Saint Thomas Church Fifth Avenue announces investigation into allegations of sexual abuse, nine months after it first learned about these issues and retaliated against the complainant
The purpose of this post is simple: We are calling BS on Saint Thomas Church Fifth Avenue following the church’s announcement that it is conducting a third-party investigation into allegations of sexual assault. Specifically, while the church claims in an email sent today that “the safety of all those in our communities is of paramount importance to Saint Thomas Church, and we adhere to safe church practices,” the reality is it has spent all of 2025 doing its utmost to ignore the underlying allegations while violating safe church policies by retaliating against the alleged victim of sexual assault.
In other words, St. Thomas’ claim is a fabrication, a lie.
A copy of St. Thomas’ email is below:
History
As Anglican Watch previously reported, Matthew Moretz, the church’s COO, and Carl Turner, the church’s rector, first learned of the allegations of sexual assault in the first few weeks of 2025. They were told of the allegations directly by the purported victim, whom we refer to as “Andrew W.”
Those involved included:
- Bill Davis, a retired RN and substance abuse counselor, was also a church employee at the time.
- Mark Schultz, an assistant rector at the church, also known none too affectionately as the “Groping Guru.”
- Erich Erving, Schultz’s same-sex husband, and a well-known producer of religious-themed pornography. Erving and Schultz share a church-owned condo located in the St. Thomas Choir School Building, and thus live amidst choir school students.
Moretz and Turner both brushed off the victim, and several days later banned him from the property amidst a smear campaign in which they made a variety of false accusations, including:
- That he is a “domestic terrorist.”
- That he made threatening and harassing phone calls to the church.
- That he repeatedly physically attacked church members.
We also believe that someone at the church, most likely Carl Turner, contacted Andrew W.’s employer with these fabrications.
St. Thomas’ response
We hesitate to say it, but given the stupidity and corruption we have seen coming from St. Thomas, we feel the need to point out two obvious things:
- The appropriate time for the investigation was immediately upon receiving word of the allegations in early 2025. September 2025 doesn’t cut it, and we’ll have more to say on that in a moment.
- It is a per se violation of Episcopal Canon IV.3.1.e to engage in retaliation for reporting or opposing sexual assault or other conduct prohibited under church disciplinary canons.
And just in case Turner and Moretz have some lame excuse why they didn’t launch an independent investigation at the time, it must be noted they’ve gotten an earful repeatedly about these allegations over the past nine months:
- We’ve covered the story.
- Our sister publication, The Wartburg Watch, has covered the story.
- The alleged victim filed a Title IV clergy disciplinary complaint against Turner, which the diocese brushed off in direct violation of church canons.
- We’ve filed a Title IV complaint against Carl Turner and Matthew Moretz over their efforts to sandbag the original complaint of sexual assault.
- We’ve emailed the wardens and Turner about these issues several times. (Save those emails, guys—you’ll need them during discovery, especially when you try to explain why you’ve ignored this situation for nine months.)
So, it’s not like the lawsuit recently filed against St. Thomas and others comes as a surprise. Far from it.
The diocesan response
Nor is the Diocese of New York any better.
Soon after St. Thomas launched its defamatory smear campaign against Andrew W., New York Bishop Matthew Heyd jumped into the fray, sending a defamatory email to hundreds of people within the Diocese. This email repeated St. Thomas’ fabrications and purported to ban the victim from all parishes within the Diocese of New York, as well as from participating in any church activities. And while the bishop Diocesan does not have that authority under church canons, it’s always good to see how the denomination’s purported commitment to inclusion plays out in real life.
For the record, we’ve contacted Matthew “Frat Boy” Heyd and Bishop “Clueless” Shin directly about these issues, only to be met with typical Episcopal passive-aggressive silence.
In other words, the Diocese has not only known of these issues for nine months, but it’s also been a willing co-conspirator in the retaliation against Andrew W.
Indeed, the Diocese has been investigating these issues for a while, although much of its effort appears to be directed at efforts to discredit the victim, versus dealing with the underlying allegations of misconduct.
Other victims afoot and further context
There’s also another aspect to this case that neither the parish nor the Diocese is sharing with church members. Specifically, other victims have come forward.
