Our Story - Angela & Laura
Why we are telling our story
While the hashtag is #ACNAToo, some of you might be getting the impression that the more accurate hashtag would be #UpperMidwestToo. But we know better. We, Angela and Laura, are two survivors at All Souls Anglican Church in Wheaton, IL, in the Diocese of Pittsburgh.
Beginning in February 2020, at least ten women (including the two of us) came forward to report clergy misconduct to our diocese. The ecclesiastical investigation concluded in March 2021. The investigation process compounded the harm that was caused by our former priest, and we don't want that kind of experience for anyone else.
[An Except from “Policies Regarding the Prevention of Sexual Misconduct and Child Abuse by Clergy, Employees and Volunteers in the Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh” (available on PitAnglican.org) that captures some of our experiences of M’s misconduct, emphasis added]
Sexual harassment (unwanted sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, sexually motivated physical contact or other unwelcome verbal or physical contact or communication of a sexual nature) in a situation where there is an employment, mentor or colleague relationship between the persons involved, including but not limited to, sexually oriented humor or language, questions or comments about sexual behavior or preference unrelated to employment qualifications, undesired physical contact, inappropriate comments about clothing or physical appearance, or repeated requests for social engagements…
While provincial leaders in the ACNA must lead the way in educating dioceses on trauma-informed responses to abuse, leaders at every level should start learning now because victims need to be able to dialogue with leaders and walk away without feeling re-traumatized.
Our story illustrates common church failures in response to abuse, but we've pointed out some of the ways the church could respond in a trauma-informed manner. Whether you're reading this as a lay person or an ordained leader, we hope you can learn a lot from this case study.
Who’s who:
All Souls Anglican Church - ACNA church located in Wheaton, IL (Diocese of Pittsburgh)
M - Former Rector at All Souls, removed from leadership on 2/13/2020
Bp. Hobby - Former Bishop of the Diocese of Pittsburgh, resigned on 10/29/2020
Bp. Minns - Interim Bishop of the Diocese of Pittsburgh
And please note, that we (Laura and Angela) can only speak for ourselves, so what we say here cannot necessarily be attributed to others of the women harmed at All Souls.
On February 6, 2020, and in the week following, five women sent a detailed written report with evidence of M’s misconduct to church leaders who forwarded it to Bp. Hobby. As a result Bishop Hobby asked M to step down for a time of “reflection and investigation.” At least five more women eventually came forward.
The Bishop visited All Souls on February 16, 2020 describing M's actions as “crossing emotional and professional boundaries.” This language—while not inaccurate—is a serious understatement, that caused immense confusion in our community, leaving room for M’s narrative to circulate via his family & friends.
In a trauma-informed approach, the Bishop would have described the specific type of misconduct alleged by victims and shared an avenue for additional victims to come forward. Neither of these things occurred.
During his visit, the Bishop also met with 6 women who had come forward and assured them that an investigation would be conducted swiftly and fairly. At the time, we believed an investigation had begun. Two months later, on April 16, 2020, we learned from a parish-wide email that a canonical investigation process existed—but that our reports in February had not triggered this process. What kind of investigation (if any) was taking place before the start of the canonical investigation? To this day we’re not sure.
[A letter from the Rt. Rev. James L. Hobby, Jr. to All Souls, dated April 16, 2020]
Dear Sisters and Brothers at All Souls,
So much has happened since my visit with you in February. Canon Shari and I continue to pray for you. We are grateful to the Vestry and Fr. Andrew for their leadership during this complex and confusing time. We were intending to be with you in a couple of weeks. But that visit will be rescheduled when the current restrictions are lifted. In the meantime, I’d like to give you an update on where things stand with Fr. Martin.
Regarding the investigation phase, an informal investigation has turned up clear evidence of a pattern of unhealthy boundary violations that have sown confusion, undermined trust, and damaged the souls of women whom Fr. Martin was mentoring as their priest. Fr. Martin’s inhibition from ordained ministry, therefore, will stay in place throughout the process of assessment and healing. While Fr. Martin has the canonical right to appeal his inhibition, he is unlikely to do so. Likewise, at any point, one of the women could make a formal accusation which would set in motion a more thorough canonical process of investigation and, possible, ecclesiastical trial.
When we inquired about the canonical accusation process on May 5, 2020, the Bishop suggested a Zoom meeting which did not take place until May 17, 2020. Only then, more than three months after our initial reports, did the Bishop tell us that we needed to mail him a notarized statement in order to trigger a canonical investigation:
[An excerpt from an email to Bp. Hobby from the women on 5/5/2020]
We’re also frustrated that before reading this letter we were not aware of the option to make a formal accusation. The first women to come forward, myself included, were not aware that we had not acted as seriously and extremely as we could have in response to what has happened to us. What would initiating and enduring that process entail? Some of us are seriously interested in pursuing that route, especially if that route would help prevent Martin’s returning to ministry in any capacity anywhere. Would you please let us know more about that process? Specifically, how would that process differ from the “informal investigation” that’s happening now? What kind of vulnerability would it require of anyone who came forward, and with whom? Is this process impeded by Martin’s resignation? And for that matter, is the informal investigation impeded by Martin’s resignation?
