Baltimore-area media recently reported on the arrest of former Roman Catholic priest William Mannion, who allegedly committed multiple acts of child sexual abuse from 1991 to 1994 prior to his laicization from the priesthood for unrelated reasons. Anglican Watch is reporting on the matter to illustrate the profound difference between the Catholic response to allegations of abuse and the way the Episcopal Church covers up such allegations.
In Mannion’s case, the allegations appear connected to St. Agnes Catholic School, located at 603 St. Agnes Lane, Baltimore, MD 21229. The purported victim is a former altar boy who attended the school and was seven years old at the time of the abuse.
As with many victims of child sexual abuse, the victim came forward decades later, possibly due to the underlying trauma associated with Mannion’s alleged behavior.
Archdiocesan response
In a public statement following news of Mannion’s arrest, the Catholic Church said:
The Archdiocese of Baltimore is saddened to learn of allegations of abuse by Mannion and is committed to cooperating fully with law enforcement,” wrote Christian Kendzierski, the organization’s spokesperson. “The Archdiocese of Baltimore is committed to protecting children and helping to heal victims of abuse. We urge anyone who has any knowledge of any child sexual abuse to contact law enforcement and call the Archdiocesan Office of Child and Youth Protection.
To be clear, Anglican Watch is well aware of the Catholic Church’s mixed response to abuse, including its tendency (to paraphrase abusive Episcopal bishop Todd Ousley) to proclaim the “lofty goals” of its anti-abuse policies while adhering to a real-world policy of “no blood, no foul.” And we are well aware of the risks of disclosing abuse to an abusive organization and urge anyone considering doing so to consider carefully and consult with legal counsel before doing so.
That said, the Catholic Church is far ahead of the Episcopal Church, with the latter only recently limiting non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) to situations in which they are requested by victims of abuse.
Specifically, while enforcement is mixed, the Charter of the Catholic Church states that dioceses/eparchies will not enter into confidentiality agreements except for grave and substantial reasons brought forward by the victim/survivor and noted in the text of the agreement. Additionally, some dioceses/archdioceses, like the Archdiocese of Detroit, have stated that they do not enter into NDAs unless specifically requested by a survivor of abuse and will not enforce agreements signed prior to 2002.
These provisions in Catholic anti-abuse protocols, mixed though they are, stand in positive comparison to the feckless response of the Episcopal Church, as discussed below.
Episcopal non-response in cases of abuse
By comparison, the Episcopal response to allegations of abuse is better described as a complete non-response. Indeed, victims of abuse are repeatedly further traumatized by the Episcopal Church via various means:
- Bishops like Michael Curry, Todd Ousley, Alan Gates, Glenda Curry, and others ignore abuse. Indeed, all of the above have received written complaints about the child sex trafficking allegations against Episcopal priest Richard Losch, set to go to criminal trial on April 8, 2025. None took meaningful action, with Michael Curry and Alan Gates utterly ignoring the complaints. This inaction, in our experience, often causes as much or more trauma than the underlying abuse.
- Bishops routinely ignore mandatory reporting statutes. In cases of child sexual abuse, it is common for there to be multiple victims of abuse and for victims to come forward decades later. Thus, compliance with mandatory reporting laws is essential, as is encouraging other victims to speak out. In none of the recent cases we’ve followed have church officials made any effort to notify the public.
- Evil bishops like Herman “Holly” Hollerith don’t want to get involved, even in cases of child sexual abuse, apparently over concerns of political expediency.Indeed, in Hollerith’s own words, “Needless to say, I wouldn’t touch this complaint with a 1000 ft. pole.”
- Corrupt bishops like Todd Ousley and Glenda Curry are treated as above accountability. Indeed, in recent decisions dismissing complaints against Ousley and other bishops, intake officer Barb Kempf has cited past practice as justification for their refusal to address abuse. In other words, it’s okay to ignore abuse because that’s how we handle things in the Episcopal Church. Alternatively, in Kempf’s view, the victim wasn’t smart enough to figure out who the correct bishop was to address the allegations under church canons, so it’s yet again a case of no blood, no foul.
