Thanks for your posts Chris. Personally, I'm a big fan of Bishop Barron and Word on Fire, and thus this is all somewhat sad. At the same time, as someone who has worked at four NGOs, including ones that have been through major scandals, I imagine that part of the problem is that Barron is a great communicator, but has less experience in large-scale organisational management. It is often easy to run a small NGO of a handful of friends, but a much bigger challenge to run a medium or large organization. In short, I wish Word on Fire could deal with the situation with more humility. Perhaps they could say something along the lines of "while we feel we dealt with this as well as we could have, and in accordance with the law, we always feel we can do better. We feel upset that any employee would ever feel that Word on Fire is a bad place to work, or that they would feel unsupported. We will reach out to all those involved, and strive to make this a workplace in which all employees feel loved and respected."...or something along those lines. I pray for the best of all those involved.
Yeah, that all makes sense. I think it's the lack of any sort of humility, and the unwillingness to consider that anything may have been handled incorrectly is what's so jarring for many
Indeed. I think there's nothing ultimately embarrassing in saying that this was a tough situation, but we need to do better personally and as an organization. I'm sure they saw certain aspects of your posts as being unfairly characterized (not saying they are...but that is my guess), and they reacted very defensively to it, rather than seeing this as an opportunity for growth and reflection and reconciliation with those who felt harmed. I'd hope that if anyone from Word on Fire is reading my comment that they strongly take this issue at heart, and try to strive for excellence in creating a workplace culture that reflects the gospel in all aspects.
Ok so obviously Gloor’s behavior was inappropriate and even sinful. But was it criminal? A sexual advance could be unwelcome but not criminal. For example, complimenting someone’s body or cat-calling. Obviously bad behavior, and certainly can make someone uncomfortable, but (to my knowledge) not a criminal offense. I’m not saying WOF/BB aren’t complicit in permitting a toxic work environment and turning a blind eye to bad behavior, but is it fair to allege this is some kind of cover-up if no illegal activity was committed? You’ve indicated this story stands in stark contrast to Barton’s letter of the sexual abuse scandal in the church. But is Gloor a pervert and a misogynist or is he actually a sexual abuser? Not saying he did nothing wrong or WOF/BB acting rightly in this situation, but it just seems to me that you are tying this story in with the broader sexual abuse crisis when the connection isn’t there.
Are you kidding me? Would you feel safe around someone who made an unwanted sexual advance on you? I'm surprised that you, as a woman, would be okay with this.
Nate, either you really have it our for WoF or you're naturally a "Karen", I can't speak for Mary, but a guy calling you sexy at work is highly inappropriate and could be seen a form of harassment. A guy calling you sexy when you are out and about can be uncomfortable but you are not going to go running to the police or ask to speak to their manager!
I said I would not feel comfortable with that. But I also wouldn’t feel threatened. And if I did feel genuinely threatened, I would go to the police l, not the person’s employer. If the person worked with person, then of course I would report them. However, it doesn’t sound like these women worked at WOF. It does sound like he made some women who worked there uncomfortable, but it doesn’t sound like the spoke out sadly
First, the cover-up is the fact that WOF did not issue a public statement that Gloor left, and instead just quietly fired him and scrubbed him from all their media. They did the same with one of their authors, Mark Galli—when an article came out he sexually harassed women, WOF quietly just deleted his book and scrubbed him from all their media. That sort of response is not victim-centered. It does not cultivate an environment that encourages victims to come forward with their stories. To the contrary, it encourages victims to stay silent.
Second, we don’t know for sure if it wasn’t criminal. We only know one side of the story—WOF’s. Just because their paid lawyer concluded that for one victim doesn’t mean it’s true. WOF isn’t a court of law. And, we don’t know know anything about the other victims who submitted letters.
Third, the irony with Bishop Barron’s Letter to a Suffering Church is that the Bishop says to “Fight by raising your voice in protest; fight by writing a letter of complaint; fight by insisting that protocols be followed.” If Chris is genuinely concerned that protocols were not followed, he is taking the advice of the Bishop himself.
