Sounds like a strong example to have sexual abuse policies in place that encourage anyone who experiences sexual abuse to report it.  When such policies are active, it would be very difficult for a person to wait 20 years before making an accusation.

My sympathy goes out to Rev. Woodall, but regret his decision to pay the extortion at first.  I am puzzled by the decision of the crown to drop the extortion charge.

There is too much I don't know to make any guess about guilt or innocence.

Quite so. As it is, this decision is almost as bad for the church as would be a guilty verdict. The church should really launch its own enquiry - and make it as public as possible.

The UCCan policy is clear that the churhc process does not begin until any criminal case is concluded.  ANd there are strict limits on what "public" means in these instances.

Hi Jim Kenney,

Agreed.  I understand his rationale.  The optics are damning.  That said, in a situation where you are damned if you do and damned if you don't do what the processes tell you to do.

It is a puzzler.  Usually indicates lack of confidence in getting a conviction.  Which combines with the optics of paying the bribe to cast a serious shadow.

That probably will not change much.  Lower threshholds in the burden of proof in the Church processes mean David may not be vindicated by the Church as easily as he was by a court of law.

Grace and peace to you.

John

I do not understand this. I thought  extortion charges can be laid regardless if the victim did or did not do what the extortionist accused him of. 

I suspect that the loan and the  agreement that was sighned has something to do with it/ as oipposed to facts that would or would not indicate that the abuse happened.

I also wonder if the UCC has a support program for people who have been abused by church leaders. Usually churches only provide suport for the accused, (guilty or not)

Hi Alex,

Charges of extortion were laid.  Those charges were also withdrawn.  That typically means that the Crown has insufficient evidence to take the case to trial.

Well the loan agreement and the document indicate that something happened.  Possibly the Crown did not feel that either indicated that extortion actually happened.  The issue of abuse happening or not happening would not be relevant to the extortion charges and subsequent trial.

They impact upon the optics of the procedings.

David, knowing the policy acts contrary to the policy and pays what?  An extortion fee or hush money?  The trial didn't happen so we don't know.  The common assumption will be that David was paying a victim to be quiet.

As far as the jury is concerned those optical hazards did not constitute proof of David sexually assaulting or interfereing with the two men.

In a civil trial, and indeed in the review that the UCCAN must now launch the burden of proof will have a lower thresh-hold.  In those courts the optics may matter more than they did in the criminal proceedings.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Hi Alex,

I am not aware of one.

Individual congregations may provide support for some.  It is not a policy of the Church as far as I know.

Anecdotal evidence of clergy who have been charged with similar crimes indicates that support from the Church evaporates pretty quickly.

The Clergy Support Network exists because many Clergy who go through various review have not felt supported in anyway by the denominations they serve.

Emend your statement to "unusually churches provide support" and you are probably closer to the truth.

Grace and peace to you.

John

My understanding of the policy is that the churhc is supposed to provide, or help to access, support to the person making the allegations/persons who have been harmed.  That person may choose not to accept that support, depending on his or her relationship with/trust of the church.  This can take many different forms.

We are all speaking with at least a hint that the clergyman involved is guilty. I suppose that's understandable - but surely   wrong, and damaging to everyone in the long run.

I should think the church must conduct a convincing ingestigation and, if there has been wrongdoing, then offer help to both sides.

It's complicated. We do not have all the information. It is possible he is guilty, but it is also possible that he is not. It is also possible the accusers are lieing or are not. It could also be a honest mistake. The second accuser in his testamnoy did not claim to see the minister, only that while he was sleeping (or trying to sleep) a hand, of an adult size reached down his shorts and touch him.  So it could also be that neither accused or victims are lieing but that a third adult was involved.  The first accuser could also supressed the memory if he was more fearful of the abuser,  if it was family, or a family friend for example.

That said the case brings up many questions, that can be discussed. However since we are not in a place to judge, becasue we do not have the facts (two different newspapers that I have read actually have minor differences in what the accused said for example)

 Further it is obvious that sevral poster here know the accused, and I suspect after looking at his picture, that it is possibly a former participant on WC.

