Abusive Clergy Misconduct In The UUA and CUC
Based on my own bitter personal experience I have very serious doubts about how responsibly the Unitarian Universalist religious community, especially the Unitarian Universalist Association and the Canadian Unitarian Council, responds to abusive clergy misconduct of various kinds including, but by no means limited too. . . clergy sexual misconduct. In spite of an official "Restorative Justice" UUA Apology to past victims of clergy sexual misconduct, a so-called Safe Congregations program, and various other UUA and CUC programs, official UUMA guidelines, UUMA Code of Professional Practice, "church" by-laws, and other "guidelines" and policies that at least try to give the appearance that Unitarian Universalists are ready, willing, and able to prevent abusive clergy misconduct, or deal responsibly with it when it actually arises there are clear indications that these fine words are effectively rendered meaningless when a UU minister actually abuses the trust, authority, and power invested in him or her.
Over the years I have heard various highly credible reports about how sexual misconduct and other forms of abusive clergy misconduct perpetrated by UU clergy, including clergy misconduct on the part of some "unmentionable" UU ministers who were, and even still are. . . top level UUA officials and publicly prominent Unitarian Universalist clergy, is tolerated, condoned, and even effectively endorsed while the victims are "left lonely, confused, afraid, angry and betrayed. Un-ministered to." In spite of all the fine words spoken and written in official apologies, UUA and CUC Safe Congregation policies and programs, and so-called Disruptive Behavior Policy, etc. etc. it seems clear that these fine words are often left by the wayside if and when abusive clergy misconduct actually occurs.
This is most certainly true of my own very well documented case that involved non-sexual psychologically and otherwise abusive clergy misconduct on the part of Rev. Ray Drennan of the Unitarian Church of Montreal. More about that later. . . Of course a free and responsible search for the truth and meaning of my own case of psychologically abusive clergy misconduct, and of course other forms of abusive clergy misconduct, in various internet search engines such as Google, Google Groups, Yahoo!, MSN Search, All The Web and other useful internet search engines will turn up no shortage of existing material in spite of ongoing efforts by various leaders of the Unitarian Universalist religious community, including but by no means limited to. . . UU clergy and UU WORLD editors, to cover-up and deny my own and other UUs' internet whistle-blowing by "memory holing" or otherwise censoring and suppressing our attempts to expose and denounce not only the abusive clergy misconduct itself but the negligent, effectively complicit, and at times outright punitive (towards he victim that is. . .) responses of the individual Unitarian Universalis churches involved, the Unitarian Universalist Association and its aptly named Ministerial Fellowship Committee, and the Canadian Unitarian Council etc.
A recent post on Rev. Scott Wells' 'Boy In The Bands' blog reassures me that my "obviously deep concerns" about ongoing UU tolerance of abusive clergy misconduct, inadequate or negligently and complicitly unenforced clergy guidelines such as the UUMA Code of Professional Practice and UUMA Guidelines for the Conduct of Ministry etc., "church" bylaws, Safe Congregations policies, and indeed Disruptive Behavior policies. . . and various other forms of protection of "sleezy (but non-criminal) clergy" (to say nothing of the possible protection of actually criminal UU clergy. . .) are well founded and need to be responsibly addressed by the Unitarian Universalist religious community.
Rev. Scott Wells says, "Current clergy guidelines and attitudes protect sleezy (but non-criminal) clergy with a veil of silence and fog of frustration." I must point out that it is not just clergy attitudes that protect "sleezy" and indeed abusive UU clergy (although I have encountered plenty of that kind of "bad attitude" from UU clergy including, most ironically, Rev. Scott Wells himself. . .) but the DIM Thinking bad attitude of UU lay leaders such as the Boards of the "churches" where the abusive clergy misconduct arises, the fellow congregants of the victim, non-clergy UUA and CUC officials and staff, such as CUC Presidents and senior editors of the UU WORLD magazine etc., who turn willfully deaf ears and willfully blind eyes towards the victims reports of abusive clergy misconduct but even attempt to actively silence the victims and ignorantly and even maliciously discredit their claims of clergy misconduct and abuse. Unitarian Universalists at all levels of the denomination, not just UU clergy but ordinary UU "church" members and UUA and CUC Presidents effectively protect "sleezy" and abusive UU clergy with a "veil of silence and fog of frustration." Unitarian Universalists from ordinary UU "church" members right up to at least one UUA President. . . engage in "victim blaming" and attempt to intimidate and threaten victims of abusive clergy misconduct into silence.
