Revisiting Word on Fire: what I learned from their chaotic handling of abuse allegations
My advice to the employee: pursue internal channels, talk to an employment attorney, and consider sharing with the media if you run out of options.
A few years ago Word on Fire Ministries, a national Catholic media company run by celebrity bishop Robert Barron, was investigating allegations of abuse against one of its high-level employees. Though Bishop Barron had positioned himself as a leader in responding to the clergy abuse crisis, he and Word on Fire unfortunately waffled in addressing these concerns. This led employees to reach out to me for help, and chaos eventually ensued.
As I continue to grow in my career as an attorney and corporate leader, I can see how much of the chaos was avoidable. And I hope that organizations can learn from the mistakes made, to better respond to victims and those seeking to support them. I'll revisit here what happened, and what I learned.
The background
Shortly after Word on Fire began its internal investigation, a few staff members became aware of the allegations, partly because some staff were friends with the woman bringing them forward. Dismayed at what they had heard, they shared their concerns with Steve Grunow, the CEO of the organization. And shortly after that, Bishop Barron organized an all-staff meeting to discuss the allegations and investigation.
The meeting brought forward additional issues, and afterwards some employees tried to address these issues internally. Soon after that meeting, a staff member reached out to me. They knew of my experience addressing abuse and other forms of harm in Catholic institutions. They were concerned about what was happening and wanted my advice. The staff member had a obtained a transcript of that all-staff meeting. I reviewed the transcript and found that, among other things:
Bishop Barron revealed the name of the woman who had brought forward the complaint;
Employees shared that they had been threatened by the "terrifying" CEO with retaliation if they spoke about the investigation; and
Barron seemed to be maligning the victim and supporting the perpetrator.
My advice to the employee: pursue internal channels to address this, talk to an employment attorney to ensure you are acting within the law and protecting yourself, and consider talking to the media if you run out of options. I knew from the clergy abuse crisis that the primary avenues for change in the Church have been either lawsuits or the media. But I hoped that Word on Fire would be able to resolve the issues internally.
The organization's promise of a resolution turned into months of inaction. Eventually, a whistleblower gave me permission to share the story on my own site. I couldn't have anticipated what it would become. The National Catholic Reporter covered the controversy, many current and former employees reached out to me to share additional information and concerns, other prominent employees resigned, one of the victims reached out to me to share what she had experienced, and Word on Fire issued two press releases that publicly damaged the credibility of the organization (more on this below).
I learned a lot about how organizations should manage controversies related to internal HR or other complaints, and how defensive maneuvers often make things worse. I'll share a few of those lessons here.
Lessons learned
First, leaders should never share details of an allegation without ensuring they have the correct information with absolute certainty. Barron opened the staff meeting with:
“All right, well let's get going. Thank you everybody, good morning to you all. As you know, this is kind of a difficult time we're passing through. You know that this lady [full name of victim] published, I guess, on her Facebook page, some of these original charges, allegations, concerns, that came forward a couple of months ago. Let me give you the backstory.”
There are a number of problems here. The victim never shared her story on a Facebook page. Rather, she had shared in a private group message that included some Word on Fire staff with whom she was friends. Barron was mistaken. As it turned out, Barron was the one who made the story "public," among his staff.
Second, Human Resources should have been involved and a key driver in this process. Any seasoned HR professional would have ensured that the identities of those who had issued formal complaints be protected, whether or not they had shared their stories on Facebook. This was among the most grievous professional violations by the organization during the controversy. It significantly damaged Bishop Barron's credibility as an advocate for abuse survivors. And it was totally preventable. In this situation, though Word on Fire had grown to a sizable organization, it did not have a qualified HR professional on staff.
Third, the organization should not have assumed the individual complaint was about an isolated issue. When Word on Fire investigated the complaint, they focused only on the specific allegations raised by the woman. (In reality, four women had raised complaints about the employee, but only one chose to see hers through after their initial reactions from the organization.)
As with much of the Catholic Church during the clergy abuse crisis, Barron and Word on Fire did not consider that the allegations raised may be indicative of wider institutional problems. They did not attempt to explore related issues within the organization. So as employees began to find out about the investigation, they began to talk amongst themselves about issues they had seen. When the staff meeting finally occurred, multiple employees started to share that they felt "terrified of the consequences of bring[ing] this up," that they feared retaliation for raising concerns, and that they were troubled by the lack of transparency.
