As discussions continue regarding Todd Ousley as the prospective bishop provisional for Wyoming, it is worth exploring the myriad ways in which Ousley has sandbagged the Title IV process during his time in the Office of Pastoral Development and his countless instances of corruption.
Ousley ignores child rape and mandatory reporting requirements
Let’s start with one of Ousley’s most egregious failings, which is brushing off the Richard Losch child rape allegations.
To begin with, any allegation of a child sex offense carries with it an ethical and legal obligation to report the matter to law enforcement, even if it happened long ago.
Why is that the case?
Simply put, it’s because victims, on average, come forward in their mid-fifties. Moreover, statistically speaking, child sex offenders often have multiple victims. In the Losch case, Anglican Watch knows of one other alleged victim and has reason to believe there are many more. Thus, even if outside the statute of limitations, child sexual abuse allegations must be reported immediately, even if only to prevent additional abuse.
Even worse, the Diocese of Alabama and Bishop Glenda Curry repeatedly lied about the situation to law enforcement. Among their documented fabrications are:
- Telling law enforcement officials that Losch was no longer active in ministry despite serving as a priest in two nearby parishes.
- Claiming Losch doesn’t have access to children despite serving two churches, living in close proximity to a school, and having internet access.
Nor is Losch’s advanced age dispositive. Whether it’s child porn, inappropriate online conversations, or more, rest assured Losch still can engage in criminal conduct.
Thus, had Ousley followed the canons, he would have:
- Prepared an intake report documenting allegations of criminal conduct by Bishop Glenda Curry.
- Referred the matter for investigation.
Ousley also would have contacted Child Protective Services, consistent with his ethical and legal obligations.
But he did none of these things despite the fact that his feckless inquiry into the Alabama diocese made clear, had he considered it, that Bishop Glenda Curry was lying about the timeline of events.
Todd Ousley doesn’t get to ignore the canons
We also reject categorically Ousley’s claim that he can sidestep Title IV by handling matters “pastorally.”
Not only is there no provision in the canons for this, but it begs the question: If Ousley can decide to ignore the canons, why can’t other bishops choose to handle a complaint by telling the complainant, for example, to find another church?
(To be clear, there are bishops, including Shannon Johnston, who have done exactly that.)
Nor is this an overly narrow reading of the canons, which seemingly were drafted by lawyers. Specifically, the use of the word “shall,” as in, the intake officer “shall prepare a report,” is not optional.
On the other hand, optional is indicated by the word “may.” These are basic rules of construction, and any parliamentarian or first-year law student understands the distinction.
Thus, the only thing more troubling than Ousley lying about this situation is the possibility that Ousley really doesn’t understand the underlying issue.
The current Disciplinary Board for Bishops is making things worse
In a Title IV case filed by Anglican Watch editor Eric Bonetti against Ousley and in other similar cases, we see a disturbing pattern in which the Disciplinary Board is excusing Ousley’s behavior on the basis that he was following “customary practice” at the time.
To be clear, that is horse s***.
When confronted with a Title IV case, Ousley’s practice as an intake officer was to do as little as possible, as late as possible, while doing everything possible to protect his fellow bishops. In many cases, Ousley not only didn’t prepare an intake report but also refused to provide complainants with notice of dismissal and their right to appeal.
In other words, customary practice is not a defense to allegations that Ousley engaged in misfeasance, malfeasance, and nonfeasance. Instead, customary practice is the very basis on which Ousley should face Title IV discipline.
Ousley lies about his conduct
Speaking of Anglican Watch editor Eric Bonetti, Ousley also lies about Bonetti’s Title IV complaint against Ousley.
Specifically, Ousley claims that Bonetti’s original Title IV complaint, filed with the Diocese of Virginia against perjuring priest Robert Malm, turned out in a manner unsatisfactory to Bonetti, and thus, any complaint needed to be in the form of an appeal to the Diocese.
That is a bald-faced lie.
Bonetti complained about Bishop Shannon Johnston and Johnston’s refusal to follow Title IV. Indeed, Johnston repeatedly ignored Title IV complaints against Malm, saying, “I don’t want to get involved.”
Indeed, when Bonetti asked the intake officer, “Does Johnston understand that the behavior in question is illegal?” he replied, “He does. He doesn’t care.”
To be clear: “I don’t want to get involved,” when a complainant alleges criminal activity is not a legitimate outcome under Title IV.
Moreover, Ousley violated Title IV-mandated confidentiality by discussing Bonetti’s Title IV complaint, even though he correctly stated that the Bishop Disciplinary Committee dismissed the complaint.
So why did the Committee dismiss the complaint?
The answer is that the Committee unquestioningly accepts any fabrication that comes from Ousley.
And let’s be clear: Having just recently reviewed the case, Ousley damned well knows that Bonetti’s case was not about being unhappy with the outcome. It was about the refusal of Bishop Shannon Johnston to follow church canons.
Implications for Title IV over time
One of the alarming things about the Disciplinary Board’s handling of complaints about Ousley is that we are increasingly being gaslit. As in, “Ousley’s not really corrupt. He just could have been a bit more pastoral in hindsight.”
Of course, this also tacitly endorses Ousley’s malfeasance, in which he primarily confined his Title IV role to accepting complaints and then ignoring them until they died.
If Sean Rowe is going to take that approach, it’s fair to say that we’ve reached the end of the Episcopal Church as we know it. We cannot continue the long-standing tradition of ignoring abuse in the Episcopal Church if the denomination is to survive.
To paraphrase the Bible: A corrupt church cannot produce Christian results.
Ousley must be held accountable.
Leave a Reply