The Third Charge - Sexual Misconduct re WS

The third 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 WS. 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 WS. WS attended a food drive at St. Andrews Episcopal Church in Birmingham where Respondent was the Rector. WS received a sack lunch. WS met Respondent and told him about his financial problems. Respondent invited WS to his home to do yard work for $100 on or about November 7, 2020. WS followed Respondent home from church. Respondent paid to fill up WS’ gas tank on the way. When they arrived at Respondent’s home, Respondent asked WS how he was and said he looked tense. Respondent rubbed his shoulder and then took WS to the back bedroom where WS removed his shirt for the back rub. After five (5) minutes respondent asked him to remove his pants and underwear to rub his buttocks. WS further swore that “when his finger penetrated a bit and he asked for a taste so I got up a left.” WS viewed Respondent as a pastor and his acts were unwelcome. WS went to the police and filed a report stating the facts in his own writing. A warrant for the crime of Sexual Misconduct was issued by a judge against Respondent on November 9, 2020. WS decided he did not want to put himself through a process in which he would have to confront him again. On February 18, 2021 the case was dismissed on request of the victim on payment of court costs.

Church Exs 7, 12, and 13 were considered as proof of this charge.

Despite the lack of a live witness and the fact the criminal case was dismissed at WS’ request, the evidence is undisputed and consistent with those of the first three (3) complainants, including the pastoral relationship, financial inducements, and age difference.

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 WS.

The Fourth Charge - Conduct Unbecoming a Member of the Clergy re KC’s Husband

The fourth charge, made pursuant to Canon IV.2, is that Respondent, a member of the clergy, failed to refrain from any disorder or neglect that prejudices the reputation, good order and discipline of the Church, or any conduct of a nature to bring material discredit upon the Church or the Holy Orders conferred by the Church, specifically his relationship with KC’s husband.

“Conduct Unbecoming a Member of the Clergy” is defined under Canon IV.2 to mean any disorder or neglect that prejudices the reputation, good order and discipline of the Church, or any conduct of a nature to bring material discredit upon the Church or the Holy Orders conferred by the Church.

In June 2017 the Rev. Marc Burnette, Rector of Canterbury Chapel Episcopal Church and Student Center, received communication from KC that Respondent, then serving as Curate at Canterbury Chapel Episcopal Church and Student Center, had been involved in an “inappropriate communication” with KC’s husband. KC indicated that she was contemplating taking legal action based on Respondent's conduct. Neither KC nor her husband was a member of Canterbury Chapel (See Church Ex 19 - Email from Burnette to Morpeth).

Burnette testified that Respondent had first encountered the individual with whom the inappropriate communication had occurred through Canterbury Chapel’s food pantry called Deacon’s Deli. Email communications primarily between Burnette and KC prove that Burnette attempted repeatedly to set up a meeting with the complainant without success. (See Church Ex 20 - Emails between Burnette and KC).

Burnette had a conversation with Respondent explaining the nature of the complaint and advising him that such conduct was inappropriate and placed Canterbury Chapel in a dangerous position with regard to the possibility of legal action. Burnette then instructed Respondent to contact the Bishop Diocesan, regarding the inappropriate communication and the ensuing complaint. In Church Ex 3 - the Amended Terms of Administrative Leave January 14, 2021, the Bishop Diocesan noted that Respondent “was counseled” by Burnette “and agreed to contact the Bishop and share the information as to what had occurred. No information was subsequently provided to the Bishop by the Rev. Watkins.” (Emphasis added).

The Hearing Panel recognizes the disturbing nature of a clergy member’s blatant disregard of the “solemn and public covenant” (Book of Common Prayer, p. 422) between a married couple, and the detrimental effect such disregard is bound to have on the mission and ministry of the Episcopal Church, locally and nationally. It is the privilege and duty of ordained bishops and presbyters of the Episcopal Church to witness and pronounce God’s blessing on the marital union. For a member of the clergy to violate that privilege and duty, to act in opposition to the blessing of God on such a matrimonial union, would certainly be considered Conduct Unbecoming of a Member of the Clergy, at the very least.

The evidence is primarily hearsay without any sworn testimony in person or by affidavit. See Church Exhibits 3,19 and 20.

The Hearing Panel finds that there is not clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent failed to refrain from any disorder or neglect that prejudices the reputation, good order and discipline of the Church, or any conduct of a nature to bring material discredit upon the Church or the Holy Orders conferred by the Church, specifically his relationship with KC’s husband.