So in discussing this case, I am interested in all of the related issues that are raised. Issues raised if the minister is guilty, or issues raised if the minister is inncocent. or....

For me, these issues are actually seperate from the question of the ministyer being guilty.

Sexual abuse of children has long been hidden, and many  are afraid to talk about it, or we do not know how to. However it is something that does need to be talked about so that we are better prepared to deal with it today than we were in the past. Even if all that we can learn is how to talk about it when someone is accused.

Which given the courts found him not guilty...and the tone of this thread, you can understand why someone would pay someone to go away.

Quite so.

Above all, I think we have to remember we  have obligations, in any case, to both sides in this.

 I do not think being accused is enough to want to pay off someone. I would think that other things are involved. Even a guilty person should undertsand that giving into blackmail will not work., In other cases accused people more often  revert to character assassination of the accuser.  Charactor assassination of the "victim" is a common technique of abusers in the Catholic sex abuse scandal. It is certain a more common techniqgue than paying the "vistim" to remain quiet.

Other situations in the accused life however might make a person (innocent or guilty) pay blackmail.  For example conditions such as MS, or illnesses such as Cancer and it's treatment can make a person feel weak, alone and vunerable to blackmail. Along with other illness that cause neurological impairments, along with other events, like a bad marriage, one or more deaths in the family affect the self in many ways. And to me, making a mistake by paying blackmail is not in the same league as abusing a child. paying blackmail, does not indicate guilt, and is a seperate issue, and  aless serious issue IMHO, than abusing a child, or making false allegations of abuse.

We need not make people feel that they are using the wrong tone, or acting in other inaprobiate ways, when we have such little experience about talking about such cases.  People who are falsely accused are not served by shutting down consversations,  Some will believ anyone accused is always guilty, while some as demonstrated in many cases in the Catholic church will nevr believe the accused is guilty, regardless of the evidence. Howevr that does not mean they need not particpate in discussing the issues, nor is it by itslef  justification for paying blackmail.

Alex, i wouldn't presume, and I am surprised you would. 

Actually the guilt or innocence is irrelevant to the question of providing Pastoral support to ALL parties -- David, his partner and family, the congregation involved, the staff at that Conference Office, and the accusers (for lack of a better term in the world of unproven allegations).  And that is a responsibility the church has no matter what the end result is.

I am only human,'

'

Hi graeme,

I haven't spoken at all to David's guilt or innocence.  I have only spoken to the optics of his behaviour and speculated that while such optics did not prevent a jury in a criminal trial from finding him innocent they may prevent a Church review and Civil trial from arriving at the same conclusion.

At this point the only thing resolved for David are the criminal charges.  There is no reason to think that simply because he has been found innocent in a criminal trial that the same verdict will be returned in the civil and church courts that are yet to convene.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Oh, I understood your point, revjohn. I was thinking of the popular perception which is sure to follow.

And I quite agree with GordW on the breadth of the church's responsibility.

I will not speak on this specific case, I am too closely connected in a game of Six Degrees of Separation or "it's a small world". 

Whenever we talk about court cases and accusations, we would do well to remember both that Liberace won against a newspaper that called him a homosexual and that David Milgaard served 20+ years.

As well we did not have the live coverage that OJ Simpson had, nor a thousand different journalists covering his trial.

So while we actually have little to go on.

What it does provide is the opportunity to discuss, or learn to discuss issues that need to, including how to deal with accusations when the people involved are only 1 or 2 degrees of sepration away.  

One  of the reason that many suspect behaviour or suspected crimes go unreported. Many people just shut down, or claim up not wanting to offend. "My neighbour was a nice guy, my brother could not do that, my child would never" , so we often  do not discuss  suspicious behaviour with others." 

Alex,

As a former sexual assault worker, I know how to discuss such things.

If you have not noticed, I am always open to discussing what gets swept under rugs, whether it is porn or incest or you-name-it.

