The Unitarian Church Of Montreal's Letter Of Apology Sent To Me By UCM President Juan Vera
| During the night of December 18th, 2018, I unexpectedly received an email from Juan Vera, the current President of the Unitarian Church of Montreal, which had an attached PDF file of a letter that he described as a letter of apology addressing my long standing grievances against Rev. Ray Drennan. Unfortunately, this ostensible letter of apology not only minimized the seriousness of Rev. Ray Drennan's intolerant and abusive behaviour towards me, but it also contained a variety of factual errors and other misleading (mis)information that did not accurately reflect the truth. As a result of the serious inadequacies, clear errors of fact, and other flaws in this ostensible apology for Rev. Ray Drennan's behaviour, I was unable to accept this apology, and I made this clear to Juan Vera, and by extension the Unitarian Church of Montreal, first in a meeting with Équipe Polarisation that was held on the afternoon of December 20th, and later in an email responding to this inadequate and flawed apology letter that I sent to Juan Vera last night, not long after the winter solstice sunset. |
| |||
Montreal, December 21, 2018
To: Juan H. Vera
From: Robin Edgar
Dear Juan,
I will respond to your letter of December 18th in point-by-point manner in order to comprehensively deal with the various problematic aspects of that flawed letter of apology, most of which were discussed in our meeting with Équipe Polarization yesterday afternoon.
: Let me start saying that I am pleased with the progress we are making, at the initiative and with the mediation of two members of Équipe Polarization of the Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux (CIUSSS), in resolving the two decades old conflict between you and the Unitarian Church of Montreal (UCM).
I agree that a certain amount of progress has indeed been made in our meetings with Équipe Polarisation, but that it seems to me that at least some of that progress that was made has been diminished during the last two meetings we have had, and also by this flawed attempt at an apology for Rev. Ray Drennan's intolerant and abusive behaviour, to say nothing of the fact that the Unitarian Church of Montreal condoned it and unjustly punished me for complaining about it. That being said, I do believe we are making progress and can continue to make progress over the next 11 months as long as we keep lines of communication open and engage in dialogue, even if some of that dialogue is uncomfortable and contentious at times for both parties. I thank you for the efforts you have made so far, even if some mistakes have been made, and I especially appreciate and respect the personal risk you took to agree to engage in this Truth and Reconciliation process with the moderation of Équipe Polarisation.
: One of the events that ignited this conflict was a talk between you and the then Reverend Raymond Drennan in your apartment on November 9, 1995, 23 years ago.
Correct. One of the events, but not the only one. There were some previous events that occurred as well, even events that took place well before Rev. Ray Drennan became the minister of the Unitarian Church of Montreal in the fall of 1995, but the comparatively low level conflict escalated significantly as a direct result of the intolerant and abusive "insulting and defamatory language" that Reverend Ray Drennan used to describe my revelatory religious experience, and Creation Day, in a private meeting in my apartment that day.
: My understanding is that you consider that a letter he sent to you on April 23, 1997, was not a sufficient apology for what he had said to you at that private meeting of which there are no other witnesses.
Correct. You can read my letters that led to, and followed, Rev. Ray Drennan's unacceptable "non-apology apology" here:
http://emersonavenger.
: In his letter Mr. Drennan stated: “I am sorry that you heard my words as offensive. They were not intended to be offensive but rather to simply and clearly express my position. I am sorry for the
distress this may have caused you.”
Correct. This so-called "apology" effectively repeats the insults and defamation that I was seeking a formal retraction of, and an official and public apology for, by making it clear that Rev. Ray Drennan stands by his "position" that my revelatory religious experience was nothing more than a "psychotic experience", that I required "professional help" to address a serious mental illness (i.e. psychosis), and that Creation Day was a "cult" in the pejorative and damaging sense of that four letter word. In my opinion this "apology", which did not meet my basic demands, was nothing more than an insincere expedient non-apology apology; the primary purpose of which was to protect Rev. Drennan from any accountability for his intolerant and abusive behaviour, and his apparent lying about it to the Board or Disruptive Behaviour Committee of the Unitarian Church of Montreal. In hindsight it was a mistake for me to even offer Rev. Drennan a final opportunity to apologize to me after I was told by the Disruptive Behaviour Committee that Rev. Ray Drennan was denying that he said what he did in fact say to me.
: As you have stated it in our meetings, you read these words as putting the weight on you. As far as I know, and after discussing the matter with Mr. Drennan, this was definitely not their purpose as I explain below.
