As the Anglican Diocese of Montreal plans to elect a new bishop May 3, it faces doubts expressed by 39 of 158 delegates. Their concerns include pressures apparently brought against the search committee, resignations from the search committee, and a murky system for church safety.
“Ongoing uncertainty surrounding the election of our next bishop … has left many people feeling hurt, confused, and unheard,” 39 delegates wrote to diocesan authorities on April 6.
They also requested more information about the “external pressures” described by members of the search committee, nearly half of whom resigned before submitting their final report, as well an enumeration of the committee’s concerns about diocesan canons and safe church policies.
Since then, Montreal’s bishop, the Rt. Rev. Mary Irwin-Gibson, corrected her earlier statement that “no one had made a formal safe church complaint against the candidates.” She has now acknowledged a harassment claim associated with Christ Church Cathedral that was resolved in 2021.
But two members of the nine-person search committee have since told TLC that the committee had serious concerns about allegations against two other candidates.
The committee voted unanimously to ask one candidate to decline nomination, both members said, but diocesan authorities forced the committee to leave the name on the ballot.
As the crisis has unfolded, several priests who recently served in the diocese have spoken out publicly about significant problems they see in Montreal’s safe church policies and challenges they have faced in filing complaints.
Irwin-Gibson says she remains convinced that the diocese needs to proceed with the election.
“I think that we have got a fairly robust set of applications, both interviews and paper … Voters need to do their homework and read and watch, and we will then pray for the Holy Spirit to lead this and guide us,” she told The Anglican Journal, the Anglican Church of Canada’s national newspaper, on April 9.
Delegates’ Letter Protests
The Living Church received a redacted copy of the letter sent to the Diocese of Montreal’s diocesan council in response to a March 21 note of clarification. All the correspondence regards the search committee’s statement distancing itself from the candidates.
The diocesan council’s note claimed that all diocesan canons and safe church policies had been followed. The search committee’s statement that “we are forwarding all nominations without endorsement” was understandable because “the role of the Search Committee is not to endorse any candidates,” the council’s note said.
The letter, which was sent by 21 clergy and 18 lay delegates to the electoral synod, said that the note of clarification “failed to acknowledge these pressures or outline any pastoral care offered in response. It thus appeared to minimize or dismiss the committee members’ experiences. We cannot ignore or downplay the depth of these concerns. Failing to respond transparently and compassionately will only deepen the wounds within our community and further erode trust.”
“Rumour and innuendo have taken the place of clear and accurate information,” the delegates added.
The delegates requested three steps:
- A full accounting—before the episcopal election—of the external pressures experienced by search committee members.
- An enumeration of the search committee’s concerns regarding diocesan canons and safe church policies.
- Immediate implementation of pastoral care for affected search committee members, including funding external support measures if requested.”
In the Diocese of Montreal, 39 delegates is a significant number. According to lists posted on the diocese’s website, there are 84 lay delegates and 74 clergy delegates to the electoral synod. The diocese has 82 clergy in active ministry and 72 parishes.
A reply from diocesan council dated April 11 stated that “The Chancellor made clear to the committee that under Canon 1, as currently drafted, they should not rely on hearsay or rumour but only on substantive facts and criteria that were proven. We understand that the committee was looking for greater clarity in the criteria to qualify or disqualify candidates. We recognize that this will be a topic for discussion as the canon is revised.”
The council added that “a chaplain has been appointed for the members of the Search Committee and a second chaplain has also been appointed for the episcopal candidates, to support everyone as needed. Regarding funding external support measures, the committee members are also covered under the Diocesan insurance policy should any legal claims be made against them.”
Complaint at the Cathedral
While the 39 electoral synod delegates awaited a reply, news broke about a formal safe church complaint that had been filed against “one or more candidates” by Dr. Jonathan White, the former director of music at Montreal’s Christ Church Cathedral.
Now serving in the same role at the University of Oxford’s Corpus Christi College, White told The Anglican Journal that he submitted a harassment complaint on November 30, 2020.
As outlined in detail by the Rev. Ben Crosby, an Episcopal priest who has been serving there for several years, the Diocese of Montreal has four different safe church policies, one of which is used for complaints of a non-sexual nature. The policy gives the bishop authority to decide how complaints should be handled, if the accused is guilty, and how the person should be punished.
After a safe church investigator determined that misconduct had taken place, Irwin-Gibson chose to verbally reprimand the respondent. White appealed the decision, and in February 2021, Irwin-Gibson wrote a letter to White’s lawyer in response to the appeal, in which she said she saw no new evidence or grounds to revise her earlier decision. The Anglican Journal obtained a copy of the letter from White in which the names of the respondents were redacted.
Noting that he had signed a non-disclosure agreement, White told The Anglican Journal, “I can’t say anything about who the complaint was against or what it was, but I don’t think it’s a problem for me to say that a complaint was made about one or more candidates to the bishop.”
In an April 9 follow-up interview with The Anglican Journal, Irwin-Gibson clarified her earlier statement about safe church complaints: “I should have said to you that I had no unresolved formal complaints.” She said diocesan staff advised her that the November 2020 complaint was “a private matter that was settled between the parties.” She described it as “a workplace dispute” and said “it came to its formal conclusion.” She added that this “does not make anyone ineligible to be elected bishop.”
On April 17, a day after the bishop’s revised statement was published, the Corporation of Christ Church Cathedral wrote: “In view of a recent online publication in the Anglican Journal, the Corporation of Christ Church Cathedral confirms that in 2020-21, during the pandemic, there was a workplace dispute between our Director of Music at the time, Dr Jonathan White, and Corporation. All issues raised were investigated, resolved and closed.
