Anglican Watch calls for Todd Ousley to withdraw as nominee for bishop provisional of Wyoming

One of the things the Episcopal Church likes to loudly — and often falsely — proclaim is that it is a democracy. And so it is in the Episcopal Diocese of Wyoming, where the Diocese is holding a special convention on March 5 to “affirm” the sole-source nomination of Bishop Todd Ousley as Bishop Provisional.

We believe this decision is the wrong one for the Diocese and its members, and in this post, we share why we believe this to be the case. We also share why Ousley must withdraw from consideration as bishop provisional.

Elections Fidel Castro style

We always cringe when we see a sole-nominee election. Not only does it smack of Fidel Castro-style communism, but it reveals a problem far too common in the denomination: It is not a representative democracy but rather an oligopoly in which nominating committees control which names even reach the ballot.

In this case, yes, you can vote in any way you want, but you can only vote for the person approved by the Politburo. Not a good look, and not a good way to promote buy-in among church members.

We also note that, in almost every case we have handled involving an abusive priest or bishop, one of the first things they try to do is to control their vestry or standing committee. Often, this takes the form of trying to hand-pick candidates, or choosing a slate of executive committee members, then asking for a ratifying vote.

That said, church canons require that bishops chosen not by a ratifying vote, but an election. And it cannot be an election when there is only one candidate.

Ethical issues

Of course, if a candidate were at hand who was a world-class choice, we might be more flexible on a one-candidate election.

In Ousley’s case, there’s an underlying ethical issue: Ousley was the intake officer in the Title IV case against the former Bishop of Wyoming. That in itself should suggest that Ousley must recuse himself from any further dealings with the Diocese. Not to mention, any competent bishop in the Office of Pastoral Development would immediately recognize the inherent ethical conflict and step away from any further issues involving the Diocese of Wyoming.

But never one to let the ethics of a situation stand in his way, Ousley appears to have used the knowledge garnered in his former role as Bishop for Pastoral Development to recommend himself for the Wyoming position. And, as luck would have it, the timing is most fortuitous: Ousley just got canned as Bishop of Pastoral Development.

Ousley’s track record of indifference

As if the issues identified weren’t enough, there’s yet another layer of bad news in all of this: Ousley bollixed the departure of prior bishop diocesan Paul-Gordon Chandler. In addition to an egregious lack of the pastoral response mandated by Title IV to affected communities, there was zero disclosure, which is an essential component of healing.

Simply put, we cannot be in right relationship with God or each other when we do not know the truth, and Ousley has done nothing on this front. All most of us know is that Chandler had an indiscretion and resigned from Holy Orders altogether. This is hardly reassuring and far from enough for members of the Diocese to ponder what Chandler’s departure means for their community.

Ousley has additional ethics problems looming

And there is a cherry on top of this whole great, stinking crock of goo: Ousley has additional ethical problems.

So far, one Title IV case against Ousley, in which he failed even to prepare the intake report required under canon law in his role as intake officer for bishops, has been brushed off.

The Singh case concluded with a very similar outcome, which is the bishop’s equivalent of writing 10 times on the chalkboard, “I will do what I am told,” along with Title IV training. The latter is pretty shocking since Ousley trained bishops on Title IV for seven years.

However, regardless of the outcome, the upcoming Title IV case involving retired Episcopal priest Richard Losch will prove problematic for Ousley.

In the Losch case, Losch raped a boy. Many years later, having worked through layers of trauma, the victim reported the matter to various bishops connected to the case, only to be met with silence or the big brush-off (BBO).

When the victim turned to Ousley, the latter claimed it was not “his role in the church.” And Ousley ignored a written request from the victim that asked, “Well, then, who is the correct contact person?”

To be clear, the Title IV canons require a pastoral response any time a complaint is made to an intake officer, regardless of the outcome of the underlying Title IV case. Needless to say, Ousley did nothing to care for the victim, file a police report, or anything else. And Ousley’s Episco-bro, Bishop Holly Hollerith, apparently thinking he was writing to the Toddster, mistakenly sent the following to the victim:

“I wouldn’t touch this complaint with a 1000 ft. pole.”

