Abundant Life school shooting underscores how Episcopal clergy perjury increases risk for the church

Disclosure: The following references Anglican Watch editor Eric Bonetti.

The horrific recent shooting at Abundant Life Christian School underscores a significant problem in the Episcopal Church, which is the church’s role in knowingly distracting from real situations of potential violence by crying wolf.

Specifically, Anglican Watch has repeatedly documented situations in which Episcopal clergy have, either directly or via tacit approval from their bishop diocesan, falsely told law enforcement and the courts that members who criticize them are somehow threatening. While rarely prosecuted, this proferring of perjurious testimony:

• Exploits the difference in perceived power and credibility between clergy and laity.
• Constitutes felonious criminal conduct.
• Undercuts the denomination’s witness.
• Encourages church members and others to leave the Christian faith.
• Distracts already overburdened law enforcement from investigating and pursuing actual situations involving indications of potential violent behavior.
• Creates irreparable reputational damage for all parties involved.

As such, false accusations by Episcopal clergy of threatening behavior by church members constitute egregious misconduct and actively contribute to the pandemic of gun-related violence.

Early indications of problems at Abundant Life

Before we go further, an important caveat: There is much we don’t yet know about the shootings at Abundant Life Christian School. Thus, it’s important not to go too far out on a limb in analyzing the situation.

What we do know, however, is that while it is extremely rare for an active shooter to be female, there were multiple classic warning signs of impending trouble on the part of alleged shooter Natalie “Samantha” Rupnow.

These signs included:

• A purportedly troubled home life.
• Profound isolation.
• Possible bullying at school.
• Alleged planning in the form of joining a gun range.
• Wearing a t-shirt that suggests ties to the Columbine active shooter, including a phrase that, translated from German, says, “No pity for the majority.”
• Other students noted that Rupnow “weirded them out.”

In short, while many believe in the myth of active shooters as strangers who roam a school looking for victims, the reality is that the perpetrator is usually a troubled student. Thus, effective prevention relies less on door barricades and other physical measures and more on paying attention to students who may be facing trauma.

Thus, Episcopal clergy who try to game law enforcement and the protective order system divert resources and distract from an already difficult need to proactively identify emerging threats.

Real-life examples of criminal conduct by Episcopal priests involving false claims of threatening behavior

In addition to several cases we are working on that are not ready for publication, Anglican Watch knows of two instances in which Episcopal clergy have knowingly made false claims about being threatened in order to try to shut down criticism.

Both cases share commonalities:

• The priest in question traded upon the power differential inherent in the priest/layperson relationship in order to further his criminal conduct.
• The priest who engaged in criminal conduct remains in active ministry.
• The dioceses in question support the criminal conduct.
• The bishops involved support the criminal conduct.
• The efforts to shut down criticism have hugely backfired, resulting in a torrent of adverse publicity.
• The priests’ behavior proved costly and traumatic for others.
• The priests’ illegal conduct exacerbated declining membership and financial support for the parishes and dioceses in question.
• The parishes and dioceses in question continue to try to ignore the resulting mess, even as they babble on about healing and reconciliation.

Example one: Episcopal priest and perjurer Will Bouvel

Our first example of the Episcopal Church undercutting public safety via criminal conduct by its clergy involves Episcopal priest Will Bouvel.

Bouvel is a canonical resident of the faltering Episcopal Diocese of Chicago and is married to a same-gender spouse. He presently serves as associate rector at Holy Comforter in Kenilworth, IL.

Prior to Bouvel’s ordination, local church member David Duggan, a conservative, contacted then-assisting Chicago Bishop Chilton Knudsen on a confidential basis to object to Bouvel’s ordination on the basis of the latter’s same-sex marriage.

Before we go further, let’s be clear about something: Knudsen is crooked as a corkscrew. Not only has she failed to report child sexual abuse on two known occasions, but she’s lied about it as well. That was the obvious conclusion in the recent Chicago litigation, in which Knudsen implausibly says she vividly remembers reporting child sexual abuse to the police—she just can’t remember with whom she spoke. (Oddly, no police records exist to support her claim.)

Moreover, Knudsen has stated in writing that allegations of criminal conduct by clergy are “not of weighty and material importance to the ministry of the church” for purposes of clergy discipline.

Does it get any more corrupt than this?

Returning to the issue of Bouvel’s unindicted criminal conduct, Bouvel decided, allegedly on the advice of Knudsen and the Diocese of Chicago, to try to shut down Duggan’s opposition to his ordination via a stalking protective order.

In regard to Bouvel’s claim that Duggan was stalking him, there are several key inflection points:

1. There was no communication, verbal, written, or otherwise, between Duggan and Bouvel in the run-up to Bouvel’s fabricated filing for a stalking protective order.
2. The two neither saw each other nor were in the same room in the run-up to Bouvel’s filing. This, combined with a complete lack of communication, makes any claim of stalking an obvious fabrication.
3. Duggan, at no point, threatened Bouvel.
4. Duggan expressly stated in his confidential letter that he would not disrupt Bouvel’s ordination.
5. Bouvel falsely claimed in his petition for a stalking protection order that Duggan had physically assaulted a church member and was under a “behavioral contract.” Subsequently, Bouvel attempted to explain away this fabrication by saying he’d heard it from others in the Diocese. (Defamatory gossip, anyone?
6. Bouvel also claimed in his petition that an allegorical article posted online about a gay postulant being ordained referred to him and was somehow a case of stalking. (First Amendment, anyone?)