It is a matter of this not simply a topic for me.

I know when to speak and when to be silent. It is knowing when you are too closely connected, too involved, too biased, etc.... to be anything close to impartial (I would have been challenged/tossed from a jury pool by BOTH sides).

I cannot and will not discuss this specific case.

The verdict stands. Not guilty. As for the church process, that will be for the church to determine. A Formal Hearing may follow, or the United Church may leave it alone. It will be for the relevant presbytery to decide, I believe.

While I understand yoiur posiition, and how in our society that is the correct thing to do. However none of us are addressing the issue of whether or not the person accused is guilty, but about the issues that are raised by it and how the relates to other cases as well as this case regardless of the inncoence or guilt of people involved.

That speaks to your expertise of dealing with surviors,, not on discussing  it when you have a family member, friend or coworker accused

What "should" happen is the Sexual Abuse/Harrassment/Pastoral Sexual Misconduct Policies kick in.  Consultants assigned to "interpret" the policy for the complaintants and respondant.  An investigator assigned and an investigation carried out.  The investigation to determine if there is sufficient reason/grounds for a formal hearing to take place (the 'not guilty' verdict would be one of those factors to be taken into consideration. 

Alex,

Interpretation matters in this situation, in part due to my proximity to this one.

Example- X says that A should not have given anyone money.
Someone interprets that statement to mean that X sees it is a sign of A's guilt.

Y says that the B cannot recall specific details.
Someone interprets that statement to mean that B is lying or that A is innocent.

Neither were said. It is easy to believe they were said when it is what you want or need to hear.
 

It is not something I am willing to do or risk. The people mean too much to me to risk misinterpretation.

I also would not appreciate folks talking about the greater topics or implications using me as their diving off point. I say, if we want to talk about this and what will happen now with regards to  the church, "have at it". If we want to discuss allegations, sexual abuse, etc... anything we might say may infer or imply something regarding those involved in this case. So, I say "no thanks".

Alex, as to whether I am capable of discussing things that are not professional and are more personal, volunteers working in domestic violence and sexual assault are very often themselves survivors. One would not be considered healed enough to even volunteer if they could not speak of their own "stuff". I was not simply a volunteer. I was made a paid employee. Rest assured, I can talk about skeletons others prefer left in closets, even when it is a family closet or my own.

SG - thank you for your candidness, both in this thread and others. You have revealed so much of your life story on this board, much more than most of us do, and I appreciate it. I honour and respect your decision not to speak any more on this particular case, knowing that you have much wisdom to offer us in future conversations on other, similar, topics.

Just to reaffirm Jim's point - if the church proceeds there is a process.

Staying charges as David said says nothing more than the crown was not conviced it could get a judgement or enough evidence to proceed. 

There are support systems for all see Jim;s post.  Yet, it does not always work. In one presbytery I was in a minister was charged and except for some ministers there was no real support, in part, his cong was still an independent ( liberal) church that did not come into  union.  The judge throw out the case because the person accusing was found to be making it all up. The judge actually asked the crown to see if there was a charge to be made on the accuse.  it took some time before the minister could get another call, but he did.

Panentheism,

For clarity, in this case there were charges laid and there was a jury trial and a jury deliberated. They returned a not guilty verdict.

Yes I know this - it was the jury. The case I spoke about is the judge threw it out before it got to the jury.

The other point is what James points to - what next in the church context could be a possible action. The not guilty might be enough to stop the church process. but as James points out there is a whole church sexual harassment process which is not related to the courts of law.  In our presbytery there was one case of a complaint which then put into process what Jim outlines.  It is unrelated to the legal courts.

For reference, the Sexual Abuse Prevention and Response Policy and Procedure book is available at this link:

http://www.united-church.ca/files/handbooks/sexualabuse.pdf

(in the Handbooks section of the United Church website)

This was updated in April 2011 (make sure the office/pastoral charge/ministry site has this most recently updated version) to reflect feedback from an earlier version; the changes were made with regard to the 'procedure' to follow.