Two cases against Samuel Johnson Howard, retired as eighth Bishop of Florida, hinge on whether the bishop and the Presiding Bishop can agree on an accord that “promotes healing, repentance, forgiveness, restitution, justice, amendment of life, and reconciliation.” Failing that, the cases move to public hearings on April 30.
As expected from an earlier case involving the election of Charlie Holt as his successor, Howard is accused of discriminating against a partnered lesbian priest by granting her a license that restricted her to nonstipendiary ministry at one congregation, an action that a Statement of Alleged Offenses claims was “the direct result of his intent to discriminate against her based on her sexual orientation, and consistent with the Diocesan pattern and practice of discrimination based on sexual orientation.”
A second, unrelated case, whose details have now been revealed, concerns alleged financial impropriety. Howard is accused of improperly benefiting from a home loan provided by his diocese and misusing his discretionary fund to pay for home repairs.
Howard also accepted at least $980,000 over eight years from an anonymous donor as a boost to his salary, with pension payments of $172,800 provided by the Diocese of Florida’s foundation. The arrangement, the Statement of Alleged Offenses claims, was a violation of the terms of the foundation’s organizational documents and artificially inflated Howard’s compensation in a manner that affected the amount of his pension in retirement. The gift also, the statement claims, “raises perceptions of influence on Diocesan policy by a person who resists being identified.”
Presiding Bishop Sean Rowe announced the release of documents in the cases and mentioned the deadline for parties to reach a possible accord. The documents are redacted to protect the identities of the complainants.
The Rev. Sarah Minton, president of the Diocese of Florida’s Standing Commission, said in a message to the diocese that Bishop Rowe and his chief of strategy, Rebecca Wilson, met with clergy of the diocese February 2 to discuss the cases and offer their support.
“At yesterday’s gathering, diocesan clergy had the opportunity to ask questions about the content of the documents, to process together what they were learning, to listen to one another, and to express the feelings that the allegations and responses created for them. The allegations and responses and the feelings expressed about the impact of the information were difficult to hear,” Minton wrote. “It was hard, holy work.”
She added: “The Standing Committee is deeply grateful to Bishop Rowe and his work on behalf of the complainants, the diocese, and the church in seeking an accord. While this process unfolds, we are committed to continuing our diocesan work toward reconciliation and healing. With God’s help, we are striving to move the worship, work and mission of the diocese forward. We are committed to transparency throughout this process and to sharing information with you as it becomes available.”
The cases against Bishop Howard join cases against Bishops Marc Andrus, Santosh Marray, and Prince Singh in an especially litigious season of the Episcopal Church’s life. The resolution of these cases has accelerated during Bishop Rowe’s brief tenure as Presiding Bishop, and so far the church has favored accords over trials.
Even so, the documents in Bishop Howard’s cases use language that’s just as pointed and combative as in a secular criminal court. The differing perspectives of the church attorney and Howard’s defense attorney are clear in their treatment of Resolution B012, which allows a bishop to ask a neighboring bishop to oversee a parish that wishes to celebrate a wedding for a same-sex couple. The church has treated Resolution B012 as bearing canonical authority.
The Statement of Alleged Offenses says that Howard established a policy in the Diocese of Florida that required clergy who wished to officiate at a same-sex marriage and the two wardens of the congregation to meet with him and “to state directly to [Howard] that he or she understood that the performance of the marriage rite was in violation of his pastoral directive.”
This policy, Church Attorney Craig Thomas Merritt says, was “was contrary to the purpose, spirit, and intent of Resolution B012, emphasizing disobedience to the Diocesan Ecclesiastical Authority rather than facilitating clerical access to a sacramental rite approved provisionally by the Church.” Merritt also claims that Howard “showed a longstanding bias against full participation by gay and lesbian priests.”
Howard’s counsel, Stephen D. Busey, argued in turn that Resolution B012 is not pertinent to the case: “Although the offenses charged in the Statement relate only to the Bishop’s alleged discriminatory actions toward the Complainant, the Statement gratuitously offers a predicate observation regarding Bishop Howard’s implementation of the Church’s 2018 Resolution B012.”
