General Convention approves Title IV clergy disciplinary changes, but more is needed

The recent Episcopal General Convention approved myriad changes to Title IV, the canons that establish a disciplinary process for clergy.

Anglican Watch endorses these changes, but more is needed to make Title IV a safe process in which the Episcopal Church fulfills its promise to respect the dignity of every human being.

Far more.

So what changes did General Convention make to Title IV? Tweaks include:

• Providing for restorative covenants as one possible outcome of the Title IV process. Our reaction: We thought that’s what conciliation (and a resulting accord) was all about. But hey, if it helps bring closure to problems within the Church, we’re down.
• Clarifying the role of intake officers. This provision attempts to firewall intake officers by prohibiting conflicts of interest. For example, an intake officer can no longer be a diocesan employee or the wife of the bish. Imagine that. Our reaction: Good idea and much needed. But most intake officers remain part of the “inner circle,” and it’s unlikely we will see true independence. Far better to use an independent contractor or a single church-wide employee.
• Increasing specificity on the requirements for a pastoral response. As amended, a professional assessment is required in cases of sexual misconduct. A bishop also must provide a pastoral response. The intake officer cannot be tasked with providing a pastoral response. Our reaction: Agree, but with reservations. Bishops continue to ignore the requirement of a pastoral response without consequences. Or they redefine a pastoral response as pastoral care or being nice to the complainant. Additionally, the provision perpetuates the Church’s obsession with sexual misconduct while ignoring the reality that all abuse is traumatic. And bishops almost invariably ignore the affected community on the grounds that everything in Title IV is oh-so-secret. So, not nearly far enough, and bishops need to be held accountable when they decide they “don’t want to get involved.”
• Limiting the authority of the church attorney. Church attorneys no longer serve as the guardians to the underworld of Title IV, with unlimited discretion over complaints. Our reaction: Agree. In light of Title IV’s claim to be neither criminal nor civil but ecclesiastical, we have long wondered why the church attorney has such a prominent role. As such, it’s particularly important that the church attorney not have unilateral authority to terminate a proceeding.
• Regularizing Court of Review membership. Our reaction: Largely mechanical details about tenure and terms of service, but much needed.
• Restricting unlimited suspension of bishops. In the past, bishops have been suspended on an open-ended basis while the national Church figures out how to put in place their golden parachutes. This change would presumptively terminate the bishop’s pastoral relationship with her diocese when she is suspended for more than six months. Our reaction: Common sense comes to Title IV.
• Clarifying outcomes involving a pastoral response with no disciplinary action. This amendment clarifies that a pastoral response is required in all cases. Our reaction: Approve, but all involved already know this to be the case. Bishops who can’t be bothered will continue with the game of, “I gave a pastoral response-in fact, I was even nice to him,” in which they shift the definition to avoid doing their jobs.
• Establishing timelines. These provisions require monthly updates to the complainant, impose a deadline for negotiation of an accord between the bishop diocesan, and, in most cases, require resolution within 15 months. Our reaction: Duh. Indeed, these are very lax deadlines. A for-profit organization would finish the entire Title IV process in under four weeks.
• Providng updates. Complainants will now receive monthly case status updates. Our reaction: Great. In the past, Todd Ousley and Clay Matthews, as well as many bishops diocesan (Shannon Johnston, here’s looking at you), didn’t bother to provide updates or even let complainants know the outcome of their complaints.
• Implementing a national database. Under this provision (regrettably not adopted, but referred for additional study — despite previously being approved by General Convention), the national Church will track clergy disciplinary matters. Our reaction: Vital. Far too often, when finally identified, abusers leave in their wake a tsunami of previously ignored warning signs.

Additional changes needed

These changes are much needed. But far more is required.

Perhaps the biggest gap is bishops who ignore Title IV. In other words, Title IV is useless until bishops are required to follow it.

Indeed, far too many regard the provisions as aspirational, at best. Bishops in this camp include many we have covered elsewhere in this publication:

• Lucinda Beth Ashby
• Paula Clark
• Glenda Curry
• Michael Curry
• Alan Gates
• Susan Goff
• “Holly” Hollerith
• Shannon Johnston
• Chilton Knudsen
• James Mathes
• Todd Ousley

Other bishops engage in both misfeasance and nonfeasance, like George Sumner, who not only ignored complaints about sexual harassment and retaliation, but personally engaged in retaliation as well.

However, effective change in this area requires more than insisting that bishops follow Title IV. It requires cultural change, including ensuring that church members at every level understand that accountability is a key component of the baptismal covenant.

Hand-in-hand with cultural change will be a deliberate letting go of clericalism. Just because some buffoon wears a collar and swaggers around, making the sign of the cross, doesn’t make them a professional Christian.

Nor is friendly the same as faithful; indeed, some of the most abusive clergy we know are also among the friendliest. These same clergy often surround themselves with sycophants, empaths, and enablers, thus de facto rendering them immune to scrutiny from within their parishes and dioceses.

As a result, church members need to understand that when they unquestioningly follow a priest or bishop who may be engaged in misconduct, they are not being loyal to that individual as much as they are betraying God, the Church, and the Church’s mission. Indeed, we’ve far too often heard abusive clergy referred to as “servants of Christ,” when the only people they are serving are themselves.

Overall, Title IV is painfully slow and will remain so despite the recent changes. Additionally, we note that the denomination is often reluctant to address non-sexual abuse, including allegations of criminal conduct, that would result in near-immediate termination of employment in any other setting.

In other words, the two big challenges facing the Church at every level — lack of organizational integrity and lack of urgency — continue to loom large in the Title IV process.