Rev. Scott Wells writes - I’ve talked with other ministers about X who somehow escapes censure and keeps a good name by skirting the edge of the rule, and in this case, I suspect past it. Certainly past what most people would consider decent. But time, effort, and hard proof are wanting.
This may be so however in the case of Rev. Ray Drennan of the Unitarian Church of Montreal who somehow escaped censure at all levels of the denomination right up until his recent "early retirement". . . I have put in plenty of time and effort to expose and denounce not only his abusive clergy misconduct but the negligent and complicit responses to my complaint by the Unitarian Church of Montreal, the Canadian Unitarian Council, the Unitarian Universalist Association and its aptly named Ministerial Fellowship Committee. There is no shortage of "hard evidence" in this particular case, on the contrary it is very well documented and I have posted most of the hard evidence onto the internet over the years, yet Rev. Ray Drennan escaped censure and indeed accountablity because, to quote Rev. Brian Kopke of the First Unitarian Congregation of Ottawa. . . "Nobody did anything." Actually UUs did plenty but they "did it" to the victim, i.e. yours truly, for daring to live up to Rev. Charles Eddis' purloined words that proclaim Unitarians "jealously guard the right to know, to speak, and to argue freely, according to conscience, within our own church and in society at large."
Rev. Scott Wells says - "There seems to also be a double standard: the more conspicuous or famous a minister, the more "liberty" is given." Which justifies the following picket signs slogans that I have displayed in front of the Unitarian Church of Montreal, UUA "head office" at 25 Beacon Street in Boston, and at the 2002 UUA General Assembly in Quebec City -
THE UUA AND MFC AFFIRM AND PROMOTE ABUSIVE CLERGY
Rev. Ray Drennan was most certainly "promoted", in every sense of the word. . . within the Canadian Unitarian Council and the Unitarian Universalist Association long after UUA and CUC Presidents, and other officials such as directors of the Ministerial Fellowship Committee, were made fully aware of his abusive clergy misconduct which took place just days after he was officially invested as the new minister of the Unitarian Church of Montreal in November of 1995. In fact the "tin" (as in "tin-pot dictator" perhaps?) anniversary of his demeaning and abusive verbal attack on me is just days away. . . I will be celebrating the 10th anniversary of Rev. Ray Drennan's abusive clergy misconduct by picketing the Eastern Regional Gathering of Canadian UUs that is being hosted by the Unitarian Church of Montreal this weekend.
Rev. Scott Wells says - I don't welcome a libel case, so I won’t say more.
Which, along with "memory holing" my posts to his blog and some other things. . . makes him an active participant in the "veil of silence and fog of frustration" that continues to protect "sleezy" Unitarian Universalist ministers.
Unlike Rev. Scott Wells, I actually would welcome a libel case in order to validate the truth and meaning of my alleged "libelous" criticism of certain "unmentionable" Unitarian ministers and a certain "unmentionable" Unitarian "church" up here in Montrea. . . I have said plenty over the last decade or so and I most certainly will say much more later. . .
Over the years I have heard various highly credible reports about how sexual misconduct and other forms of abusive clergy misconduct perpetrated by UU clergy, including clergy misconduct on the part of some "unmentionable" UU ministers who were, and even still are. . . top level UUA officials and publicly prominent Unitarian Universalist clergy, is tolerated, condoned, and even effectively endorsed while the victims are "left lonely, confused, afraid, angry and betrayed. Un-ministered to." In spite of all the fine words spoken and written in official apologies, UUA and CUC Safe Congregation policies and programs, and so-called Disruptive Behavior Policy, etc. etc. it seems clear that these fine words are often left by the wayside if and when abusive clergy misconduct actually occurs.
This is most certainly true of my own very well documented case that involved non-sexual psychologically and otherwise abusive clergy misconduct on the part of Rev. Ray Drennan of the Unitarian Church of Montreal. More about that later. . . Of course a free and responsible search for the truth and meaning of my own case of psychologically abusive clergy misconduct, and of course other forms of abusive clergy misconduct, in various internet search engines such as Google, Google Groups, Yahoo!, MSN Search, All The Web and other useful internet search engines will turn up no shortage of existing material in spite of ongoing efforts by various leaders of the Unitarian Universalist religious community, including but by no means limited to. . . UU clergy and UU WORLD editors, to cover-up and deny my own and other UUs' internet whistle-blowing by "memory holing" or otherwise censoring and suppressing our attempts to expose and denounce not only the abusive clergy misconduct itself but the negligent, effectively complicit, and at times outright punitive (towards he victim that is. . .) responses of the individual Unitarian Universalis churches involved, the Unitarian Universalist Association and its aptly named Ministerial Fellowship Committee, and the Canadian Unitarian Council etc.
