Bp. Ruch’s Ecclesiastical Trial
On August 15, 2023, the ACNA Province released two announcements regarding Stewart Ruch, Bishop of the ACNA Diocese of the Upper Midwest (UMD). The first was a declaration from the Board of Inquiry that Bp. Ruch is headed for an ecclesiastical trial. The second was an update on the two presentments brought against Bp. Ruch.
Since most readers are not familiar with the ACNA ecclesiastical trial process, we’ve put together answers to some basic questions you might have.
Here are the primary interrelated ACNA entities discussed in this article, and how they relate to the trial process:
Board of Inquiry: 10-person board consisting of laypeople and clergy and appointed by the Archbishop in the event that formal charges are brought to the Province against a member of the clergy. The Board of Inquiry essentially functions as a grand jury, determining whether the charges have sufficient merit to move to a trial.
Court for Trial of a Bishop: 7-person standing court elected every three years by the Provincial Council. The Court for Trial of a Bishop is roughly analogous to a criminal court jury, determining the guilt or innocence of the accused with respect to the charges after they pass the Board of Inquiry.
Provincial Tribunal: 7-member court consisting of both laypeople and clergy and appointed by the Provincial Council every three years. The Tribunal is the ACNA’s first and final court of appeals for clergy found guilty of charges by the Court for Trial of a Bishop.
College of Bishops: all ACNA bishops in active ministry, consisting of approximately 40 bishops operating in 29 dioceses. For the purpose of an ecclesiastical trial, the College of Bishops serves as a judge handing down a sentence in criminal court: in this case, determining the nature of the disciplinary action to be taken against convicted clergy.
Provincial Council: 120-140 member governing body of the ACNA, consisting of 2 laypeople and 2 clergy from each diocese. Among other duties, the Provincial Council elects the members of both the Court for Trial of a Bishop and the Provincial Tribunal.
What are presentments?
Presentments are formal charges brought against a member of the clergy (a deacon, priest, or bishop). Presentments against a bishop must be signed and submitted by three other bishops or by “not fewer than ten Presbyters, Deacons, or adult baptized members of this Church in good standing” (Canon IV.4.1).
A presentment must make the case that the clergy in question has directly violated the ACNA Canons and/or the Canons of their diocese. The various grounds for presentment are found in Title IV, Canon 2.
When a presentment that meets the canonical requirements is submitted, the Archbishop convenes a 10-person Board of Inquiry to decide if the charges constitute “reasonable grounds to put the accused to trial.” If ⅔ of the Board of Inquiry votes that the charges merit a trial, “it shall make a public declaration to that effect” (Canon IV.4.6). This is why the ACNA published the August 15 declaration announcing the Board of Inquiry’s findings and the upcoming trial.
What is the status of the two presentments brought against Bp. Ruch?
In June 2023 a group of clergy, deacons, and parishioners predominantly from churches in the UMD submitted a presentment against Bp. Ruch. The Board of Inquiry found that there were reasonable grounds to put Bp. Ruch on trial for the violations of Canon IV.2.3, Canon IV.2.4, and Canon IV.2.9 alleged in this presentment.
Concerning the other presentment, the ACNA’s recent update says:
[A] different, previously submitted Presentment brought by three bishops of the Anglican Church in North America, was challenged by Bp. Ruch before the Provincial Tribunal, which was the impetus for a canonical amendment passed by the College of Bishops and Provincial Council in June of 2023. The status of that Presentment remains a question being considered by the Provincial Tribunal.
What specific allegations do the presentments make against Bp. Ruch?
Neither of the presentments against Bp. Ruch is public. According to a June 8 Religion News Service article, the presentment that led to the upcoming trial alleges “violation of ordination vows and ‘conduct giving just cause for scandal or offense, including the abuse of ecclesiastical power.’”
The article goes on to state:
This presentment cites seven cases in which Ruch either failed to prioritize victims in the wake of abuse allegations or knowingly welcomed individuals with histories of predatory behavior into diocesan churches without alerting church members.
It accuses Ruch of knowingly ordaining a former pastor who had previously admitted to sexual addiction and had been fired by his church after serving jail time for attempting to solicit a prostitute. According to the presentment, Ruch installed the man as rector of a church in his diocese in 2021 without informing parishioners of this history.
The document also alleges that in fall 2022, Ruch allowed Nephtali Matta, a former minister who was convicted of a felony in 2011 for domestic abuse of his now ex-wife, to become a pastoral resident (a role for future church planters) at Church of the Resurrection, headquarters of the Upper Midwest Diocese where Ruch serves as rector.
“(H)is pattern and practice of knowingly welcoming and elevating individuals who could prey on his congregations has continued beyond the events of 2019 that compelled the ACNA Province to initiate third-party investigations,” the new presentment says. “By preventing the accountability that would result from communal knowledge, he has transformed what should be, of all spaces, a sanctuary for the most vulnerable into a target for predation.
What is the trial process?
In response to the recent decision by the Board of Inquiry, the Court for Trial of a Bishop will hear Bp. Ruch’s case. Title IV of the ACNA Constitution and Canons, which lays out the rules for ecclesiastical discipline, is vague as to what occurs within an ecclesiastical trial. The Court is allowed to set its own procedures, provided that they
acknowledge the presumption of innocence of the accused and the right to representation by counsel, and shall be consistent with principles of fairness, due process and natural justice and shall require expeditious handling consistent with those principles. (Canon IV.5.7)
The current Court consists of the members listed here, plus newly elected members Rev. Michael Brooks and Bp. Neil Lebhar. The list includes alternates in the event that a Court member cannot serve or recuses themselves from serving.
