Saving St. James

Some names and events have been redacted to keep the focus on the actions and the harmful effect it had on St. James. Some members in the Diocese have reported similar stories suggesting a need for a heartfelt and transparent conversation about these issues.

 

CLAIM 5

 

Respondent Bishop Provenzano failed to act on a Title IV complaint filed against REDACTED, the Priest-in-Charge of St. James’, who it is alleged, has caused severe harm to the unity, spiritual well-being, and viability of the church and its spiritual community.[1]

 

1.  In a 2/28/18 email exchange, the Bishop attempted to discourage the complainant from filing a Title IV complaint.  In addition, the Bishop prejudiced the Title IV complaint with the intake officer.  The bishop wrote:

 

“I am not sure that you are certain of the issues you are attempting to raise.  Your recent letter to me regarding concerns about the clergy leadership of the parish is being addressed in the manner prescribed. Your claim, more recently, that your concerns amount to a Title IV matter seem to be a bit overstated and excessive. Title IV matters relate to misconduct and illegal behavior not issues of leadership style and personality issues.”

 

2.  Bishop Provenzano appointed Fr. Michael Sniffen[2] interim intake officer. He is also a recipient on the email.  With the Bishop’s prejudicial statements known to the intake officer, could Fr. Michael fairly and impartially review the complaint?

 

3.  Another concern about the diocese’s Title IV process was transparency.  Unlike other dioceses, the Long Island diocese had no written or published policy regarding Title IV complaints.  A position in violation of Canon Title IV.6.1.[3]

 

4.  In a 2/27/17 email to Fr. Michael, the complainant requested a written copy of the procedures.  Fr. Michael responded:

 

“Complaints and/or charges … may be sent to me in writing in my capacity as interim diocesan intake officer…Once I have received a written complaint, I will reach out to the complainant to discuss the issue(s)… Following a review of the relevant details, I will write a report which will be given to the Bishop of Long Island.”

 

5.  This seems woefully inadequate and ad hoc in light of the disciplinary procedure described in Canon Title IV.

 

6.  In response to my letter writing campaign to diocesan leadership, the bishop emailed on 7/14/18:

 

“… your Title IV allegation was judged inappropriate for consideration under Title IV and amounted to a typical disagreement between a parishioner and priest. Your continues [sic] reference to it is further inappropriate.”  [Emphasis added.]

 

7.  The Bishop’s final email raises troubling questions about the process and his conclusion:

 

• Why did the Diocese not have a written policy in place to deal with Title IV complaints? 

• Why did it take 487 days after failing to reach a conclusion?

• Why did the intake officer not reach out to the complainant as part of the process he outlined?

• Why was discovery not offered to the complainant?

• Why did the bishop send the notification and not the intake officer?

• Why did the notification exclude reasons for the dismissal and the complainant’s right to appeal under Title IV.6.5?

 

8.  The Bishop claimed the “…Title IV allegation was judged inappropriate for consideration under Title IV and amounted to a typical disagreement between a parishioner and priest.”

 

 

9.  First, REDACTED action impacted the whole church. 

 

 

10.  And second, how did the intake officer determine charges like disparate treatment between the Chinese and multi-cultural congregations, dismantling ministries, canceling planned elections, dismissing the Bishop’s Committee and lay leaders, accusing church employees of embezzlement, and failing to report a physical altercation between REDACTED  [and a person well known to him] and a church employee/congregant not meet the threshold under Title IV.3.3? 

​

 

11.  Clearly, the bishop’s response was rushed and should be viewed with suspicion.  One could reasonably conclude (a) the bishop and the intake officer predetermined their conclusions regardless of the strength of the complaint; (b) the complaint went unread; or (c) the Bishop thought with enough placation and time the complainant would grow frustrated, lose interest, and disappear.

 

[1] See Appendix J.

[2] Fr. Michael is Dean of the Cathedral. 

[3] “Each Diocese shall provide for and publicize methods and means of reporting information concerning Offenses.”