“The Corporation intends to respect the terms of the agreement signed by both parties, which do not allow for any discussion of details.”
The statement was signed by the cathedral’s wardens and its rector, the Very Rev. Bertrand Olivier, one of the candidates for bishop, who was leading the cathedral at the time of the complaint.
Another candidate, the Rev. Dr. Deborah Meister, the cathedral’s associate rector, was also on staff at the time of White’s complaint but told TLC, “I was not party to the dispute.” TLC sought comment from Olivier, who asked that the corporation’s statement be taken as his comment.
White told The Anglican Journal that Irwin-Gibson’s disclosure does not settle all of his concerns about the electoral process.
“Personally, I don’t really see how this process can continue as it stands,” he said. “I feel that the only way they’re going to deal with this now is either to be completely transparent about everything, ask the candidates with issues to withdraw, or start the whole thing all over again.
“It could be that the person who gets elected has got nothing to answer for, but they’ll still have that shadow hanging over their heads constantly. They can’t come out afterwards and say, Oh no, it wasn’t them. No one’s going to believe them anyway now.”
Other Concerns
Two search committee members have told TLC that serious concerns were raised about three of the candidates on the slate, including the person against whom White filed the complaint. Both members requested anonymity, fearing reprisal and litigation.
A second candidate had been involved in a financial management issue in a different Canadian diocese, and was subsequently cleared of blame.
The search committee’s most serious concerns were about a third candidate. Both said the committee was unanimous in its decision to ask that this candidate withdraw from the slate, but was told by diocesan officials that it had to keep that candidate on the ballot.
The committee, both admitted, felt undue pressure from the diocese, making it impossible to exclude candidates whom the committee did not believe should be considered for such a pastoral role.
Reforming Safe Church Policies
In her March 28 interview with The Anglican Journal, Bishop Irwin-Gibson said, “I don’t think there are problems with our current safe church policy.”
But when speaking with the publication less than two weeks later, when she qualified her remarks about there being no formal safe church complaints against any of the candidates, Irwin-Gibson said the diocese was committed to updating its safe church policy, and that a committee had already been formed for that purpose.
For Crosby and the Rev. Jean-Daniel Ó Donncada, a former priest of the diocese who now serves as national pastor for the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) in Canada, such reform is desperately needed.
“I am convinced that our diocesan policies are shockingly inadequate for dealing with clergy misconduct, especially of a serious but non-criminal nature,” Crosby said in his analysis of the diocese’s seven different policies dealing with clergy misconduct. “There are two primary issues I found. In short, our policies as they exist are incredibly difficult (in fact nearly impossible) to use, and concentrate almost all power in the hands of the bishop.”
He noted that some of the policies contradict each other, and that it would be very difficult for an abuse survivor to know how to report a complaint under some of the policies, because the identities of people who fill key roles in the processes are not made public.
For the harassment policy under which White filed his complaint, Crosby notes, complaints must be filed with a parish or diocesan safe church coordinator. But Crosby could locate only one diocesan parish with a safe church coordinator listed on its website, and a search of the Diocese of Montreal’s website for a safe church coordinator turned up nothing.
Sexual abuse complaints are to be sent to the executive officer, but Crosby says the diocese does not make it clear for would-be complainants who holds this position.
Ó Donncada, who was working at Christ Church Cathedral at the time that White filed his complaint, said in a Facebook post that his attempt to file a safe church complaint in the diocese was exhausting and ultimately fruitless.
“The systemic problem is the diocese works by shifting goal posts for what constitutes a formal complaint, and using precise definitions to always tell people that they’re going about things the wrong way.
“My experience as a victim’s advocate in the diocese was all methods were wrong. So meeting with the bishop was wrong. Sending an email was wrong. Bringing something up at synod was wrong. Bringing up something at diocesan council was wrong. Having outside parties email leaders was wrong. Every single approach was somehow wrong, so that it could always be deflected as, oh, people didn’t go about it the right way. And if the victim is a parishioner or a lay employee, why on earth would they bother with a multi-year process designed not to work, instead of just saying, ‘This church is evil, I am out?’”
Ó Donncada warned: “The complete lack of confidence victims and whistleblowers have in the Anglican Church of Canada should not be mistaken for or misrepresented as our complaints having been resolved.”
“Because our policies are very difficult to use and concentrate power in one person, the result is a system that is ripe for abuse,” Crosby said. “Our diocese’s misconduct processes are not fit for use and are in desperate need of overhaul.”
A Clarification
The search committee’s chair, the Rev. Canon James Pratt, told TLC that the committee was not concerned that two of the candidates are not involved in full-time parish ministry, a possibility raised in TLC’s initial article about the Montreal election. TLC learned this after the publication.
The Rev. Dr. Teresa Danieley, an Episcopal priest, has been a consultant for Missouri Jobs with Justice, a nonprofit advocacy group, since 2016. The Rev. Graham Singh has split his time since 2015 between leading Montreal’s St. Jax Church and parachurch ministry. Singh previously worked for Church Planting Canada and now leads Relèven (formerly Trinity Centres Foundation), a nonprofit focused on repurposing church space for community use.
“At no time did the committee see that history as a disqualification for either candidate,” Pratt said. “Whether those outside employments augment or diminish their suitability for the episcopacy is a matter of discernment for the electors.”
The staff of the Diocese of Montreal did not respond to repeated requests for comment on this story.
Sue Careless is senior editor of The Anglican Planet and author of the series Discovering the Book of Common Prayer: A Hands-On Approach. She is based in Toronto.
The Rev. Mark Michael is editor-in-chief of The Living Church. An Episcopal priest, he has reported widely on global Anglicanism, and also writes about church history, liturgy, and pastoral ministry.
