🧵 Thread

•

.@MidwestAnglican leaders have been accused of mishandling and failing to respond adequately to allegations of sexual abuse against Catechist Mark Rivera. The @HuschBlackwell investigation has concluded and a report was published Sept. 27th. acnatoo.org/acnatoo-blog/umd-abuse-mishandling-summary

The report has since been removed for further redaction after outcry from the public and from victims and their families. On Oct. 21, @The_ACNA announced that @MidwestAnglican Bp. Stewart Ruch has decided to end his voluntary leave and will return to active ministry on Oct. 30.

Currently, no canonical charges have been filed against Bp. Ruch in response to the investigation's findings. It is important to revisit the evidence previously documented by @ACNAtoo, much of which has been corroborated by HB and the testimony of @MidwestAnglican employees.

Mark Rivera was first arrested in June, 2019 on 9 counts of sexual assault and abuse of a child for allegedly abusing his 9-yr-old goddaughter. Since then, 14 additional reported survivors have come forward alleging grooming, sexual abuse, assault, child sexual abuse, and rape.

Two active criminal cases against Mark Rivera are currently pending in Kane County, Illinois. The following is a basic summary of how @MidwestAnglican leadership failed in their response to the initial allegations against Rivera. We have divided the examples into 8 categories.

1️⃣ Mandated Reporting Failures 🔸 Bp. Ruch, Rev. Rand York, Sr. Warden Chris Lapeyre, Can. William Beasley, and Chancellor Charles Philbrick learned of child sexual abuse allegations from a 9-yr-old child against Catechist Mark Rivera and failed to report to law enforcement.

🔸 Chan. Philbrick advised Rev. York that he was not a mandated reporter in this case: “Philbrick said he concluded that Fr. York had no reporting obligation because [redacted] the alleged abuse did not happen at a church event, ...

" ... and that Rivera lacked any role involving oversight over the child.” - HB pg 18 🔸 On May 18, 2019, Christ Our Light Anglican (COLA) church leaders informed the alleged child victim’s mother that the Chancellor for the Diocese had told them ...

... that they were not required to report her daughter's abuse to the authorities and that she did not need to report it either. - HB pg 19

“Lapeyre acknowledged that, during the initial May 18, 2019 joint meeting, he did tell [redacted] that she did not need to call the police in part because he was unsure of her desire to do so.” - HB pg 18

🔸 No one from COLA, @ChurchRez, @greenhousemove, or the @MidwestAnglican ever filed a report on behalf of the alleged child victim.

The child’s mother was left to report her daughter’s abuse on her own, over 48 hours after first informing church leaders, against direct and felt pressure from COLA leaders and members not to report Mark Rivera to the authorities.

🔸 On June 12, 2019, Rev. York emailed Bp. Ruch and other leaders to explain others had alleged sexual abuse by Mark Rivera. No reports were made to authorities. No one followed up with the individuals (both former @ChurchRez members who had been abused as minors) - HB pg 32

🔸 On June 16, 2019, the victim's mother alleges that @ChurchRez leaders Dcn. Valerie McIntyre and Meghan Robins were made aware of additional child sexual abuse allegations against Mark Rivera and likewise did not report the allegations. - HB pg 31

2️⃣ Failure to Believe the Initial Child Sexual Abuse Victim: 🔸 Rev. Rand York, priest of COLA (where Mark Rivera served as church catechist), made several statements expressing his opinion that Rivera had not engaged in the abusive conduct of which he was accused:

From Rev. York’s personal notes dated May 2019: “I believe Mark to be innocent of the accusation that is being made, but the charge itself is the most important thing at this point.” - HB pg 24

May 20, 2019, Rev. York emailed COLA and @ChurchRez leaders the following: “While I believe this entire accusation to be spurious (something has happened to this girl, but Mark is not the culprit), I fear however that this will spell the end of Christ Our Light.” - HB pg 24

May 29, 2019, Rev. Rand York stated in an email: “I believe Mark to be innocent. I would be stunned to find anything untoward with regard to his actions.” - HB pg 25

🔸 @MidwestAnglican Chancellor Charles Philbrick, who advised clergy they did not need to report the child’s abuse to DCFS, also admitted to not believing the child’s allegations.

The HB report states: “Philbrick described the allegations as hard to believe because the child was saying she was touched with her parents and siblings in the room.” - HB pg 24

🔸 On June 14, 2019, Rev. York emailed Bp. Ruch and other leaders regarding his desire to encourage the child victim’s family to withdraw their daughter’s abuse allegations against Mark Rivera:

“I have reached out to [redacted] for her to ask [the child victim’s family] if they would prefer to drop charges and resolve this another way (1 Corinthians 6:1-6). If [redacted] does reach out in that way, ...