Busey said the Statement of Alleged Offenses accurately described the structure of the required meeting, but claimed that “the Bishop’s request for such meetings was for the purpose of clear communication between the Bishop and his Clergy regarding the Bishop’s own theological views as the Diocesan Ecclesiastical Authority and the Clergy’s need for alternative Episcopal oversight pursuant to Resolution B012.”
Busey also claims that during a visit to the diocese by Presiding Bishop Michael Curry in 2019, “Bishop Howard’s approach to and implementation of Resolution B012 received the full public commendation and support of Presiding Bishop Michael Curry. On February 4, 2019, during a town hall gathering at St. John’s Cathedral in Jacksonville, Bishop Curry was specifically asked about Bishop Howard’s request that Priests and Wardens meet together with him when seeking to implement Resolution B012. In his response to this question, Bishop Curry told the Clergy and other members of the Diocese that they should be grateful that the Diocese had a Bishop who had strong convictions and who wanted to talk openly with his Clergy and Wardens regarding these issues.”
Merritt cites the findings of a 2023 Court of Review that was summoned to rule on procedural objections to the second election of Charlie Holt as Howard’s successor.
Using a concept common in racial discrimination law, the Court of Review wrote that “our interviews suggest a pattern and practice of LGBTQ clergy and those who opposed the Bishop’s stated views not being treated equally with similarly situated clergy in the securing and exercising of their rights to ordination, licensing and the granting of canonical residency.”
Busey disputed the relevance and accuracy of the Court of Review’s findings, writing that it did not specify whether the alleged disparate treatment occurred before or after the 2018 General Convention, when B012 was enacted.
The court based its ruling, he said, “on the grounds that there were three clergy persons (including the Complainant) who were not allowed to vote ‘due to disparate treatment in granting canonical residence.’” None of the three clergy, however, requested canonical residency, as the report acknowledges. “The Report based its finding on the ‘feelings’ of the three clergy rather than any action or inaction of Bishop Howard,” Busey wrote.
Busey’s response in the financial case does not dispute the facts cited in the Statement of Alleged Offenses, but claims that “each matter was transparent, was approved by lay authorities of the Diocese and was properly documented.”
Busey writes that the use of discretionary account funds for HVAC repairs was discussed with and approved by the diocesan treasurer. This “was appropriate because of the Diocese’s interest in the house, and the Bishop’s use of his residence for Diocesan fundraising, entertaining and business and pastoral meetings, as well as occasional lodging for Diocesan guests.” Howard had also, he noted, reimbursed the diocese for the expenses in 2024.
Busey also wrote that Howard and a diocesan official met with the chief operating officer of the Church Pension Fund in 2012 to discuss the proposed arrangement between the anonymous donor and the diocese’s foundation. They “sought, and obtained from [redacted], the Church Pension Group’s approval of the intended supplementation of Bishop Howard’s income as Bishop of Florida, and the Foundation’s corresponding annual contribution to the Church Pension Group for Bishop Howard’s benefit.”
Busey claimed that “the transactions regarding the Bishop’s residence described in the Statement’s third alleged offense were (i) fully transparent, (ii) authorized by Diocesan lay authorities and (iii) properly documented in the records of the Diocese. The transactions are not proscribed by any canon law of the Episcopal Church.”
The charges of discrimination were filed with the church’s intake officer in July 2023. The charges of financial misconduct were filed a month later.
This story has been corrected to reflect that any accord will be between Bishop Howard and the Presiding Bishop.
Marie Howard, Bishop John Howard’s wife, is a former member of the Living Church Foundation’s board of directors, and during Bishop Howard’s tenure, the Diocese of Florida provided financial support for TLC’s ministry.
Douglas LeBlanc is the Associate Editor for Book Reviews and writes about Christianity and culture. He and his wife, Monica, attend St. John’s Parish Church on Johns Island, South Carolina.
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.