Truth versus fiction: What you need to know about the Bishop Marray Title IV case.

There has been much misinformation about the Title IV clergy disciplinary case involving Easton Bishop Santosh Marray, much of it coming directly from Marray and his loyalists. This post addresses that misinformation and is based on Anglican Watch’s independent research.

Claim: The Title IV case against Marray is the result of The Rev. Nathaniel Pierce’s long-running conflict with Marray.

Truth: More than a dozen persons in the Diocese of Easton have experienced abusive behavior by Marray in independent situations involving both clergy and laity.

There is no evidence that Pierce coordinated complaints about these situations, encouraged people to file complaints, misled people to get them to complain, or otherwise behaved inappropriately.

On the other hand, Marray has inappropriately attacked Pierce. In a May 24, 2019 collaborative effort between Marray and Chancellor Emeritus Cornbrooks, Marray sent out approximately 200 letters harshly criticizing Pierce.

Such behavior by Marray is inherently abusive, inconsistent with basic norms of Christian behavior, and contrary to any notion of effective leadership.

Claim: The Title IV conflict between Marray and members of the Diocese is nothing more than an interpersonal conflict.

Truth: Marray’s abusive conduct comprises myriad behaviors, many of which would result in immediate termination in a for-profit organization. These include, but are not limited to:

• Referring to female ordinands as “beautiful” during a diocesan conference.
• Blocking the ability of female and LGBTQ+ clergy to be successful in their roles by refusing to complete needed paperwork, lying about them, and withholding episcopal visitations from their parishes.
• Weaponizing episcopal visitations.
• Lying to diocesan officials and the Office of the Presiding Bishop.
• A pattern and practice of bullying clergy and diocesan leadership.

Many of these situations involved alleged instances of the prototypical narcissistic rage associated with clinical narcissistic personality disorder (NPD). In these situations, Marray explodes with anger, claims people are trying to kill him, claims the Diocese is trying to “put his wife on the street,” says those who refuse to comply with his wishes are inspired by Satan.

Relatedly, many believe that Marray engages in other conduct related to NPD, including gaslighting, projection, faux apologies, and making thinly veiled threats against clergy and laity whom he perceives to be disloyal.

Category-wise, Marray’s abusive behavior covers a wide range of misconduct, including but not limited to:

• Spiritual abuse.
• Emotional abuse.
• Relational abuse.
• Narcissistic abuse.
• Gender-based, misogynistic abuse.
• Anti-LGBTQ+ abuse.
• Abuse of power.

In short, Marray’s abuse and misconduct are serious and far-reaching.

Claim: This is another case where Anglican Watch is trashing some poor, hapless clergyperson. You cannot cite specific examples.

Truth: While reciting all Marray’s misconduct would take the better part of a week of writing, Anglican Watch has far-reaching documentation of the allegations against him.

Several specific incidents are particularly noteworthy:

• During the second reading of a proposed revised diocesan constitution and canons, held on May 23, 2019, Marray blew up at five delegates who declined to vote in accordance with his wishes. Four of the delegates were laypersons; one was clergy. In doing so, Marray asserted that if they did not change their votes to the affirmative, he would have the names of those five printed in red ink in a commemorative document he intended to publish.
• In a related incident, Marray became incensed that some would not vote for the revisions and pleaded for help on a Zoom conference call while claiming that Satan was talking to those opposed to the revisions and referencing blasphemy.
• In the days prior to the Diocese’s annual renewal of clergy vows, held on Holy Thursday, 2023, Marray demanded an “Oath of Conformity” from participating clergy. Such a demand is unprecedented and unauthorized.
• On May 24, 2019 (the same date as his 200 letters attacking Pierce), Marray sent a missive to approximately 200 persons attacking the Diocesan Committee on Constitution and Canons. Subsequently, five of the six members of the committee resigned.
• Most concerningly, Marray lied, directly and implicitly, to Diocesan officials and the national church about previous efforts to invoke the canonical III.12.11 process, which is deployed when the relationship between a bishop and diocese is imperiled. It a nutshell, Marray deceived others, claiming that:

1. 1. The request was not made jointly by Marray with the diocesan Standing Committee; it was, in fact, made jointly.
   2. The Standing Committee was not unanimous in its vote to approve the process; five of the six members of the Committee were present and voted unanimously to approve the measure.
   3. Bishop for Pastoral Development Todd Ousley opposed the measure, on the basis that it did not meet the canonically mandated levels of support from members of the Standing Committee. In fact, the Committee unanimously voted for the measure.
   4. Relatedly, once Marray had sandbagged the canonical process via false and misleading information sent to Bishop Todd Ousley of the Office of Pastoral Development, Marray lied to the Diocesan Council about using outside consultant Bishop Mary Gray-Reeves in an effort to fix problems in the Diocese. Indeed, Marray falsely represented that only a majority of the Standing Committee voted to use Gray-Reeves; the vote was, in reality, unanimous.