"... then the response from [the child victim’s family], whatever it might be, will greatly inform everyone.” - HB pg 27-28 Bp. Ruch responded the next day with approval: “I am ok with this – as long as it is absolutely clear that [redacted] are receiving NO pressure from ...

" ... you or me – that is, the Church – to drop charges. As per the position of the Church and her ethical posture, they must follow their conscience.” - HB pg 28

🔸 Dcn. Valerie McIntyre, who provided pastoral care to the child victim’s family, described herself as one of the few individuals at the church who believed the child’s allegations from the outset. - HB pg 26

While Bp. Ruch claims to have remained “personally agnostic” regarding the accusations against Mark Rivera, he supported fellow church leaders who openly dismissed the child’s allegations as “spurious” and “hard to believe.” - HB pg 23

Bp. Ruch and his wife Katherine had a close personal connection to the Rivera family, which may have impacted their response to the alleged child victim’s allegations: “Specifically, McIntyre said that Katherine Ruch kindly took actions seeking to protect [redacted] ...

" ... out of a sense of spiritual responsibility and felt, at the time, that Katherine and Bishop Ruch might have been better off recusing themselves from decisions about communications given that personal interest.” - HB pg 36

3️⃣ Financial and Pastoral Support for the Alleged Abuser: 🔸 Bp. Ruch provided material financial support to Mark Rivera by designating $1000 from his personal discretionary fund:

“The email specifically stated Bishop Ruch was “authorizing $1000.00 from my discretionary fund to be spent on items in which Fr. Rand and Chris unanimously agree and thereby direct those funds.” - HB pg 27

Bishop Ruch admitted in his second interview with @HuschBlackwell that this award of funds left Fr. Rand and Lapeyre discretion to direct use of the funds, without any limit on use for any attorney fees Rivera might incur. - HB pg 27

🔸 Bp Ruch provided personal support for Mark Rivera and his family by attending Mark Rivera’s bond hearing in early June 2019. - HB pg 27

Bp. Ruch would later tell the victim’s parents that he prayed with and ministered to Mark Rivera’s family and other COLA members when he attended Mark’s bond hearing.

At the time of the hearing Bp. Ruch had made no attempt to contact the child victim or her family, despite the fact that the victim’s family was cut off from their church community, had no pastoral care or support then, and was unaware that Mark Rivera had even been arrested.

🔸 When two additional survivors later came forward with allegations of rape and sexual abuse against Mark Rivera in November of 2020, Bp. Ruch and his wife would personally visit Mark to pray for and minister to him at his home.

Bp. Ruch reportedly met with and prayed for Rivera a second time in-person around this same time. - HB pg 47 🔸 Bp. Ruch gave approval to church leaders, namely Chan. Philbrick, to help Rivera find an attorney to fight the sexual abuse allegations brought by the child victim.

🔸 Bp. Ruch, Charles Philbrick, Rev. York, Katherine Ruch, William Beasley, Brenda Dumper, and Christopher Lapeyre discussed options for helping Mark Rivera pay for legal representation to fight the sexual abuse report brought by the alleged child victim. - HB pg 27

🔸 @ChurchRez is reported by multiple sources to have made contributions to Mark Rivera’s rent while he was released on bond for charges of child sexual abuse.

🔸 @ChurchRez is additionally reported to have paid for professional counseling services for Mark Rivera’s family members, while equitable support was not provided to the child victim’s family.

4️⃣ Failure to Provide Support to the Child Victim’s Family: 🔸 On June 29, 2019, Bp. Ruch told the child victim’s parents that he could not minister personally to their family, because he needed to focus his time and energy on providing support and oversight to Fr. Rand York.

This stands in contrast to what Bp. Ruch reported to Husch Blackwell: “...he felt he needed to "stay in his lane" and provide pastoral care for the alleged victim and perpetrator.” - HB pg 24

🔸 Bp. Ruch offered $500 to the child victim’s family, but this support was never provided. 🔸 When the victim’s mother sought help from @ChurchRez to pay for professional counseling, she was told that the church would only contribute $500 towards counseling assistance.

🔸 COLA priest Rev. York promised the child victim’s parents that the church would pay for counseling for their daughter, but, after approving payment for her first four counseling sessions, COLA leaders stopped responding to the family’s messages requesting additional help.

🔸 The victim's infant brother was scheduled to be baptized in late May, 2019, but this was canceled by Rev. York within hours of the mother's report to police. - HB pg 25

🔸 Fr. York cut off contact with the victim’s family for several weeks, only emailing on June 26, 2019 to ask the child’s mother to resign from her position on the church vestry: “You do not currently attend Christ Our Light, and there is no indication of when you might begin...