Indeed, as both the Diocese and parish know, there is an active police investigation into additional allegations of sexual misconduct at the choir school.
So, any effort to unpack this situation requires that vestry members, church members, and the public understand that this is NOT a case of he said/he said. Moreover, one of the individuals allegedly involved appears to be facing criminal charges.
Additionally, our digging reveals that Schultz, Erickson, and Davis all have some questionable aspects to their past that lend credence to these allegations.
At this point, we’re not willing to go into details, but if Anglican Watch can uncover these issues despite our limited resources, St. Thomas should have spotted them long ago.
Sort of like having convicted drug dealer Tristan Rodas working as a security guard at the church, eh?
So why an investigation, and why now?
All of this begs two questions:
- Why would St. Thomas conduct an investigation?
- Why would it do so now?
Based on the facts of this case, the answer is four-fold:
- St. Thomas’ is trying to reduce its potential legal liability by claiming that it follows safe church practices, even though this is a bold-faced lie.
- St. Thomas’ is trying to dig up dirt it can use in litigation.
- St. Thomas’ and the Diocese are in a tug-of-war, and it’s trying to protect its turf.
- St. Thomas’ is using its so-called “independent investigation” as part of an effort at reputation management.
We feel like the first two issues are self-explanatory, but the third issue requires additional explanation.
Specifically, the Diocese is well aware that its handing of the situation is a debacle and in no way compliant with the Title IV canons. Thus, it has been trying to find a way to extricate itself from its self-inflicted disaster, even as St. Thomas tries to flout diocesan authority by telling the bishops to pound sand.
Indeed, sources within St. Thomas tell us there’s been enormous tension between the church and the diocese, and that St. Thomas is trying mightily to keep control over these issues. Hence an “independent investigation,” even though the Diocese already is investigating various Title IV complaints now pending against St. Thomas clergy.
On this score, we want to be clear with all involved: No matter how St. Thomas tries to define these issues, it is indisputable that the parish has engaged in retaliation for complaining of sexual assault. That retaliation includes a smear campaign that was aided and abetted by Matthew Heyd and the Diocese.
Moreover, both the parish and the Diocese have had ample time and notice to retract their fabrications, apologize, and make restitution to Andrew W.
Indeed, we have contacted both the parish and the Diocese directly and made that demand in writing—a request that should have been a no-brainer for any genuine Christian.
Both the Diocese and St. Thomas have ignored these demands, so at this point a lawsuit is entirely warranted. Moreover, we believe that an award of punitive damages is appropriate, since both organizations have knowingly persisted in their tortious conduct.
While we’re on the topic, it’s important that the public and members of the Diocese of New York not allow St. Thomas to pull a fast one by reframing the issues.
While Schultz may deny that he sexually assaulted Andrew W., Davis’ conduct was, in at least one instance, apparently witnessed by third parties. Moreover, an even bigger issue than the allegations of sexual assault is the defamatory smear campaign launched by the Diocese and St. Thomas.
Yet the email from St. Thomas, included in this post, self-servingly omits these salient points — as well as the fact others have come forward with similar allegations of sexual abuse. And the Groping Guru, aka Mark Schultz, has continued to serve the parish for almost NINE MONTHS since these allegations came to light, which proves that neither St. Thomas nor the Diocese gives a red rat’s rear end about safe church policies.
Speaking of, Carl Turner is directly implicated in this scandal, as is Matthew Moretz, as both knowingly mishandled allegations of sexual assault and are part of the underlying civil conspiracy to engage in criminal conduct.
Thus, both need to be suspended.
In other words, neither the Diocese nor St. Thomas, nor the defendants, have any credibility in this matter. Thus, we reiterate our previous advice, which is that they act promptly to settle the lawsuit against them. Failing to do so will only make a bad situation worse.
A redacted copy of the lawsuit filed by Andrew W is included below.
You traffic in innuendo and don’t seem to have knowledge of how legal investigations work — inside or outside TEC. While your goals (transparency/accountability to minimize Anglican malfeasance) are laudable, your methods (and tone) actively harm your mission.
