The truth matters: Letter disproves Bishop Lucinda Ashby’s claims about registered sex offender

TLD: It’s time for Bishop Lucinda Ashby and ECR Director of Communications Carole Bartolini to tender their resignations

As the scandal grows over Episcopal Bishop Lucinda Ashby’s handling of a registered sex offender in her diocese, Anglican Watch is increasingly concerned about the Diocese of El Camino Real (ECR) and its misleading and untruthful comments about the matter. A letter received by Anglican Watch, redacted in order to afford privacy for the complainant and others, reveals that the Diocese’s claims, which attempt to throw shade at the complainant and gaslight church members, are, to be blunt, lies.

The importance of protecting children; bad behavior by the Diocese

To be clear, nothing in the communal life of a church is more important that protecting children and other vulnerable populations. When an issue involving the safety of children comes up, nothing in the life of a diocese and its bishop is less important than impression management.

Thus, it is appalling to see that diocesan spokesperson Carole Bartolini, El Camino Real’s communications director, told The Living Church:

It is inaccurate to say that there was an individual on the registered sex offenders list in church leadership at Holy Family. What is accurate is that there was an individual on the sex offenders list who attended Holy Family for a brief time, but that person had no involvement in either church leadership or youth work.”

Something about the Ninth Commandment….

As to the claim about a “brief time” we can document that the sex offender was there for at least nine months. But hey, what’s nine months of having a pedophile loose in your church building?

Even worse is Ashby’s attempt at gaslighting in her Diocesan statement, in which she says:

I want to address some odd accusations and the spread of misinformation about safety in our parishes, our diocese, and your bishop’s commitment to that safety. This type of suspicion may arise when a person becomes afraid or feels disconnected from what we are about. We want to ensure that our community members receive accurate information about The Diocese of El Camino Real and The Episcopal Church.

Letter makes clear bishop and Bartolini are lying

As the correspondence below between Ashby and the anonymous complainant makes clear, there is nothing odd about the complaint. Ashby at no point refutes or disagrees with any aspect of the complaint. Thus, there is zero evidence of “misinformation.” That said, if Ashby or Bartolini want to point to the specific language they believe is “odd” or “misinformation,” we are all ears.

Additionally:

• The sex offender signed the parish guest book with the honorific “pastor,” which is a fabrication. If that is not a warning sign, nothing else is.
• The sex offender had keys to the church. (But hey, he was only there, according to the Diocese, briefly. After all, we hand out keys to the building the second time you visit!)
• His spouse was running the Sunday school program. Double warning sign—access to children!
• The sex offender interacted with children.

In other words, how on God’s great green earth can any person of integrity attempt to minimize this situation, gaslight others about it, and throw shade at the complainant? Doing so reveals that there is nothing of God in the Diocese and the way it, Ashby, and Bartolini are handling this situation.

As to the rest of the fluff in the Diocesan letter, it is just that, fluff.

The complainant, who was in a leadership role in the parish, raised the issue that background checks had not been performed in several years in his church. Nor were other Safe Church requirements being implemented.

Thus, Ashby’s babble about the steps the Diocese has taken to ensure church safety is irrelevant to the present situation. It is nothing but smoke and mirrors intended to distract from the fact that Ashby doesn’t care if there is a sex offender trying to wiggle into churches in her Diocese — and not that long ago, was trying to tell us that no explanation for this outrageous fact pattern is required.

As for the contention that the church did the right thing by adopting a policy about sex offenders, that is a load of BS. The Episcopal Church (TEC) has reams of policies — including a provision in Title IV that says a pastoral response evincing love, respect, and concern for all parties is required in response to a clergy disciplinary complaint — yet we have only once seen this happen in practice. In other words, written policies in TEC are nothing but feel-good exercises designed to avoid taking any real action.

And to be crystal clear: It should not fall to vestry members to find out, via their own research, that a sex offender has keys to the church building.