" ... attending again. Because of this, but more importantly since these recent events can indeed be construed to be conflicts of interest, it would greatly simplify matters, and protect you as well, if you stepped down from your place on Vestry.”

🔸 While church leaders discussed possible avenues to raise financial support for Mark Rivera’s legal defense, the child victim’s family was only cared for and supported by Dcn. Valerie McIntyre:

Dcn. McIntyre reported to Husch Blackwell that she felt like she was the “lone person” trying to care for [the child victim’s mother] and her family while they were attending Church of the Resurrection. - HB pg 30

Dcn. McIntyre stated that a call with Rev. York “added to [her] awareness that [she] had very little by way of support in [her] attempt to serve [the child victim’s family].” - HB pg 26

5️⃣ Failure to Support Other Known Victims of Mark Rivera 🔸 Bp. Ruch was made aware in June 2019 of several additional allegations of sexual abuse against Mark Rivera and failed to reach out to or offer pastoral care or support to any of those reported survivors.

🔸 On June 12, 2019 Rev. York emailed Bp. Ruch and other church leaders to discuss additional sexual abuse allegations against Mark Rivera, which Rev. York had just been made aware of: “New this morning, [redacted] has told us that [redacted] has connected with [redacted]...

"... and [redacted] and that they have given statements to the police that Mark has abused them.” - HB pg 32 When asked if he did anything during the summer of 2019 to learn more about [redacted] concerns, Bishop Ruch said he did not. - HB pg 33

🔸 In early June 2019, the mother of a second Mark Rivera victim reports that she approached Katherine Ruch and informed her, in detail, of Mark Rivera’s alleged abuse of her minor daughter.

At that time, Katherine Ruch was included in the group email discussion between church leaders as they coordinated the church’s response to allegations against Mark Rivera. - HB pg 26

Despite Katherine Ruch knowing these details, no support was ever offered to this minor victim or her family, and no attempt was made by the church to reach out to other potential survivors of Mark Rivera.

“Will Chester, Youth Minister at @ChurchRez , also reported during his interview that there was not an effort to identify the young people from Rez who may have spent time at Big Rock to ensure that someone spoke to them in the summer of 2019.” - HB pg 23

🔸 Deacon Valerie McIntyre attempted to voice her concerns to church leadership about other potential victims of Mark Rivera, but her concerns were dismissed and unheeded:

“She said she raised concerns that there were teenagers at Big Rock who may have been abused, and specifically mentioned [redacted] and [redacted] but felt her concerns were dismissed in 2019.” - HB pg 32

“As noted above, McIntyre indicated that she advocated for outreach to other teens she considered at risk to determine if they had been subjected to any mistreatment by Rivera.” - HB pg 36

“McIntyre’s impression of the response to the concerns about [redacted] and [redacted] was that Fr. York seemed convinced of Rivera’s innocence and seemed to view the other girls as more of a danger to Rivera than he could have been to them.” - HB pg 32

“McIntyre said she felt like a broken record in asking the leadership group, “if this happened to [redacted] what about other young women?” - HB pg 34

6️⃣ Episcopal Oversight Failures: 🔸 Bp. Ruch oversaw and supported his priest, Rev. York, who was defending Rivera and casting doubt on the abuse allegations. Bp. Ruch openly expressed approval and pride in Rev. York’s handling of the situation, which included failure...

... to report child sexual abuse, telling the child’s mother she did not need to report the abuse to the authorities, cutting off contact with the family for weeks without any explanation to them, and sitting with and supporting Mark Rivera and his family at court hearings.

Bp. Ruch wrote the following on June 11, 2019 to various church leaders involved in overseeing the church’s response to these allegations: “Me–my focus is to support Fr Rand, especially, and [Lapeyre] as they provide the key pastoral and hands-on leadership. I am also ...

"... seeking to ensure that Resurrection is providing the needed pastoral care. I am also trying to be a "supply line" to these brothers on the front line by providing whatever learnings I can gain from legal experts, etc. Fr Rand and Chris: Fr Rand is the parish priest and ...

"... has the spiritual and pastoral authority in this situation. Chris as Sr Warden is partnering with Fr Rand in this. He is also very close to both families, especially the Riveras. l am looking to you two to do what you are already doing—pastoral care and practical help.

"... You are doing a superb job. I am proud of both of you.” - HB pp 26-27

🔸 Bp. Ruch failed to place any restrictions on Rivera’s attendance at COLA or @ChurchRez or his access to children at either church in the wake of numerous abuse allegations against him. Rivera attended COLA regularly and @ChurchRez at least once while out on bond release.