I strongly disagree. Rev. Ray Drennan's "apology" in no way acknowledges the obvious offensiveness of his slanderous and damaging words. Regardless of what the intended purpose of these words in Rev. Ray Drennan's so-called "apology" was, they definitely suggest that I took offense at words that Rev. Ray Drennan spoke during our meeting of November 9, 1995, which Rev. Drennan pretends "were not intended to be offensive". As I have pointed out in previous written communications to the UCM about the inadequacy, and I believe insincerity, of Rev. Ray Drennan's so-called "apology", which is a classic example of a "non-apology apology", and have restated during our meetings with Équipe Polarisation, the words that Rev. Ray Drennan spoke in my apartment during our private meeting most certainly were very offensive, indeed they were of a slanderous nature, and Drennan's claim in his "apology" that his words were "not intended to be offensive" is disingenuous to say the least. The angry, aggressive, and clearly hostile and derogatory manner in which Rev. Ray Drennan expressed those insulting and defamatory words makes it clear to me that they were intended to be offensive in more than one sense of the word offensive.
See: https://en.oxforddictionaries.
In stating that his offensive words were only intended "to simply and clearly express my position", Rev. Ray Drennan makes it clear that he stands by his offensive words in his worthless non-apology "apology". This was simply not acceptable, which is one of the reasons, but not the only reason, why I rejected Rev. Ray Drennan's non-apology "apology", and demanded that he must issue a genuine apology that expressly acknowledged what his insulting and defamatory words were, and formally retracted them, so I could honourably accept such an apology. Sadly, Rev. Ray Drennan refused to offer a proper apology that I could accept with dignity, in spite of being given plenty of opportunity to do so.
: Perhaps this is the opportunity of sharing with you my views regarding the real cause of the conflict.
: When Mr. Drennan arrived as newly appointed minister to the Unitarian Church of Montreal, he found a divided congregation with a deep internal conflict.
This is the first that I have heard of Rev. Ray Drennan finding "a divided congregation with a deep internal conflict" when he became minister of the Unitarian Church of Montreal in the fall of 1995. What was this "deep internal conflict" that divided the congregation? If this was the case, and I am unaware of any such "deep internal conflict" that divided the whole congregation in 1995, Rev. David B. Parke failed in his role as an interim minister; because one of the roles of an interim minister is to work to resolve any existing internal conflicts in a congregation before a new minister takes over from the previous minister. Rev. David B. Parke was interim minister of the Unitarian Church of Montreal for two full years, and during that time I was unaware of any "deep internal conflict" that divided the congregation.
I was of course aware that what I believed was a small number of intolerant Atheist Montreal Unitarians were not happy with my religious activities, and were disparaging them and actively trying to undermine them; but I would not characterize that situation as a "deep internal conflict" that "divided the congregation" as a whole. In any case, Rev. Ray Drennan quite evidently chose to side with that clique of intolerent (sic) Atheists, indeed I have reasonable grounds to believe that Drennan was probably selected by them because he was very "like-minded", and he proceeded to attack me with his insulting and defamatory words even before he was even officially installed as the minister of the church. I dare say that Rev. Ray Drennan seriously escalated any existing internal conflict in the Unitarian Church of Montreal in doing so, and refusing to retract his slanderous words and apologize for them.
: As you know, Unitarian Universalists value the worth and dignity of every person, irrespective of the individual way of interpreting society.
I know that Unitarian Universalists publicly claim to value the worth and dignity of every person, it is the first of Unitarian Universalism's Seven Principles, which are displayed in the lobby of the Unitarian Church of Montreal; however I do not know that Unitarian Universalists actually live up to their claim to value the worth and dignity of every person. My own experience with Rev. Ray Drennan, and numerous other members of the Unitarian Church of Montreal, to say nothing of numerous other Unitarian Universalists in the larger U*U community, make it abundantly evident to me that Unitarian Universalists most certainly do not value the worth and dignity of every person. Au contraire, they are only too happy to attack their dignity in a manner that suggests they are worthless.
Does it look like the Unitarian Church of Montreal's David Horan values the worth and dignity of every person in this video? I think not. . . Interestingly enough, Mr. Horan's literally "in your face" aggressiveness is quite similar to some of Rev. Ray Drennan's aggressive behaviour in my apartment on November 9th, 1995.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?
