The Sixth Charge - Sexual Misconduct re CT

The sixth 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 CT.

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 CT in 2017 at Happening. CT was sixteen (16) years old then. (DOB 08/07/01). Also that year CT attended the Diocesan Christmas Conference at Camp McDowell. While at camp CT made his first confession. The priest who heard that confession, Respondent, was a priest he trusted. CT was interested in social work and told Respondent who shared that interest and agreed to be his guide, offering counseling.

In 2018 at the Diocesan Rites of Spring event at Camp McDowell, Respondent connected again with CT. They began texting and that continued even though CT was no longer involved in any program with Respondent. While a student at Auburn University, CT received texts from Respondent, suggesting Respondent come visit CT, asking about sleeping arrangements, stating he did not mind sharing a space. Respondent called CT his “special friend” and “special project.” Respondent told CT he would “hug and kiss” him when he saw CT. CT became uncomfortable and ceased contact with Respondent.

The evidence proves that Respondent engaged in sexual behavior with CT a person with whom Respondent had a Pastoral Relationship. This fits the pattern of sexual misconduct behavior in Charges 1, 2, and 3. Further, the testimony of CT, Crystal Jones, and the Rev. Corey Jones directly support these facts. Church Exs 8,16, and 17 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 CT.

Decision as to All Charges

The Hearing Panel concludes that Respondent violated Title IV, Canon 4, Section 1(h)(1) and (9) of the Canons of the Episcopal Church, concerning four (4) different people and that Respondent violated the terms of the Administrative Leave issued by the Bishop Diocesan under Title IV, Canon 7.

By its very nature, the process by which the Hearing Panel reaches those conclusions has entailed careful, detailed, and prayerful consideration of facts, positions, contentions, testimony and documents; it is not a simple parsing of canons.

The Hearing Panel finds that all five (5) of the offenses committed by Respondent are “material and substantial or of clear and weighty importance to the Ministry of the Church.” Canon IV.3.3.

The Hearing Panel further finds that Respondent has not proven any procedural violations. Moreover, Respondent’s allegations, even if they had been proven, are procedural, and would not and did not cause material or substantial injustice to be done or seriously prejudice Respondent’s rights. Canon IV.19.28. The Hearing Panel accordingly overrules these “objections.”

Remedies

Under the Canons the Hearing Panel’s task is not simply to determine whether Respondent has violated the Canons. The Panel is also charged with fashioning an appropriate remedy. The Hearing Panel has broad authority. Canon IV.14.6 specifically states:

An Order issued by a Conference Panel or Hearing Panel may

(a) provide any terms which promote healing, repentance, forgiveness, restitution, justice, amendment of life and reconciliation among the Complainant, Respondent, affected Community and other persons;

(b) place restrictions on the Respondent's exercise of ministry;

(c)recommend to the Bishop Diocesan that the Respondent be admonished, suspended or deposed from ministry;

(d) limit the involvement, attendance or participation of the Respondent in the Community; or

(e) any combination of the foregoing.

The Hearing Panel has prayerfully considered all available remedies. Given the serious nature of each offense, the numerous known violations, and the pattern and practice of the offenses, it is the unanimous decision of the Hearing Panel that

1. In The First Charge - Sexual Misconduct re TW - recommend to the Bishop Diocesan that the Respondent be deposed from ministry;

2. In The Second Charge - Sexual Misconduct re DK - recommend to the Bishop Diocesan that the Respondent be deposed from ministry;

3. In The Third Charge - Sexual Misconduct re WS - recommend to the Bishop Diocesan that the Respondent be deposed from ministry;

4. In The Fifth Charge - Violation of Administrative Leave Termsrecommend to the Bishop Diocesan that the Respondent be deposed from ministry;