🔸 Bp. Ruch asked diocesan Chan. Philbrick to oversee the hiring of an investigative firm while knowing that Philbrick had wrongly told clergy that they didn’t need to report the alleged abuse, disbelieved the child’s abuse allegations, and provided legal support to Rivera.

Philbrick is reported to have told Anne Kessler (@MidwestAnglican employee asked to choose an investigative firm) not to listen to survivors even though survivors had carefully explained the most important elements of a safe and effective independent investigation. - HB pg 51

7️⃣ Failure to Notify Congregations of Allegations of Sexual Abuse for Two Years: 🔸 Bp Stewart Ruch waited two years to alert @ChurchRez and @MidwestAnglican members (many who regularly interacted with Rivera) about the numerous allegations of sexual abuse and grooming, as ...

... stated in his May 4, 2021 and June 29, 2021 public letters: May 4, 2021 public letter: “Let me say at the start that I made regrettable errors in this process. When the original allegation came out against Mark in 2019, I mistakenly assumed that the necessary criminal ...

"... investigation was a sufficient next step. I thought it best to let the county district attorney's office lead a thorough investigation resulting in a clear ruling. I anticipated that after this process we would inform the diocese of the court's ruling. I naively expected...

"... the trial to occur much sooner than it has. I have since learned otherwise, in part through conversations with one of the victims. I now understand that when an accusation of this gravity occurs, and when an arrest is made, a safe opportunity for other possible victims ...

"... to come forward must be created. I apologize for this, dear family of God. We would have cared better for the victims had we hired a firm earlier. My mistake accounts for the significant gap in time between Mark being accused of an offense and this communication to you.”

June 29, 2021 public letter: “I want to reiterate what I said several weeks ago, that I deeply apologize for not notifying the diocese earlier of the abuse that took place.”

🔸 Bp. Ruch and his wife were provided a detailed list of allegations against Mark Rivera in November of 2020 and failed to notify the church or diocese for an additional five and a half months...

despite knowing that Rivera had intentionally preyed on and abused children and young women from @ChurchRez and that the church at large had, thus far, not been informed of the allegations against Mark.

8️⃣ Lies, Half Truths, and Omissions: 🔸 In his May 4, '21 public letter, Bp. Ruch left out the existence of at least seven known alleged Rivera victims. Allegations included sexual abuse, grooming, indecent exposure, assault, and exposing minor children to pornography.

🔸 Of the few allegations he named in his May 4 letter, Bp. Ruch minimized two of them significantly, reducing 9 felony charges of predatory sexual assault of a child to “a sexual offense against a minor” and ...

... describing two instances of rape and months of psychological manipulation and coercive control as “a sexual crime.”

🔸 In this same announcement, Bp. Ruch excluded details of the many roles Mark Rivera previously held within @ChurchRez, minimizing Mark’s extensive history (over 2 decades) at the church and his long-term access to children and vulnerable adults there.

Nine of the eleven Mark Rivera survivors represented by ACNAtoo met Mark through @ChurchRez and attended church with him there.

🔸 The above public omissions diminished the gravity and seriousness of the situation and downplayed Bp. Ruch’s own failures in not alerting the church and diocese quickly.

The child victim’s mother emailed Bp. Ruch on May 5, 2021, and a second survivor contacted him on May 7, 2021, both requesting that these omissions and minimizations in his announcement be corrected:

Child victim’s mother: “I am concerned that the assertion you made about this creates a false picture and downplays the scope and seriousness of Mark’s behavior towards [redacted] and other victims at Rez and COLA. I also think it’s very important to clearly name the number...

"... of victims, what the actual allegations are, and expand on Mark’s involvement at Rez and with Rez families, so as not to minimize or downplay the gravity and seriousness of this situation, especially as it relates to Rez.”

Survivor 2: “I was glad to receive your letter to the Diocese and to read that you sent it to leadership across the Diocese for distribution. This is a really positive step. The four of us read your letter thoroughly and acknowledged many things we...

"... deeply appreciated about it. We have a handful of factual corrections and comments to share in response to it, but I realize you are fielding quite a lot this week, so I’ll only share Sunday-announcement-relevant thoughts at the moment.”

While Bp. Ruch responded to the child victim’s mother on May 5, 2021 with the following message, he failed to ever make any corrections to his public statement: Bp. Ruch: “Thank you for this very important email. I greatly appreciate you taking the time to outline...

