📧 to TEC (ignored)
20180905-0606 to Ousley, Hodges-Copple, and Rodman
I spoke with a representative at Lambeth Palace yesterday morning, who said the [Church of England] has a similar policy of empowering the Diocesan Bishop to resolve matters locally. While reassuring, since I received an explanation from the seat of the Worldwide Anglican Communion, I continue to insist that Bishop Michael be alerted and respond to my complaint.
On November 29, 2017, I alerted Bishop Michael's office to the abuse after learning from the director of the hosting platform that his office directly contributed financial support for a Hauerwas/Bacon class hosted by ChurchNext.tv. I have attached a screenshot I took before I sent the message. I took this screenshot because earlier messages failed to provide me proof or otherwise confirm my message had been sent. I spoke with an assistant in his office about the same matter by phone on several occasions over the span of a day or two. At the time Bishop Michael provided support, his office had knowledge of a formal ecclesiastical complaint and failed to respond to his alleged victim.
To whom should I inquire as to why Bishop Michael failed to respond to my complaint of abuse against Hauerwas, including Bishop Michaels support of an alleged abuser?
I apologize for not mentioning this earlier, since I saw them as one and the same concern, seeing as they sprang from the abuse of the same person. As you stated, Bishop Todd, a diocesan matter remains cloistered within that region, so I had no reason to think this matter would not also be discussed when Bishop Michael addressed my concerns, which has not happened. Since this matter also involved the office of the presiding Bishop, apart and distinct from the jurisdiction of the NC Diocese, I therefore must insist he respond at his earliest convenience. As I stated in my original correspondence, I will begin alerting news outlets in earnest first thing tomorrow morning.
@ 0646 to Ousley, Hodges-Copple, and Rodman
I apologize, after re-reading this email, I realized this line could be confusing: "As you stated, Bishop Todd, a diocesan matter remains cloistered within that region, so I had no reason to think this matter would not also be discussed when Bishop Michael addressed my concerns,"
Put another way, I did not bring this specific matter prior up because my understanding (which was wrong) was that the 'chain of command' would eventually assume jurisdiction if/when Hauerwas followed the pattern he has established for himself. His prior actions suggest that he is unwilling to speak to his Bishop (it is my understanding he has already refused to meet with Bishop Anne, and it isn't clear if he has turned down requests from Bishop Sam), so I did not want to put more time and energy into bringing up the issue as it pertained to Bishop Michael. When I spoke to Lambeth and got the explanation I had not been provided stateside, I then realized that I needed to make Bishop Michael aware of this specific issue, since 1) my expectation that the matter would be elevated was false and 2) it is not a NC specific issue.
Hope that clears things up. I will begin reaching out to news outlets in earnest first thing tomorrow. I'm happy to talk about this before then or after, but my attention will be elsewhere once I wake up and get going for the day.