Are there grounds for any Court members’ recusal?
The current Court includes at least two individuals with identified conflicts of interest: Chancellor Jeff Garrety and Bp. Eric Menees. Chan. Garrety and Bp. Menees both served on the 8-member Provincial Response Team (PRT) convened in August, 2021 to oversee “an investigation into the UMD’s handling of allegations of misconduct and coordinating the care of survivors.” In this capacity, both Chan. Garrety and Bp. Menees were directly involved in the process of enlisting the Husch Blackwell investigation into the allegations against Bp. Ruch and other UMD leaders brought by survivors in 2021.
During their PRT tenure, Chan. Garrety and Bp. Menees were privy to various details of survivor allegations made against Bp. Ruch and other leaders, and Chan. Garrety personally interviewed at least one UMD clergy accused of allegedly mishandling child sexual abuse, after which Chan. Garrety unilaterally cleared that individual of wrongdoing. Chan. Garrety also assisted with drawing up the ACNA’s legal contracts with the third-party investigative firms.
Bp. Menees was one of four bishops (alongside Bp. Julian Dobbs, Bp. Ryan Reed, and Bp. Clark Lowenfield) who signed in support of Bp. Ruch’s Oct. 15, 2022 Request for Investigation of Rumors (which cited Canon IV.4.2), and this precipitated into a full-scale challenge by Ruch of the ACNA’s canonical disciplinary process: namely, the legitimacy of both the third-party investigation and the resultant first presentment brought against Bp. Ruch by 3 bishops. In short, Bp. Menees served in the process of enlisting an investigation against Bp. Ruch and appears to have since supported the dismissal of that investigation as invalid.
The degree of Chan. Garrety’s and Bp. Menees' previous involvement and their documented public stances make it impossible for them to achieve the objectivity and neutrality that would align with the “principles of fairness, due process and natural justice” outlined in Canon IV.5.7. Given these conflicts of interest, we anticipate that these two men will recuse themselves.
Is the decision of the Court for a Trial of a Bishop final?
No. If convicted, Bp. Ruch may appeal the decision to the Provincial Tribunal, which then has 30 days to consider the appeal and render a judgment. According to the ACNA, the Provincial Tribunal is “an ecclesiastical court of final decision.”
If the Trial Court convicts Bp. Ruch and the Tribunal upholds the conviction, the College of Bishops then has the sole responsibility and authority to pronounce a sentence against him. In this event, Bp. Ruch could face a sentence of the following (Canon IV.8.3):
Censure and/or admonishment;
Suspension, for a definite period, not to exceed five years;
Suspension for life; or
Deposition from the sacred ministry.
Significantly, Abp. Foley Beach has already raised the concern that four of the seven members of the current Tribunal have conflicts of interest in this case and should already have recused themselves from the process (see pp. 22-29). To date, as far as we know, no recusals have taken place.
Will Bp. Ruch continue to serve in his role as bishop during the trial?
When a presentment is brought against a bishop, “three of the five senior active diocesan members of the College of Bishops” may temporarily inhibit a bishop from active ministry, according to Canon IV.9.2. The Province has yet to make any announcement that inhibition has taken place.
We could not find a published list of bishops ordinary by seniority, but based on available dates of consecration the senior bishops appear to be as follows (starting with the most senior): Bp. Ray Sutton (REC Diocese of Mid-America), Bp. Derek Jones (Diocese of the Armed Forces), Bp. Bill Atwood (International Diocese), Bp. Alberto Morales (Diocese of Quincy), Bp. William White (REC Diocese of the Southeast), Bp. Todd Hunter (Diocese of Churches For the Sake of Others), Abp. Foley Beach (Diocese of the South), Bp. Eric Menees (Diocese of San Joaquin), Bp. Julian Dobbs (Diocese of the Living Word), and Bp. Felix Orji (Diocese of All Nations).
How long will the trial take?
We don’t know. Since the ACNA’s formation in 2009, the only other bishop known to be recommended for trial by a Board of Inquiry was Bp. Todd Atkinson (Via Apostolica Missionary District, formerly under UMD supervision, now dissolved), on July 7, 2022. To our knowledge, that trial has yet to conclude.
What is the status of the third-party investigations that preceded the trial?
In early 2022 the ACNA launched two separate investigations into allegations of abuse and mishandling in the UMD. The ACNA website summarizes the differences between the two investigations here.
Husch Blackwell concluded its investigation into “allegations of sexual misconduct and mishandling” last year, and the official investigation report was published on September 27, 2022. The report was taken offline three days later following public outcry concerning its inclusion of sensitive details about non-participating survivors. Per those survivors’ requests, ACNAtoo redacted survivor information from the Husch Blackwell report and published this redacted version on October 31, 2022. To date, the official report has not been re-released, despite the ACNA’s contract with Husch Blackwell stipulating “the production of a full public report that redacts names and identifying details to protect survivors and witnesses as appropriate.”
Telios Law also concluded its investigation into “allegations of the abuse of ecclesiastical power” in fall of 2022. Telios produced multiple reports, some of which were shared with the UMD’s disciplinary taskforce (at that time overseen by Bp. Martyn Minns and co-led by Bp. Ruch), according to an email from Bp. Minns to an ACNAtoo team member.
The ACNA Province never committed to making the reports from Telios Law public, and to the best of our knowledge no action has been taken in response to that investigation’s findings. On September 7, 2022 the ACNA announced that “[a]n update on the status of the investigation by Telios Law will be forthcoming,” but nearly a year later, no such update has been made.