If Unitarian Universalists valued my worth and dignity, Rev. Ray Drennan never would (have) rudely interrupted me as I was trying to explain my revelatory religious experience to him, dismissively and abusively saying "You mean your psychotic experience", and angrily insisting that I should seek "professional help" for my alleged psychosis. Nor would Rev. Drennan have rudely interrupted me as I was trying to explain Creation Day to him, slanderously saying, "You mean your cult", and defining "cult" as "a manipulative and secretive religious group" when I asked him what he meant by the word "cult". This slandering of Creation day as "your cult" was not only an attack on my own worth and dignity, but it was also an attack on the dignity of every other person who participated in the two observances of Creation Day that preceded Rev. Ray Drennan's insulting and defamatory labeling of Creation Day as "your cult".
The Unitarian Church of Montreal, and the Unitarian Universalist Association, in no way valued my worth and dignity when they arbitrarily, unjustly, and quite callously dismissed my legitimate and quite serious grievances arising out of Rev. Drennan's intolerant and abusive behaviour, and all but officially approved of his intolerant and abusive behaviour.
: Believers, agnostics and non-believers respect each other’s private space.
Really? I am not sure exactly what you are trying to say here, but do you *really* believe that Rev. Ray Drennan respected my "private space" when he intolerantly and abusively labeled my revelatory religious experience as "your psychotic experience", and angrily insisted that I must seek "professional help", in the "private space" of my apartment on November 9, 1995?
Do you believe Rev. Ray Drennan was respecting my "private space" when he intolerantly and abusively labeled Creation Day as "your cult", and defined "cult" as "a manipulative and secretive religious group" when I asked him to clarify what he meant by the word "cult", in the "private space" of my apartment on November 9, 1995?
Was Rev. Ray Drennan respecting my "private space" when he dismissed my monotheistic aka *Unitarian* religious beliefs as being nothing but "silliness and fantasy" during our "private meeting"?
Did Rev. Ray Drennan respect the "private space" of the family of Pierre Elliott Trudeau, when he publicly attacked the Roman Catholic state funeral of former Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau as being a "sham state funeral" in his ironically headlined 'Wrong Message' Op-Ed in The Gazette?
Was Rev. Ray Drennan valuing "the worth and dignity of every person, irrespective of the individual way of interpreting society", and respecting their "private space", when he publicly told billions of God believing people, not just Roman Catholics. . . that their religious rituals are "meaningless" in the same highly opinionated Opinion Editorial in The Gazette?
I think not. . .
Likewise, Montreal Unitarians, and the Unitarian Universalist "religion" more generally, proved that they do not in fact "value the worth and dignity of every person, irrespective of the individual way of interpreting society", when they allowed Rev. Ray Drennan to attack my worth and dignity, and the worth and dignity of numerous other people with complete impunity.
This conflict arises out of the fact that Rev. Ray Drennan, most if not all Montreal Unitarians, and numerous other Unitarian Universalists, including top-level UUA leadership, behave in a manner that quite evidently does not "value the worth and dignity of every person, irrespective of the individual way of interpreting society", and this conflict remains unresolved for the very same reason. . . This conflict will only be resolved when Montreal Unitarians, the UUA, and Unitarian Universalists more generally actually behave in a manner that demonstrably and unequivocally honours and upholds Unitarian Universalism's First Principle, instead of repeatedly disregarding it, flaunting it, and violating it.
See: https://www.uua.org/beliefs/
The same principle applies to most if not all of the other claimed principles and ideals of Unitarian Universalism, especially the 2nd Principle which calls for justice, equity and compassion in human relations. Something that I, and numerous other people who have been abused by Unitarian Universalist clergy have seen precious little of. . . Au contraire, people who dare to complain about Unitarian Universalist clergy abuse, sexual abuse or otherwise, are often subjected to further unjustices (sic) and abuses, are treated very unfairly, and are not treated with anything that even remotely resembles compassion. Literally hundreds, and possibly some thousands, of people who have dared to complain about U*U clergy misconduct have been very badly (mis)treated by the UUA and-or their fellow congregants, in ways that make a total mockery of the first and second principles of Unitarian Universalism. This has to change.
: Some time before his arrival, you had a religious experience when you saw the “eye of God” in the annular solar eclipse that occurred on May 10, 1994 in Montreal.