Additional procedural changes

As part of the effort to reduce reliance on potentially corrupt bishops diocesan, there is a profound need for a national intake officer. Having one would ensure integrity in the Title IV process, enhance professionalism, and reduce workload on diocesan staff. Additionally, having one would protect bishops against possible conflicts of interest.

Relatedly, the Church needs an alternative path forward in Title IV cases. Far too often, we see buffoons like Holly Hollerith saying that s*** like, “Needless to say, I wouldn’t touch this complaint with a 1000 ft. pole,” even though the real-life case in question involves child rape.

Hollerith’s comment, documented here, makes clear that far too many bishops not only view Title IV as optional, but they also will sandbag a case if they believe it is too volatile or not in their political best interest.

Besides being a stunning indictment of the pathetic ethics of both the Hollerith family and the Episcopal Church, this situation underscores the need for complainants to have another route to resolution in the Title IV process when confronted with someone who, like Hollerith, has a broken moral compass. Or, like Hollerith, prejudges a complaint.

Consideration also should be given to developing a nationwide ethics hotline, as not every ethics issue is actionable under Title IV.

Right now, such a hotline is available to employees of the Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society (the corporate entity behind the Episcopal Church) but not to others in the Church. That dichotomy makes no sense, and anyone with an ethics concern should be able to surface it without enduring the Title IV process.

Additionally, as alluded to previously, the Church needs to define what a pastoral response looks like. While the Title IV training materials make clear that a pastoral response is NOT pastoral care (but may include pastoral care), far too many judicatories conflate the two. When this happens, versus asking the complainant what their pastoral needs are, the Church loses an opportunity to work for health and wholeness. That is doubly so when, as often happens, the complainant has left the Church or organized faith over their experiences.

Consideration also should be given to eliminating the conference panel, which is often where Title IV complaints go after conciliation fails. But our experience is that remarkably few cases get resolved at this level; either the wayward priest needs to understand that they are making a mistake, which quickly happens at intake or mediation, or they are the proverbial rotten apple, for whom no amount of conversation or negotiation will engender change. Thus, if the matter isn’t resolved early in the process, it might as well go directly to the hearing panel, which is now the third level in the process. In other words, the Church simply isn’t big enough to warrant a three-tier system, and miscreants exploit the set-up to delay a legitimate Title IV outcome.

Another often overlooked factor is the role of the Church’s captive insurance carrier, the Church Pension Group (CPG). While the CPG board comprises multiple priests, bishops, and laity, CPG handles many issues of misconduct like the Roman Catholic church of yore. In other words, in practice, CPG is astonishingly corrupt.

Specifically, when a complaint comes along about clergy misconduct, CPG denies everything, ignores the complainant, and insists on litigation. Or it settles for an unethically nominal amount.

Folks, we need to be clear: Members should not have to sue their denomination in order to obtain justice. The denomination bloviates about social justice and beloved community, but neither notion pertains when the only recourse for those hurt by the Church is to file suit. And since CPG is owned by the Episcopal Church, CPG’s conduct should align with the the values of the Baptismal Covenant. However, we have never yet observed a case where CPG did the right thing without being forced to do so.

This conduct by CPG and the Church illustrates an ugly paradigm at the heart of the Episcopal Church: It combines the worst aspects of non- and for-profit organizations. Indeed, the Church wants Title IV to be an ecclesiastical proceeding, yet in most cases, the denomination makes sure that Title IV doesn’t work. Thus, it forces members to go to court or social media to seek redress.

Most importantly, we need to see the national Church become fully compliant with Title IV. As things stand, the only people who get a pastoral response in Title IV cases are bishops, who like Whayne Hougland, get a cash bonus, help with a new job, and an unpaid vacation. Beyond that, most complainants get no pastoral response, no notice of the outcome, and no notice of their right to appeal. That signals to bishops diocesan and other judicatories that they are free to ignore Title IV.

A final observation: The Church should consider a truth and reconciliation process for those it has hurt through its tragically flawed implementation of Title IV. Whether it’s Holly Hollerith and his insane notion that he won’t get his dainty little fingers dirty with child rape complaints, or the legions of women, LGBTQ+ persons, persons of color, and other minorities who have had their suffering compounded by the Church and its abysmal handling of Title IV, there is much for which the Church needs to repent.

This repentance needs to be more than an empty liturgy of lament. While liturgy can have profound meaning, talk is cheap. In every case, the Church must ask those it has hurt, “How can we make this right with you?”

In many cases, the answer is it can’t.

The harm of a badly handled Title IV case is often irreparable, as the Standing Commission on Constitution and Canons previously recognized:

A poorly handled Title IV matter can cause unnecessary — and often irreparable — harm to both relationships and reputations of all parties involved. The Church has a responsibility to remediate any unnecessary costs, both relational and financial.

That said, consistent with Christian notions of reconciliation and repentance, the Church needs to seek to make reparations.

It is not enough to say, “I’m sorry,” and keep on going.

Looking forward

Will the Episcopal Church clean up the sorry mess that is Title IV?

We don’t know. If the past is any precursor to the future, the answer is no. We’ve been looking at this same sordid mess for decades, and it never gets any better.

That said, incoming presiding bishop Sean Rowe may be the best and final hope for change. As things stand, the Episcopal Church is imploding, and its corruption and ineffectual dithering are the fuel behind this collapse.

Any hope of survival begins with integrity. Without that, the Church might as well liquidate its assets, write a nine-figure check to support affordable housing, pour a stiff drink, and ring down the curtain on its failed role as the quasi-state Church in the United States.