The accusation process is not clearly spelled out in the canons and—to this day—it is unclear to us why the initial reports in February did not 'count.' If a mailed statement was necessary to launch an investigation, communication regarding this step should have come in February.
[Canon 3, Of Presentments of Presbyters and Deacons]
Section 1 - Concerning Accusations
An accusation or accusations of conduct believed by the accuser(s) to be in violation of Canon IV.2 may be brought against a Presbyter or Deacon. Whenever possible the Bishop shall meet with the accuser(s) in person to assess their credibility and the credibility of the accusation(s).
The accusation(s) shall be in a writing that contains the facts supporting the allegations of wrongdoing and shall be signed and sworn to by the accuser(s) and delivered to the Bishop.
If the Bishop deems the accuser(s) or the accusation(s) to be credible, he shall cause an investigation to be made by a canonical investigator. If the Bishop deems the accuser(s) not to be credible and the accusation(s) to be without any merit, he shall inform the accuser(s) of his determination and the accuser(s) shall have 30 days after such determination by the Bishop to appeal his decision to the Standing Committee. The Standing Committee shall then have 30 days to determine whether the accuser(s) and the accusation(s) are credible, or to affirm the bishop’s decision. If they reverse the bishop’s determination, in whole or in part, they shall cause an investigation to be made by a canonical investigator.
Our experience illustrates that it is not enough for a reporting process to simply 'exist.' Lay & ordained leaders must be prepared to point people to this process. The process must include concrete steps that lay people can understand. If the process is inaccessible to victims, it is useless.
The Bishop encouraged us to maintain anonymity. We were told over and over again that our story was ours to share but cautioned to share our story only with those we expected would believe us readily. Meanwhile, the Bishop never provided clarity to the parish about our allegations. As time passed, we began hearing dismissive comments from people in our church family claiming “the victims” were jumping on the #MeToo bandwagon for a power trip.
We learned of M’s voluntary resignation in a parish-wide email on April 19, 2020.
In a trauma-informed approach, this type of information would be communicated privately to victims before public announcements are made.
A week later, M’s lawyer, a former parishioner, began emailing church-members asking them to support M in a "reconciliation process," claiming that a “grievous wrong” had been done to M. This letter attacked our character, compounding harm done to us.
In a trauma-informed approach, victims of abuse should not be asked to meet with or reconcile with a perpetrator.
Simultaneously, in May 2020, All Souls' vestry hosted Zoom Q&A sessions for the congregation. Due to the lack of clarity & training provided to these leaders, they were unequipped to answer parishioners’ questions or to respond in a trauma-informed manner to comments slandering victims.
As misinformation and division in our community grew, we became increasingly frustrated by the lack of transparency. The Bishop ignored our requests to clarify his description of the misconduct, and without clear direction from the diocese, our parish leadership did not feel empowered to offer any additional information to the parish. We felt that it was left to us to provide clarity, so six of us wrote an open letter. We signed it "six sisters in Christ." We intended for this letter to be shared with our congregation; however, it was not widely shared. Our vestry’s hesitancy to share seemed, at least in part, due to a lack of direction from the diocese, so we turned to the Bishop for help. We asked him to find a way for us to share our narrative. He thanked us for sending him the letter and promised to help, but never followed up or answered our follow-up messages about the letter.
[Excerpt from an email to Bp. Hobby from the women on 5/5/2020]
It was upsetting to learn about this option so long after our initial report to the Bishop and in an email that didn’t seem to have pastoral care for the women in mind. Another alarming element of this letter was the mention that Martin might try to make amends. To the women? What does “as appropriate” mean? Would we be warned or asked permission before Martin reached out to any of us? We understand that pastoral care for the congregation and for us women likely needs to look different, but there has been no separate follow-up with the women from the diocesan level, and the women have had to initiate any follow-up conversations at the parish level. To be honest, we feel neglected. If there are well-intentioned reasons for this silence, would you please make us aware of them?