This is incorrect and somewhat misleading. I have previously provided enough information about my revelatory religious experience, even during some of our recent meetings with Équipe Polarisation, that this misinterpretation and misrepresentation of my revelatory religious experience was avoidable. My revelatory religious experience began in late January of 1992, with a mystical experience of the "presence of God". This initial mystical experience was followed by a series of extremely unusual "meaningful coincidences" (what Carl Jung calls "synchronicity") that was intense for several months, then gradually diminished in intensity. From the very beginning of the revelatory experience there was a strong emphasis on the concept of "the eye of God", and God's omniscience, indeed God's omniscience and ability to influence events was made clear to me via the extremely unusual "meaningful coincidences" themselves. Three months after the initial revelatory religious experience, following three months of extraordinary "meaningful coincidences" in terms of real life events, while reading the May 1992 issue of National Geographic magazine, I was confronted by fact that our moon is able to totally eclipse our sun thanks to the "astonishing coincidence" that, although the sun's diameter is 400 times larger than that of the moon, our moon is approximately 400 times closer to the Earth than the sun. This results in our moon have the same apparent size aka angular diameter as our sun (obviously with some fluctuations in this 1:1 ratio due to the elliptical orbit of the moon around the Earth and the Earth around the sun). Immediately after reading about this particular "coincidence" I was confronted by French astronomer Serge Koutchmy's high quality photograph of the July 11th, 1991, total solar eclipse, and I saw what looked very much like the pupil and iris of an eye staring back at me from the pages of that National Geographic. It was obvious to me, based on what I had experienced in the previous three months, that the mathematical precision that results in the totally eclipsed sun distinctly resembling the pupil and iris of an "eye in the sky", was not just a random chance "coincidence", but was Intelligent Design intended by The Creator to convey a symbolic message reminding human beings of God's very high level of awareness of what happens in the world.
: You had then the idea of celebrating the “Day of Creator” and, with the support of the interim minister Reverend David Parke, you invited representatives of different religions to an organizational meeting at the Unitarian Church of Montreal.
This is largely correct. By the summer of 1993, if not significantly earlier, certainly more than six months before I joined the Unitarian Church of Montreal, I came up with the idea of organizing an inter-religious celebration of Creation, with an emphasis on care for the Creation, whenever the total solar eclipse "Eye of God" appears in the sky above our planet. To be clear, I have never at any time said or suggested that the total solar eclipse's similarity to the pupil and iris of an eye is an actual "Eye of God" staring down from the sky. I have said that the total solar eclipse's similarity to the pupil and iris of an eye is intended by The Creator of the Universe aka God to symbolize God's omniscience. In Biblical terms the total solar eclipse "Eye of God" is a "sign of God" aka "a sign in the heavens."
The interim minister Reverend David B. Parke, was very welcoming when I approached the Unitarian Church of Montreal in the summer of 1993, and he was also very supportive of the idea of Creation Day. These are two of the reasons, albeit not the only reasons, that I decided to officially become a member of the Unitarian Church of Montreal, and by extension the larger Unitarian Universalist religious community, later in 1993. Unfortunately, even though Rev. David Parke was indeed very welcoming and supportive of me and my various religious initiatives, there was a clique of intolerant Atheist members of the UCM who were strongly opposed to my presence, and my religious initiatives, who tried to prevent Creation Day from being celebrated in the Unitarian Church of Montreal. Rev. Parke was able to "hold the wolves at bay" as it were, and the first celebration of Creation Day was held in what was left of the Unitarian Church of Montreal in the fall of 1994. Creation Day was not in fact an "organizational meeting at the Unitarian Church of Montreal". In fact, if I remember correctly, the intolerant Atheist members of the UCM were able to deem Creation Day to not be an event *of* the Unitarian Church of Montreal at all, but they allowed it to be celebrated in Simpson Hall, thanks to Rev. David Parke's support for it.
: As I stated before, some Unitarian Universalists are believers, so some of them joined you in this endeavour, while agnostics and non-believers resented this invasion of their private space.
This is inaccurate. A very small number of Montreal Unitarians were indeed believers, obviously including Rev. David B. Parke at the time, so some of these believers, such as Hannelore Poncelet and Valerie Broege, did indeed join me in the "endeavour" of organizing and celebrating the first observance of Creation Day. The fact of the matter however is that not *all* Montreal Unitarian agnostics and non-believers resented this alleged "invasion of their private space". Montreal Unitarian agnostics and non-believers were invited to participate in, and even to help organize, the first observance of Creation Day, but none of them accepted my invitation to participate. This did not stop a reasonable number of Montreal Unitarian agnostics and non-believers from attending the first celebration of Creation Day in Simpson Hall in the fall of 1994. Approximately 15 members of the Unitarian Church of Montreal attended the first observance of Creation Day, and I can assure you that not all of them were believers. Some of the people who attended were definitely agnostics and non-believers who not only did not resent this alleged "invasion of their private space", but clearly did not consider Creation Day to be an "invasion of their private space" at all. In fact, some of them subsequently expressed their appreciation for this quite successful inter-religious event which had an attendance of over 100 people all told.
