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- Telling law enforcement officials that Losch was no longer active in ministry despite serving as a priest in two nearby parishes.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.
To broaden this discussion a bit, much of the Title IV process, at east initially, hinges on the competence and fairness of the Intake Officer (IO). In the past the IO for Bishops has been perceived as someone mandated to protect Bishops at all costs. Drawing on our experience (Diocese of Easton) with the Title IV process, I note these recent changes:
— a new IO was appointed by PB Michael Curry in June 2023.
— when we tried to file our complaints in July, we were unable to find an email address for the new IO. When we asked the President of the Disciplinary Board for Bishops for assistance, she responded: “I’m sorry I have no knowledge of this matter.” Now, there is a page on the TEC website dedicated to Title IV complaints and Bishops; the appropriate email address for the IO is prominently displayed.
— After we filed our complaints and following zoom conferences with the IO, we waited for 130 days for an official response. Thanks to GC 2024, an initial report from the IO is now required within 45 days.
— “At the same time as forwarding the intake report to the Reference Panel, the Intake Officer shall send a notice to the subject Member of the Clergy informing him or her of the nature of the alleged Offense(s), the identity of any persons who have been designated as Complainants, and describing the next procedural steps that the Member of the Clergy can anticipate…. The Intake Officer shall at the same time provide a copy of the notice to the Complainant and to any other person from whom the Intake Officer has received information concerning the alleged Offense.” (IV.6.7) That second sentence was added by GC 2025. In retrospect that would have made a huge difference in our situation.
— The addition of IV.14.14, which took effect on January 1, 2025 (easing restrictions on post Title IV discussions), significantly benefited us.
All of which is to say that while the past is full of egregious examples of inappropriate behavior by the IO for Bishops, to some extent this problem has been recognized and appropriate changes have been implemented.
The most damaging impact of Bishop Ousley’s ministry in our situation were related to our efforts to AVOID a Title IV process by utilizing the resources offered in III.12.11. Publicly he presented himself as being supportive of that effort. Behind the scenes he worked to sabotage it. Tragically, he was successful.
What are your thoughts on holding Ousley accountable for his past misconduct?
Our position is that it should not be a matter of business as usual. Yet the current Disciplinary Committee is relying heavily on the notion that Ousley did nothing wrong by virtue of the fact that he adhered to “customary practice” — conveniently overlooking the fact that Ousley’s “customary practice” was to sandbag complaints in any way possible.
We also believe that the people of Wyoming deserve better.
Bishop Ousley did follow “customary practice” which was and still is outrageous. The Bishop Paul Jones debacle has probably been an important factor in shaping this “customary practice.” Recall: Jones was forced to resign by our House of Bishops in 1918 as the Bishop of the Missionary District of Utah. His offense: in August 1917 (on the eve of the US entering WWI) he dared to say three words in a speech in Los Angeles which threw TEC into complete turmoil: “War is unchristian.” To this day this bit of history continues to be profoundly embarrassing. (In the late 1930s Jones started what is now known as Episcopal Relief and Development.) TEC “apologized” by adding Jones to our Calendar of Saints in 1991. I wrote the initial resolution.
From a family systems perspective, protecting the leader of any organization is almost always a top priority (see the Supreme Court decision on Presidential immunity). In this context the recent resignation of the Archbishop of Canterbury is noteworthy.
In a sense Bishop Ousley has been held accountable. He resigned his position (some think he was fired). The Accord, which ended his own Title IV complaint, required him to take a refresher course on Title IV, a rather remarkable requirement for the very person tasked with the responsibility of educating new Bishops on Title IV issues for the past seven years.
I think Presiding Bishop Rowe is eager to move forward with the daunting task of restructuring TEC in order to improve our chances of surviving iduring this difficult time. (Personally, I hope that will include strengthening the ministries of our nine Provinces.) For him that means clearing out the backlog of Title IV cases involving Bishops as quickly and as reasonably as possible. At the same time he has sent a clear message to all TEC Bishops: the era of the “customary practice” is now over. Done.
The Diocese of Wyoming parted ways with its former Bishop last fall for reasons related to unethical conduct. Why am I not surprised that Bishop Ousley is now the sole candidate to be elected their Bishop Provisional? Yes, they deserve better but the issue is: do they want better?
Our situation is not as healthy as I would like it to be, but I do think it has improved. We are now entering a new era of mutual accountability.
I agree. My frustration is that, as I get older, I realize we may not see meaningful change in my lifetime. At the same time, the rapid downward trajectory of the church means it does not have that many more years to futz around and act like nincompoops.
Where else does a complaint about sexual harassment or criminal conduct in the workplace take more than two years to resolve, with no consequences for the offender?
It is very sad that this individual does not know how to speak honestly, transparently, and straightforwardly. He is, in my opinion, the epitome of the worse type of bishop there is. Apparently, he only seems to interested in protecting his colleagues – NO MATTER WHAT.
Look at what the cover-up, or ignoring of misconduct forced Archbishop Welby to do. Hasn’t TEC learned a single thing? Yet, this individual protects his own, and any of his allies who tell him to protect their own, from justice.
He is allowed to merrily go on his way after mishandling many Title IV complaints against bishops. This allows other bishops to go along their merry way and ignore Title IV complaints in their dioceses. Something is rotten in the state of Denmark, and the address where that rot resides begins with 8-1-5. The rot reaches to Michigan, Illinois, Massachusetts, Virginia, Georgia, Tennessee, Texas, and Alabama. If it were not for the fact that many of these places have deep pockets, the whole institution would immediately collapse.
It is time the PB of the Episcopal Church take clear and convincing action that this corrupt system must end. If he does not do so, I am sure that though the money might not run out, the people will.
Ardently agree. And the 45-day requirement for the intake officer to issue a report is being ignored even now in the ugly case of George Sumner.
Why even have canons if they are ignored?
Ousley spent twenty minutes in an interview bashing complainants, violating confidentiality, and being dismissive of the underlying circumstances of the Title IV complaints.
It’s apparent that he doesn’t care.
PB Rowe should redirect Ousley’s abusive public commentary.