A recent post on Rev. Scott Wells' 'Boy In The Bands' blog reassures me that my "obviously deep concerns" about ongoing UU tolerance of abusive clergy misconduct, inadequate or negligently and complicitly unenforced clergy guidelines such as the UUMA Code of Professional Practice and UUMA Guidelines for the Conduct of Ministry etc., "church" bylaws, Safe Congregations policies, and indeed Disruptive Behavior policies. . . and various other forms of protection of "sleezy (but non-criminal) clergy" (to say nothing of the possible protection of actually criminal UU clergy. . .) are well founded and need to be responsibly addressed by the Unitarian Universalist religious community.
Rev. Scott Wells says, "Current clergy guidelines and attitudes protect sleezy (but non-criminal) clergy with a veil of silence and fog of frustration." I must point out that it is not just clergy attitudes that protect "sleezy" and indeed abusive UU clergy (although I have encountered plenty of that kind of "bad attitude" from UU clergy including, most ironically, Rev. Scott Wells himself. . .) but the DIM Thinking bad attitude of UU lay leaders such as the Boards of the "churches" where the abusive clergy misconduct arises, the fellow congregants of the victim, non-clergy UUA and CUC officials and staff, such as CUC Presidents and senior editors of the UU WORLD magazine etc., who turn willfully deaf ears and willfully blind eyes towards the victims reports of abusive clergy misconduct but even attempt to actively silence the victims and ignorantly and even maliciously discredit their claims of clergy misconduct and abuse. Unitarian Universalists at all levels of the denomination, not just UU clergy but ordinary UU "church" members and UUA and CUC Presidents effectively protect "sleezy" and abusive UU clergy with a "veil of silence and fog of frustration." Unitarian Universalists from ordinary UU "church" members right up to at least one UUA President. . . engage in "victim blaming" and attempt to intimidate and threaten victims of abusive clergy misconduct into silence.
Rev. Scott Wells writes - I’ve talked with other ministers about X who somehow escapes censure and keeps a good name by skirting the edge of the rule, and in this case, I suspect past it. Certainly past what most people would consider decent. But time, effort, and hard proof are wanting.
This may be so however in the case of Rev. Ray Drennan of the Unitarian Church of Montreal who somehow escaped censure at all levels of the denomination right up until his recent "early retirement". . . I have put in plenty of time and effort to expose and denounce not only his abusive clergy misconduct but the negligent and complicit responses to my complaint by the Unitarian Church of Montreal, the Canadian Unitarian Council, the Unitarian Universalist Association and its aptly named Ministerial Fellowship Committee. There is no shortage of "hard evidence" in this particular case, on the contrary it is very well documented and I have posted most of the hard evidence onto the internet over the years, yet Rev. Ray Drennan escaped censure and indeed accountablity because, to quote Rev. Brian Kopke of the First Unitarian Congregation of Ottawa. . . "Nobody did anything." Actually UUs did plenty but they "did it" to the victim, i.e. yours truly, for daring to live up to Rev. Charles Eddis' purloined words that proclaim Unitarians "jealously guard the right to know, to speak, and to argue freely, according to conscience, within our own church and in society at large."
Rev. Scott Wells says - "There seems to also be a double standard: the more conspicuous or famous a minister, the more "liberty" is given." Which justifies the following picket signs slogans that I have displayed in front of the Unitarian Church of Montreal, UUA "head office" at 25 Beacon Street in Boston, and at the 2002 UUA General Assembly in Quebec City -
THE UUA AND MFC AFFIRM AND PROMOTE ABUSIVE CLERGY
Rev. Ray Drennan was most certainly "promoted", in every sense of the word. . . within the Canadian Unitarian Council and the Unitarian Universalist Association long after UUA and CUC Presidents, and other officials such as directors of the Ministerial Fellowship Committee, were made fully aware of his abusive clergy misconduct which took place just days after he was officially invested as the new minister of the Unitarian Church of Montreal in November of 1995. In fact the "tin" (as in "tin-pot dictator" perhaps?) anniversary of his demeaning and abusive verbal attack on me is just days away. . . I will be celebrating the 10th anniversary of Rev. Ray Drennan's abusive clergy misconduct by picketing the Eastern Regional Gathering of Canadian UUs that is being hosted by the Unitarian Church of Montreal this weekend.