We are well aware of how legal investigations work, including the fact that the Diocese is conducting one of its own in the context of the Title IV charges against Moretz, Turner, Schultz, and others. In that regard, the information may ONLY be used for Title IV purposes, although the line of questioning by the initial investigator (who subsequently recused himself due to a conflict of interest) was NOT appropriate to Title IV.
Further, as a point of clarity: The time to launch an investigation was during Q1 2025. The alleged victim should NOT have had to file a lawsuit in order for this to happen. And there is ZERO excuse for retaliation, which is expressly forbidden by the canons, as well as any ethical reference point.
As for innuendo, we have run background checks on all the key players, including Schultz, Moretz, Turner, Davis, and Erickson. While we are not yet ready to publish specifics, Schultz, Davis, and Erickson all have issues in their past that raise troubling questions — and yes, we will publish when the time is right. We further note the egregious breakdown in the church’s vaunted safe church program, including Tristan Rodas serving as a security guard, despite multiple prior criminal convictions, including a felony conviction for selling heroin to high school kids. So we are not implying anything: We are flatly stating that there are serious problems with St. Thomas, its response to allegations of abuse, and its screening of people in positions of trust.
We also remind you:
Other victims have come forward, and there is an active criminal investigation into additional allegations of sexual assault. St. Thomas and the St. Thomas Choir School are fully aware of this; if nothing else, the law enforcement seizure earlier this year of the CCTV servers from the school should have been enough to set alarm bells off at every level. And yes, we have been contacted by some of the other individuals alleging sexual assault.
As to tone, yes, we do get angry when, as here, faith communities actively engage in injustice and oppression, including retaliation against a person who has alleged sexual assault.
Speaking of investigations, we believe there is a high likelihood that at least one incident of sexual assault referenced in the lawsuit actually was captured by the CCTV system. We are looking forward to that issue emerging during the litigation.
Anon Imus criticizes the “methods and tone” of the article, while making an ad hominem criticism of “trafficking in innuendo.”
Yup. No innuendo here: St. Thomas’ is corrupt. Full stop.
Everyone is innocent until proven guilty and yet here people are condemned. A jury trial for damages is impossible in light of the information put out here on a daily basis.
Also gay marriage is legal. No minor was involved in the case you are referring to so how can you question the living arrangements? A man accused of assaaulting a woman will not be removed from a building where children reside. Gay people have rights.
Christian organizations have to be held accountable for all actions but responses should not negate future trials if they prove nexessary.
How can there be a fair trial for damages after all the prejudicial comments published here by AW?
A straight man accused of assaulting a woman would be allowed to reside in a building where children live. Gay couples have the same rights. No minors were involved in the indecents you profile here.
To be clear: Safe church policies and common sense prohibit access to children in any church-related function or program in which the adult individual is accused of sexual misconduct or domestic violence, regardless of sexual orientation. Moreover, Erickson’s ongoing production of religious-themed pornography renders him an inappropriate resident at the Choir School, as would be the case if, for example, he manufactured drugs. Just because his spouse is a priest does not grant carte blanche when the couple lives in church-provided housing amidst minors.
We also remind readers that, following our initial coverage, additional victims came forward with allegations of abuse. Moreover, we previously documented issues with staff complaining of ongoing sexual harassment by church staff.
It also is indisputable that the church has known about these allegations for nine months, and that the church and the Diocese have attacked the alleged victim via a series of defamatory per se statements.
As to a civil trial, the court will provide appropriate jury instructions or otherwise act to ensure the integrity of any proceeding. The possibility of influencing a trial is not a legitimate reason to engage in refuse to shed light on allegations of wrongdoing.
Here is a copy of the text messages in which a church security guard alleged ongoing sexual harassment by Bill Davis: https://www.anglicanwatch.com/text-messages-suggest-ongoing-sexual-harassment-by-st-thomas-church-fifth-avenue-gay-employees-and-parishioners/
You’re okay with a straight man continuing to live in church-provided housing among children after allegedly assaulting a woman?!?
Wow. You have issues.
No one at St. Thomas or the Diocese was worried about potentially influencing civil litigation when they sent out emails and other communications falsely claiming that the alleged victim is a “domestic terrorist” and that he had been arrested for making terroristic threats.
