Media today responded to reports, first covered on Anglican Watch, that Bishop Lucinda Ashby and the Diocese of El Camino Real mishandled the presence of a registered sex offender at a church within the Diocese. Anglican Watch stands by its reporting and reiterates that both the Diocese and Ashby failed to act appropriately, contrary to representations made by the Diocese on The Living Church and an email sent to members of the Diocese.
Problem 1. The sex offender allegedly had unfettered access to the church building
At issue is the Diocese’s claim that the sex offender was not in a position of leadership within the parish; the individual in question was in charge of the church’s livestreaming and had keys to the church. While one might quibble about whether being in charge of live streaming counts as “leadership,” there are several indisputable issues:
- The sex offender had keys to the building, thus providing him with an opportunity to be alone in the building with children and other vulnerable populations.
- Once the Diocese had actual knowledge that a sex offender was involved with the parish, it took no action to notify parents. While this is a sadly common response among churches, parishioners have a right to this information. And since truth is a near-absolute defense to claims of defamation, there is no reason not to report the matter to parishioners. Nor should a church hesitate to impose restrictions on participation, including not being alone with children, not interacting with children, and always being with an unrelated adult while on campus.
Then we come to the Diocese’s claim that the sex offender was only briefly involved at the church. Assuming, arguendo, that this assertion is accurate, that begs the question: Why was this person, only “briefly” involved, given keys?
To be clear: Sex offenders and those with a history of boundary violations must not be allowed to be alone in church buildings. Ever.
Problem 2: Bishop Lucinda Ashby is allegedly retaliating against the whistleblower
There’s another problem in all of this, which is that Anglican Watch has received unconfirmed reports that Bishop Lucinda Ashby may be retaliating against the whistleblower. If those reports are accurate, her Ashby’s conduct is practically and ethically wrong. It also is a violation of Title IV, the Episcopal clergy disciplinary canons.
As a practical matter, whistleblowers need to be honored and respected. Christians have an ethical obligation to bring light to the darkness, and those who come forward often do so at tremendous personal risk, including that of shunning, ostracism, and more. Thus, by engaging in retaliation, judicatories make it less likely that they will hear the inconvenient truths needed to be effective leaders.
As an ethical matter, the Episcopal Church is ethically bankrupt if it cannot protect its members against sex offenders, abusive clergy, and other miscreants. And for the record, safe church training and policies accomplish nothing if judicatories do not take complaints seriously. Indeed, in change management, it is axiomatic that culture trumps policy every time, so if the denomination does not make it safe for people to come forward, written policies are a waste of time.
As a canonical matter, Canon IV.3.1 (d), (part of the Title IV disciplinary canons) amended via resolution 2018 D076, expressly forbids:
discharging, demoting, or otherwise retaliating against any person because the person has opposed any practices forbidden under this Title or because the person has reported information concerning an Offense, testified, or assisted in any proceeding under this Title.
Thus, we are deeply concerned about this situation.
Problem 3: The Diocese does not appear to have notified law enforcement or parents
In addition to not notifying parents, the Diocese’s response to the presence of a sex offender was inadequate because the Diocese does not appear to have informed the police of the issue.
Why is that important? It is important because when a registered sex offender shows up at a church, in many cases, it means that he is “testing the waters.”
We also note another huge red flag: The sex offender talked with a vestry member about his desire to organize a youth group. If that doesn’t cause alarm among parents — or the Diocese — it’s hard to know what would. Or, put in snarky terms, Ashby is incompetent if she thinks her excuses are adequate in the face of this overt effort to get access to children in the church.
Churches are notorious magnets for pedophiles. Indeed, the atmosphere of trust, the desire to be open and inclusive, and the idea that abuse “could never happen here. Everyone knows everyone,” makes churches high-risk environments for abuse.
Thus, even if law enforcement takes no action other than filing a report, they must know that the sex offender is out and about. Indeed, we’re prepared to wager serious money that this person’s parole officer (if there is one) knows nothing about their foray into the faith community.
Moreover, churches and other third parties often do not know the specifics of an offender’s parole conditions. Indeed, it may be that the offender can only attend church with prior approval — and we’re prepared to bet there’s something in his conditions of parole that restricts or limits his use of the Internet. Thus, we cast a jaundiced eye on the notion that this person allegedly had the password and other login information for the church’s livestreaming.
After all, the Diocese itself said he was only briefly involved in the parish, right? (For the record, our sources, which we find credible, tell us that Ashby and the Diocese are misinformed as to the sex offender’s tenure with the parish, which apparently was NOT brief.)
The bottom line
The bottom line is this: No parent in their right mind is going to be okay with the lackadaisical approach of the Diocese in this matter. Indeed, it was only a few days ago that the Diocese was trying to sandbag questions about the matter:
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.”
