Bishop Ruch Trial Prosecutor Resigns

A difficult moment for ACNA

Sunday nights tend to be rather slow when it comes to news, but not for the Anglican Church in North America. Archbishop Wood issued a letter stating that the Prosecutor in the ongoing trial of Bishop Ruch had resigned. But not much more was said at the time.

This Monday morning, the Archbishop issued a fuller letter as well as a letter from the ACNA Chancellor and the resignation letter from the Prosecutor, Alan Runyan.

The Chancellor advised, “It is important to observe that the case has not been dismissed and remains an active matter before the Court. It is therefore important for all concerned to exercise care and discretion in what is said publicly. The integrity of the disciplinary process, the rights of all involved, and our commitment to truth and justice require that we refrain from speculation or commentary that could affect the ongoing proceedings.”

That is good advice I intend to follow. So I will be restrained in my comments. I encourage those interested to read the letters for yourself.

Archbishop Wood's first letter last night.

Archbishop Wood's letter this morning.

The ACNA Chancellor's letter.

Prosecutor Alan Runyan's resignation letter.

Mr. Runyan’s letter is in a format that I cannot readily copy and paste. But the issue that prompted him to resign was mainly this:

…a lengthy line of questioning was begun and developed by a member of the Court. This questioning drew upon material this Court member reviewed that was not in evidence before the Court…

The Court member’s statements and questions put the integrity of the investigate process at issue in these proceedings despite the Court’s prior ruling that those inquiries were improper.

I’m not a lawyer, but I will venture the following observations.

First, to use evidence in a trial that has not been admitted as evidence is just not done. If Runyan’s assertion is accurate, that Court member was out of line and did put Runyan and the rest of the Court in a difficult position.

At the same time — and here I am reading between the lines — it appears that Bishop Ruch and his lawyers wanted to bring the investigative process into question in this trial. If so, this non-lawyer has difficulty seeing why he should not have been allowed to do so. I know mine is not mainstream legal thought, but I think few limits should be put on how defendants are allowed to defend themselves against charges in court. I will leave it at that as the trial and much of the lead up to it has been in private, and I am not going to assume what I do not know.

Which leads to another concern — transparency in ACNA. That the recent (and unrelated to the trial) Provincial Council was not livestreamed and that this trial is being held in private does not help dispel the perception that ACNA has a transparency problem. I note that even though I understand the privacy of this trial. The privacy of victims and of vulnerable witnesses should be given weight. To balance the need to protect them with the need for transparency is no easy matter.

At the same time, Archbishop Wood was wise to be quick to release the letters this morning. In addition, I hope that when the trial is over, a transcript is released redacted of the names of victims and witnesses.

Finally and sadly, ACNAtoo and Julie Roys will surely go to town on this mess. I do not and will not treat them as legitimate sources and advise readers to have the same policy.

Pray for a just trial and for ACNA. We need it.