Bishop Singh suspended for three years as the Episcopal Church shows a glimmer of integrity

There’s good news in the air today, and it’s not just the bells of Christmas. Specifically, Presiding Bishop Sean Rowe has suspended Bishop Singh for three years in settlement of two of the Title IV clergy disciplinary cases against him.

Per the terms of the disciplinary agreement, reinstatement is neither automatic nor guaranteed but rather predicated on the successful completion of mental health and substance abuse treatment and counseling about the appropriate use of power and authority.

Specific provisions under the accord per a letter from Rowe:

• Be suspended from ministry for at least three more years. The suspension will conclude only when I am satisfied he is fit for ministry.
• Undergo a thorough psychiatric and psychological assessment conducted by a professional in the United States designated by me.
• Participate in truth-telling work related to both sets of allegations.
• Participate in psychological work, education, and training in domestic abuse as required by me in consultation with a psychological professional.
• Participate in psychological work, education, and training in anger management, as required by me in consultation with a psychological professional.
• Participate in psychological work, education, and training in proper exercise of authority, as required by me in consultation with a psychological professional.
• Undertake work addressing his relationship with alcohol and its behavioral consequences in a program approved by me.
• Undertake work to address reputational harm suffered by people in the Diocese of Rochester as appropriate.
• Make visits and apologies to people, congregations, and other groups whom I identify and who are willing.
• Participate in education and training in Title IV values, process, and procedures.

Some of the specific Title IV allegations against Singh are now online and can be found here.

Our take

This outcome has been much too long in the offing. It reflects an often willful decision by Todd Ousley, who is the outgoing Bishop for Pastoral Development, and other judicatories in the denomination to disregard and contort the requirements of Title IV.

For starters, Title IV is not a burden but an opportunity for the church and its officials to troubleshoot problematic situations. That is the case even when the behavior in question may not rise to the level of a Title IV offense.

However, far too many treat Title IV as if it were the old, courtroom-style process, with a winner and a loser. As such, many bishops diocesan regard the only actionable behavior as that which involves murder, plunder, and pillage—and even then, the complainant’s odds of success are low.

As mentioned earlier, much of this problem has been trickle-down in nature. With Ousley and the Office of the Presiding Bishop taking a “no-blood-no-foul” approach to clergy discipline, it should come as no surprise that feckless bishops take an equally lackadaisical approach to Title IV.

In the instant case, the church would have saved itself a great deal of time and trouble if PB Michael Curry, Todd Ousley, and others had engaged appropriately long ago.

That means, instead of babbling on about the Way of Love, they tried actually to show some love by picking up the phone as soon as a complaint came in and, in the words of Joan Rivers, saying, “We need to talk.”

Indeed, the problem long predates the Singh complaint.

Ousley has been up to his sneaky, duplicitous games for a long time, even back when he was a bishop diocesan, and displayed a remarkable ability to ignore even the most outrageous clergy misconduct.

But even if that behavior didn’t garner attention, Ousley’s insane and outlandish efforts to help out Episco-bro and adulterer Whayne Hougland with a golden parachute should have been enough to ring the curtain down on this buffoon.

Going back to the Singh complaint, an earlier, healthier approach to the complaints would have protected the reputation of all involved and reduced the trauma arising from this situation.

Indeed, while we have our misgivings about the Singh brothers, including:

• Their farcical attempt to launch a grassroots campaign against their father while controlling the underlying messaging via their “nothing about us without us” approach.
• Their sense of entitlement, even as they decry the very tokenism that got their father his six-figure job as a bishop.

We also recognize they should never have been put in a position where they felt that their only recourse was to go public.

Curry and Ousley need to be held accountable

There’s more to the Singh saga, and that includes the need to hold Curry and Ousley accountable.

A careful reading of the complaints against Singh reveals that one issue is that he likes to wing it on Title IV clergy disciplinary complaints, including ignoring specific canonical requirements, like forwarding complaints to the diocesan intake officer.

The problem is that this is exactly what Curry and Ousley did—they ignored the issue, sat on it, hoped it would go away, and basically engaged in what one judicatory we know refers to as “the routine.”

In Curry’s case, we could live with an outcome where he agrees to go away quietly and not come back. His tenure was largely a waste, and we have yet to see any sign that he actually follows the Way of Love.

But in Ousley’s case, he’s been around for a while, and he’s done a dismal job of training existing bishops. So we hope he will face discipline over his misfeasance, malfeasance, and nonfeasance.

Indeed, Ousley loves to mischaracterize cases that have come to him as seeking to overturn an adverse Title IV complaint when the reality is that the complaint is about the bishop diocesan’s failure to follow Title IV. And yes, Nick Knisely and the Disciplinary Board for Bishops continue to fall for this BS.

Let’s not forget that Ousley—along with bishops Alan Gates, Glenda Curry, and Michael Curry—ignored the victim in the Richard Losch case, despite the fact the case involves allegations of felony child rape. All involved need to face clergy discipline over their willful mishandling of that case, even as we are left wondering what kind of jackass ignores the rape of a child.

A good start

Remember the old joke about a lawyer on the bottom of the sea being a good start? Well, the same holds true in this case.

In addition to Ousley, Michael Curry, Glenda Curry, and Alan Gates, many other Episcopal bishops are equally guilty of Title IV shenanigans, including knowingly mishandling complaints.