For WOF and some of its employees to dismiss these issues as “spiritual warfare,” “woke left ideology,” or a “smear campaign” just shows how ignorant they are about LAWS that govern the workplace. This isn’t about feelings, but about what is legal. Big difference.
You have highlighted some troublesome legal issues at WOF—bro culture, discrimination, harassment, sexual harassment, toxic workplace, witness intimidation, CEO misconduct during an investigation, etc. And, WOF now disclosing identifying details about a victim in their recent public statement?! What a big legal mess for them. They need some serious HR help. And, following the law is the bare minimum expected from a Catholic Bishop/nonprofit. They should be held to to an even higher standard.
I don’t understand why people are shocked over a Bishop mishandling a victim’s claim of abuse. When has that ever happened? WOF is a cash cow for the Bishop and it’s based on his clean reputation. When that goes so will his sales. Clergy needs to stop being able to sell their services, books, DVDs, or other materials for personal profit. It takes them away from their duties of being a priest & makes them a brand.
"In essence, they have tried to wash their hands of responsibility by passing it on to someone else." But isn't that what they should have done? It was obvious to anyone who followed WoF that Bishop Barron and Gloor are/were close. Wouldn't Bishop Barron then been accused of having an unfair bias towards Gloor if he was involved in the investigation?
That's a great question. Having an outside third party handle the investigation was absolutely the right thing to do. But that doesn't mean you don't have any responsibility for the process, conclusion, or other concerns. For example, doing this doesn't mean they didn't have a responsibility to also exercise concrete care for the victims.
Great question. I think they have significant responsibility because for the most part, a priest doesn’t really have a personal life that is unassociated from his priestly responsibilities.
Thanks for your posts Chris. Personally, I'm a big fan of Bishop Barron and Word on Fire, and thus this is all somewhat sad. At the same time, as someone who has worked at four NGOs, including ones that have been through major scandals, I imagine that part of the problem is that Barron is a great communicator, but has less experience in large-scale organisational management. It is often easy to run a small NGO of a handful of friends, but a much bigger challenge to run a medium or large organization. In short, I wish Word on Fire could deal with the situation with more humility. Perhaps they could say something along the lines of "while we feel we dealt with this as well as we could have, and in accordance with the law, we always feel we can do better. We feel upset that any employee would ever feel that Word on Fire is a bad place to work, or that they would feel unsupported. We will reach out to all those involved, and strive to make this a workplace in which all employees feel loved and respected."...or something along those lines. I pray for the best of all those involved.
Yeah, that all makes sense. I think it's the lack of any sort of humility, and the unwillingness to consider that anything may have been handled incorrectly is what's so jarring for many
Indeed. I think there's nothing ultimately embarrassing in saying that this was a tough situation, but we need to do better personally and as an organization. I'm sure they saw certain aspects of your posts as being unfairly characterized (not saying they are...but that is my guess), and they reacted very defensively to it, rather than seeing this as an opportunity for growth and reflection and reconciliation with those who felt harmed. I'd hope that if anyone from Word on Fire is reading my comment that they strongly take this issue at heart, and try to strive for excellence in creating a workplace culture that reflects the gospel in all aspects.
Ok so obviously Gloor’s behavior was inappropriate and even sinful. But was it criminal? A sexual advance could be unwelcome but not criminal. For example, complimenting someone’s body or cat-calling. Obviously bad behavior, and certainly can make someone uncomfortable, but (to my knowledge) not a criminal offense. I’m not saying WOF/BB aren’t complicit in permitting a toxic work environment and turning a blind eye to bad behavior, but is it fair to allege this is some kind of cover-up if no illegal activity was committed? You’ve indicated this story stands in stark contrast to Barton’s letter of the sexual abuse scandal in the church. But is Gloor a pervert and a misogynist or is he actually a sexual abuser? Not saying he did nothing wrong or WOF/BB acting rightly in this situation, but it just seems to me that you are tying this story in with the broader sexual abuse crisis when the connection isn’t there.