Tellingly, Bouvel’s original attorney suddenly withdrew from the case.

Why did that happen? We don’t know.

We strongly suspect, however, that he resigned because of his ethical obligation not to knowingly give false testimony to the courts. In other words, he knew Bouvel was lying and could not, consistent with his role as an officer of the court, collaborate on

Indeed, no other explanation makes sense.

Attorneys typically follow the (cash) flow, and they have an ethical obligation not to quit representing a client simply because the next client in the door has a more lucrative case, is better looking, or for any other trivial reason.

Thus, we have a situation in which an attorney has more integrity than his client, an Episcopal priest. That is pretty damned sad.

Bouvel’s fabrications were ultimately thrown out on appeal, but not before his lying under oath had cost Duggan more than $60,000 in legal fees.

In subsequent Title IV clergy disciplinary cases, both at the diocesan and national levels, the Episcopal Church brushed off Duggan’s complaints, despite Bouvel’s facially obvious lies.

Indeed, both the diocesan chancellor and crooked bishop Chilton Knudsen fell all over themselves to head the Title IV cases off at the pass, claiming that they were behind Bouvel’s decision to file his petition for a stalking protective order.

And while the argument that the “bishop made me do it” may have been adequate to sabotage the Title IV cases, the claim doesn’t pass the sniff test. Perjury is perjury, regardless of who’s behind it, and it’s never acceptable conduct for a priest.

Today, Duggan is suing the Episcopal Church, Bouvel, and others involved, and rightly so.

Having failed to behave like Christians, neither the Diocese of Chicago, nor the church, nor Bouvel have any right to complain that Duggan is turning to the judicial system and the court of public opinion for resolution.

In short, the church, and now CPG, the church’s captive insurance carrier, are fiercely resisting acting with integrity. Thus, they need to be held accountable. And don’t think for a minute that Anglican Watch will conflate our support for same-sex marriage with support for Bouvel.

Simply put, the ends don’t justify the means.

Example 2: Episcopal priest and perjurer Bob Malm

Our second example of the Episcopal Church undercutting public safety via criminal conduct by its clergy involves Episcopal priest Bob Malm.

Malm is a canonical resident of the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia and retired a few years ago. He now serves as part-time interim rector of St. Peters on the Canal in Bourne, MA, a slowly dying church that cannot afford a full-time rector or interim.

In 2015, after Anglican Watch editor Eric Bonetti asked the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia to mediate a dispute with Malm, Malm responded by instructing parish staff to retaliate by excluding Bonetti and his husband from all church activities.

Subsequently, Malm knowingly misused memorial donations Bonetti and his husband made to the parish, resulting in the Fairfax County VA office of consumer protection ruling in Bonetti’s favor and ordering the return of the money in question.

We’ll omit many of the details, but the key point is that eventually Malm began telling parishioners that Bonetti was “dysfunctional,” and falsely claiming that various words taken out of context from a family member’s blog were somehow threats. For example, Malm claimed that the name of a Richmond-based classic rock band, “The Killer B’s,” was a threat.

Bonetti responded by blogging about his experiences.

In turn, Malm filed a false police report with the Alexandria police claiming that Bonetti made terroristic threats.

Malm later went to court and filed for a protective order, supplying false and perjurious testimony. The court granted Malm’s request.

On appeal, Malm was represented  pro bono by parishioner Jeffery Chiow, today a partner in Greenburg Traurig law firm.

Chiow’s pleadings included myriad fabrications of law and fact, including inflammatory references to an imaginary church shooting in the equally fictional town of “Sugarland” (all one word), Texas. Additionally, Chiow attempted to subpoena Bonetti’s mother, Sigrid Yahner, then terminally ill and in palliative care. The local courts quashed Chiow’s subpoena without comment.

Similarly, Malm repeatedly lied under oath, including falsely claiming that Bonetti’s mother had called him repeatedly to set up appointments, only to no-show. Malm also stated in writing, under oath, that all of his statements were true and accurate, thus again committing perjury.

Eventually, having spent more than $25,000 on legal fees, Bonetti decided to withdraw his appeal and shift his attention to publicizing corruption within the Episcopal church.

Malm later pulled a similar stunt in Massachusetts, where he repeatedly lied to law enforcement and committed courtroom perjury, including:

1. Falsely claiming he had not previously committed perjury.
2. Falsely claiming that Bonetti had repeatedly “threatened” and “terrorized” Malm and his family, despite having had no contact.
3. Falsely claiming that Bonetti posted photos of Malm’s wife on a “porn website.” That begs the question: What porn websites does Malm access? 

In both Virginia and Massachusetts, Malm’s fabrications are felonies. Despite this, neither the Diocese of Virginia, nor the Diocese of Massachusetts, have addressed the issue.