"... with great detail and care the greater scope and seriousness of Mark's actions, and I can understand why you would make the requests you are making. I will work on this with our team as soon as possible. It may take some days before I can get back to you...

"... only because I need to gather team members and also fulfill some key family commitments this weekend. But I will start working on this tomorrow! And I will read your email through a few times more--and I will be praying.”

🔸 On July 4, 2021, Bp. Ruch used misleading wording in a private church FAQ meeting to imply that the church had not failed to report child sexual abuse. In this meeting, Bp. Ruch stated that the diocese learned that the child’s parents reported ...

... the allegations to the police, omitting that the diocese had learned of the abuse two days prior and that multiple church leaders, including himself, had failed their legal obligations as mandated reporters.

Additionally, Bp. Ruch stated that because the authorities had been contacted and a criminal investigation had started, and because Mark had been arrested by the time Bp. Ruch personally learned of the allegations, he felt no further action was needed at that time.

In contrast, the HB report states that Bp. Ruch learned of the alleged abuse on May 19, 2019, over 24 hours before Mark Rivera’s alleged abuse was reported to the authorities by the child victim’s mother and weeks before Rivera was arrested:

“On May 19, 2019, Fr. York spoke with Canon Beasley and then removed Rivera from the role of Catechist at COLA in a 7:54 a.m. email (copied to Canon Beasley, Bishop Ruch, Lapeyre, and Philbrick).” - HB pg 16

“Bishop Ruch confirmed learning about [redacted] report of allegations on Sunday, May 19, 2019 while he was traveling in Minnesota from an email from Fr. York.” - HB pg 18

🔸 At the same July 4, 2021 FAQ meeting, Bp. Ruch stated that he was told by and had assurance from pastoral staff that “we never knowingly denied anyone professional counseling.” Several weeks prior, on May 1, 2021, the child victim’s mother had written Bp. Ruch to ...

... explain how her family had been denied counseling support by @ChurchRez after paying out of pocket for an expensive counseling intake session. After reading this letter and responding to the child’s mother with apparent care and concern, Bp. Ruch should have known that...

his statement in the FAQ meeting was untrue and deliberately misleading. Excerpt from a May 1, 2021 email to Bp. Ruch from the child victim’s mother: “In November of 2019 I reached out to Deacon Val at an extremely painful and difficult time and asked if Rez could help me ...

"... get some counseling. Val said absolutely, and gave me a counseling referral right away, assuring me that Rez would be happy to help and encouraging me to schedule an appointment immediately. I did, and paid $250 out of pocket the following week to meet with the therapist ...

"... Val referred me to. When I followed up with Val the day after my appointment, to ask how we could go about getting reimbursed and how we should arrange payment for future sessions, she said she could only offer me $500 towards counseling ($250 of which I had already ...

"... spent). As I could not afford to pay for that therapist out of pocket I did not schedule any additional sessions, and never even received reimbursement for the $250 I paid for the first session.”

Additionally, survivor/advocate Eve Ahrens had previously emailed Rez Dcn. Valerie McIntyre and Bp. Ruch on Dec. 10, 2020 to ask for assistance helping Joanna Rudenborg obtain affordable counseling services. Eve’s email never received a response.

🔸 Bp. Ruch implied in his July 4, 2021 FAQ meeting that whenever the church received information from someone regarding an inappropriate interaction with Mark Rivera, they were encouraged to contact the authorities.

He went on to state that, in the case of anyone who is or was a minor at the time of interaction, the church reported this to DCFS. This statement ignores several Mark Rivera survivors (many of them minors) that the church was informed about in June 2019.

None of these survivors were ever contacted by the church or encouraged to report their abuse to the authorities, and no reports were made on their behalf by the church.

One victim’s mother reports personally informing Bp. Ruch’s wife, Katherine Ruch, in June 2019, that Mark Rivera had groomed and sexually abused her minor daughter. This mother was never encouraged to contact the authorities, ...

... her family was offered no support from the church (despite having previously been @ChurchRez members for years), and no report was made on her daughter’s behalf by church leaders.

🔸 Helen Keuning (then a senior member of the @MidwestAnglican Bishop's Council reports being told, on multiple occasions, that “someone” from the church or diocese had reported the initial allegations of child sexual abuse to the authorities. acnatoo.org/acna-witnesses/bc-resignation-reason01

Multiple requests for police and DCFS records by the child victim’s parents have confirmed that no one, apart from the child’s mother, ever reported this child’s abuse to the authorities.

In light of these facts, what is your response? @The_ACNA members, are you okay with with how this situation in @MidwestAnglican was handled? You have a choice now in how you choose to respond to the information you have been given. Silence is not neutral.