Are you kidding me? Would you feel safe around someone who made an unwanted sexual advance on you? I'm surprised that you, as a woman, would be okay with this.
No but there is a big difference between someone saying “hey sexy” and someone putting their hands on me.
Mary, the first action you describe is sexual harassment; and the second, sexual assault. Neither is acceptable, and both should be reported.
Would you feel comfortable with someone saying "hey sexy" to you when you don't know them?
Of course not. But I also would not report them to their employer.
How could you possibly feel safe as a woman with that kind of behavior? Only an escort would, but I doubt you're one.
Nate, either you really have it our for WoF or you're naturally a "Karen", I can't speak for Mary, but a guy calling you sexy at work is highly inappropriate and could be seen a form of harassment. A guy calling you sexy when you are out and about can be uncomfortable but you are not going to go running to the police or ask to speak to their manager!
I said I would not feel comfortable with that. But I also wouldn’t feel threatened. And if I did feel genuinely threatened, I would go to the police l, not the person’s employer. If the person worked with person, then of course I would report them. However, it doesn’t sound like these women worked at WOF. It does sound like he made some women who worked there uncomfortable, but it doesn’t sound like the spoke out sadly
First, the cover-up is the fact that WOF did not issue a public statement that Gloor left, and instead just quietly fired him and scrubbed him from all their media. They did the same with one of their authors, Mark Galli—when an article came out he sexually harassed women, WOF quietly just deleted his book and scrubbed him from all their media. That sort of response is not victim-centered. It does not cultivate an environment that encourages victims to come forward with their stories. To the contrary, it encourages victims to stay silent.
Second, we don’t know for sure if it wasn’t criminal. We only know one side of the story—WOF’s. Just because their paid lawyer concluded that for one victim doesn’t mean it’s true. WOF isn’t a court of law. And, we don’t know know anything about the other victims who submitted letters.
Third, the irony with Bishop Barron’s Letter to a Suffering Church is that the Bishop says to “Fight by raising your voice in protest; fight by writing a letter of complaint; fight by insisting that protocols be followed.” If Chris is genuinely concerned that protocols were not followed, he is taking the advice of the Bishop himself.
Dudes so desperate to take down Word on Fire, and he gets 13 likes on his latest article lolll
For WOF and some of its employees to dismiss these issues as “spiritual warfare,” “woke left ideology,” or a “smear campaign” just shows how ignorant they are about LAWS that govern the workplace. This isn’t about feelings, but about what is legal. Big difference.
You have highlighted some troublesome legal issues at WOF—bro culture, discrimination, harassment, sexual harassment, toxic workplace, witness intimidation, CEO misconduct during an investigation, etc. And, WOF now disclosing identifying details about a victim in their recent public statement?! What a big legal mess for them. They need some serious HR help. And, following the law is the bare minimum expected from a Catholic Bishop/nonprofit. They should be held to to an even higher standard.
I don’t understand why people are shocked over a Bishop mishandling a victim’s claim of abuse. When has that ever happened? WOF is a cash cow for the Bishop and it’s based on his clean reputation. When that goes so will his sales. Clergy needs to stop being able to sell their services, books, DVDs, or other materials for personal profit. It takes them away from their duties of being a priest & makes them a brand.
"In essence, they have tried to wash their hands of responsibility by passing it on to someone else." But isn't that what they should have done? It was obvious to anyone who followed WoF that Bishop Barron and Gloor are/were close. Wouldn't Bishop Barron then been accused of having an unfair bias towards Gloor if he was involved in the investigation?
That's a great question. Having an outside third party handle the investigation was absolutely the right thing to do. But that doesn't mean you don't have any responsibility for the process, conclusion, or other concerns. For example, doing this doesn't mean they didn't have a responsibility to also exercise concrete care for the victims.
What is the responsibility of a ministry to the victim of an employee outside the work place?
What is the responsibility of a diocese to the victim of a priest outside his assigned parish?
Yeah. There you go.
Great question. I think they have significant responsibility because for the most part, a priest doesn’t really have a personal life that is unassociated from his priestly responsibilities.