Presiding Bishop Sean Rowe has tackled one of the lingering Title IV cases against a bishop: the charges brought against Prince G. Singh, eighth Bishop of Rochester. Bishop Rowe announced in a letter to “People of God in The Episcopal Church,” released December 13, that Singh is suspended from ministry for another three years, and must fulfill multiple conditions if he wishes to be restored to ministry.
“My goal in negotiating this accord with Bishop Singh has been to achieve Title IV’s goals by identifying paths for him to be accountable, to amend his life, and then to seek reconciliation with his family and his former diocese if and when they are willing to do so,” Rowe wrote. “I also expect him to repair his relationships with his colleagues in the House of Bishops.”
The church has released multiple documents related to the case, including the church attorney’s statement of alleged offenses and Singh’s written responses to those charges.
If Singh agrees to pursue reinstatement to ministry within the Episcopal Church, he will be a busy man. Rowe wrote that, with the approval of the Disciplinary Board for Bishops, he has set these requirements for Singh:
- Be suspended from ministry for at least three more years. The suspension will conclude only when I am satisfied he is fit for ministry.
- Undergo a thorough psychiatric and psychological assessment conducted by a professional in the United States designated by me.
- Participate in truth-telling work related to both sets of allegations.
- Participate in psychological work, education, and training in domestic abuse as required by me in consultation with a psychological professional.
- Participate in psychological work, education, and training in anger management, as required by me in consultation with a psychological professional.
- Participate in psychological work, education, and training in proper exercise of authority, as required by me in consultation with a psychological professional.
- Undertake work addressing his relationship with alcohol and its behavioral consequences in a program approved by me.
- Undertake work to address reputational harm suffered by people in the Diocese of Rochester as appropriate.
- Make visits and apologies to people, congregations, and other groups whom I identify and who are willing.
- Participate in education and training in Title IV values, process, and procedures.
“During the period of suspension, I will require Bishop Singh to participate in reconciliation work addressing his relationships with his ex-wife and sons when and if they are interested in doing so and consent to the process,” Rowe wrote. “I will also require him to participate in reconciliation work addressing his relationships in the Diocese of Rochester in consultation with the complainants in that disciplinary matter and with the Rt. Rev. Kara Wagner Sherer, bishop of Rochester. However, he must remain silent about these disciplinary matters, the allegations against him, or their resolution unless I give him advance permission to discuss them.”
Rowe added: “Finally, if after the initial three-year period of suspension or at any point thereafter, I determine that Bishop Singh is not appropriately engaging in the prescribed work, I will have sole authority to direct the president of the Disciplinary Board for Bishops to pronounce a sentence of deposition. This would remove Bishop Singh permanently from the ordained ministry of The Episcopal Church. I will personally monitor his progress in fulfilling the terms of this accord, and I will not lift the suspension unless and until he demonstrates his fitness for ministry and accountability and amendment of life related to the allegations in these complaints.”
Bishop Singh issued a statement with the Presiding Bishop’s approval.
“As the Accord notes, Bishop Singh disputes the allegations brought against him by the Complainants in these Title IV matters,” the statement says. “Nonetheless, and in keeping with the goals and purposes set forth in Canon IV.1 and as authorized by the Canons, Bishop Singh voluntarily entered into negotiations with the Presiding Bishop to alleviate further distress, begin the healing process, spare all parties, other affected persons and the Church from the emotional and spiritual trauma of a full hearing on the merits, and bring much-needed closure to these matters. The Presiding Bishop sought and received substantial input on a proposed Accord from the Complainants in both matters and other affected parties, and the Presiding Bishop and Bishop Singh agreed to modify the proposed Accord in consideration of their comments. The final Accord was then approved by the Disciplinary Board for Bishops, again in conformity with the Canons.
“Bishop Singh has voluntarily consented to the terms of the Accord and is fully committed to faithfully completing the work required of him. In particular, Bishop Singh deeply regrets the pain suffered by his sons and former spouse and is pledged to pursue reconciliation and healing with them. Bishop Singh is grateful for the Presiding Bishop’s devoted efforts to resolve these disputes consistent with the stated aims of Title IV and for his ongoing supervision and guidance. With God’s help, Bishop Singh looks forward to returning to active ministry and continuing his service to God and The Episcopal Church at some future date.
