Dismissal of Title IV charges against Todd Ousley is a crock

Earlier today, the Episcopal Church announced that it had closed the Title IV complaints by the Singh family against former PB Michael Curry and former intake officer for bishops Todd Ousley. The news is appalling and unacceptable — and we say that as a publication that is on record as not exactly being enamored of the Singh complainants due to their sense of entitlement.

The specific allegations against Curry and Ousley were that they deliberately failed to adhere to the Title IV canons when they first complained to Curry that their father was abusive and potentially misusing alcohol.

For the record, there is zero doubt that both Curry and Ousley did their best to avoid dealing with the complaint. Title IV makes clear that complaints may be in any form and in any manner and that a bishop who receives a potentially viable complaint must forward it to an intake officer. (This article is, under Title IV, a legitimate basis for a complaint.)

In other words, the complainant need not use the magic words, “I’m filing a Title IV complaint.” Nor should they be required to be proficient with the details of Title IV.

Thus, if a judicatory hears words like “abuse,” “alcohol,” etc., and it involves clergy, the matter needs to go to the intake officer. Full stop.

In Curry’s case, we know of at least two other instances in which he ignored Title IV matters. One, the truly egregious one, involved the Losch case, in which Curry did NOTHING to respond to allegations of child rape.

How does that work, even as a human being or person of integrity?

Ousley’s track record of ignoring Title IV complaints is far more egregious and goes back to his days as a bishop diocesan. In multiple cases, including the appalling Whayne Hougland case, Ousley made no—and we mean no—effort to provide a pastoral response. Unless, that is, handing Hougland a golden parachute counts.

This sorry state of affairs has been going on for years. And this is a guy who bloviated on the church’s Title IV website about how a pastoral response is at the heart of any Title IV case — yet didn’t even bother to develop the capability of a pastoral response while in office.

Meanwhile, we have seen firsthand cases in which Ousley knowingly misrepresented the content of complaints, failed to provide the required notice of appeal, and more.

So, we could even deal with Clueless Curry by saying, “Good riddance, don’t let the door hit you.” But Ousley goes a step further into knowing misfeasance and malfeasance, and we have yet to see a Title IV case he couldn’t sandbag.

Thus, if Sean Rowe is serious about mucking out the filth in the Title IV barn, it starts by making clear to all clergy that Title IV is not optional. As in, Shannon Johnston and other dirtbags don’t get to say, “I don’t want to get involved.” And when they pull this nonsense, bishops need to be held accountable.

Finally, early in this post, we mentioned that we are not fanboys of the Singhs. We feel that, in this case, that adds to our credibility, but we want to explain.

Specifically, in our dealings with the Singhs, the complainants expressed hope for a grassroots effort. But they shot themselves in the collective foot by wanting to control the tone, tenor, and content of messaging, which is inherently contrary to the notion of grassroots advocacy. Sorry, but “nothing about us without us” is not how the media works. And if they think being nice will get them anywhere, let’s just say it’s been tried before with predictable results.

The Singhs are also pretty out there when it comes to tokenism and being all crunchy liberal. The only reason their father/husband got his position in the church, despite having rather banal qualifications, is tokenism. Moreover, the only reason anyone picks up their story is tokenism; hundreds of others have had dismal Title IV experiences, only to be ignored by the media. The whole issue rises and falls over the fact that Prince is a bishop, and an ethnic minority at that.

As for their other complaint, which is that we referred to their father as a “pig,” we get where they are coming from. But we can think of much more highbrow terms that would work, such as having an “inherently abusive personality.” Or more Biblical terms, like representing a “brood of vipers.”

We also need to remind the Singhs of a foundational fact: We don’t work for them. We have a unique voice, which VirtueOnline accurately describes as “feisty,” and we’re not going to change it to appease the Singhs. Don’t like it? Start your own publication; we may even help you.

So, we generally will not cover the Singh case, even though we are outraged and appalled by Prince Singh’s behavior. That said, we reserve the right to wade in when we deem it appropriate and in the manner we deem appropriate.

We also note a basic problem with the Singh complaint: There are many forms of clergy misconduct not amenable to resolution via Title IV. Examples include acting like an ass in a divorce proceeding (Dan McClain), physically disciplining the Singh children in their youth, and more.

To be clear, some issues in these cases may be resolved via Title IV, including lying, perjury, theft, and other problems with a clear nexus to the church. But the way to address many of the issues in the Singh case was to file a report with Child Protective Services 20 years ago. Similarly, many of the divorce-related issues involving McClain are matters for the courts. However, his fabrications and abuses of power within the parish — and allegations of theft of church resources — certainly are matters for Title IV.

Thus, Title IV is not a panacea. Nor is it intended to be one. Simply put, the Singhs are misinformed about some aspects of Title IV, including the ability to negotiate an accord at any stage of the process. So outrage about inherent aspects of Title IV is a waste of everyone’s time and energy.

And we get that a pastoral response can address many issues that fail to rise to the level of an actionable Title IV complaint.

But Ousley’s behavior is egregious and he has caused lasting harm and trauma to many. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine conduct that should be more amenable to discipline than repeatedly sandbagging clergy misconduct complaints.

So, in closing, we reiterate our previous statement: If Sean Rowe is serious about these issues, he needs to quit giving a free pass to the Todd Ousleys of the church. Moreover:

• The BS coming from the Disciplinary Board for Bishops, including telling complainants that they must keep their now-dismissed complaints confidential, is abusive in the extreme and needs to stop.
• The thing where cases involving sexual harassment against women are sitting in Barb Kempf’s inbox, without so much as an acknowledgement, needs to stop. Telling us that the church takes sexual harassment seriously when it can’t even be bothered to respond is disingenuous, and assumes that us pew-sitters are clueless and cognitively impaired. We expect the church to take abuse of all forms seriously and to act promptly — and yes, we are thinking of the George Sumner complaint, which inter alia alleges that Sumner engaged in retaliation, which is illegal under Title IV and federal law, and that he sandbagged a Title IV case against St. James rector David Halt.

And we both hope and expect Rowe and the Disciplinary Board for Bishops will take seriously the ludicrously unethical and dishonest conduct coming out of the Diocese of Alabama, Bishop Glenda Curry, and those under Curry’s supervision, including Rob Morpeth. The latter is one of the great dirtbags of the denomination and has caused lasting harm to others via his reckless indifference to clergy misconduct. Not to mention retired bishop Holly Hollerith, who said in an email, sent to the wrong party, that he wouldn’t touch the Losch child rape case with a “1000-ft. pole.”

Nice to know that’s how the Episcopal Church regards child rape—a hot potato to be avoided.

Until these issues are fixed, is there anyone who actually believes that the Episcopal Church is not morally bankrupt?