Rev. Scott Wells says - I don't welcome a libel case, so I won’t say more.
Which, along with "memory holing" my posts to his blog and some other things. . . makes him an active participant in the "veil of silence and fog of frustration" that continues to protect "sleezy" Unitarian Universalist ministers.
Unlike Rev. Scott Wells, I actually would welcome a libel case in order to validate the truth and meaning of my alleged "libelous" criticism of certain "unmentionable" Unitarian ministers and a certain "unmentionable" Unitarian "church" up here in Montrea. . . I have said plenty over the last decade or so and I most certainly will say much more later. . .
Comments
About this post: I followed your link to the UUA site on Restorative Justice (actually it needs to be updated http://www.uua.org/leaders/leaderslibrary/restorativejustice/index.shtml ) and read the apology. It appears to me that the apology is for victims of clergy misconduct, not specifically U*U clergy misconduct. It also appears to be a proactive effort for support, rather than reactive response to a situation. Is this because U*U members come from many religious backgrounds and may have had horrible experiences? The Restorative Justice documentation mentions the media attention to clergy misconduct in the early 1990s. If I missed a specific instance of U*U clergy sexual misconduct, please point me to a reference. I have 3 kids at our local U*U and have never worried about this, but if it exists in the UUA, I'd like to read about it.
The UUA official apology is in fact made to victims of clergy sexual misconduct committed by "less than excellent" U*U clergy and negligently responded to by the UUA and its very aptly named Ministerial *Fellowship* Committee. The proactive effort for support of past victims of U*U clergy sexual that it talks about has never been lived up to from what I can see. I asked an expert in U*U clergy sexual misconduct how much actual "restorative justice" past victims of U*U clergy sexual misconduct have actually received in the near decade since that apology was delivered and they answered with one four letter word -
"None."
The document does mention the sexual misconduct that has occurred in other denominations and you might want to apy attention to the following exerpts from the UUA apology -
:The Ministerial Fellowship Committee has *struggled* with finding justice in dealing with complaints of ministerial misconduct.
(Read *failed* where it says struggled)
:The painful challenge is this: for victims/survivors, the mission of service *never* reached them; the commitment of trust and support was *elusive* and often *missing*; fulfilling our promise was a dream unfulfilled."
That was then and, from what I can tell, it is not a whole lot better now a decade later. . .
:Let me say this as simply and unequivocally as I know how: the Association has largely *failed* (see you don't even have to take my word for it. . .) the people most hurt by sexual misconduct, the victims and survivors. Other denominations have *done better*. These brave and bruised people have, more often than not I suspect, been left *lonely*, confused, afraid, angry and *betrayed*. *Un-ministered* to.
To my knowledge the UUA's "pledge" that this gap, this *failure*, will be remedied has never been lived up to.
The apology talks only about clergy sexual misconduct but I am quite sure that it is every bit as applicable to victims of diverse non-sexual forms of clergy misconduct such as myself. My own experience and observations leaves me with the distinct impression that victims of non-sexual clergy misconduct got even less justice from the UUA and MFC than victims of clergy sexual misconduct.
If you want to be pointed to a few specific cases of U*U clergy sexual misconduct I would suggest Googling Rev. Mack Mitchell for one of the most egregious ones that *some* U*Us consider to be "ancient history" and Rev. Calvin Dame for a more recent case or at least a more recently discovered case since his sexual misconduct may well have spanned a decade or two. . . Indeed the Unitarian Universalist Community of Church of Augusta Maine got hit with a bit of a double whammy in that its music diirector *also* was found to have committed sexual misconduct. Who knows? Maybe Rev. Calvin Dame acted in concert with the UUCC's music director. Clergy sexual misconduct exists in *all* denominations. How much paedophilia there is in the UUA is not a known quantity to me. You should probably be more concerned about a "less than excellent" U*U minister trying to have an affair with your wife than your three kids being molested.
If you want to see just how flaky U*Us can be with respect to clergy sexual misconduct do check out U*U BDSM "dom" Desmond Ravenstone's recent blog post about clergy sexual misconduct in which he tries to point the finger at Catholics while covering up and hiding egregious cases of U*U clergy sexual misconduct involving real bondage and domination in the form of the rape of teenage Tibetan refugees by Rev. Mack Mitchell. No doubt my suppressed comments responding to his demand for evidence, which Desmond Ravenstone pretends are vitriolic, hit a little too close to home for Mr. U*U BDSM. . .