“Given the Holy Silence required of him by the Accord, Bishop Singh will have no further comment on these matters.”
Singh’s two sons, Eklan and Rosa, and his former wife, Nivedhan, have released a response of 782 words, which follows:
The release of this final Accord represents a tragic conclusion to what has been a deeply painful and retraumatizing process for our family and other complainants. Despite the Episcopal Church’s well-thought-out Title IV process, this Accord highlights significant shortcomings when the Presiding Bishop exercises unilateral authority to override the findings of earlier investigative panels (The Conference Panel of 5 Bishops who Ordered Singh’s deposition), effectively circumventing the process before its completion.
If this executive action by the Presiding Bishop was the outcome, why didn’t the Church resolve this matter earlier, sparing us years of painful testimony, endless self-advocacy, and retraumatization? Instead, we have endured an arduous process under the belief that the Church was committed to pursuing justice through its Title IV framework. The reality—that a single individual can nullify the findings of a Conference Panel and avoid a Hearing Panel altogether—leaves us questioning the point of the entire process.
The final Accord fails to address several critical issues that we have raised repeatedly throughout this process:
-
- Capacity for Amendment of Life: The Accord assumes that Bishop Singh is capable of meaningful transformation, but no evidence suggests this is realistic. Despite our laymen’s concerns about Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD)—a condition resistant to treatment—no independent evaluation by a qualified professional with expertise in personality disorders has been conducted. The Church’s history of allowing Singh to control his own therapeutic narrative, such as appointing unlicensed individuals like David Singh, leaves us with no confidence in the integrity of this plan.
- Contradiction Between Denial and Reconciliation: The Accord explicitly states that Bishop Singh denies all allegations, yet it includes provisions for reconciliation with his victims. Reconciliation is inherently predicated on acknowledgment of harm, contrition, and accountability—none of which are possible if Singh denies the very allegations requiring reconciliation. This glaring inconsistency undermines the integrity of the Accord and sends a dangerous message that reconciliation can be achieved without accountability or admission of sin.
- Financial and Administrative Resources: The Accord allocates substantial resources to Singh’s rehabilitation. These funds could be better used to support survivors of abuse, improve Title IV training, or enhance Church structures to prevent similar failures. Given Singh’s history of manipulation, this approach represents a significant risk of wasted resources with little assurance of success.
- Lack of Safeguards for Oversight: The Accord places the responsibility for determining Singh’s readiness to return to ministry solely on the Presiding Bishop, without adequate safeguards or a detailed accountability mechanism. What expertise does the Presiding Bishop—or any future successor—have to evaluate someone with Singh’s documented patterns of behavior?
- Circumventing the Hearing Panel: By issuing this Accord, the Presiding Bishop has bypassed the Hearing Panel stage of the Title IV process. The Conference Panel found clear and convincing evidence that Singh’s behavior was abusive, manipulative, and unbecoming of a clergyman. If the Presiding Bishop felt those findings were insufficient, why not allow a Hearing Panel to adjudicate this matter fully?
We placed our trust in the Church’s Title IV process, believing it could deliver justice and accountability. Instead, we have been forced to advocate for ourselves at every step, and ultimately denied.
This Accord sends a dangerous message: that even when clergy are found to have abused their power, lied to their superiors, and harmed their families and communities, the Church’s priority is to rehabilitate the abuser, not protect the victims. It communicates to survivors that their pain is secondary to preserving the institution. It sends a terrible note to the public: That these behaviors are okay. This is acceptable behavior for a Bishop. The prodigal son can still return.
The insinuation that Singh will seek secular employment as a teacher places him in front of students is also harmful. Prince Singh should not be allowed in classrooms with young people.
We grieve for the opportunity lost here—not just for our family, but for the Episcopal Church as a whole. This Accord falls short of addressing the systemic failures that allowed Singh’s abuse to persist unchecked for decades. It is a Band-Aid on a wound that will only fester without meaningful reform.
We call on the Church to reflect on this process and ask: What has been the point of Title IV if its findings can be overridden by executive action? What message does this send to other survivors? And what steps will the Church take to ensure that future cases prioritize accountability and justice over institutional preservation?
This is not justice. It is a missed opportunity to demonstrate that the Episcopal Church is serious about protecting its members and holding its leaders accountable. There is nothing Right or Reverend here.
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.