The problem with the Title IV clergy disciplinary canons isn’t what you think. Here’s our take.

Hello everyone. Today’s post is shorter than most. It’s Friday, the weather is nice, and it’s been a long week for folks in AW land. So, today, we’re going to explore a baseline (and hopefully simple) question: What is the root cause of the problems with Title IV?

Before we go further, let’s be clear about something: Title IV is ridiculously over-engineered, ineffectual, and, in practice, treats complainants like dirt. Indeed, few complainants who’ve run into Title IV or the Episcopal Church’s clergy disciplinary system have escaped without feeling like their backside just went one-on-one with a chainsaw.

And many times, those not directly involved wind up feeling similarly used and abused, like the Michigan dioceses after Todd Ousley decided to reward Bishop Whayne Houghland, an admitted adulterer, with a golden parachute, even as he proclaimed the situation to be “a shining example of Title IV at its finest,” despite doing absolutely nothing to care for members of the Michigan dioceses. Oh, and Ousley, an episco-bro to the end, subsequently wired Houghland for a plum interim job at a ludicrously wealthy Chicago parish, St. Chrysostom’s.

Sound familiar?

That issue — the lack of concern for victims of abuse — is the root cause of all problems with Title IV. Indeed, even as cumbersome, convoluted, and closed as the Title IV process is, it has the means to care for complainants and others harmed by misconduct.

So how can this situation be fixed?

For starters, officials at all levels need to recognize the theological implications of Title IV. Far too often, judicatories (including Bishop Mark Stevenson) view Title IV in practice as a clergy licensure provision. As in, what steps do we need to take for you to continue as a priest?

The reality is, however, that it is, or should be, an example of the church doing what it does best: Working for health, wholeness, and reconciliation.

Of course, when the church’s priority becomes caring for those hurt by misconduct, priorities shift. Instead of treating Title IV as a make-it-up-as-you-go proposition, the emphasis becomes taking those steps needed to move towards health and wholeness. Thus, meeting with congregants, identifying needs, and providing a safe place for conversations become priorities.

Relatedly, disclosure and truthtelling become vitally important when the priority becomes caring for victims of abuse. And the welfare of people in the pews provides a touchstone by which we can evaluate the actions of intake officers and Reference Panels, many of which make no bones about the fact that they don’t follow the provisions of Title IV. Indeed, there can be no higher priority than caring for members of the church — even though, in practice, doing so is often an afterthought.

As an aside, we are growing increasingly concerned about the decision to take the denomination’s Title IV website offline. While the site is long overdue for an update to reflect changes to Title IV from the most recent General Convention, best practices would be to maintain access to the existing site while updating the site via a development, or “dev,” site. Then, when the new site is ready for prime time, you literally port content from one environment to another. So, we’re as puzzled why church officials think taking the site offline is helpful, unless they are trying to sidestep the issue that the Tile IV site proclaims that a pastoral response is one of the highest priorities at every phase of the process — even though the church rarely bothers to provide a pastoral response at any phase of a Title IV complaint.

In other words, given how atrocious compliance is with Title IV, even with the Title IV site (we’d flag it as a D- churchwide, and an F in the majority of dioceses), this is not the time to take the existing site offline. Indeed, the situation smacks of the debacle involving the annual parochial report; last year was the first time in the church’s history that it couldn’t count its own members.

Friends, that is pretty basic.

Bottom line: if nothing else emerges from next year’s General Convention, we hope there will be a push to recognize that Title IV is a ministry and that the people cared for under Title IV are victims of misconduct.

Until we get to that understanding, any changes to Title IV will fall short of what’s needed to restore integrity to the Episcopal Church.

And while we’re at it, would someone please, for the love of the Almighty, insist that Intake Officer for Bishops Barb Kempf either start acting with integrity, or resign? Her conduct, including her dismissal of complaints without the authority to do so, brings discredit on the entire church.