As you should be aware, the second observance of Creation Day in October 1995 was actually unanimously approved as an adult religious education activity of the Unitarian Church of Montreal by the UCM's Religious Education Committee, of which you were one of the members if I remember correctly. Unfortunately, the intolerant Atheist non-believers who had control of the Board of the Unitarian Church of Montreal held an anti-democratic secretive "in camera" segment of the October 1995 Board meeting in which they overruled this decision of the UCM's Religious Education Committee, and refused to allow Creation Day to be celebrated on church property. This unexpected move after the RE Committee's unanimous approval of Creation Day as an adult RE activity forced me to seek another venue just two weeks before Creation Day was scheduled to be observed. I will remind you that Montreal Unitarian agnostics and non-believers were invited to participate in the second observance of Creation Day, and Donald Patterson actually did represent Humanist Unitarians during the second observance of Creation Day, which was held in a Hindu social centre thanks to the the intolerant atheist clique that held sway within the UCM and refused to allow it to be held in the UCM.
: The incoming minister, the then Reverend Raymond Drennan, felt that it was his duty to re-establish the UU values in the congregation.
Wrong. Very wrong. The incoming minister, the then Reverend Raymond Drennan, felt that it was his duty to side with the clique of intolerant atheists within the "church" because he was an intolerant and bigoted atheist himself. Not only did Rev. Drennan not "re-establish the UU values in the congregation" with his intolerant and abusive words and actions, but he actually made a total mockery of most claimed UU values, such as UUism's Seven Principles etc., with his insulting and defamatory language and his related actions, as did the complicit Montreal Unitarians who condoned and effectively supported Rev. Ray Drennan's intolerance and bigotry.
:At times of much confusion, he may not have used the proper words to explain to you this complex situation in his meeting with you at your apartment on November 9, 1995.
Give me a break. . . This is an egregious, and quite frankly shameful, minimization of Rev. Ray Drennan's obviously intolerant and abusive behaviour; indeed what could be termed his "insulting and defamatory language" in my apartment (dare I say my "private space"?) on November 9, 1995. It also misrepresents what that private meeting was supposed to be about. I think it is important to point out here that the only reason that this "private meeting" took place in my apartment in Verdun was because I had an exposition of pictures in it that illustrated various aspects of how total solar eclipses had influenced ancient humanity's religious beliefs, and I felt that it was important for Rev. Drennan to see this exposition in order to gain a better understanding of my claims about religious symbolism that is perceivable during total solar eclipses. Religious symbolism which various ancient religions perceived and responded to in various ways.
Rev. Ray Drennan came into my apartment angry about the letter of grievance that I had delivered to the Board of the UCM about the anti-democratic manner in which it had over-ruled the RE committee's unanimous approval of Creation Day as an adult RE activity. Rev. Drennan insisted on addressing that issue right away, and angrily berated me about it, even though he was barely mentioned in that letter of grievance to the Board. Rev. Drennan then attempted to leave my apartment after berating me about that letter of grievance, without even doing what that "private meeting" had been intended to achieve, which was for him to see the exposition to gain a better understanding of, and hopefully some respect for, my religious beliefs which were informed by my revelatory religious experience, and considerable additional contemplation and research between late January of 1992 and early November of 1995. After I reminded Drennan what the meeting was supposed to be about, and began to try to explain things to Drennan, he chose to repeatedly interrupt me and angrily insult me in my "private space" that I had invited him into for the express purpose of explaining my revelatory religious experience, and Creation Day, to him with the help of the images in the exposition.
The original intended purpose of my meeting with Rev. Ray Drennan in my apartment on November 9, 1995, had absolutely nothing to do with Rev. Ray Drennan needing to explain to me "this complex situation". The purpose of the meeting was for me to explain to Rev. Drennan my revelatory religious experience, and Creation Day, so that he would have a better understanding of them, and hopefully develop a modicum of respect for them. Obviously Drennan did no such thing. Quite the contrary.
Rev. Ray Drennan was clearly part of the problem. He clearly sided with the intolerant atheist clique within the church, which I always considered to be a small but inordinately influential group of people, but maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I'm mistaken. Maybe there actually were rather more intolerant and bigoted atheists within the Unitarian Church of Montreal than I believed there were at the time. Maybe Rev. Ray Drennan was right about *that*.
Regarding institutional Denial, Ignorance and Minimization of clergy misconduct, and other unethical behaviour please read this:
http://www.takecourage.org/
: Accepting this, as an organization we apologize to you for that.
