Thread by @MBurtwrites

Organizing my thoughts/observations in this thread.

In short: this reads like the perhaps predictable church family system version of "but we did the best we could," where parents/leaders want to be judged by their good intentions rather than the harmful impact.

🧵

I perceive a lot of "mistakes were made" vibes, e.g. the structures were in formation, there wasn't standardization, things were growing, etc.

Okay and also: that is a failure of leadership. That is the building the plane while flying it ethos writ large. Who will own this? 2/

One of the most damning things about this is that ACNA administrative involvement made a complicated situation *worse* & in the end the incompetence on display from leaders means that the court is unwilling to lay the blame at Ruch's feet.

I find this unsatisfactory 3/

It's like an abusive parent pointing to their own dysfunctional history & telling the children they harmed: you had it better than me, or I did the best I could w/the tools I had.

At what point do we acknowledge the negligence & responsibility of visionary spiritual leaders? 4/

The uncomfortable reality in family systems is that parents can have done the best they could & still caused harm.

It's not demanding perfection to expect that leaders who want to lead in visionary ways also assume the responsibility for their failures. 5/

"The cumulative effect of these multiple investigations was not evidentiary clarity but procedural confusion." A damning understatement re:
@The_ACNA investigation run by Bp Hawkins & Abp Beach. Takes me back to '21 & survivors & advocates begging for ACNA to hire GRACE. 6/

"The ACNA had no standardized, enforceable safeguarding protocols across dioceses. Provincial expectations were largely aspirational & imprecise; bishops..." pg. 10 That latter statement could really sum up a whole bunch of things. 7/

"Some urged rapid, visible action against diocesan leadership based on perceptions, rumors, or public pressure. Others insisted that canonical due process must be preserved. This divergence produced friction within the College."

Anyone else find this a biased presentation? 8/

"Bp. Eric Menees: Yes. But we never heard anything back. There was, I mean, to this day, I haven't heard anything back." pg. 12-13

Even the other bishops were offered silence in response to requests for updates. 9/

What? This is from @believeustoo letter, a group w/in UMD who identified themselves as Mark Rivera victims. Why is this connection veiled here?

This is relevant b/c provincial leaders consistently presented a narrative of "good" survivors & "bad" survivors, echoed here. 10/

@believeustoo In the same way that this summary presents a false dichotomy b/w bishops who wanted to cave to social pressure & bishops who wanted to follow the (nonexistent) canonical processes, section F on "narrative capture" reveals a strong bias...one that has been around since '21. 11/

@believeustoo I am disappointed to see it resurrecting here b/c it seems like pre-existing bias against survivors/advocates who went public drove decision making, e.g.

We also need to talk about how @ACNAtoo became a primary source of info. Provincial leaders decided on silence. 12/

@believeustoo @ACNAtoo Which led to things like ppl resigning & being blamed for it, the HB report being posted & then immediately pulled, the constant insistence on "trust the process" to concerned ppl w/no updates, the telling ppl to avoid social media, etc. 13/

@believeustoo @ACNAtoo It seems unjust to (1) conclude the priority is canonical measures & canonical ways (2) acknowledge the prohibitive & egregious gaps in admin processes & canonical Title IV processes & then (3) fault ppl for public conversation, the thing that was impetus for canonical change 14/

@believeustoo @ACNAtoo I would like to know will to take responsibility for ⬇️.

B/c it seems like the conclusion is looking like: well, what an unfortunate series of events.

Indeed. It's almost as though a piece of that pesky "public pressure" was ppl begging for institutional competence. 15/

@believeustoo @ACNAtoo Why is this remaining corporate-speak, as though "the Province" is an amorphous entity.

Genuinely want to know why the summary is not naming Bp Alan Hawkins who to my knowledge was the one overseeing the provincial response in an official capacity? 16/

@believeustoo @ACNAtoo I would love to know what other means were available to "advance the matter or prompt further institutional action."

Clearly the requests for investigation into rumors that remain unanswered to this day were not a way.

What else was there?
17/

@believeustoo @ACNAtoo Again, I find the description of this to be striking as though it was something that happened to the ACNA rather than acknowledging and naming the leadership failure driving this. 18/

@believeustoo @ACNAtoo I wonder if some of the irregularities they mention in passing include not talking to the signatories?

Or the difficult to meet hurdle of finding ppl who had not already left the dicoese to sign a presentment? 19/

@believeustoo @ACNAtoo It seems to me that a great deal rests on the Telios report & it's conclusion that Ruch had committed no wrongdoing.

Why is there no discussion of the fact that Theresa Sidebotham, who appears to be a star witness, has a conflict of interest? 20/

@believeustoo @ACNAtoo I mean, I'm not mad about spotlighting irregularities and failures of the provincial response.
It seems to me to be a miscarriage of justice, though, to fault ppl trying to bring credible concerns through inadequate provincial channels & then dismiss their concerns wholesale. 21/

@believeustoo @ACNAtoo I mean, yes, clearly there are administrative & org failures that have materially impacted this process.

