Say farewell to a fraud: reflections on Title IV and the lies of Cayce Ramey

In news likely only of interest to church nerds, Virginia priest Cayce Ramey has appealed to the Title IV Court of Appeals over the decision to defrock him for refusing to serve or partake of the Holy Eucharist — a position he claims he takes over his opposition to the legacy of slavery in the Episcopal Church. That said, we’re here to call BS, both on Cayce Ramey and the Episcopal Church, with particular reference to Ramey’s lies about the matter.

Hate is alive and well in the Episcopal Church

To be clear, we recognize that today’s church remains deeply racist, homophobic, transphobic, and misogynistic. Further, most of the church’s efforts to address these issues — to the extent the church makes any such effort — are transactional, feel-good measures like book groups and Sacred Circles. Not to mention the church moves so damned slowly that we’ll be playing Pickle Ball on Mars before anything comes of the church’s so-called efforts to address racism.

Even paying reparations is done in an amount too small even to begin to compensate victims, and many of the clergy involved in deciding how to spend reparations are, to put it bluntly, losers whose main interest is “doing church,” versus actually ending injustice.

So, the Episcopal Church may say it rejects racism. Yet in doing so, there are damned few parishes that do anything to actually encourage persons of color to participate in the life of the church. Things like getting a van to pick up those who lack transportation or advertising in minority communities, things that might actually get black people to church, are of zero interest in most parishes. But our little Sacred Ground group—now THERE’S progress. In fact twelve people attended.

Thus, we agree with Ramey that racism is alive and well in the church, and the church needs to repent. But from there, we have to examine Ramey’s role in these issues, which is ugly, at best.

Sincere belief versus Title IV

First, we need to put aside the reporting by the Episcopal News Service and others, which until recently took at face value Ramey’s claims that the controversy is all about his sincerely held views on racism and slavery.

In that regard, Ramey’s pleadings prove tiresome as they bloviate about his commitment to ending racism and slavery. But whether someone is sincere or not has not bearing on Title IV and misconduct under Title IV.

And yes, we are mindful of the ordination of the Philadelphia Eleven, women who were not eligible for ordination per church canons. We also recall the ordination of openly LGBTQ+ clergy, which until recently was prohibited by the church.

Thus, ecclesiastical courts may be reluctant to hold clergy accountable for violating church canons, but that is an issue distinct from whether the canons have been violated.

In that regard, the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia correctly notes in its Title IV pleadings that it doesn’t matter how sincere Ramey may be. What matters is whether he is in violation of church canons.

We also note that Ramey correctly states that the church routinely ignores canons when the church find its convenient to do so. In our view, that’s no defense, as there’s no time like the present to start being consistent — and we have long objected to the denomination’s hypocrisy on that score.

Ramey’s questionable sincerity and veracity

Having parsed the distinction between sincerity and the canons, it seems only fair to explore the issue of Ramey’s sincerity, since he himself brings the issue up. On that score, we see zero sign of sincerity on Ramey’s part.

Indeed, a careful reading of the filings in the Title IV case reveals that much of the issue comes down to intra-church politics and the dynamics of power.

Specifically, prior to the situation blowing up, Ramey was the rector of Sharon Chapel in Alexandria, VA. Like many small parishes, recent years have not been kind to the parish, with it and several smaller Alexandria-area parishes long ago ceasing to be viable as stand-alone churches.

As a result, Sharon Chapel and several other small churches in the Alexandria area wound up part of a collaborative project referred to as the “Potomac Episcopal Fellowship,” a resource-sharing initiative that some considered a precursor to an eventual combined parish.

This arrangement proved problematic, and not just over the usual issues of money and buildings. Specifically, Ramey was doing academic work during this time, and the Title IV pleadings reveal considerable tension with Ramey, all centered around an apparent desire to get paid as a rector, but not actually do any related work.

Among the documented complaints were:

• a lack of pastoral care by Ramey
• an indifference to the needs to others
• a general lack of interest in serving as rector. Indeed, the only thing that Ramey appears to have been interested in was his academic work.