Nice to know that’s what Holly Hollerith thinks about child rape. We couldn’t make this stuff up if we tried.

And let’s just set Title IV to one side for a moment: What kind of pathetic excuse for a human being ignores the victim of a rape?

We don’t want an answer to that question.

So, where does this leave us?

Wyoming is a small, traumatized diocese that needs care and compassion. It requires someone as bishop provisional who is acutely sensitive to the trauma that arises when clergy misconduct occurs.

What the Diocese does not need is the intake officer who bungled things the first time to show up and make things worse.

Even worse will be the entirely justified conclusion from within the Diocese that, having been betrayed by their former Bishop Diocesan, Wyoming’s suffering is being used by the Episco-bros to look out for each other. After all, Ousley has nothing to recommend him, and his gig at church headquarters was his reward for imploding the Michigan dioceses. And true to form, Ousley made sure he took good care of adulterous Michigan bishop Whayne Hougland, even as he ignored the needs of the church. And then, Ousley had the chutzpah to proclaim that his handling of the situation was an example of Title IV at its finest!

For the record, here’s what church members had to say about Ousley’s debacle in the Hougland case:

This Title IV process actually reflects a deep systemic problem: when our former bishop had an affair, the system not only took care of him, it did so in extremely expensive ways, to the financial and emotional cost of those whom he had vowed to pastor, in the name of “healing” and “reconciliation.” The dioceses were hurt by the affair itself. Relationships and trust were damaged. The financial support expected from us for the one who had violated these relationships was not only surprising, it was unjust.

As for the March convention to approve Ousley, the Diocese already is pushing out content that suggests it’s a done deal, and just a matter of letting the coronation begin.

But Anglican Watch believes that Ousley is the wrong man for the job, as evinced by his outrageous clericalism combined with his indifference to the welfare of the church as a whole—not to mention the suffering of others, like the victim in the Losch case.

Thus, it is unconscionable for the standing committee to assume delegates will show up, start fawning over Ousley, and vote to approve the decision.

We also are concerned that Ousley may use Wyoming to cover up his tracks. As demonstrated in the Hougland case, Ousley has a remarkable propensity for revisionist history, and we are concerned that he will deep-six evidence that, true to form, he mishandled the Title IV case involving the former bishop.

Anglican Watch’s call to action

Anglican Watch believes several things need to happen for the Diocese of Wyoming to heal:

1. Ousley needs to withdraw from consideration. Sorry, church members have had enough of the Episco-bros looking out for each other. In fact, the only reason Ousley got the job in Pastoral Development is that he cratered the Michigan dioceses during his tenure there, and he managed to screw up the Office of Pastoral Development every bit as badly. So now we’re supposed to assume Ousley will pull a 180 and fix issues in Wyoming? If nothing else, doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different result is the definition of insanity.
2. The Diocese of Wyoming needs a full slate of candidates for bishop provisional. Many retired, highly competent bishops have worked successfully to help dioceses and parishes recover from trauma. By inviting members to help select the bishop, the Diocese also engenders buy-in. Thus, there is no need to pull in Ousley, who already mishandled the departure of the previous bishop. It is far better to leave the position open, borrow bishops as needed, and work toward healing versus rushing things along.
3. If the Wyoming Standing Committee won’t agree to a meaningful slate of candidates, PB Sean Rowe needs to get involved. Rowe is familiar with the challenges presented by Ousley, which, to be blunt, is the reason Ousley left the Office of Pastoral Development. While Rowe undoubtedly politically benefits by having Ousley out of his hair, this is not the solution. And Rowe can, if it comes to it, issue a pastoral direction telling Ousley to scram.
4. Disclosure and truthtelling are needed on multiple levels. Much remains to be unpacked about issues with the past bishop, relationships within the Diocese, and how decisions are made. Right now, there is very much a perception that a small inner circle holds the reins of power. That is not good, and moving forward with Ousley only exacerbates issues.

Our thoughts and heartfelt prayers are with our sisters and brothers in Wyoming, who appear on the cusp of being run over by a rogue member of the episcopacy, Todd Ousley. And to reiterate: We cannot condone yet another instance of the Episco-bros using those they have hurt as an excuse to look out for each other.