Barron apparently didn't do enough to follow up on these concerns. Once everyone knew about the allegations, he didn't invite employees to bring forward concerns they may have had about the accused's behavior towards women. So what did these employees do? They began reaching out to me. Several former and current employees shared stories of misogynistic remarks in the office, opportunities to groom and abuse on work trips, and concerns about problematic dynamics in the organization.
The organization could have invited these employees to share their concerns to address internally. Instead, they left their employees to seek the only remedy they thought was available to them: talking to a guy with a blog that was getting far more attention than it maybe should have. They could have avoided this by taking seriously the concerns raised in the meeting and considering how, given that employee's position of power and prominence in the organization, how he may have perpetrated other problems more broadly within it.
Fourth, the organization just took too long to act. Organizations often make a mistake when they just assume problems will "blow over" with time. On the contrary, delaying action for too long just increases the chances that employees will take matters into their own hands. I was in possession of the transcript for months before I shared it publicly. Originally, the employee had shared it with me just to get my opinion, and was hoping for an internal resolution. But as days turned into weeks and then into months, it seemed like the organization didn't actually intend to do anything substantive to address many of the concerns raised within it. So I received permission to publish a story about it.
Fifth, the organization took a defensive posture that too closely mimicked those of Catholic organizations in the midst of the clergy abuse crisis. Rather than considering the possibility that the concerns raised may have even partial legitimacy, the organization quickly and publicly maligned those raising concerns in its press releases. One of the press releases accused me of publishing "false information," publicly named a "disgruntled ex-employee" as my source, and stated that I was "driven by agenda and animus, not a concern for truth, fairness or justice." The statement was not well-received. One Catholic publication wrote of it, "The organization’s statements mainly mimicked the legalistic responses from Church authorities during the abuse crisis."
For what it's worth, I'll say here that my intention was and is to support victims of abuse and institutional harms in the Church, and to help the Church build a better future. But even if Word on Fire were correct about my intentions, the defensive tone and nature of its public statements didn't support its credibility.
A better response might have been to acknowledge that many Catholics are reasonably sensitive to issues of abuse in the Church, that the organization seeks to take these issues seriously, and that anyone with information about instances of abuse or other harms on behalf of the ministry should please reach out to a designated contact. But rather than opening up a dialogue and creating space to raise issues, the organization appeared to be trying to shut down the conversation... which just further stoked public conversation about the matter.
Finally, a conciliatory approach may have been more helpful for the organization, both as the internal controversy arose and after it came into the public. Here, the Catholic clergy abuse crisis is instructive. In reviewing the crisis, the U.S. bishops' National Review Board (NRB) found that Church leaders should have prioritized an apologetic stance rather than the defensive and litigious posture they took towards victims and whistleblowers. One bishop told the NRB:
We made terrible mistakes. Because the attorneys said over and over "Don't talk to the victims, don't go near them," and here they were victims. I heard victims say "We would not have taken it to [plaintiffs' attorneys] had someone just come to us and said, "I'm sorry." But we listened to the attorneys.
In this instance, Word on Fire took no accountability for any wrongdoing in the meeting with its employees, in its public statements, or in its interactions with the victims who came forward or the current or former employees who tried to address issues with the organization (at least, according to those I have spoken with). Instead, the defensive public posture damaged the organization's public image and credibility, at least temporarily.
Change can come
In this situation, the employees who brought concerns forward, shared their stories, and resigned did initiate change at Word on Fire. The employee who was the subject of the allegations was fired. The organization ended up hiring an HR professional (as well as a replacement to its communications professional who had resigned in the midst of the controversy). It reached out to many of its partners to share how issues like this would be handled going forward. And it was made aware that issues like these will not just silently go away.
Between myself and Word on Fire, I won't say who was ultimately "right" or "wrong" in this matter. Issues of institutional harm are complex, and various parties are often both right and wrong in various ways. But I will say that Word on Fire didn't serve itself well in how it handled this controversy. What should have been an internal matter handled swiftly and efficiently turned into a public conversation led by a guy with a blog. Other institutions would do well to learn from their mistakes.
Want to read more about what happened? You can check out these posts from 2022: