When Stewart Ruch, an influential bishop in the Anglican Church in North America, took a leave of absence in 2021, he admitted to making “regrettable errors” in the case of Mark Rivera, a lay leader in his diocese accused of molesting a 9-year-old child. Ruch learned of the allegations against Rivera in 2019, but didn’t alert his diocese and Rivera’s former church until two years later.

Since then, Rivera has been convicted of felony sexual assault and felony child sexual assault. A 2022 investigative report by the firm Husch Blackwell found Ruch had been slow to act on allegations against Rivera. More than 10 clergy and other lay leaders in Ruch’s Upper Midwest Diocese have also been accused of misconduct.

But last month, after years of waiting and a tumultuous church trial, Ruch was acquitted by a church court. It unanimously found Ruch not guilty on all counts, saying the prosecution provided no clear and convincing evidence that he violated any church bylaws. The court’s 71-page order suggests the allegations against Ruch were based on narratives circulated on social media rather than firsthand accounts and were indicative of “institutional, not personal, failings.” It criticizes the process that led to the trial and attests to Ruch’s humility and “shepherd’s heart.”

Reactions were swift. Over 200 people signed a letter calling for an investigation into the trial; an audit of how the denomination handled disciplinary matters related to the case is forthcoming. Some clergy praised the decision as upholding the presumption of innocence, while others observed procedural irregularities or called for reform of clergy misconduct protocols. ACNAtoo, a group of abuse survivor advocates, said the court order “confirms survivors’ fears that the ACNA will give bishops a free pass.”

Conducted in private, the events of the trial itself largely remain a mystery. But the resignations of two members of the prosecution team gave a glimpse into some of the disputes that took place. And the court’s assertion that “no evidence demonstrated that Bishop Ruch willfully contravened canonical authority or habitually neglected episcopal responsibilities” has shocked some and brought relief to others. As the denomination looks ahead to two additional bishops’ trials — one being the denomination’s first trial of a sitting archbishop who has been accused of sexual misconduct — the precedents set by the Ruch trial will have substantial bearing on the upcoming proceedings.

The evidence concerning Stewart Ruch

The court set out to determine whether there was clear and convincing evidence that Stewart Ruch was guilty of four charges: that he habitually neglected the duties of the bishop’s office; that he engaged in conduct “giving just cause for scandal or offense,” including abuse of church power; that he violated his ordination vows; and that he disobeyed or willingly violated church bylaws.

The court acknowledged that “mistakes occurred” but was unequivocal in its determination.

“There was not a sense of doubt in that opinion,” said Canon Andrew Rowell, a priest who chairs ACNA’s Governance Task Force, which proposes amendments to church laws. Rowell noted the significance of the court’s unanimity. “It was sometimes repetitively hammered home that there was no evidence presented for this.”

The order says the court reviewed more than 7,000 pages of evidence, including three investigative reports authored by outside law firms that examined Ruch’s actions. However, the court only assigned “significant weight” to a report authored by Telios Law due to the author’s availability for witness testimony. The author, Theresa Sidebotham, who was retained by the province, testified that she found “no culpability by Ruch,” per the order. 

ACNAtoo volunteer Audrey Luhmann, who co-wrote one of the presentments, or lists of formal charges, that brought allegations against Ruch, said it was “maddening to read a final order that doesn’t address any of the evidence that we provided.”

Luhmann said the report by Husch Blackwell found Ruch sent emails attempting to coordinate legal representation for Rivera and authorized the priest at Rivera’s church to ask the victim’s family about dropping charges against Rivera, but specifying it should be done without pressure. But the court, which assigned minimal weight to that report, describes Ruch’s decisions at the time as “pastoral judgment exercised in real time, without the benefit of hindsight.”

The order also acknowledged that Ruch ordained Presbyterian Pastor Joshua Moon to the priesthood in 2020, despite knowing that Moon previously pleaded guilty to and served a 90-day sentence for attempting to solicit a prostitute. Ruch installed Moon as rector of a church plant, where Moon was later suspended from pastoral ministry for life after a female deacon reported him for making an unwanted sexual advance. The female deacon told The Washington Post that Ruch chastised her for being alone with Moon.

“The outcome of Moon’s ministry, while grievous and contrary to the hopes invested in him, does not negate the thoughtful, conscientious, and vigilant approach Bishop Ruch employed with the information available at the time,” the court wrote.

A person who assisted the prosecution acknowledged that whether the evidence against Ruch met the clear and convincing threshold for conviction was a legitimate question but said it was incorrect to claim there was no evidence. The source asked to be referred to anonymously due to concerns about negative repercussions.

“They should have seen a pattern of failing to properly vet and have accountability for these leaders in his diocese,” the person said. They also said fear of retribution and lack of legal authority in the church court to subpoena witnesses or materials created barriers for calling witnesses; The Living Church reported that other witnesses disputed the court’s characterization of their knowledge of Ruch’s conduct.