While we recognize that nothing mandates the approach of the Dioceses of Bethlehem and Pennsylvania, which recently issued pastoral directives barring registered sex offender Bernard Schade from all church property, the Diocese of El Camino Real’s approach of “nothing to see here, move along” doesn’t cut it. All churches in the Diocese must:
- Be aware that the sex offender in question is seeking to access church property
- Notify parents so they can make informed decisions about how best to ensure the safety of their children.
Additionally, the sex offender should be required to sign a written covenant outlining what they can and cannot do, and his parole officer and law enforcement need to be notified.
We further note that issues with the Diocese’s safe church program extend beyond the sex offender in question. Specifically, even lay eucharistic ministers, who by definition have access to the sick, the lonely, and the isolated, were not undergoing background checks as recently as February 2024. That is unacceptable.
As for the Diocese, Anglican Watch categorically rejects its claim that it acted appropriately. If nothing else, no one should have keys to any Episcopal church building, school, or physical plant, or the opportunity to be alone in a church, until minimal background checks have been run, including a review of sex offender registries.
And while we’re on the topic, as of February 2024, almost all of the categories on the matrix below, which is the Diocesan spreadsheet showing which church personnel must undergo background checks, were not actually undergoing background checks.
Photo of Bishop Ashby courtesy of WikiMedia
The diocese should just acknowledge that they made a mistake and retain an outside service to come in to assist with evaluating and enforcing safe church policies.
The guy had keys to the church. No background check was done.
The public statements by the spokesperson and the bishop provided incorrect information IMO.
Canon 4, Sec. 1. In exercising his or her ministry, a Member of the Clergy shall
(h) refrain from: (6) conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.
It appears that the bishop violated the above-referenced canon, if she authorized the official statement to be released to the press IMO.
Yes, and if someone files a Title IV complaint about this conduct, the church will respond by saying that her conduct isn’t “of weighty and material importance to the ministry of the church.” Yet sooner or later, I’ll run into a bishop who will say, “Your writing about this is destroying the ministry of the church.”
So which is it?
The statement that, “she intended to address ‘some odd accusations and the spread of misinformation about safety,’ rooted in ‘suspicion [that] may arise when a person becomes afraid or feels disconnected from what we are about;” Is similar to Hillary Clinton referring to Monica Lewinsky as a “narcissistic loony toon.” There is some serious gaslighting happening IMO.
Why are all of children abandoning our cult that protects pedophiles? Do you think it’s the liturgy?
In this Title IV matter, Bishop Ashby oversaw the investigation to this incident (but the bishop was also accused of not handling this same issue properly). Most organizations would have farmed this out to an outside service to show that there would be some objectivity in the investigation.
The diocesan media response serves as a microcosm of Episcopal thinking. Initially, the response was essentially, “This is a serious matter. You are not worthy to have information about this sort of thing.”
Now, following getting its backside chewed in the media, the Diocesan response is the good old fuzz and blur, with a large dose of gaslighting.
What we don’t see is +Ashby showing any sort of accountability, care, or concern. Or integrity, for that matter. It’s all about impression management, with no regard for the underlying faith issues.
Consecration of a Bishop:
Q: Will you guard the faith, unity, and discipline of the Church?
A: I will, for the love of God.
The bishop and the chancellor’s office are well-aware that this person was in a leadership role (of being in charge of live-streaming the services) and that he had keys to the church.
Ask the bishop and rector to make the vestry meeting minutes public as well as the written policy that the vestry developed, at the direction of the bishop and the chancellor.
The bishop asserting that these are “odd accusations” and “misinformation” demonstrates a lack of candor IMO.
Yes, we verified the facts behind this case before going to print. We state unequivocally the Bishop Ashby’s claim that this is “misinformation” is a lie and gaslighting of the worst sort. The predator in question was not a “casual” member who wandered through and now is gone. Rather, he was working his way into the parish and by definition placing children at risk.
Additionally, the Diocese, like all dioceses, should have a written policy on sex offenders. Thus, the request of the Diocese that the parish develop its own policy is misleading, at best.
There’s also a logical problem in all of this: The parish policy that was ultimately adopted stated that sex offenders could not serve in leadership positions.
If, as the Diocese claims, the sex offender was not in a leadership position, then it follows that the written policy did not address his situation.
We’d also be prepared to bet the terms of his probation prohibit internet access. If that is the case, no doubt he was very happy that the parish gave him internet access could he could livestream services.
Has anyone checked the parish’s internet logs? We suspect there are some very telling details there.
As for Ashby herself, the fact she would lie to the public and do so with impunity is a stunning indictment of the lack of integrity within the Episcopal Church.
And yes, we initially tried to be polite and couch things in terms of Ashby being misinformed. But since she has not corrected her fabrications, we must conclude she endorses the lies she told the media. And we have zero patience with clergy who lie.