1) I said I wanted to respond, so here goes. I deeply desire to know more about, engage with, and respect those I don't agree with. This is hopefully a good faith exercise in that, if not please let me know.
https://twitter.com/RichardReeb/status/1423285905909944329
2) RE: the word "defending". There's room to argue semantics here and it might not have been my first choice in words but I have no problem with Rev. Rutledge using it.
3) If the docesis was coordinating legal help and loans for MR's legal DEFENSE, "defending" doesn't seem egregious. And all while not communicating the extent of this situation to their parishioners? If not "defending", can we say at least "covering for"?
https://twitter.com/ACNAtoo/status/1412957136397627395?s=20
4) RE: familiarity with facts. Thanks for sharing the link to AU. I watched the relevant sections several times and had some responses:
i) Kallsen and Rev. Conger come across as gentle and genuine men of God. I have no reason to mistrust them or disbelieve their comments.
i) Kallsen and Rev. Conger come across as gentle and genuine men of God. I have no reason to mistrust them or disbelieve their comments.
5) ii) I noted two key criticisms of #ACNAtoo that I think are worth responding to. First is the concept of "let the process do it's work". To which I would say "what process?". So much of the issue here is that the process failed! Why would we turn to that process again?
6) Mandatory reporters not reporting sexual abuse allegations, not issuing a public communication to the diocese about the abuse case for over a year, and a Bishop's council stacked with the Bishop's family members and close friends. This is not a process I would trust further.
7) iii) The second criticism is directed at #ACNAtoo wanting to be "judge, jury, and prosecutor". I find this description ungracious especially when Rev. Conger's summation of the demands in the open letter are demonstrably false in some places.
8) Rev. Conger says that #ACNAtoo demands:
"that some staffers at the diocesan office be placed on leave" (timestamp 24:15 in the video you linked)
This is accurate in my reading of the open letter: (all my screenshot references come from here:
acnatoo.org/news/openletter)
"that some staffers at the diocesan office be placed on leave" (timestamp 24:15 in the video you linked)
This is accurate in my reading of the open letter: (all my screenshot references come from here:
acnatoo.org/news/openletter)
9) "that Stuart Ruch be fired" (24:21)
This is not accurate. To summarize that #ACNAtoo is asking for Bp. Ruch to be fired but leaving out the "[if] an independent, third party investigation substantiate the allegations against him" is a misrepresentation of their claims.
This is not accurate. To summarize that #ACNAtoo is asking for Bp. Ruch to be fired but leaving out the "[if] an independent, third party investigation substantiate the allegations against him" is a misrepresentation of their claims.
10) "that they have access to the personnel files and clergy disciplinary records of the pastor of [COLA]" (24:24)
Hard to see this as accurate too. The letter demands clarity on the standing of a priest not "access" to any records or files.
Hard to see this as accurate too. The letter demands clarity on the standing of a priest not "access" to any records or files.
11) "that before an investigative team is formed they'd be given veto power over who are its members" (24:34)
Just...false? They asks is for the names+credentials of the members on the Provincial Response Team. Perhaps we're conflating this with the ask in the second point here:
Just...false? They asks is for the names+credentials of the members on the Provincial Response Team. Perhaps we're conflating this with the ask in the second point here:
12)...to be allowed to approve the "firm, scope, and parameters of the investigation". Definitely not the same thing as "veto power" and a very ungracious interpretation of what I see as the survivors asking to be involved in the investigation process.
13) "that when the final report is written they'd be given editorial control of the report" (24:41)
Such an ungenerous interpretation! To read "correct..public statements" as "editorial control" feels more like editorializing than just trying to "give you the facts" (29:33)
Such an ungenerous interpretation! To read "correct..public statements" as "editorial control" feels more like editorializing than just trying to "give you the facts" (29:33)
14) Finally, I find it distressing that both you and AU question the reporting of RNS for it being "left leaning" or "left wing" (28:15), as if existing on a political spectrum automatically discounts one's reporting.
15) Rev. Conger's use of the phrase "cancel culture" (25:33, anglican.ink/2021/07/16/can… ) evokes a particular political leaning, but that certainly doesn't dismiss his coverage of this topic. What does cause me to concern is the misquoting and misinterpretation listed above.
16) Thanks for reading if you've made it this far. This was as much an exercise for me in my thinking process as it was an attempt to engage in discourse so I'm not expecting any sort of response, but any ideas and engagement would be welcome. Peace in Christ
Bonus Tweet! I lost one of the demands listed by the AU video in my notes: “that the diocesan council be dissolved and the interim bishop...be of their choosing” (26:03)
This is just...a lie?
Find those demands in the open letter and...I'll give you a kiss. 😙
This is just...a lie?
Find those demands in the open letter and...I'll give you a kiss. 😙
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
