Time for Action: Part 01, Bp. Stewart Ruch
Time for Action is a series of posts detailing ACNAtoo’s July 15 open letter to Archbishop Foley Beach,
expanding on the action items listed and providing background regarding why they are of paramount importance and continue to deserve a public response.
On July 15, ACNAtoo published an open letter addressed to Archbishop Foley Beach. The letter was designed to serve a number of functions: it highlighted areas of previous harm that needed to be rectified, it identified areas for investigation, and it requested specific actions that ACNA could take in order to foster a healthier church culture.
Since July 15, we have continued to advocate for the issues listed in our letter, particularly the need for a transparent, third-party investigation of the Diocese of the Upper Midwest as a whole. Archbishop Beach has not substantively responded to our requests and the Province has so far declined to respond to the issues in our letter in a public forum.
In this series of posts, we’ll expand on the action items listed in our open letter and provide background on why they are of paramount importance and continue to deserve a public response.
Bishop Stewart Ruch
In our open letter, we listed the following action steps regarding Bp. Ruch:
We ask that the Bishops commit to remove Bp. Ruch permanently from office should an independent, third party investigation substantiate the allegations against him.
Further, we ask that the Bishops unequivocally denounce such behavior and promise that any ACNA Bishop who conducts himself in such a manner will be removed from office and barred from any future service as clergy in the ACNA.
We further ask that it is clarified whether Bp. Ruch’s leave of absence is paid or unpaid.
First, the open letter asks that if an independent third party investigation substantiates the allegations--which include covering up a failure in mandatory reporting of child sexual abuse, allowing those involved to continue in their positions of leadership thereby risking further negligence and abuse, and not informing his diocese of the abuse in a timely manner--the College of Bishops will remove Bp. Ruch from his office.
This is not a witch hunt, nor is it cancel culture. This is ACNAtoo demanding that if there is a proper investigation and if it is proven that Bp. Ruch is guilty of the allegations, then the College of Bishops will enact consequences commensurate with his failings. The College of Bishops has the authority to discipline bishops in line with ACNA’s Canons, Title IV, Canon VIII, Section 2 and we simply ask that they commit to following through on those Canons. Sentences for convicted Bishops range from formal admonishment to deposition from the sacred ministry. ACNAtoo’s request for life-long suspension from the office of bishop falls squarely within this range.
Secondly, we ask that the College of Bishops take this opportunity to strengthen expectations of appropriate behavior to ensure a healthier ACNA for the future. That is, Bp. Ruch’s case should not be treated as a one-off case of misconduct, but as a precedent by which the Bishops shall judge future bishops.
Thirdly, we ask for clarity regarding Bp. Ruch’s leave. Bp. Ruch has said that a budget is a vision concretized; the flow of money within a diocese points to its priorities. If Bp. Ruch is on a paid leave while the survivors are still waiting for the diocese to pay for therapy, loss of employment, and more, this reveals something important about the diocese’s values.
To read the full letter and/or add your name to the growing list of signatories, you can access the original post here.