Lastly, we’re grieved over the division we’ve watched develop in our church community since February. To some at All Souls it is obvious that Martin did wrong and ought not preside over our congregation or any other. To some it seems Father Martin has been mistreated and it is an injustice that he has not already returned to ministry at All Souls. We find ourselves thinking that our congregation might more easily come to unity if all had a better understanding of what happened. We realize that our parish leaders are not willing to speak for us, but several of the other women and I have been wondering if it might be possible for us to compose a statement about our experiences that the Clergy and/or Vestry would be able to present to the congregation. Such a presentation would allow our voices to be heard more broadly by the congregation, in clearer, less watered-down language about the harm done to us (this watered-down language is another point of pain for many of us women) while also preserving our anonymity. Are there reasons that making this kind of statement would be impossible or inadvisable for the church? We long for unity in our church as much as we long for justice.
[An excerpt from the letter signed “six sisters in Christ”]
Following the initial reports we made to clergy in January, the information vacuum within the broader congregation has created space for everything from general confusion to ongoing attacks on our character, motivation, and lived experiences. Unfortunately, this has significantly compounded the trauma we experienced as a result of Martin’s actions. And in light of the different interpretations of the little information most congregants have, those of us still committed to All Souls have become grieved at the reality of and further potential for division among our church family.
After conferring with one another, we decided to write this letter because we want you to have more information about the nature of our experiences so you have a better understanding of the situation.
A trauma-informed approach does not allow the perpetrator’s narrative to override the victims’. Churches must find ways to honor and share victims’ narratives (maintaining their anonymity if desired) even while awaiting the final verdict.
Before any of us mailed a notarized accusation, we asked the Bp to hire a female investigator. Because of our traumatic experience with a male priest, several of us felt it would be safer to work with a woman in the investigation process. The Bishop agreed to this request, and the first notarized accusation was mailed in on May 23, 2020. However, in July, a man was hired.
Throughout summer & fall, we asked for info regarding the investigation, but our emails (excerpts below) often went unanswered.
In August, we were notified that a female lawyer had been added to the investigatory team to interview us, but that the final report would be compiled by a man (this man would also be responsible to interview M). Because we wanted the canonical investigator to hear directly from us, several of us, including Laura and Angela, asked for him to be present at our interviews despite our discomfort.
[Excerpt of an email from Laura to Bp. Hobby in Aug 2020]
Bishop Hobby,
Perhaps our previous communications were unclear. We are uncomfortable moving forward with the accusation process unless the Canonical Investigator is a woman. For you to allow the selection of a male Canonical Investigator shows a lack of respect for our request made to you months ago and serves as a deterrent to our pursuit of this investigation and ultimately of justice. We would hope that the church would not make this process more difficult for us in this already incredibly painful and lengthy ordeal, but the selection of a man as the Canonical Investigator does just that. We ask that the choice of Canonical Investigator be revisited in consideration of those of us who have requested a female Canonical Investigator from the beginning--and moved forward with our accusations trusting that you would honor what we understood as your agreement to that request.
[Excerpt of an email from Angela to Bp. Hobby in Aug 2020]
Hi Bishop Hobby and Cannon Shari,
I hope you are both well. I am guessing that this quarantine season has been difficult for you as it has been for so many of us!
I’m writing to check in on the healing/trial process at All Souls in Wheaton. I haven’t heard anything from the diocese since our zoom call back in May--I would like to receive updates if possible. It doesn’t feel good to be in the dark about this process.
[Excerpt of an email from Angela to Bp. Hobby in Oct 2020]
A second burden that I am carrying relates to the lack of communication around the formal process. I have not received an official update from you or from the diocese about this process since we spoke in May. I was asked to contact the investigators by one of the other girls via text. Much of what I thought I understood about the process that I am participating in has been contradicted since our call and I am confused about what will happen next. Even if there is little to report, it would feel meaningful to be acknowledged through receiving an update.
I know that our parish is new to your fold, I am sorry for the mess that you inherited by admitting us to your dioceses, and I understand that COVID has presented an additional set of challenges to your position, but we need help. I hope that this diocese and the ACNA can work to create better supports for churches that find themselves in a situation like ours.
In a trauma-informed approach, the Bishop would respond to victims' emails or provide a liaison to do so. He would be clear about the parameters of his role in the process. He would also honor any promises that he made to victims.
In October 2020, Bp. Hobby resigned due to mishandling a different abuse investigation in the Diocese and our case was transferred for supervision to our Standing Committee, who we were told didn’t know about our case until this point.
We interviewed with the investigator in September and October 2020. In November, our parish received a letter from the Standing Committee claiming, “We have identified a pastoral care team to work with these women.”
[Excerpt of a letter from the Standing Committee to All Souls in Nov 2020]
A serious issue caused by the past communications within the All Souls’ community is that some of the victims have reported feeling alienated, if not under attack. We have identified a pastoral care team to work with these women. In addition, we need to assist you and the All Souls’ community more broadly to help heal these divisions.