What is *that*?
As I have made clear, saying "he may not have used the proper words to explain to you this complex situation in his meeting with you at your apartment" is a minimization of Rev. Ray Drennan's intolerant and abusive behaviour in my apartment on November 9, 1995, which in no way acknowledges what his insulting and defamatory words were. This statement also misrepresents what the purpose of that meeting was. It is "revisionist history" that does not align with the verifiable facts, or the truth. This is simply not acceptable in what is presented as being an apology for Drennan's abusive behaviour, or indeed in any other "official history" of this conflict. I cannot and will not allow the Unitarian Church of Montreal, or the Unitarian Universalist Association for that matter, to "spin a narrative" that is an inaccurate or otherwise untruthful representation of the facts in what is supposed to be a Truth and Reconciliation process.
: Thus, in conclusion, I hope you will understand that the Unitarian Universalist Congregation of Montreal was not the proper place to share your religious experience and that, with this apology for the words that in times of crisis and confusion the then Reverend Drennan may have used to explain this to you, we may consider the case closed.
This is a wishy washy minimization of what actually happened between me and Rev. Ray Drennan, to say nothing of the Unitarian Church of Montreal as an institution. This "apology" does not clearly and unequivocally acknowledge the offensive and abusive nature of Rev. Ray Drennan's "insulting and defamatory language", to say nothing of his other unprofessional conduct aka clergy misconduct. This statement also suggests that "the Unitarian Universalist Congregation of Montreal was not the proper place to share your religious experience" as if this is somehow acceptable. If Rev. Ray Drennan, and other Montreal Unitarians, actually lived up to the stated principles and ideals of Unitarian Universalism, instead of making a total mockery of them with their intolerant and abusive words and actions, the Unitarian Church of Montreal, or any other Unitarian Universalist "church", would have been a proper place for me to share my religious experience. This failure of the Unitarian Church of Montreal, and the larger Unitarian Universalist religious community, needs to be properly acknowledged and redressed in a manner consistent with claimed UU values.
: I contacted Mr. Drennan and he agrees with my historical understanding of the situation.
I asked you to ask Rev. Drennan to confirm or deny having said what I am accusing him of saying, because your previous written communications, as well as your words during meetings with the Équipe Polarisation, pretended that it was simply impossible (corrected from "possible") to know what Drennan said in my apartment because it was a "private meeting", and there were "no witnesses". The whole purpose of contacting Rev. Drennan was to try to determine the truth of what actually happened, hopefully by Rev. Drennan confirming that he did in fact say what I am accusing him of saying, so that there could no longer be any question or "confusion" about what he said to me. I now understand from what you said during yesterday's meeting with the Équipe Polarisation, that Rev. Ray Drennan is neither confirming nor denying what I am accusing him of. He is claiming that he does not remember, which may or may not be true. The preponderance of the available evidence should make it clear that my memory of what happened is a lot better than Rev. Ray Drennan's memory of what happened, assuming that he is not lying when he claims not to remember what he said. Personally I find it hard to believe that Drennan has no clear recollection of his insulting and defamatory words, especially in light of how many times he has been reminded what they were in letters of grievance and picket signs protesting against his intolerant and abusive (corrected from "abuse") words. Since Rev. Drennan claims not to remember what he said, my testimony should prevail and be accepted as truthful and accurate, especially since neither Rev. Drennan, nor the Unitarian Church of Montreal, nor the UUA's Ministerial Fellowship Committee ever officially contested my accusations as being untruthful. In fact, the words of Rev. Diane Miller make it clear that the UUA's Ministerial Fellowship Committee believed that Rev. Ray Drennan's words, as I described them in considerable detail in my February 14th, 1996 (corrected from 2016), letter of grievance "seemed to us to be within the appropriate guidelines of ministerial leadership." The UUA in no way contested my version of events in its response to my letter of grievance. This should be a clear sign that my allegations about what Rev. Drennan said to me during our private meeting were accepted as being truthful by the UUA-MFC at the time, even if the MFC none-the-less deemed Rev. Drennan's conduct, as I described it in detail, to be "within the appropriate guidelines of ministerial leadership."
Also, as my previous responses in this letter should make clear, your "historical understanding of the situation" as expressed in this letter is demonstrably flawed and inaccurate, indeed some of it is patently false, so if Rev. Drennan agrees with your own "historical understanding of the situation", as expressed in this letter, he agrees with an "understanding" that is not true history, and thus not a true or valid understanding of what actually happened. Where truth is lacking in this or any other Truth and Reconciliation process, so too is reconciliation. This inaccurate and flawed "historical understanding of the situation" must be properly examined and corrected so as to align with the verifiable facts and the truth as much as possible.