To the contrary, both dioceses, and the bishops then serving within those dioceses (Alan Gates, Shannon Johnston, Susan Goff, Gayle Harris, Jennifer Brooke-Davidson) all brushed off complaints about Malm’s felonious perjury and other criminal activity.

Moreover, in a written Title IV clergy disciplinary decision, Bishop Chilton Knudsen, who acted in lieu of Shannon Johnston, who had a conflict of interest, stated that Malm’s perjury and retaliatory behavior was not “of weighty and material importance to the ministry of the church.”

Similarly, Alan Gates, bishop of Massachusetts, brushed off complaints about Malm’s illegal behavior in Massachusetts, which was even more egregious than his conduct in Virginia. And the current Bishop of Massachusetts, Julia Whitworth, who already appears to have a very thin understanding of Title IV (more on that in another post), is ignoring Malm’s criminal conduct.

Not surprisingly, Malm’s behavior has been devastating to the Episcopal church. For example, his former parish, Grace Episcopal, in Alexandria, VA, has gone from 391 to 160 pledging units, and signs suggest the church is fast lurching towards existential crisis. That, even as the remaining members ramp up giving, trying to stave off the inevitable.

Meanwhile, while the courts hand out protective orders like candy in many instances — and do so with even greater alacrity when a clergyperson is the complainant — the time and money wasted, including that of local law enforcement, is substantial.

Relatedly, much like the boy who cried wolf, misuse of the protective order system tends to undercut the credibility of victims, especially women and minorities, who already often face challenges when trying to access the judicial system.

Larger lessons

In both the Bouvel and Malm cases, there’s a logical conundrum.

Specifically, the claims of these two perjuring priests are either true, or they are false.

If true, the question becomes, do people want to attend a church that, to use Jeffery Chiow’s wording, is threatened by “domestic terrorism,” and harassment by blogging?

If false, does anyone want to attend a church where lying and perjury are okay?

Of course, many church members are so imbued with clericalism that they conclude that priestly perjury simply isn’t possible. Or, as one canon to the ordinary puts it, “If it’s inconceivable, it’s imperceivable.”

Others, more intellectually curious, will ask, “Does these claims seem plausible?” But even then, many members will continue to blindly support their parish, even in the face of such startling corruption.

Thus, much of the decline will come over time, as prospective church members realize that, despite talking a good game, this sort of misconduct is acceptable, they head for denominations where integrity is more normative.

Then there is the practical aspect of this situation. If, for example, Grace Episcopal School, which shares a campus with Grace Episcopal Church, were to experience a security emergency, would first responders and others take it seriously? Hopefully, the answer is yes, but the lies of Malm and Chiow could come into play. (Chiow and his families remain members of the parish. One wonders how any parent could, in good conscience, allow their children and spouse to attend a church that, by their own courtroom pleadings, is a target of “domestic terrorism.”)

Relatedly, if someone observes behavior in connection with an Episcopal community, and that behavior reasonably raises concern about potential violence, will that person be willing to come forward with their concerns? Probably not, in light of the denomination’s welcoming attitude towards perjury, its willingness to allow clergy to retaliate for making a good-faith complaint, and its inept handling of clergy misconduct.

In other words, by tolerating clergy perjury, the Episcopal church is exacerbating the risk of violence in its churches, schools, and other entities.

Then there is the issue of the church’s disrespect for the victims of Sandy Hook, Columbine, Abundant Life, and many other situations involving gun or domestic violence. Simply put, the church cannot truthfully claim that it sides with victims or opposes gun violence when it trades on these very situations in order, as Bouvel and Malm have done, to try to silence criticism. Indeed, it is loathsome and morally repugnant to trade on the suffering of others for perceived personal or organizational advantage. And it is doubly reprehensible when, as here, church judicatories both tacitly and expressly side with clergy who act in such an egregious manner.

This also raises the issue of the example that it sets. Specifically, when the Episcopal church endorses clergy perjury, it tells young people and others that it’s okay to lie and commit criminal acts in order to further your self-interest.

As for claims that Bouvel and Malm were misguided or received bad information, spare us. Per Title IV, clergy supposedly are held to a higher standard by virtue of their vows. Being “misguided” is simply not acceptable.

At the top-most level, the challenge is, of course, taking a denomination seriously that claims to be “loving, liberating, and life-giving,” when the reality is that another l-word, “lying,” is okay. Not to mention the church’s pointed refusal to address criminal conduct.

Nor does it work to claim that the corruption in the Episcopal Dioceses of Chicago and Virginia are isolated situations.

Indeed, the national church has ignored Title IV disciplinary complaints against the relevant bishops for more than a year now. Given the glacial pace of Title IV proceedings, that suggests that any resolution would not happen before the early part of 2026.

And we note the sea of complicity in the Dioceses of Alabama, Massachusetts, and the national church in the Losch case—indeed, Todd Ousley, the national intake officer, did absolutely nothing to assist the complainant.

So, we hope that Sean Rowe will be successful in mucking out the stall that is clergy discipline in the Episcopal church. But unless and until that happens, the Episcopal church remains a place where criminal behavior by clergy is acceptable.