vulnerable populations.

Additionally, disclosure by the Diocese could help refute allegations we have received that, when the Diocese referred the matter to law enforcement, it minimized the matter, referring only to the issues of inappropriate nicknames and providing alcohol to children.

What we can say with certainty is that the Diocese chose to allow Adams to remain in ministry, allegedly with written restrictions on his behavior.

That begs the issue: If parents and vestry members don’t know about the underlying allegations, how will anyone know if Adams violates these purported restrictions?

Further, we believe the Diocese may not fully apprehend the issues at hand. An increasing number of jurisdictions, including New York State, are now treating grooming itself as a criminal offense. That is rightly the case, as no one should have to wait until child sexual abuse actually occurs to act. Criminal charges must not be the standard before the Diocese acts to remove an abusive priest from ministry — and grooming is, per se, a form of abuse. (Certainly, the fact that the Diocese initially attempted to withhold the Title IV intake report from law enforcement suggests it does not fully understand its obligations as a mandated reporter of child abuse.)

Relatedly, things will not look good for the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia if allegations of actual child sexual abuse emerge. Indeed, leaving an alleged predator in place, subject to “confidential” written behavioral guidelines, is going to look like a cover-up. Add in Adams’ termination from the Church of the Apostles, his implicit ties to the Falls Church Episcopal child sex abuse scandal, and the apparent lack of an in-depth background check before Adams’ hiring, and this is a disaster waiting to happen.

Indeed, if this situation blows up, financial liability will be the least of the Diocese’s concerns. Instead, the reputational fallout will be devastating, and the Diocese may face an epic scandal.

Additionally, while Trinity has a substantial endowment, it has relatively few pledging units and comprises an overwhelmingly older population. Thus, a child sex abuse scandal would result in an existential crisis for the parish.

Ethical issues

Of course, all of these issues are secondary to the overarching ethical issues in this situation, as in, on what planet is it okay to leave a priest with an alleged ongoing track record of grooming behavior with access to children, and the imbalance of power inherent in being a priest?

From where we sit, both the Diocese and Trinity’s vestry appear to be acting in reckless disregard of the welfare of children and others.

There’s simply no excuse for this.

Relatedly, we have concerns about Adams’ son

On this topic, we want to tread carefully, as we are discussing the welfare of a specific minor.

That said, some of the information in the police report is deeply concerning. Other sources have corroborated these allegations to us.

Specific concerns:

• Adams’ son allegedly has displayed sexual knowledge inappropriate for his age. If these claims are accurate, they are highly indicative that he has experienced sexual abuse. Indeed, this is a primary red flag for anyone who has ever worked with at-risk children.
• The son’s own boundary issues — as evinced by allegations of racist and sexualized text messages (including references to anal sex) — suggest that he is experiencing similar boundary violations.
• Claims that inappropriate content from the son’s cellphone are the result of having his phone hacked are unpersuasive and appear entirely unsupported by the evidence.
• One anecdote in the police report appears to suggest that Adams’ son woke up in an inappropriate public place with no recollection of the events before this event. This anecdote suggests several disturbing possibilities, including drug use or being subjected to a date rape drug. But no matter what the underlying reason for this alleged event, this is a reason for profound concern.
• These do not appear to be de minimis issues. To the contrary, they were sufficiently serious that one school allegedly removed Adams’ son from the school. Tellingly, Adams purportedly asked the school to lie about the circumstances behind this situation.

Thus, we suspect, but do not know, that Adams’ son may, himself, be the victim of child sex abuse.

Miscellany

A few final details:

1. We requested comment directly from Adams. He did not respond to our request and appears to be on a pilgrimage, possibly with youth from Trinity.
2. Two people on the small Anglican Watch team have worked directly with at-risk children and have extensive training in these issues. The situations described in the report are textbook cases of grooming — a conclusion consistent with that of Faquier County law enforcement.
3. Insert the word “alleged” in front of every sentence in this post. All persons are innocent until found guilty by a court of competent jurisdiction. And to be clear, area law enforcement has not concluded that a criminal violation has yet occurred. That said, we believe the evidence in this matter to be both reliable and persuasive.
4. As stated previously, we firmly reject the notion that this matter is confidential or that written guidelines are sufficient to protect children in this situation. Parents must have sufficient knowledge to protect their children and ensure that appropriate boundaries are maintained.
5. Relatedly, Episcopal Church canons DO NOT require confidentiality in all Title IV cases; instead, they grant the Bishop Diocesan authority to disclose information as needed to provide a pastoral response. We can think of no more pressing reason to disclose these allegations than to protect children from potential child sexual abuse.
6. Further, the Diocese of Virginia’s attempts to treat this matter as confidential only exacerbate distrust of the Diocese and its motives.
7. In the event allegations of criminal activity on Adams’ part emerge, we encourage plaintiff’s counsel to be in touch. We are prepared to provide details on who knew what, when, and what they didn’t do about it. And yes, we will testify under oath.
8. We provide a redacted copy of the police report at the end of this post. While all the allegations in the report are disturbing, we have highlighted those aspects that are particularly germane.

In closing

As we stated earlier in this post, we extend our strongest possible warnings about any situation in which children might be alone with Adams. Indeed, this situation is so serious that we caution parents against bringing children or other vulnerable persons to worship or events at Trinity Church Upperville, or any setting in which Adams might be alone with children.

UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES SHOULD ADAMS EVER BE ALONE WITH CHILDREN OR OTHER VULNERABLE PERSONS. NOR SHOULD ADAMS EVER HAVE ONE-ON-ONE CONVERSATIONS WITH ANY PARISHIONER, CHILD, OR OTHER PERSON AT RISK.

To be clear: This is one of the most disturbing situations we have covered, and we are deeply concerned, both about the potential risk to children and for legal liability for the Diocese and Trinity.