Indeed, in all the materials filed in this matter, one theme is tellingly absent, which is Ramey expressing concern for the well-being of his parishioners. To to the contrary, in his pleadings, Ramey has the chutzpah to tell us that his parishioners were not injured by his conduct, on the basis that supply and other clergy could say Mass in his stead.

How reassuring. And convenient for Ramey.

And just by coincidence, Sharon Chapel wound up choosing to stay independent and not be part of the Potomac Episcopal Fellowship.

Relatedly, as we reported earlier, Ramey’s pleadings are replete with how, as a Marine, he prepared his to-do list, action items, etc., even as he tells us what a go-getter he is, resourceful, and all the other usual BS. Frankly, we don’t care that he served as a Marine, and we doubt anyone else does.

In other words, the whole thing smacks of narcissism and a priest who wants to turn the suffering of others to his advantage, even as he doesn’t do jack diddly to actually address that suffering.

Plus, we’d be much more prepared to believe that Ramey was sincere if he was Mr. Pastoral Care, at area hospitals, funeral homes, and other fora night and day. But even his own parishioners complained about a lack of pastoral care from Ramey, and other churches within the Potomac Episcopal Fellowship (including one with what, for the Episcopal Church, passes as a high percentage of Black parishioners), found Ramey to be challenging, to say the least.

The Diocese and Title IV

Having parsed the issue of Title IV and Ramey’s unconvincing claim of sincerity, we next turn to the Diocese of Virginia and its assertion that Ramey is in violation of Title IV via his refusal to officiate at Mass. On that score, we are unconvinced.

To be clear, several here at Anglican Watch are proficent in Title IV. Yet we are aware of no affirmative canonical obligation by priests to celebrate Mass.

Perhaps the issue is one of Ramey failing to follow a pastoral direction.

If that’s the case, we don’t see one in the pleadings, nor do we see reference to one. And references to discussions between Susan Goff and the respondent don’t cut it—a pastoral direction needs to expressly refer to itself as such. And if Goff truly intended that Ramey needs to say Mass, and didn’t feel he was doing so, then the next step under the canons was a written pastoral directive.

Instead, we see former bishop Susan Goff allowing Ramey time to work through the issue, ultimately asking him how his behavior comports with his vows as a priest. But that is not the same as saying. “You will celebrate Mass on Sundays, or you will resign as rector of Sharon Chapel.” (To be clear, Ramey ultimately did the latter.)

Moreover, we know plenty of ordained priests and bishops who go for long periods without saying Mass, whether because they are inactive, called to ministry elsewhere, or simply retired.

Nor are we aware of any canonical obligation to serve in a role in which Mass must be said. We know many priests who serve in social services and never set foot in a church except to worship with others.

And there’s nothing in the pleadings to suggest that Ramey tried to bar other clergy from saying Mass, or tried to prevent others from receiving the sacrament.

Thus, we see that Ramey failed to fulfill the job requirements associated with being a rector, but we don’t see that he violated any canons. Thus, the matter becomes one — as bishops far too often like to assert — between Ramey and his vestry.

In that regard, Ramey’s resignation ended that discussion.

Relatedly, we note that the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia is unwilling to enforce Title IV in other, more egregious situations.

For example, it is indisputable that Episcopal priest Bob Malm, formerly rector of Grace Episcopal in Alexandria, committed a felony offense by repeatedly commiting perjury in multiple civil cases he filed against Anglican Watch editor Eric Bonetti and his family. Yet to this day, the Diocese refuses to refer Malm to law enforcement for criminal investigation, and Malm continues to “serve” a parish in Massachusetts. Thus, as an unindicted criminal, Malm has ongoing access to church funds, confidential information, and more.

Further, as defense counsel aptly noted, one of the problems facing the Diocese in this matter is that it routinely ignores other canonical violations related to the saying of Mass when it finds it convenient to do so. This includes the rubric that only baptized Christians can receive communion.

