Adams complainants report no diocesan pastoral response

Complainants in the Jonathan “Johnny Boy” Adams case tell Anglican Watch that the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia offered them neither a pastoral response nor pastoral care. Their account raises a direct question for Bishop Mark Stevenson: Why were people reporting alleged misconduct at Trinity Episcopal Church in Upperville left without the support the church’s disciplinary system is supposed to provide?

So what is the difference between a pastoral response and pastoral care? As Anglican Watch has previously explained, a pastoral response is a structured process addressing the harm surrounding a misconduct report. It includes appropriate disclosure, listening to affected people, assessing their needs, and working toward healing, justice, restitution, and reconciliation. Pastoral care—such as spiritual counsel and help accessing professional assistance—may be one component. A few conversations with a priest or an offer of counseling do not, by themselves, address the wider harm to people, relationships, and the congregation.

This obligation is hardly new. A pastoral response has been mandatory under the present Title IV framework since 2011. Effective January 1, 2025, the church added a specific requirement for a professional pastoral care assessment in cases involving alleged sexual misconduct. The Adams proceedings began later that year.

The complainants’ account

This concern also predates the complainants’ latest account. In July 2026 coverage of Adams’s resignation, Anglican Watch challenged Stevenson’s failure to provide the required pastoral response and questioned the diocese’s concern for the affected boy and his family.

The complainants’ report moves this story beyond an unanswered question about diocesan paperwork. They say the diocese did not offer them a pastoral response or pastoral care. We have had numerous opportunities to speak with the complainants, and we believe them without hesitation or reservation. Their account stands in stark contrast to the diocese’s public messaging about supporting the parish.

The diocese’s published account describes Stevenson’s communications with Trinity’s wardens and pastoral support for associate rector Jason Eslicker. (While we are deeply committed to the welfare of anyone hurt by the church, if we were Eslicker we’d have resigned long ago. If nothing else, working for Johnny Boy is a hellacious experience.) It also lists a diocesan contact for people seeking support. Those statements do not establish that the complainants were approached, their needs assessed, or appropriate care offered to them.

A contact on a website is not evidence that the bishop arranged the required response. Supporting church leadership does not answer what happened to the people who reported the alleged misconduct.

A requirement dating to 2011

General Convention adopted a comprehensive rewrite of Title IV through Resolution 2009-A185, effective July 1, 2011. Its Canon IV.8.1 required the diocesan bishop to provide an appropriate pastoral response whenever a report reached the intake officer. Respect and concern for affected people were part of the obligation.

The accompanying Canon IV.8.2 required consideration of pastoral care for complainants, their families, injured people, respondents, witnesses, and affected communities. The framework therefore contemplated care extending well beyond the accused priest and parish leadership.

To be clear: The duty to provide a pastoral response is mandatory. The provision addressing individual pastoral care uses the language of considering an offer. Bishops have discretion in arranging an appropriate response; they do not have discretion to dispense with the response altogether.

2018: recognition of the harm

In Resolution 2018-D047, General Convention explicitly recognized the psychological, spiritual, emotional, family, and community injuries associated with clergy misconduct. It also recognized reporting as an act of service to the church, deserving compassion rather than institutional hostility.

The resolution encouraged dioceses to assemble qualified professional resources, including trauma-informed assistance. It amended Canon IV.8.1 to encourage assistance from an appropriately skilled mental health professional when a report involved alleged sexual misconduct. The underlying pastoral response remained compulsory; this additional professional assistance was encouraged.

2024: professional assessment becomes mandatory

General Convention strengthened the rule through Resolution 2024-A053, adopted June 28, 2024. The revised Canon IV.8.1 requires a professional pastoral care assessment when a report involves alleged sexual misconduct, with the response based on that assessment and including all affected people and communities.

The 2024 canons took effect January 1, 2025. The amendment also changed Canon IV.8.5 so that a person designated to implement the pastoral response must not be the intake officer. Intake and coordinating care are distinct responsibilities.

The assessment requirement turns on an allegation of sexual misconduct. It does not require a criminal conviction, an admission, or a completed disciplinary proceeding. Assessing pastoral needs does not determine guilt.

What that means for Upperville

The diocese says it received allegations involving Adams in September 2025, including possible misconduct with children. It reports that law enforcement found no violations of law, while its own investigation found conduct inappropriate for clergy. Adams returned to ministry under an Accord in November 2025.

Anglican Watch has reported allegations of grooming in this case. Allegations of sexual misconduct trigger the assessment requirement; a decision against criminal charges does not erase it. The complainants’ account also raises the separate, broader question of compliance with the longstanding duty to provide a pastoral response.

Their report that no response or care was offered does not establish whether an assessment was commissioned privately. It does demand an explanation of how any assessment could have produced an appropriate response while leaving the complainants reporting that nothing was offered.

Stevenson needs to answer

Stevenson also serves on the Episcopal Church’s Court of Review, which hears appeals in clergy disciplinary matters. Surely we can expect a bishop entrusted with reviewing the application of Title IV—and the diocese he leads—to follow its canons. Compliance with the church’s pastoral response requirements is a reasonable place to start.

The diocese should address concrete questions:

What pastoral response was arranged for the complainants, and when was it offered?
Was a professional pastoral care assessment commissioned, by whom, and when?
How were the complainants and other affected people included?
What assistance followed, and how did it reflect the assessment?
If these steps were omitted, who will remedy the failure?

Answers can protect personal information while establishing whether the required process occurred. Confidentiality does not prevent the bishop from accounting for his own actions.

General Convention spent years strengthening these protections. If the complainants’ account reflects how the diocese handled this case, the failure reaches beyond the newest assessment requirement to an obligation in place for more than a decade. The church cannot credibly ask people to report misconduct, then leave them to find their own care.