‘Narrative capture’

The court, however, repeatedly said none of the evidence showed Stewart Ruch was guilty of the charges, instead arguing that the allegations were a product of “narrative capture” by outside activists whose messaging displaced fact-finding. Witnesses characterized ACNAtoo — an anti-abuse advocacy group formed in 2021, whose website includes 10 firsthand accounts of abuse or misconduct from within Ruch’s diocese and a timeline of alleged mishandling of the Rivera case — as creating “advocacy pressure” while investigations were ongoing, per the order.

“Rumor, online advocacy, and social media narratives profoundly shaped perceptions of events, expectations of episcopal wrongdoing, and pressure on the Province to act,” the order said.

Lawyer Chad Graham, who successfully prosecuted the church case against deposed Bishop Todd Atkinson and briefly served as prosecutor in the Ruch case before resigning due to family health issues, said the court suggested the Ruch allegations could have likely been resolved without going to trial, but were raised to the level of the church court due to outside pressure. “The court’s assertion seems to be … that the initial presentments and accusations probably could have been dealt with at a lower level, except for the pressures that came and pushed it forward.” 

The person who aided the prosecution said their efforts were driven by the evidence, and that framing the allegations as a product of an advocacy-driven narrative “minimizes the actual harm done to victims.”

Pretrial concerns 

The court’s concern with “narrative capture” is connected to the tumultuous process that led to the trial itself. The order strongly critiques denominational leaders’ response to the allegations against Ruch, alleging that the three bishops who signed the first set of charges listing allegations against Ruch “possessed no firsthand knowledge of the underlying facts” and didn’t personally investigate primary witnesses.

While the court decided before the proceedings that it would only assess the charges and not the process that brought the charges before them, it asserted in its order that the chaotic pretrial process “bears directly on the integrity, legitimacy, and evidentiary reliability of the proceedings that culminated in the presentment.” The flawed process, the court said, allowed a trial to proceed largely on the basis of “rumor” rather than firsthand evidence. This contributed to the resignations of Alan Runyan and Rachel Thebeau from the prosecution and claims of an “irreparably tainted” court.

ACNA priest David Roseberry wrote that the order offers valuable but painful insights into how the allegations against Stewart Ruch were mishandled. And canon lawyer William Barto, a priest in the Reformed Episcopal Church, a subjurisdiction of ACNA, said the process preceding a trial is “seldom relevant” to the factual findings of the case.

The order suggests, Barto added, that “the people who accuse you of a canonical offense have to be people with personal knowledge about the offense.” This is a high bar, given that current church bylaws require three bishops or 10 clergy or laypeople to attest to allegations against a bishop in a presentment.

Title IV reform

For years, church leaders have been developing a proposed overhaul of Title IV, the denomination’s clergy misconduct and abuse protocols. Their changes aim to improve transparency and clarify the process, making it easier to submit complaints against bishops while also introducing “off-ramps” so that not every complaint becomes an investigation. Instead of an ambiguous presentment process, the proposal would establish a standing investigative body responsible for assessing allegations.

After several cycles of public feedback, the proposed changes are to be voted on by the Provincial Council, ACNA’s primary governing body, this summer.

Last week, church leaders voted to also convene a Provincial Assembly, a meeting of the denomination’s larger ratification body, this summer, which would allow proposed revisions to Title IV to be implemented immediately rather than in 2027. However, any adopted changes would not affect the forthcoming trials of Archbishop Steve Wood and Bishop Derek Jones because they were charged under existing church bylaws, a spokesperson confirmed. While historically the denomination has tried one bishop at a time, the church court has indicated it may hold both proceedings concurrently, according to an update from the denomination.  

Tiffany Butler, who was appointed as ACNA’s director of safeguarding and canonical affairs last March, has been playing an active role in soliciting feedback about the proposed Title IV overhaul. However, on Friday, the denomination published a job posting for Butler’s position. Butler confirmed to RNS that she is leaving her post on Feb. 6, to pursue other vocational callings, and said it’s been an honor to help build consistent safeguarding protocols throughout ACNA. 

“Over the nearly year I have served in this position, I established a support network of diocesan safeguarding leads to share resources and discuss provincial developments on a monthly basis,” she told RNS. “Through this network, we have provided updated sample safeguarding policies for the protection of children and adults, support for consistent canonical alignment with our Constitution and Canons, guidelines for pastoral care, and training for report receivers.”

Rowell has been working on the Title IV revisions for three years. While ACNAtoo has declined to participate in the review process — citing concerns with the denomination’s priorities and that its input would be viewed by critics as tainting the process — Rowell said abuse advocate Rachael Denhollander has agreed to provide feedback. He said the Ruch court order is “Exhibit A that there’s a sense of distrust on all sides about our disciplinary process.”

Kathryn Post is a reporter for Religion News Service based in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.