Think about it: Under the current ECR approach, the only thing that happens when a registered sex offender shows up on a church doorstep is that the vestry has to pass a measure saying that the sex offender cannot serve in a leadership role. Other than that, it’s all good.

In other words, dealing with a sex offender in ECR is a game of whack-a-mole. Hopefully, church members spot him quickly, before he hurts anyone, and pass a resolution. But then, all that happens is he leaves, heads to a new church, and the game starts again.

Is there any parent out there that thinks this approach is adequate?

Meanwhile, we’re prepared to wager $20 that no one in the church hierarchy has bothered to let his parole officer know that this purported “pastor” is sidling up to children in the church. As an ethical matter, the Diocese and parish are obligated to have this conversation, and there rightly will be hell to pay if the sex offender shows up at another church, hurts a child, and it emerges that the Diocese brushed the matter off.

Bishop Ashby’s conduct is abusive

And while we’re on the topic of love, respect, and concern, Ashby’s efforts to throw shade on the complainant with her nonsense about,

This type of suspicion may arise when a person becomes afraid or feels disconnected from what we are about. We want to ensure that our community members receive accurate information about The Diocese of El Camino Real and The Episcopal Church.

are spectacularly inappropriate and serve to underscore our point, which is that Safe Church policies in the Diocese don’t work.

All churches should be safe places, not just for children, the differently abled, and the elderly. That is part of the Baptismal Covenant. For Lucinda Ashby and Diocesan Communications Director Carole Bartolini to lie, to throw shade, and to try and gaslight, fluff, and blur their way out of this mess reveal that they are:

1. Abusive
2. Childish
3. Focused on impression management
4. Lacking in integrity

And if any further confirmation that Ashby and Bartolini are bad actors is needed, we need only look at the fact that Ashby has directed parish staff to retaliate against the complainant, a per se violation of the Title IV clergy disciplinary canons.

Forward-looking recommendations

At this point, Anglican Watch believes several things need to happen:

1. Lucinda Ashby and Carole Bartolini need to resign immediately. Both have brought discredit on the church and placed children at risk.
2. Parents need to let the bishop, the standing committee, and their vestries know that they expect to be notified when a registered sex offender is attempting to join a local church. Transparency is key to building trusting relationships, and the Diocese’s conduct is anything but.
3. If Ashby and Bartolini do not immediately resign, it is time for parents with children and others who may be vulnerable to transition to another denomination. Worshipping God is one thing—getting sexually assaulted or murdered is something else entirely. Loving God does not require placing you or your loved ones at unnecessary risk.
4. While we are not automatically opposed to sex offenders attending church, they should only be permitted to do so with a written diocesan policy in place, and after a discussion with a parole officer, review of their criminal record, discussion with those affected, and a written covenantal agreement on all sides. The sad reality is that anti-social personalities are more likely than not to repeat their criminal behavior or behave in other dangerous ways. If a covenant is possible, all involved agree to treat each other with respect. Regular updates will be provided to the probation officer, and parishioners will alert clergy to any actions that may be questionable. Offender agrees to not ever be alone in the church, to have no interaction with children, and to have a chaperone while on campus.If a covenant is not possible, parishioners still must treat the offender with respect. The offender may not attend church or church activities, participate in church programs, or join church Facebook pages or other social media. Two unrelated adults will bring home communion to the offender, in a safe location if needed. In either case, if any boundary violations should result, the offender must be banned from all diocesan property, as happened in the Bernard Schade case. (Although he was trying his best to sidle into area churches, he wasn’t even claiming to be a pastor.) And in no case whatsoever should the sex offender have keys to the church or internet access. None.

Anglican Watch calls on the ECR standing committee and chancellor to take immediate steps to address this situation. Demonizing the complainant when s/he is protecting children is not acceptable, and those who ignore the problem or join in mistreating the complainant are culpable.

Finally, as for the sex offender, who presumably is out and about, looking for a new church, all we can say is, if anyone gets hurt, plaintiff’s counsel, please be in touch. We gladly will provide information on what Lucinda Ashby knew, when she knew it, and more.