DECISIONS ON THE CHARGES

Throughout this proceeding and pursuant to Canons IV.19.16Presumption of Innocence and IV.19.17 - Burden of Proof, the Hearing Panel has presumed that Respondent did not commit any of the offenses with which he is charged, and required the Church Attorney to carry his burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence, as defined in Canon IV.2 and required by Canon IV.19.16. The Hearing Panel concludes that in five (5) of the charges, the Church Attorney has proven the facts by clear and convincing evidence and carried his burden of proof as required and defined in Canons IV.2, IV.19.16, and IV.19.17. The Hearing Panel now makes the following decisions.

The First Charge - Sexual Misconduct re TW

The first charge, made pursuant to Canon IV.4.1(h)(1), is that Respondent, a member of the clergy, failed to refrain from any act of sexual misconduct involving TW.

“Sexual Misconduct” is defined under Canon IV.2. to mean

(a) Sexual Abuse,

(b) Sexual Behavior engaged in by the Member of the Clergy with a person for whom the Sexual Behavior is unwelcome or who does not consent to the Sexual Behavior, or by force, intimidation, coercion or manipulation, or

(c) Sexual behavior at the request of, acquiesced to or by a Member of the Clergy with an employee, volunteer, student or counselee of that Member of the Clergy or in the same congregation as the Member of the Clergy, or a person with whom the Member of the Clergy has a Pastoral Relationship.

“Sexual Behavior” is defined under Canon IV.2 to mean any physical contact, bodily movement, speech, communication or other activity sexual in nature or that is intended to arouse or gratify erotic interest or sexual desires.

“Pastoral Relationship” is defined under Canon IV.2 to mean any relationship between a Member of the Clergy and any person to whom the Member of the Clergy provides or has provided counseling, pastoral care, spiritual direction or spiritual guidance, or from whom such Member of the Clergy has received information within the Rite of Reconciliation of a Penitent.

Respondent was a member of the clergy in the Episcopal Diocese of Alabama when he met and knew TW. Respondent was the Chaplain at Sawyerville and TW was on staff there at the same time. There was a pastoral relationship between Respondent and TW. Respondent provided financial assistance to TW. In 2020 Respondent invited TW to his home in the Diocese of Alabama to deal with a financial issue. While TW was in the Respondent’s home, Respondent offered to massage TW and indicated an interest in engaging in a sexual act with TW. Respondent engaged in sexual behavior with TW, a person for whom the sexual behavior was unwelcome. Respondent engaged in sexual behavior with TW, a person with whom Respondent had a pastoral relationship. Respondent admitted “that he had a romantic interaction with a person with whom he had an established pastoral relationship, and on two conversations with other male staff members in the Sawyerville program.” [Sic] (See Church Ex 2 - Terms of Administrative Leave November 12, 2020). Further, the testimony of TW, Kathleen Franklin, the Rev. Rob Morpeth, Crystal Jones, the Rev. Corey Jones, and the Rt. Rev. Glenda Curry directly support these facts. Church Exs 2,4, 5, 6A, 9,10, 11, 12, 16, 17, and 21A through 21E were also considered as proof of this charge.

The Hearing Panel finds that there is clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent violated the Canons by failing to refrain from any act of sexual misconduct involving TW.

The Second Charge - Sexual Misconduct re DK

The second charge, made pursuant to Canon IV.4.1(h)(1), is that Respondent, a member of the clergy, failed to refrain from any act of sexual misconduct involving DK.

The definitions of “Sexual Misconduct,” “Sexual Behavior,” and “Pastoral Relationship” can be found under the First Charge and in Canon IV.2.

Respondent was a member of the clergy in the Episcopal Diocese of Alabama when he met and knew DK. Respondent was the Chaplain at Sawyerville and DK was on staff there at the same time. There was a pastoral relationship between Respondent and DK. Respondent provided financial assistance to DK. In 2020 Respondent invited DK to his home in the Diocese of Alabama to deal with a financial issue. While DK was in the Respondent’s home, Respondent offered to massage DK and indicated an interest in engaging in a sexual act with DK. Respondent engaged in sexual behavior with DK, a person for whom the sexual behavior was unwelcome. Respondent engaged in sexual behavior with DK, a person with whom Respondent had a Pastoral Relationship.

Respondent admitted “that he had a romantic interaction with a person with whom he had an established pastoral relationship, and on two conversations with other male staff members in the Sawyerville program.” [Sic] (See Church Ex 2 - Terms of Administrative Leave November 12, 2020). Further, the testimony of DK, Kathleen Franklin, the Rev. Rob Morpeth, Crystal Jones, the Rev. Corey Jones, and the Rt. Rev. Glenda Curry directly support these facts. Church Exs 2,4, 5, 9,10, 11, 12, 16, 17, and 21A through 21E were also considered as proof of this charge.

The Hearing Panel finds that there is clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent violated the Canons by failing to refrain from any act of sexual misconduct involving DK.