Recently, Todd Ousley, former Bishop for Pastoral Development for the Episcopal Church and now the candidate for bishop provisional of Wyoming, issued a series of videos (now on the Wyoming YouTube feed) responding to concerns that he is unqualified to serve as bishop provisional. Anglican Watch has viewed these videos and, to put it gently, the videos are a joke.
Possible criminal liability for failure to report child sexual abuse
While there are many reasons to object to Todd Ousley serving as bishop provisional of Wyoming, we’d like to start with the proverbial elephant in the living room. In Ousley’s case, the elephant is his legal obligation as a mandated reporter in the Richard Losch child rape case and his possible criminal liability for failing to report.
We’ve covered the Losch case extensively and thus won’t rehash the details. But in a nutshell, the victim, now an adult, went to Ousley for help after getting stonewalled by the Alabama and Massachusetts dioceses.
Why those dioceses? Because the rape happened in Massachusetts and Losch, the alleged perpetrator is now canonically resident in Alabama.
True to form, Massachusetts Bishop Alan Gates didn’t bother to respond. Alabama was even worse, claiming it took action but couldn’t adequately investigate the case. (This is despite the fact that this publication was able to verify the complainant’s claims in less than 30 minutes.)
As a result, “Jack” (a pseudonym) approached Ousley for help, who responded that the matter was outside his purview, but he’d make inquiries of the Alabama diocese. Those inquiries revealed a questionable claim by Alabama that it had dismissed the case—but hadn’t bothered to tell Jack, resulting in him losing his right to appeal the dismissal. (It must have been a hell of an investigation not even to include the victim.)
So, besides passing this information along, what did Ousley do? The answer is nothing:
- No meaningful pastoral response as required by Title IV.
- Did not call Massachusetts or Alabama and say, “The Office of Presiding Bishop expects you to take this seriously. Get off your backsides and DO SOMETHING!”
- Most importantly, no call to child protective services despite the fact that Massachusetts and the other relevant jurisdictions all impose criminal penalties for failing to report abuse.
Nor does it matter that the incident itself was long ago. Many studies indicate that child sex offenses often include multiple victims and other unreported crimes. And while the perpetrator now is elderly, victims usually only come forward decades later; plus, even in later years, there are many ways to re-offend.
And when the victim pushed back against Ousley, claiming that his role in the church didn’t permit him to address these issues and asked, “Well, then, who does?” Ousley chose to ignore the victim.
As a result, Ousley today faces the possibility, albeit an unlikely one, of criminal charges for failure to report. But more importantly, when we hear Ousley talk about the “lofty” goals of Title IV, we see Ousley’s spiritual and ethical reference points laid bare.
“As you have done to the least of these, so also have you done unto me.” And if child rape isn’t enough to get Ousley off his backside, it’s hard to know what would engender that result.
Sexual harassment of women
Just to be clear, Ousley’s corruption extends beyond brushing off allegations of child rape.
In the case of Dallas Bishop George Sumner, Ousley received multiple complaints that Sumner conspired with Texarkana rector David Halt to retaliate against an Episcopal priest, Rich Daly, for opposing the sexual harassment of an adult woman connected to St. James, Texarkana.
A third party made two preliminary Title IV complaints about the matter with Ousley, only to be ignored. When Daly asked about the complaints, Ousley falsely told him that there were no such complaints.
It was only when this publication sent a third complaint to the national church that Ousley acknowledged receipt, which was shortly before he left his role as the intake officer for Title IV cases against bishops.
The matter languished for more than a year, only to now begin a tortuous process to leave the starting gate. Even now, the case is being slow-walked and mishandled in multiple ways.
So, in the meantime, what did the church do? On the Title IV website, Ousley himself talks about how a pastoral response to all involved is a key aspect of the process. Indeed, the site says:
“Pastoral Response is a vital component of Title IV. It is one of the first priorities to accompany all phases of the process for all participants.”
Yet Ousley did absolutely nothing.
To be clear, the sexual harassment of any human being is wrong and unacceptable. Indeed, we are dismayed that members of the Wyoming standing committee are willing to give Ousley a pass on this egregious violation of the baptismal covenant.
So, until Ousley figures out what #churchtoo means, he’s not suited for any clergy position.
Backlogged cases
We also can look at Ousley’s track record on sexual harassment and child sexual abuse in a larger context.
For starters, it’s important to look beyond Ousley’s measured voice and carefully chosen words. Indeed, it’s results that matter, and when Ousley left office, approximately 24 Title IV cases against bishops were languishing, with many having sat for more than a year.
Why can’t we come up with an exact number of cases? The answer is simple: On his way out the door as Bishop for Pastoral Development, Ousley did nothing to update the micrositelisting Title IV cases against bishops. Thus, our estimate derives from our firsthand knowledge of cases, publicly available data points, and a limited amount of information from inside church headquarters.
Some may ask: But what if the remaining cases are minor ones? The answer is that they are not at all minor. Among the cases are several relating to the Losch child rape case, several involving allegations of criminal conduct, the Sumner case, and more. So, we don’t know the content of all the cases, but many involve significant claims that warrant rapid consideration.
We also note that the backlog developed under Ousley’s watch. As for potential claims he didn’t have the resources to act, spare us. Part of adulting is reaching out to let people know when you need additional resources, so Ousley owns this issue.
Procedural problems and fabrications
Earlier, we discussed Ousley’s untruthful statement about the George Sumner case, in which he claimed no one had filed a Title IV complaint. To be clear, that is the tip of the iceberg when it comes to Ousley and his personal and professional integrity.
Title IV involves people’s souls, the very essence of who and what they are. But we don’t see that fact reflected in Ousley’s handling of Title IV cases.
In one instance, Ousley told an Anglican Watch staff member (in front of a witness, thankfully), that the Presiding Bishop (PB) cannot tell a bishop diocesan what to do. That’s an outright, self-serving fabrication, as it happens with some frequency.
To be clear, this is a power that cannot be used lightly. The PB cannot, for example, act arbitrarily and capriciously. But the PB can and must insist on integrity, compassion, and adherence to the norms of the Episcopal Church.
Speaking of normative behaviors, Ousley likes to play fast and loose with Title IV. For example, in cases he dismissed as an intake officer, he routinely failed to notify the complainant of the right to an appeal. Relatedly, Ousley ignored the canonical requirement that a report be prepared at intake, even if he thought, as intake officer, the matter was trivial.
How did Ousley do this? In more than one case, he called the bishop diocesan and asked if the complainant was credible. When, as bad bishops are wont to do, the response came back in the negative, Ousley brushed the matter off.
To be clear, the current disciplinary board has let at least one such case slide without consequences for Ousley.
But we expect that bishops follow Title IV to the letter and not regard it as a nice-to-have. Moreover, time and again, we see the same cast of characters treating Title IV like washing the office windows—it’d be nice if it gets done, but it’s not a priority. And there are some bishops, like Louisiana bishop Glenda Curry, who ignore Title IV complaints altogether.
All of this ties to Ousley because real leadership is through example. We cannot hope to see integrity in the Episcopal Church when bishops like Todd Ousley brush off even child rape as being outside their wheelhouses.
In short, Ousley has no business as a priest, let alone a bishop. His only real talent is telling others what they want to hear—which means he’d be a far more capable used car dealer than a bishop.
Leave a Reply