: He retired and left the UU ministry all together. He said that he has moved on and agrees with the content of this letter.
I am not surprised that Mr. Drennan says that he has "moved on". This is typical behaviour of people who do not want to deal responsibly with their past "mistakes".
: We sincerely hope that your direct experience of God might redirect your energy away from this dispute toward more positive endeavours.
This is a paraphrasing of what the Executive of the UUA's Ministerial Fellowship Committee, as represented by MFC Director Rev. Diane Miller, said in its 2nd letter to me, after I contested the MFC not only unjustly dismissing my legitimate and quite serious grievances against Rev. Ray Drennan, but even pretending that Rev. Ray Drennan's insulting and defamatory language, indeed his intolerant and abusive behaviour, as described in considerable detail in my original letter of grievance dated February 14th, 1996, "seemed to us to be within the appropriate guidelines of ministerial leadership."
The words of Rev. Diane Miller were:
"I would hope that a direct experience of God might direct your energy away from this dispute toward profound concerns."
You can, and should, read my correspondence with Rev. Diane Miller here:
http://emersonavenger.
I consider my past and ongoing attempts to clear my name of the slanderous and damaging allegations of Rev. Ray Drennan, to say nothing of those of other intolerant Atheist Montreal Unitarians such as former UCM President Frank Greene, to be a "positive endeavor". Likewise, I consider my attempts to seek genuine justice not only for myself, but for numerous other people who have been abused in one way or another by abusive UUA clergy, to be a "positive endeavor". It was quite frankly condescending, and even quite insulting, for the Executive of the UUA's Ministerial Fellowship Committee, as represented Rev. Diane Miller, to suggest that I should simply drop my serious grievances against Rev. Ray Drennan, and "move on" to "profound concerns", when Rev. Ray Drennan's slanderous words and hostile actions impeded and damaged my ability to deal with profound concerns.
If the Unitarian Church of Montreal, and the larger Unitarian Universalist religious community, as represented by the Unitarian Universalist Association in Boston, want me to redirect my energy away from this dispute toward "more positive endeavours" and more "profound concerns", they both need to properly and genuinely honour and uphold the claimed Seven Principles of Unitarian Universalism and other claimed ideals of UUism, and move toward a settlement of this dispute that actually practices a "free and *responsible* search for truth and meaning" and implements genuine "justice, equity, and compassion", instead of making a total mockery of these claimed principles and ideals that have been repeatedly, indeed quite continuously. . . disregarded, flaunted, and even flagrantly violated for over twenty years now.
I will add that, while this dispute which has not only been dragged out for over twenty years now, but has also been significantly escalated, thanks to the obstinate refusal of Montreal Unitarians and UUA leadership to genuinely practice what Unitarian Universalism preaches, has been an unwanted drain on my time and energy; I have none-the less devoted plenty of my time and energy towards other "more positive endeavours" and more "profound concerns" over that time span. It's not like protesting against Unitarian Universalist clergy abuse, and other U*U injustices, abuses and hypocrisy has ever been my full time job, even if I have been forced to devote an inordinate amount of my time and energy to this "positive endeavour" thanks to Unitarian Universalists stubbornly refusing to live up to their claimed principles and ideals.
The slanderous allegations of Rev. Ray Drennan, to say nothing of other intolerant and abusive Unitarian Universalists, as well as other harmful and damaging behaviour by Unitarian Universalists have seriously harmed my ability to "move on" to "more positive endeavours" and more "profound concerns". Please explain to me how I could simply "move on", and move forward with promoting Creation Day as an inter-religious event, when Rev. Ray Drennan and other intolerant and abusive Montreal Unitarians were slandering Creation Day as a "cult"; and the Unitarian Church of Montreal, along with the Unitarian Universalist Association, had all but officially approved of Rev. Drennan's harmful and damaging slander, such as by pretending that it was "within the appropriate guidelines of ministerial leadership." To this very day, neither the Unitarian Church of Montreal, nor the Unitarian Universalist Association, has ever clearly and unequivocally acknowledged the slanderous and abusive nature of Rev. Ray Drennan's behaviour, and officially condemned it as such. Hopefully both institutions will finally come to their senses, fully and properly acknowledge this injustice and their complicity in it, and sincerely, properly and publicly apologize for their abject failure, indeed their obstinate refusal, to respond in responsibility to my legitimate grievances in a manner that is fully consistent with, and genuinely honours and upholds, U*U values since I first filed them in 1996.