Among these bishops:

• Clay Mathews, whose behavior during his tenure in the Office of Pastoral Development was every bit as feckless as that of piece-o’-snot Todd Ousley.
• Alan Gates, who has knowingly brushed off allegations of criminal conduct by clergy in his diocese and gravely mishandled the Anderson case at Church of the Advent.
• Shannon Johnston, who repeatedly ignored the requirements of Title IV, ranging from the need for a pastoral response to simply saying, “I don’t want to get involved,” even in the face of allegations of criminal conduct by clergy. He also covered up allegations of sexual harassment of an adult woman by Episcopal priest Stephen McWhorter, then canonically resident in the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia.
• George Sumner, whose retaliation against Episcopal priest Rich Daly, support for the sexual harassment of an adult woman, and his deliberate mishandling of an ensuing Title IV complaint warrant immediate suspension. Meanwhile, the Title IV case against Sumner, which was filed with the appropriate intake officer more than a year ago, still has not even cleared the intake phase.
• Susan Goff, who has refused to forward allegations of criminal conduct by clergy under her supervision to the diocesan intake officer.
• Jennifer Brooke-Davidson, who also has refused to forward allegations of criminal conduct by clergy under her supervision to the diocesan intake officer.
• Chilton Knudsen, who has held as acting bishop diocesan, that allegations of criminal conduct by a priest are not “of weighty and material importance to the ministry of the church.” She also has refused to report child sexual abuse to law enforcement on two known occasions.
• Gayle Harris, who has refused to forward allegations of criminal conduct by clergy to her diocesan intake officer.
• Paula Clark, who continues to sandbag allegations of perjury by Episcopal priest Will Bouvel.

Additionally, myriad canons to the ordinary, intake officers, and disciplinary board members, including Bill Parnell, Rob Morpeth, Melissa Hollerith, and others, need to make themselves scarce or be defrocked.

Without accountability, the bad habits of the past — including deliberate malfeasance — will continue.

Speaking of Title IV training….

While we’re on the topic, the Singh accord raises an important issue: the need for Title IV proficiency. Specifically, even well-meaning bishops rarely fully understand the current version of Title IV.

Nor is Anglican Watch the only place raising these issues. Says the Association of Anglican Musicians (AAM):

“There exists no formal mechanism whereby abuses of power in the church workplace can be constructively addressed and resolved. One could argue that Title IV is such a mechanism, but although the canons of the Episcopal Church do not limit application of Title IV solely to fiscal and sexual impropriety, the reality seems to be that Title IV is only

invoked in such cases.”

Nor is misconduct within the church unusual. The same AAM study cited above reveals that 22 percent of members have experienced sexual abuse. Just shy of 65 percent of all AAM members report non-sexual abuse, including psychological abuse and gaslighting.

Thus, Anglican Watch believes that judicatories need to recognize, as in the Singh case, that:

• Title IV is not confined to fiscal and sexual misconduct. In other words, abuse is abuse and must not be brushed off as interpersonal conflict or not of “weighty and material importance to the ministry of the church.”
• All allegations of criminal conduct or sexual harassment are, by definition, actionable under Title IV.
• Title IV violations can be substantive or procedural. Substantive violations are those that are expressly forbidden, like the rape of a parishioner. Procedural violations are those in which, for example, a bishop dismisses a complaint on a pretextual basis. For the record, procedural violations in Title IV cases are endemic and rarely addressed, either on appeal or by contacting the national church. Further, judicatories quite commonly resort to procedural misconduct to avoid addressing inconvenient Title IV complaints.
• Even now, the Disciplinary Board for Bishops plays fast and loose with Title IV. For example, recent decisions wrongly instruct complainants that the matter is confidential. That is wrong under Title IV, which (with one recently added minor exception) applies only to clergy. Moreover, telling an injured party that they cannot discuss the case is, per se, unethical, just as using a nondisclosure agreement is unethical.

Disclosure, truthtelling, and accountability

The Singh case raises the important issue of disclosure and truthtelling — an issue lost on most Episcopal bishops.

Far too often, the assumption is that communities — typically the church itself — will “suffer” or experience trauma if the truth about misconduct comes out.

While that conclusion is normally convenient for the church and its judicatories, and may be seen as protecting the denomination’s reputation, such behavior disincentivizes a culture of accountability.

Moreover, members of the Episcopal Church cannot be in right relationship with one another when they do not know the truth about so-called leaders. Nor can the church be in the right relationship with God or the world around it until it is willing to tell the truth about its myriad failings. “You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

Thus, it is imperative for the survival of the church that judicatories and members alike understand the importance of disclosure.

Relatedly, with disclosure comes accountability, for without accountability, there cannot be repentance, healing, or potential reconciliation. In other words, until the Episcopal Church learns to conduct itself as a Christian church — versus a religious social club — it will continue to falter, for people increasingly reject organizations that demonstrate hypocrisy.

Thus, Anglican Watch hopes that, at every level, bishops and other judicatories will look at the Singh settlement with an eye toward lessons learned.

Further, we note that Singh’s misconduct is far too common in the episcopacy. Indeed, his behavior mirrors that of Easton bishop Santosh Marray, George Sumner, Shannon Johnston, and Alan Gates. The Disciplinary Board of Bishops thus needs to review pending cases involving these bishops with a discerning eye.

Final thoughts

For the record, we extensively researched the Singh case prior to pulling the plug on coverage due to requests by the complainants (the bishop’s family) to censor our content.

As a result, we can confidently say that Singh is a bully and probable narcissist/sociopath. His behavior, viewed over time, is inconsistent with the message of the Gospels, and we include both his professional behavior and his conduct towards his family.

And so, a three-year suspension with tough conditions is entirely warranted. Moreover, we hope Singh will make life easy for all involved and choose not to return to ministry.