However, no one from the diocese contacted us regarding this care team. When we asked about this team, a member of the Standing Committee shared that information and care could not be provided to us until after the conclusion of the case. We can’t find anything in the canons that precludes providing care & info to victims during the case.
In a trauma-informed approach, the church recognizes that victims need care, help, and information during the accusation process. The need for care does not begin when the case concludes--especially when the case concludes thirteen months after initial reports!
In December 2020—eleven months after the initial disclosure—the canonical investigator submitted his report to the standing committee. Upon request, witnesses & complainants who were interviewed were denied access to the content in the final report. And despite our ongoing requests for an update and questions about the process, we still did not know what would happen if M submitted to discipline, what info would be made public, or what an ecclesiastical trial could entail.
[Excerpt of an email from Angela to a member of the Standing Committee in Jan 2021]
I thought that a liaison from the diocese would be reaching out to those of us who are involved in the case--is there still a plan for someone to help us understand what is happening? I have a lot of questions and I would be grateful to be able to ask them to someone.
Thanks very much.
Peace,
Angela
A trauma-informed approach would not leave victims in the dark or exclude them from reading the final investigative report.
An interim Bishop, Bp. Minns was introduced shortly before M confessed to the allegations and submitted to church discipline on March 4, 2021. On March 10, 2021, we were notified via email that "Bishop Minns pronounced the sentence of Suspension for Life."
On March 17, 2021, Bp. Minns and a member of the Standing Committee visited All Souls to host Q&A sessions with the parish. We met with the Bp beforehand. During our meeting, the Bp challenged our narrative & pointedly refused to disclose what he planned to tell the parish.
In a trauma-informed approach, survivors are able to provide input regarding how their experiences are shared. At a minimum, they are told how their experiences will be shared. Their narrative is not challenged, especially after an investigation validates their allegations.
We attended both Q&As. During each, Bp. Minns read a short confidential memorandum listing M’s canonical violations along with a brief summary of his misconduct. Then the Bishop answered questions from the congregation. A number of his answers were inaccurate, which was frustrating and unsettling for us.
For example, when asked if M was ever asked to stop the offending behavior before it was brought to the attention of the diocese. Bp. Minns said that he didn’t believe so. However, as documented by several victims, M was confronted multiple times before the diocese became involved.
Who was our neighbor?
While we are relieved that the process is over, we are confused and discouraged regarding the misinformation shared with our community. Additionally, despite the Diocese’s assurances, we continue to wait for the Diocese to answer our questions and to provide the follow-up care we requested in March 2021.
We wish things had been different for us and for the victims in the Diocese of the Upper Midwest. Instead, the process for reporting abuse leaves victims feeling like the man in Jesus’ parable who was robbed, beaten, and abandoned while religious leaders passed by on the other side of the road. In this entire ordeal, who was our neighbor?
We look forward to the day when the church chooses to align itself with the good Samaritan—with Jesus—in prioritizing help and healing for victims.
What we can learn
To summarize some of the the trauma-informed recommendations we offered throughout this piece, we suggest that the following resources and steps should be included for any abuse-related case within the ACNA:
A bishop and/or trauma-team ensures that care and resources are immediately extended to the reeling parish and victims.
The bishop and/or trauma-team coaches the remaining parish leaders about how to communicate with the congregation in a way that honors the victims and their experiences.
The bishop makes a public statement outlining the substance of the allegations.
The bishop clearly and publicly offers a way for more accusations to be received so that additional victims are aware of their option to participate in the process.
An advocate is appointed to communicate with victims throughout the process. This person should know the ACNA canons and help the victims to understand their canonical options. They should be able to explain concretely how the formal accusation process works. This person should check in with victims and provide updates about the process as it moves forward.
When help is promised, help must be forthcoming in a timely and trauma-informed manner.
At the close of the disciplinary process, a public statement should be made regarding the results of the investigation and/or trial in order to ensure transparency.
We echo these words from Rev. Dr. Emily McGowin’s recent homily, “Sincerity is not a substitute for competency.” It’s time to learn how to love victims skillfully. If we don’t, the church’s efforts will compound victims’ trauma. (You can listen to Rev. Dr. McGowin’s full sermon here.)
We are sharing our story because we love All Souls and we both continue to work closely with the youth there. We love these kids and want them to grow up in a church where they will be protected in ways that we have not been.
Whether you are a lay person, a local clergy person, or a Diocesan leader—we beg you to explore the resources offered on this website. Take steps to learn about abuse and prevention and take action. Let us work together to form the ACNA after Jesus, our Good Samaritan and Good Shepherd, who drops everything to take care of the battered and broken, who goes after the one sheep lost, and who does not run away when the wolf prowls but lies across the gate to ensure the sheep are safe.