: At your request, we will organize a meeting with a representative of Unitarian Universalist Council and a meeting with a representative of the Unitarian Universalist Association to establish an understanding between you and these two institutions connected to the Unitarian Church of Montreal.
I believe that it is absolutely necessary for the Unitarian Universalist Association to be part of this Truth and Reconciliation process that the Unitarian Church of Montreal has agreed to engage in over the next 11 months, and I expect this process to follow guidelines and procedures that have already been established by the UUA and UU Safety Net for dealing with "historic" clergy misconduct. This dispute will not be fully and properly settled until it is settled with the Unitarian Universalist Association in a manner that fully honours and upholds Unitarian Universalism's claimed Seven Principles, and other Unitarian Universalist ideals. In my opinion the UUA let down the Unitarian Church of Montreal by all but officially approving of Rev. Ray Drennan's intolerant and abusive behaviour in the earliest stages of this dispute, and by stubbornly refusing to change its mind in spite of repeated demands that it must do so. In June of 2012, the UUA also unilaterally and significantly escalated the larger dispute around UUA (mis)handling of UU clergy abuse etc. by authorizing its Canadian attorney, Stikeman Elliott Barristers & Solicitors defamation lawyer Maitre Marc-André Coulombe, to (falsely) accuse me of the archaic criminal act of "blasphemous libel" for blogging about "such despicable crimes as pedophilia and rape" committed by "certain Unitarian Universalist ministers" (to say nothing of certain Unitarian Universalist Religious Educators such as Steven Craig Bulleit. . .) and it must formally withdraw that outrageous false accusation which disregarded, and indeed ignominiously ended. . . the centuries old tradition of opposing blasphemy laws which Unitarians and Universalists once had. The UUA must publicly apologize for this shameful abusive misuse of Canada's now officially repealed blasphemy law, and it must publicly disclose which Unitarian Universalist ministers and UUA Religious Educators have been charged, tried, and convicted of "such despicable crimes as pedophilia and rape", as well as those who have been credibly accused of such sex crimes, even if they have not actually been convicted of them.
See: http://emersonavenger.
Needless to say, this egregiously unethical attempted misuse of Canada's blasphemy law by the Unitarian Universalist Association, in UUA legal bullying that was obviously intended to conceal egregious clergy sexual misconduct committed by UUA clergy and lay people from the public, by intimidating me into deleting The Emerson Avenger blog posts that told the readily verifiable truth about "such despicable crimes as pedophilia and rape" committed by Rev. Mack Wallace Mitchell and First Parish Norwell's "pedophile rapist" parishioner Richard Buell, would probably have been avoided if the UUA and-or the Unitarian Church of Montreal had agreed to move towards settlement of this dispute earlier.
As I have said in previous meetings moderated by the Équipe Polarisation, I am prepared to do as much as possible to resolve the dispute at the local level, with or without the participation of the Unitarian Univeralist Association, but the larger dispute with the Unitarian Universalist religious community will not be settled until the UUA properly addresses and redresses the injustices and abuses that it is responsible for which most certainly include, but are by no means limited to, its unjust dismissal of my legitimate and serious grievances against Rev. Ray Drennan, and its false accusation of blasphemous libel.
I look forward to further dialogue and discussion with you and other Montreal Unitarians who wish to resolve this conflict in the New Year, and I sincerely hope that this long standing conflict will be all but completely resolved by this time next year. There is still much that needs to be accomplished, and other important issues that need to be addressed and resolved, so I hope that you will be able to find someone to replace you while you are away in Chile, and fill out the committee devoted to these issues to at least three people. I also believe that it is important, if not essential, for Rev. Diane Rollert to personally participate in this Truth and Reconciliation process by engaging in dialogue in meetings moderated by the Équipe Polarisation starting as early as possible in the New Year. Rev. Rollert's apparent disinterest, or even her refusal, to participate in this Truth & Reconciliation process herself does not bode well for a successful outcome. Rev. Diane Rollert was not involved in the first decade of this conflict, but she has certainly been involved in the last decade of this conflict in various ways. She needs to work to resolve the current "complex situation" that she bears some personal responsibility for prolonging and escalating. This is the darkest day of the year, it is time for Montreal Unitarians, and the Unitarian Universalist Association, to start consistently moving towards the light of Truth and justice in this and other internal conflicts.
Enjoy your summer in Chile.
Sincerely,
Robin Edgar
Comments