These repeated lies, the related Machiavellianism, and the seeming lack of an ethical reference point all indicate not only egregious misconduct by Marray, but also suggest other concerns implicating Marray’s mental health and well-being.

Moreover, we cannot imagine any other for- or non-profit organization in which the CEO or executive director could lie to their board of directors and remain employed. This is unacceptable and underscores the egregious lack of integrity in the Episcopal Church.

Claim: Bishop Marray participated in good faith in mediation with the persons who filed Title IV complaints against him.

Truth: Bishop Marray hid behind legal counsel and refused to engage.

At the mediation conference involving Marray, part of the Title IV process, Marray said almost nothing, instead having his attorney speak on his behalf. That’s the polar opposite of the good-faith engagement required to resolve concerns, and to our mind suggests that Marray well knows his behavior is unacceptable.

Further, we note that Diocesan clergy had expressly rejected any role for Todd Ousley in the process due to negative prior experiences with Ousley. Given our previously expressed views on Todd Ousley and his dismal role as intake officer for bishops, we refrain from further comment.

Claim: Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight (DEPO), combined with an acclerated departure for Marray, solves all the problems involving Marray.

Fact: DEPO leaves all sorts of loose ends, including trauma for clergy and laity alike, while postulants and ordinands are outside the current ambit of these arrangements.

DEPO, developed as a response to conservative concerns about same-sex marriage, allows parishes to request oversight from a bishop perceived to share their values. Ironically, in the Easton matter, it is being used to protect inclusive parishes against a bishop with a disruptive personal agenda.

Anglican Watch has long had an issue with the thin or non-existent pastoral response that accompanies most Title IV cases. And while DEPO is an improvement over the previous situation, it does little to address the damage caused by Marray’s conduct, while ignoring individuals harmed by Marray and traumatized by the denomination’s feckless response to the ensuing Title IV complaint,

Moreover, Marray appears to be continuing to try to sidestep recommendations from church headquarters that Easton consider a merger or other collaborative arrangement after Marray’s departure.

How is Marray doing that? Primarily by trying to wire a successor of his own choosing, which would, in theory, preempt the possibility of a merger.

Further, the current situation is a ridiculous waste of time and resources as the Diocese expends scant resources to retain Marray, while having to outsource key episcopal ministries and functions to other bishops. Meanwhile, we see little sign that Marray’s behind-the-scenes machinations have diminished as a result of the Title IV case — or for any other reason.

Claim: Both the national church and the Diocese of Easton complied with the canonical requirements of Title IV.

Fact: Although this case has been handled better than some other Title IV cases we have seen, that statement should not be viewed as an endorsement of the Title IV process in this case. Far from it.

Indeed, the church has made it clear that the Title IV process would not proceed beyond the farcical “conciliation” process we previously described. In doing so, judicatories brushed off Marray’s misconduct under the guise of saying, “Well, a bishop can change his mind,” which refers to the abortive III.12.11 process that Marray sandbagged.

In proferring this misleading conclusion, the national church conveniently ignores key points in the complaint:

• Marray is, by all appearances, in a remarkably unhealthy state, both personally and in his relationships with others as evinced by a pattern of toxic behavior.
• Marray’s toxic behavior includes myriad violations of church canons, including fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, and more.
• Marray’s conduct has caused lasting and possibly irreparable harm to the Diocese of Easton, its members, and the reputation of the entire Episcopal Church.
• The national church has betrayed the trust of the complainants in this matter, who rightly followed safe church training. The latter tells church members and clergy that, if they see something, they should say something. But having done so, the national church has thrown them under the bus.
• In this matter, former Bishop for Pastoral Development Todd Ousley has, true to form, sided blindly with Marray by adopting the latter’s claim that this mess is all Pierce’s doing. To be clear: Nothing could be further from the truth, and it ethically incumbent upon Ousley to avoid ratifying and spreading these fabrications. Moreover, consistent with Christian notions of truthtelling and bringing light to the darkness, there must be a correction and retraction of Ousley’s fabrications. This has neither happened, nor is there any sign the national church is willing to make it happen.

Claim: Not that long ago, Anglican Watch expressed hope that Title IV would get better under Presiding Bishop Sean Rowe. It sounds like you are backing away from this conclusion.

Truth: We’ve been wrong before.

A redacted copy of the actual Title IV complaint is attached, along with redacted copies of select supporting documents. The redactions protect the identity of persons involved in the Title IV process, while removing information that might allow readers to infer their identity.