Update: Anglican Watch responds to diocesan letter about the resignation of alleged pedophile Jonathan Adams

Disclosure: Anglican Watch editor Eric Bonetti had no role in the production of this post due to a potential conflict of interest

There is an excellent article on Fauquier Now about the meltdown at Trinity Upperville, which can be found here.

We would like to respond to some of the comments made in the Diocese’s letter to the parish and certain related issues:

1. There is no legitimate reason to return an alleged pedophile to ministry. Indeed, under existing safe church policies, Johnny Boy Adams would not be eligible to serve as a church volunteer, given the allegations of grooming. So help us understand: Why does a priest get a different approach? Per the canons, clergy are supposed to be held to a higher standard, not a lower standard.
2. Anyone who thinks an alleged pedophile has a legitimate role as a priest is clueless. As we stated previously, having a pedophile as a priest is like playing Russian roulette. Do it long enough and it will end badly.
3. As we have told the Diocese many times — and it has heard the same from friends of this publication — criminal prosecution is not an appropriate test for action under the Episcopal Title IV clergy disciplinary canons. Not only do priests often get inappropriate deference due to the their role as clergy, but there are many things that are legal but unethical. Grooming falls into the latter category.
4. Other persons have come forward, telling us they were groomed by Johnny Boy. While we cannot yet prove their allegations, our experience is that predators rarely choose just one victim. That’s why returning an alleged pedophile to ministry is such a bad idea.
5. As to Bishop Stevenson’s thing about bloggers causing problems at Trinity, (sure sounds like he’s talking about us!) it is not the person who comes forward that is the problem. It is the priest allegedly engaging in misconduct, and the Diocese that thinks having an alleged pedophile in ministry is acceptable. It is not.
6. The lies about how Adams was exonerated are not acceptable. 
7. While Stevenson claims that the Diocese’s investigation found that Johnny Boy had engaged in inappropriate conduct, we have in our possession a recording from the diocese’s attorney stating that the Diocese had decided NOT to investigate. Guess who we believe?
8. Had Bishop Stevenson provided the pastoral response mandated by Title IV (which is NOT the same as pastoral care), perhaps he wouldn’t now be writing about how some people feel unheard, or didn’t get the response they had hoped for. Indeed, we see zero sign of any concern by the Diocese for the boy who is the primary victim in this situation, or for his family.
9. How Trinity spends its money is its business, but we are profoundly uncomfortable with using sabbatical as a de facto severance package for an alleged pedophile. 
10. We are hoping that, working with others, we will be able to get Virginia to pass legislation to make grooming illegal, as approximately 20 other states have done. To be clear: Grooming is, itself, abuse. The fact the Diocese doesn’t recognize this is appalling.

The Diocese’s handling of this situation is fuster cluck of the first order, and diocesan officials should be ashamed. Indeed, the number of inconsistencies in this situation suggests cover-up and a lack of integrity on multiple levels.