- Bishops like Chilton Knudsen lie with impunity. For the record, we don’t believe for an instant that Knudsen “vividly” recalls notifying police about the Chicago abuse case yet cannot recall with whom she spoke. Additionally, even if her claim is true, Knudsen isn’t off the hook, as she had an ethical obligation to follow up on the allegations of abuse. Moreover, we know of other cases in which Knudsen failed to report child sexual abuse, as well as rejecting complaints of criminal conduct by Episcopal clergy.
- The Church Pension Group (CPG) is nothing but a slush fund to protect abusers. In the Chicago case involving Chilton Knudsen, the victim had to go to court to obtain redress, which amounted to a paltry $750,000. It should not require an attorney or going up against CPG and its billions of dollars of investments (used to fund defense counsel) to address abuse. Indeed, this conduct is entirely contrary to the Gospel imperative of caring for the poor, the destitute, and the outcast.
- Additional victims are not encouraged to come forward. Unlike the case above, the Episcopal Church does not encourage additional victims to come forward. This did not happen in the Chicago case involving Chilton Knudsen. It is not happening in the Losch case in any of the dioceses involved, including Massachusetts and Alabama. It is not happening in the Colorado case now before the courts.
- The denomination does everything in its power to drag its feet on clergy abuse complaints. Yes, we get that Title IV is cumbersome and overly bureaucratic. Yet, even now, with a 15-month target date for resolution of Title IV cases established by canon, we rarely see cases resolved in that time. Indeed, many cases take more than a year just to clear the intake process.
Looking forward
On a near-term basis, the coming week will highlight corruption in the Episcopal Church as the Richard Losch criminal case goes to trial.
Regardless of the outcome — and we ardently hope that Losch goes to jail for the remainder of his life — the Episcopal Church and its bishops have some serious explaining to do. That is true both in the Losch case and in the many other cases involving clergy abuse that continue to bounce around the denomination.
Indeed, more than a year later, intake officer for bishops Barb Kempf continues to slow-walk the Title IV complaint against Dallas Bishop George Sumner.
The case, which involves the sexual harassment of an adult woman at St. James, Texarkana, and retaliation/cover-up by rector David J.A. Halt and Bishop George Sumner, has not even cleared the intake phase. This is unacceptable, and the presiding bishop should have suspended Sumner following receipt of the allegations against him.
On a longer-term basis, we increasingly see Presiding Bishop Sean Rowe as more of the same, with slightly more palatable packaging.
Yes, Rowe talks a good game, especially when it comes to reforming Title IV and increasing accountability for Episcopal clergy. Still, the reality is that even child sexual abuse gets a big brush-off in the Episcopal Church.
Relatedly, the church’s Title IV training materials describe a pastoral response (not the same as pastoral care) as:
a vital component of Title IV. It is one of the first priorities to accompany all phases of the process for all participants.
Yet there are few signs of a pastoral response from the national church in any of the Title IV cases pending against bishops.
Then there is the issue of abuse of power, which is both a common thread in the denomination’s mediocre response to clergy misconduct and, itself, an egregious form of abuse.
In our experience, both the national church and the dioceses treat abuse of power, bullying, and non-sexual abuse as interpersonal conflict and, thus, inherently outside the scope of Title IV.
This refusal to address abuse of power by the Episcopal Church stands in contrast to the Catholic Church.
The latter, while late to the game, does recognize abuse of power as actionable, and the Catholic Church in England recently apologized for failing to come forward with a public statement after allegations of abuse of power involving a priest:
“Bishop McGuckian has said that at the time that Fr O’Neill was asked to step aside, “a statement was drafted by the diocese at this time but was not issued”.
“This statement would have empowered other victims to come forward,” he said.
“This failure to issue a statement has also compounded the hurt endured by his victims and their families.”
The Bishop said that failure to issue a statement “is a matter of deep regret by the diocese”.
Bishop McGuckian said the allegations made against Fr O’Neill were passed to the police.
As we stated previously, it is almost unheard of for the Episcopal Church to forward allegations of criminal conduct involving clergy to law enforcement. Indeed, in most cases, judicatories cite a desire to protect remaining congregants against further trauma.
In summary, if the Episcopal Church is to have any credibility when it comes to clergy discipline, there must be a seismic shift, both in attitudes toward abuse and in how the church responds to abuse.
As things stand, the best way to describe the Episcopal Church and its handling of clergy abuse can be defined thusly:
Hypocrisy, thy name is Episcopal.
Leave a Reply