Photo courtesy of Wikimedia
There have been unmistakable signs of tension between St. Thomas Fifth Avenue and the Episcopal Diocese of New York since the stuff first hit the fan over multiple allegations of sexual assault and harassment by St. Thomas staff against an adult male parishioner. This tension underscores the importance of an independent bishop to handle the resulting Title IV clergy disciplinary cases and several other changes to the way the Diocese is handling the matter.
Conflict between pastoral and Title IV judicatory roles
To be clear, there is an inherent tension and conflict within Title IV between the bishop’s role as pastor to clergy in the Diocese, and their role as a member of the reference panel. Thus, a smart bishop often will hand off one role or their other to an independent bishop — or both roles.
In the instant case, Bishop Shin is worse than no solution. He not only has all of the conflicts that Bishop Heyd has, but he also has the added conflict of reporting to Heyd.
Moreover, Shin and the Diocese are mishandling the requisite pastoral care, both for the alleged victim and those hurt by the allegations. Injured parties include:
- The victim.
- The victim’s girlfriend.
- The victim’s family.
- The complainants, which include the victim and this publication.
- The church of St. Thomas.
- The St. Thomas vestry and wardens.
- Others as may be identified.
We also note that, probably due to the existing litigation against the Diocese involving the Choir School and allegations of sexual assault, the Diocese has adopted a relatively hostile tone, including towards this publication and the alleged victim.
Nor is it wise for the victim in this case—or the previous allegations of child sexual abuse—to blindly trust the Diocese and its investigation. Indeed, we have spotted some disturbing aspects to the Diocese’s investigation that appear to be aimed at risk mitigation versus getting to the truth.
The Diocese ultimately will act to protect its own perceived legal and reputational issues. That is all the more the case when the victim in this case has said that he intends to file legal action against the church for defamation. Thus, in this case, the Diocese is more concerned about potential legal liability than doing what’s right.
Further, our experience is that judicatories rarely have the distance to correctly perceive what really is in the church’s best interest.
Often, for example, the church will reference the need to avoid traumatizing a parish by disclosing the underlying misconduct.
But allegations of misconduct are inherently tramautic, since they involve a breach of trust. And failure to disclose the underlying allegations serves only to further traumatize all involved while creating a “skeleton in the closet” that will, in ways large and small, haunt the parish for years to come.
Thus, bringing in an outsider will lend some objectivity to what so far has been a botched Title IV process.
Choosing people to help
So, who should the Diocese bring in to help?
The answer starts with the alleged victim, who should already have an advisor at this point. If he doesn’t, we recommend someone trauma-informed, with retired Connecticut Canon Robin Hammeal-Urban a particularly good choice.
As to bishops, retired Connecticut Bishop Ian Douglas has been remarkably helpful to victims. If he’s not available, Bishop of Central Florida Douglas Holcomb also would be an excellent choice.
There also are multiple bishops who would not be good choices. While the list is too long to include everyone, we are particularly mindful that Chilton Knudsen, who in the past was a go-to for situations like this, has a questionable track record of veracity/integrity in abuse cases.
Larger sexual misconduct prevention and training issues
As an aside, the situation at hand illustrates a big problem with current sexual misconduct prevention and training issues.
Specifically, policies consistently reference children and vulnerable adults. That overlooks two problems:
- At multiple points in our lives, all persons are vulnerable. Nor can we assume we know when someone is vulnerable or not.
- Plenty of non-vulnerable adults experience sexual harassment and abuse in the Episcopal Church. Indeed, the current primary victim is not readily classified as vulnerable. Nor is he seeking fame, fortune, or money—despite the fact we have seen suggestions from the Diocese that this is the case. (For the record, Anglican Watch has no interest in the matter, except to see the church clean up its act. The latter appears to be a tall order.)
For the reasons above, we hope one positive outcome will be that the Episcopal Church and the respondents in this case expand misconduct prevention and training to make clear than there are no excluded categories when it comes to sexual abuse/misconduct.
Attitudes matter
We also note that the Diocese and St. Thomas’ increasingly appear to be treating the complainant’s situation as a threat. That’s hardly surprising in light of the current litigation against the church and the Diocese over allegations of child sex abuse, but it’s not helpful.
As Christians, we are called to bring light to the darkness. Those who do so do the church a favor, even if at times it doesn’t feel like it. Conversely, those who minimize misconduct cause lasting harm to the denomination and the message of the Gospels.
Moreover, it’s all too common for church members and judicatories in these situations to withdraw into the perceived safety of their little slice of stained glass paradise. But that is the worst possible outcome for all involved, including St. Thomas.’
To be clear, things are a hot mess at St. Thomas’, and both the vestry and the current case of clergy are responsible.
Even worse, the church and its leadership evince a narcissistic world view in which they think the present situation is fine, normal and acceptable. It is not, and a major challenge will be for the St. Thomas clergy, vestry, and wardens to back up and engage in self-scrutiny.
Indeed, there are myriad allegations of sexual assault and harassment involving St. Thomas’ in recent weeks. Thus, these are not issues that can be ignored.
Moreover, Matthew Moritz’s alleged response to these situations has been shocking, appalling, and profoundly unethical. That is all the more the case when, as here, the church already has, by its own admission, had multiple prior cases of child sex abuse.
As a reminder: groping, pornography, boundary incursions, unwanted touching, sexual assault, sexual relations with strangers, and other sexual shenanigans are never Christian. We condemn these behaviors at St. Thomas. No exceptions. No explanations. No excuses. And things never should have reached this point in the first place.
Nor is there any excuse for victim-blaming and retaliation. These behaviors need to stop, and they need to stop now. And both the Diocese and the parish can stop with the crappy attitudes.
Finally, we remind all involved: This matter has been dragging on for over six months. The Diocese dismissed the initial complaint of sexual harassment, basically because it couldn’t be bothered. The fact the primary victim needed to consult an attorney is a damning indictment of the Diocese and its ongoing failure to prevent and address sexual misconduct.
As in, “How many times do we need to have this conversation?
Further we remind all involved that, in the words of the Standing Commission on Constitution and Canons:
A poorly handled Title IV matter can cause unnecessary — and often irreparable — harm to both relationships and reputations of all parties involved. The Church has a responsibility to remediate any unnecessary costs, both relational and financial….More harm to the Church can flow from the mismanagement of a claim than from the misconduct itself.
A copy of the legal demand letter involving two St. Thomas’ employees, both of whom are still welcome on the property, is provided below. It was provided to us by someone in the Diocese who is close to the matter.
Both the Diocese and St. Thomas’ need to get their acts together.
Leave a Reply