Thus, we see the Diocese’s efforts to defrock Ramey as not motivated by any legitimate concern over Ramey’s behavior, but rather as an ill-advised response to Ramey’s chutzpah, combined with the fact that, behind the scenes, Ramey is a self-entitled, narcissistic jackass trading on the suffering of others.

Thus, we don’t have any objection to Ramey leaving active ministry, but we are not convinced that Title IV is the way to go, at least absent a pastoral direction that he needs to say Mass. And we object to the Diocese’s seat-of-the-pants approach to clergy discipline—this entire debate is a waste of time and resources. If folks want rid of Ramey — and they rightly should — send him a written pastoral direction, and when he says no, nuke him.

The specter of mental illness

There’s also a tantalizing clue to the backstory in this situation-one that we probably will never be able to fully explore.

Specifically, in the Title IV pleadings, Bishop Suan Goff’s notes discuss a meeting with Ramey in which he allegedly appeared alternately tearful and manic. As a result, Goff allegedly told Ramey that she was concerned about his health.

Details of this situation likely will never be made public. But our hope is that Goff, who had no qualms issuing a pastoral direction to Lura Kaval about her interactions with her vestry, was similarly assertive with Ramey. Being concerned about Ramey’s mental health is not adequate; the episcopacy presumably exists for times like this, when someone needs to simply say, “I am going to ask that you get an evaluation, with a copy of the report sent to me.”

Indeed, the difficulties Ramey had as part of the Potomac Episcopal Fellowship, the lack of empathy for his parishioners, and his seeming narcissism, all suggest that there are larger issues afoot.

Regardless of the outcome of the Title IV case, we hope Ramey gets any care he may need.

The bottom line

As we stated in our previous coverage, we believe the real reason for Ramey’s actions is that he doesn’t want to be a priest, but rather wants to become an anti-racism consultant. Indeed, Ramey appears to be using TItle IV to credential himself for his Racial Heresy consulting practice, even as he deceives the publlic by falsely claiming he’s been accused of being a heretic over his opposition to racism.

To be clear, Ramey is accused of disciplinary misconduct, not heresy. And his lack of concern for parishioners at Sharon Chapel and feckless work ethic as a priest, combined with his narcissistic puffery about being a Marine, are off-putting, to say the least.

Anglican Watch is not falling for Ramey’s self-serving rhetoric, and we hope the Diocese of Virginia will devote its scant resources to something more useful than helping this knucklehead, a white guy who lives in a million-dollar home in Fall Church, pretend to actually know anything about racism.

And we applaud the comments in the Episcopal News Service’s recent coverage:

As Ramey awaits the Court of Review’s appeal ruling, he has pitched consulting services, publicly branding himself as “an Episcopal priest tasked with interrupting normative white supremacy in the Church,” according to his website, Racial Heresy.

“Hire a Heretic!” the site says. “Jesus’ radical love as justice has gotten me accused of heresy. No. Really.”

The website also advertises two separate pilgrimages to Ghana in March 2025 that will be led by an “experienced anti-racism laborer, Episcopal priest and trained systems-oriented group facilitator” – the Rev. Cayce Ramey.

If nothing else, the fact that Ramey is lying about being proclaimed a “heretic” should be enough to tell the public that he’s nothing but a privileged white nincompoop pretending he’s got solutions for the long-standing problem of racism. And spending money to go on a for-profit “pilgrimage” to Africa ends racism how? The money would be far better spent helping less privileged persons get to church, for example.

We’d also be interested to know the extent of Ramey’s “labor” to address racism. For example, when did he last tutor under-privileged youth? Repair homes? Advocate for affordable housing? Something tells us we will be underwhelmed.

So yes, we get irritated with the Episcopal Church and its transactional/cash-based approach to racism, as well as its feel-good, virtue-signaling. But even the Episcopal Church’s approach to these issues is better than dealing with Ramey and his self-aggrandizing BS.

At the same time, we also have zero patience with those who fall for Ramey’s claims that he’s on a crusade to address racism, or that he’s acting with integrity. Put directly, Ramey is a liar, as he is not — again not — being tried for heresy,

Enough already.

And forget about hiring a heretic; instead, say farewell to a fraud.