Odd to see the conclusion to that be: Bp Ruch is "not guilty" on all counts (for procedural reasons) rather than see a meaningful engagement w/the concerns. 22/

@believeustoo @ACNAtoo Okay, but the court quoted one such document from @believeustoo advocacy group on pg. 14-15.

So it seems that some social media narratives/public statements were indeed admissible & others were not. I do not see indication of criteria used to determine admissibility. 23/

@believeustoo @ACNAtoo This is indeed a "high evidentiary threshold" and leaves me wondering if there is any way to hold actionably hold a bishop accountable if all he has to do is say that he did not intentionally mean to fail in a way to cause scandal.

???
24/

@ACNAtoo I can see why Theresa Sidebotham was called as an expert witness given credentials on paper. I do not understand why court overlooked survivor complaints re: her investigations & her conflicts of interest w/a family member at Rez & w/Chancellor Ward 25/

@ACNAtoo Just noting the discrepancy here.

Bp Guernsey's sincerity/pastoral concern is acknowledged while the layppl/clergy witnesses are kind of summed up as "total failures".

I am trying to envision what kind of evidence would be admissible in this case. 26/

@ACNAtoo For instance, if the documentation of Bp Ruch's ordaining ppl w/predatory pasts is not evidence on its own (or can be explained away as he-didn't-know-any-better), then would a witness need to, what, be in the room where Bp Ruch states he means to cause offense to the Gospel? 27/

@ACNAtoo I'm trying to envision what someone would need to do to not be a "total failure" at being a witness here.

Beyond being a sincere bishop, of course.🫠

28/

@ACNAtoo I am pretty surprised that weight is being given to other bishops supporting another bishop. ??? Are these bishops held to the same first-hand witness evidence that the presentment signers are. Do they have firsthand knowledge of what happens day to day in the diocese? 29/

@ACNAtoo IMO it's totally understandable that bishops w/decades of ministry colaboring experience would defend Bp Ruch's actions. What isn't understnadalbe is why the court looked to them re: cause for scandal & dismissed the public outrcy saying exactly that. 30/

@ACNAtoo I also think it's completely understandable that clergy within the UMD would speak in defense of Bp Ruch, especially given the strong culture of obedience & loyalty.

It leaves me wondering if they spoke to any clergy who left the UMD. 31/

@ACNAtoo I'm also curious about how they navigated the obvious conflict of interest in any Rez-clergy's vested interest in a not-guilty verdict for Bp Ruch. ??? 32/

@ACNAtoo Why are we looking at 2024 policies to ascertain whether adequate policies were in place at the time of Rivera'a lay leadership and abuse circa 2019 and before?

Yes, hopefully every diocese in ACNA was compliant by 2024. 33/

@ACNAtoo This is a central component of Cherin's (mother of the child Rivera abused) complaint, though. *Cherin* was the one who reported it & the church leaders in retrospect pointed to that as if it was them being compliant.
Unknown if they would have reported had Cherin not.
34/

@ACNAtoo 😐

Oh.

At what point does a pattern of doing this signify imprudence, I wonder?
35/

@ACNAtoo This is w-i-l-d to me. I wonder if someone familiar with ecclesiastical courtroom procedures to speak to this.

Is this just a gross failure by the prosecutor? Or is this more an indictment of how flawed the investigations were? @monkofjustice any insight on this? 36/

@ACNAtoo @monkofjustice This section scolds advocates and the prosecuting attorney Alan Runyan.

What I want to know: how in the world were advocates or witnesses or layppl bringing presentments supposed to know any of this given our sparse Title IV canons & zero provincial communication? 37/

@ACNAtoo @monkofjustice I do not know whether Runyan acted appropriately or not, but if he was whistle-blowing, it absolutely makes sense that he would not want to be tied up in an incompetent investigation & trial & would find himself resorting to public square. 38/

@ACNAtoo @monkofjustice I think this dual-realities also applies to Bp Ruch himself. It is possible for him to be humble, sincere, well-intentioned & also to have made errors that have consequences.

Tough to land on "clear & convincing canonical evidence" when the canons themselves are inadequate. 39/

@ACNAtoo @monkofjustice Which I think is kind of why this outcome was inevitable.

The canonical shortcomings have been there all along, which, in the end, leaves anyone who tried to navigate around that—provincial leaders, bishops, presentment signers—, ironically, at fault in this summary. 40/

@ACNAtoo @monkofjustice Wild that someone was actually willing to write "mistakes were made"—in the passive voice and everything.

These systemic problems...who is responsible for them if not the entire college of bishops themselves?
41/

And those hurting are left w/cold comfort: "mistakes were made"—w/in UMD given Bp Ruch's claims he simply didn't know any better, w/in provincial leaders that refused to seek qualified external support, & w/in trial process that tried to clean up the mess.

Mistakes, indeed.
/end

@threadreaderapp please unroll