In its response to a recent article in the Christian Post about its bungled response to a child sexual predator, the Episcopal Diocese of El Camino Real and Bishop Lucinda Ashby again demonstrated a lack of integrity and accountability on issues involving the presence of a registered sex offender at one or more churches in the Diocese.
Anglican Watch condemns in the strongest possible terms both Ashby and the Diocese for what we conclude is their deliberate mishandling of the case.
Specifically, the Christian Post reports that, when asked to comment on the allegations, which were first reported here on Anglican Watch, the Diocese provided the following non-response:
The Christian Post reached out to the Episcopal Diocese of Camino Real on Wednesday for a response, with a spokesperson explaining that, because of “the sensitivity of the issue, we are unable to provide comments on Title IV or pastoral concerns.”
Canonically wrong
This approach is wrong canonically. Canon IV.6.10 expressly provides that the bishop diocesan, in this case Lucinda Ashby, may disclose even confidential Title IV matters when required for an effective pastoral response:
All communications and deliberations during the intake and referral stages shall be confidential except as the Bishop Diocesan deems to be pastorally appropriate or as required by law.
Because the presence of a registered child sex offender in the Diocese is both a serious safety matter, and a grave pastoral concern, Ashby not only could, but needed, to discuss the matter publicly,
Indeed, one of our primary concerns in the dismal handling of the matter by Ashby and her diocese is that they’re playing the usual game in the Episcopal Church when confronted with clergy misconduct: “Nothing to see here. Move along.”
Pastorally wrong
The Diocese cannot discuss pastoral concerns? Even though they involve a registered sex offender?
Give us a break.
To be clear, this approach fails to address pastoral concerns and creates risk for children and other vulnerable populations in the church. Moreover, parents, vestry members, and clergy have, per the canons, a fiduciary obligation (Canon I.17.8) to act in the best interests of the church. Shrugging off the presence of a registered sex offender is the very definition of breach of fiduciary duty, and clergy, vestries and others in positions of responsibility cannot fulfill their fiduciary obligations when they are unaware that a registered sex offender is involved in the Diocese.
Moreover, as a parent, would you entrust your child or other vulnerable loved one to an organization that won’t even discuss it with you when there is a registered sex offender within the organization?
Let’s hope not.
Reputationally wrong
The Diocese’s response is an epic failure reputation-wise.
When faced with public concern about a sex offender its churches, the correct response is to:
- Identify steps being taken to protect against possible harm.
- Highlight the ways Title IV can be used to care for those hurt by misconduct.
- Reinforce the church’s commitment to providing a safe environment for all persons.
- Remind readers how they can report concerns and reassure readers that they will not face retaliation for raising concerns, and that reports will be taken seriously and handled respectfully.
That begs the question: Why didn’t Ashby and the Diocese respond positively to the Christian Post? Don’t they understand that their stupid non-response serves only to engender mistrust? And now, they’ve made their feckless indifference available for all the world to see?
The answer is that they were caught in an act of misfeasance/nonfeasance, so no, they will not respond with integrity. Instead, they will try to deflect, blur, and haze their way out of this mess. Indeed, the Diocese will almost certainly say, “Well, we issued a policy that persons on sex offender registries can’t serve on vestries. That’s perfectly adequate.”
That, of course, is absurd and disingenuous.
The Episcopal Church has been grinding out policies for more than two hundred years, and the results speak for themselves.
For example, the Church’s General Convention first passed a resolution on impaired clergy, B122, in 1979. Subsequent General Conventions have passed a constellation of related measures. Yet, we still have former bishop Heather Cook killing a cyclist while under the influence and the Rev. William Allport allegedly driving church-owned vehicles while impaired. Yet, the denomination still has done nothing substantive to address these issues.
Ethically wrong
In other words, written policies are worthless if they are not enforced, instead serving as a fig leaf to avoid actually addressing problems. Simultaneously, policies serve as a feel-good, transactional non-solution that psychologically insulated church members from discomfort resulting from their inaction. This is ethically wrong.
Church canons are, in our view, a form of covenant. Church communities form around the canons, rubric and discipline of the Episcopal Church. These measures form a shared understanding intended to guide our common lives.
When, as here, Ashby and other members of the hierarchy essentially say, “We can’t be bothered,” that covenantal relationship is breached.
And, of course, these issues tie to concerns over ACNA and other groups that have left the mainline denomination. In every instance, we see the national church refer to the canons, including references to ordination vows and the so-called Dennis Canon, which establishes a denominational equitable interest in all church assets, both real and personal, at both the diocesan and parish levels.
But, as an ethical matter, how can the national Church assert the applicability of its canons to members of ACNA when, as so often happens, judicatories within the denomination routinely ignore the canons?
To reiterate: Church officials undoubtedly will claim that the Diocese and Bishop fulfilled their obligations by issuing policies about registered sex offenders. But if that is their definition of meeting the fiduciary obligations established by church canon, or an effective pastoral response, both Lucinda Ashby and the Diocese should ring down the curtain, go home, and donate Episcopal assets to a branch of the Jesus Movement that takes integrity seriously.
It is time for El Camino Real and Lucinda Ashby to clean up their acts. The world is watching.
Why do good people do things that make no sense?
Religious communities, work environments, and other groups often stumble forward, in their dysfunction. We have all be part of it in our lives. It is often so hard to hold our friends and family accountable.
In organizations, like the church, we need to ask for another set of eyes – we need to ask professionals from outside the church how we can improve and listen to each other.
In regards to abuse – the church needs to contract with outside services and professionals who can offer impartial feedback and support.