Anglican Watch gets star billing in corrupt Todd Ousley’s Wyoming video

Okay, I admit it. There are days blogging about TEC can get really depressing. But I got a heads up this morning that corrupt Todd Ousley mentioned me and Anglican Watch by name in one of his videos pertaining to his efforts to land the Wyoming gig, and hot diggity! Today’s going to be a great day after all!

In fact, you can share the joy by visiting https://youtu.be/Se5xsA4yjuw and listening from 4:13 to 8:00. (Originally, I missed it — I must have been in the kitchen taking my blood pressure meds and gnashing my teeth over his Ousley’s corruption.)

Several wonderful things:

• Love the free PR Toddster! Thank you, thank you, thank you.
• By discussing my case, Todd makes clear that the nonsense that occasionally comes from the Disciplinary Board for Bishops about the whole process being secret confidential is a load of bull.
• True to form, Todd mischaracterizes my complaint, which involved perjuring priest Bob Malm and corrupt Bishop Shannon Johnston. Specifically, my complaint had nothing to do with Bob; it had to do with Johnston’s repeated refusal to follow Title IV. As in, Johnston is not, per the canons, free to simply say “I don’t want to get involved,” and ignore a Title IV complaint. Or take a complaint that expressly articulates criminal behavior and say, “Not of weighty and material importance to the ministry of the church.” Were that the case, all any bishop would need to do (and many bishops come just short of doing this) is have a stack of postcards in her desk drawer saying, “Complaint denied. Not of weighty….)
• Ousley also conveniently omits that he failed to fulfill his obligation under Title 4, which is to prepare an intake report and forward it, despite the language of “shall” in the canons. Indeed, in a recent case I filed against Ousely and PB Michael Curry, the current Disciplinary Board (wrongly) signed off on this tactic.
• Oddly enough, Ousley’s desire to re-write Title IV to suit his own purposes has come up elsewhere.

Specifically, Twitizen @ArlieColes posts two relevant comments apropos the Singh debacle:

• To be clear, there is nothing “narrow” about the canons. Moreover, a pastoral response is expressly required in all Title IV cases—but nowhere does that eliminate the specific outcomes established by Title IV. Handling a complaint “pastorally” is not one of those options.
• The church does not need Todd Ousley reinventing Title IV; doing so is a profound dereliction of duty.
• By attempting to reinvent Title IV without authorization, Ousley empowers other bishops to do the same.
• Perhaps Ousley’s time and effort would have been better spent clearing out the backlog of Title IV complaints he created.
• While we’re on the topic, help me understand: Where was the “pastoral handling” in the Richard Losch case? Or the sexual harassment case involving Bishop George Sumner? Or the mandated reporter filing in the Losch child rape case?

So, while we are thrilled with the free publicity (not to mention laughing our backsides off), we think Ousley’s corruption speaks for itself. As apparently do others.

Finally, for those so inclined, the exact language from Todd Ousley’s video:

– Eric Bonetti, editor