This double standard is common in the Episcopal Church.
A man who creates pornographic art can’t be banned from living in any building where children resides. Is there a law that prevents anyone who creates pron from actors to producers to distributors from living f in housing that includes children? I’m on the side of truth. I want everything to be fair and factual. In Jesus name I ask for this.!
You are absolutely right that no one should obstruct justice but I could not be a juror after reading things about the accused here where they have been tried and found guilty. You would do well to present all information you find without the prejudice ‘groping guru’ and ‘knucklehead.’ I am a member of that church.
The email sent out was, I believe, required. It did not suggest anyone was guilty. That verdict is not in.
You are misinformed as to the church’s ability to ban people from church property. There is no statute that prohibits the church from deciding who can and cannot live on church property. That is a “fair and factual” statement. Moreover, producers of porn, drug dealers, and persons facing allegations of sexual violence can and should be barred from contact with children and other vulnerable populations per the denomination’s own safe church policies. All we can say is if you disagree, you have profound ethical issues — and you urgently need to attend safe church training.
As to your perceptions of prejudice, when Matthew Heyd publicly withdraws his claims of “domestic terrorism” and other defamatory comments, we’ll talk. He has our email address.
And I wouldn’t brag about being a member of any church in which, as here, Carl Turner contacted the victim’s employer with his defamatory comments.
Indeed, last we heard, the stricture against false witness remains a key tenant of Christianity. Or does that not apply at St. Thomas?
Speaking of, there was additional coverage this morning involving the lawsuit. We are pleased that others will find out about the ethical and moral corruption at St. Thomas and among its members.
https://www.amny.com/new-york/manhattan/nyc-neighborhoods/midtown-manhattan/sexual-assault-saint-thomas-church/
I see two themes in your comments:
1. An effort to run interference for St. Thomas, Mark Schultz, and the rest of this sordid bunch.
2. A profound lack of empathy for Andrew Westphal.
Both are inconsistent with being a Christian.
As one of the many regular lurkers on here, I second Patty’s comments.
My perspective, shared by most of us regulars, is that, yes, there appear to be boundary issues with Andrew and a lack of common sense on some issues, including his perceived right to censor the news media. Nor do I think he’s going to have the integrity to apologize to folks at AW.
But none of this comes close to undoing or offsetting the harm that the Diocese and St. Thomas has caused Andrew, his fiance, and his family.
Until the church and the Diocese own up to their misconduct and make restitution, it’s important to stay away from this bunch of sleazes. Nor should Andrew sign an NDA, which is per se unethical on the part of the church.
BTW, Eric and co: I get why you are being careful about printing Andrew’s name. But I’m kind of glad it’s out there. It gives the story more credibility.
I’ve also heard on the grapevine that JP Morgan is mad about your coverage. I DGAF. Where do they get off deciding what the news media can publish? They need to worry more about protecting victims of sexual assault and less about their precious reputation.
F*** fascists.
Wow this is really disturbing. Not just the allegations, which are awful enough, but the smear campaign (up to the bishop?) and the disgusting comments here trying to paint uncovering abuse as homophobic somehow… I hope that the lawsuit will force some kind of accountability for this parish and the diocese. Makes me ashamed to be an episcopalian
Yes, and there are other people who have been banned by STC for complaining. Meanwhile, the Diocese does not appear to have lifted its ban on the victim attending services, and Heyd has done nothing to our knowledge to apologize. So, no sign of repentance at all on the part of the Diocese.
That said, if and when Heyd apologizes publicly and retracts his fabrications, as he should, we will glad publish details.
Thanks for commenting.
– Editor
Saw today’s comments and wanted to weigh in.
To reiterate: Jean Michael’s comments are appalling, ignorant, and mean. Anyone considering STC should consider that this sort of thing is okay in that cesspool of a church.
As to the Diocese, I agree. Heyd owes all involved a written public apology and a retraction of his fabrications.
Will that happen?
Knowing these clowns, doubtful. Instead, we’ll soon be in Advent, and we’ll hear the usual bullcrap about introspection and repentance. It just won’t apply to Heyd, Shin, and the rest of these assholes. They’re too good to actually be Christians.