Introduction and Verdict
On December 16, 2025, the Ecclesiastical Court for the Trial of a Bishop of the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) issued its Final Order in the disciplinary proceedings involving the Rt. Rev. Stewart Ruch III, Bishop of the Diocese of the Upper Midwest. After a full trial on the merits, the Court unanimously found Bishop Ruch not guilty on all four canonical charges brought against him. In each instance, the Court concluded that the Province failed to meet its canonical burden of proof, which requires clear and convincing evidence.
The Court was explicit that grievous wrongdoing occurred in this matter, namely the criminal sexual abuse of a minor by Mark Rivera, a lay catechist. That abuse, and the harm it caused to victims, was never disputed. The narrow and specific question before the Court, however, was whether Bishop Ruch himself committed any canonical offense under Title IV of the ACNA Canons. After extensive testimony, documentary review, and legal analysis, the Court concluded that he did not.
Background and Ecclesial Context
The Court devoted substantial attention to the ecclesial and institutional context in which Bishop Ruch’s ministry developed. His formation occurred during a period of Anglican realignment marked by missionary expansion, provisional structures, and evolving systems of oversight. Much of his early ministry unfolded outside the framework of a mature diocesan system.
The Diocese of the Upper Midwest itself was formally constituted in 2013 and combined conventional parishes with the Greenhouse Movement, a network of mission congregations that functioned partly as a diocesan deanery and partly as an independent organization. Many Greenhouse congregations were led by lay catechists rather than ordained clergy, and safeguarding and training structures developed unevenly across the diocese.
The Court found that these realities reflected the challenges of rapid growth within a young province and did not, by themselves, constitute evidence of episcopal misconduct.
The Rivera Abuse and the Diocese’s Initial Response
The events giving rise to the proceedings began in May 2019, when allegations were disclosed that Mark Rivera had sexually abused a minor. The Court found that once the allegation was received, the diocesan response was prompt and appropriate. Rivera was immediately removed from ministry. Civil authorities were contacted without delay. The Diocese cooperated fully with law enforcement and child welfare authorities, and pastoral care was offered to the victim and her family.
The Court found no evidence that Bishop Ruch or any diocesan leader discouraged reporting, concealed information, or failed to comply with mandatory reporting requirements. Investigations by civil authorities and DCFS resulted in no findings of failure by diocesan or parish leadership. The abuse was determined to have occurred outside formal church programs, not on church property, and without prior warning signs known to clergy.
Pastoral Judgment and Contested Decisions
Several pastoral decisions made by Bishop Ruch during the unfolding crisis were later cited as evidence of misconduct, including his attendance at a bond hearing in the criminal case involving Rivera. The Court examined these decisions carefully and concluded that they arose from pastoral judgment exercised in real time, rather than from bias, impropriety, or abuse of authority.
In the case of the bond hearing, the Court credited Bishop Ruch’s testimony that he attended in order to support Rivera’s wife, did not understand the nature of a bond hearing at the time, and did not intend to signal support for the accused. When he later learned that his presence caused pain to the victim’s mother, he promptly acknowledged the harm, offered an unqualified apology, and sought to make amends. The Court noted that this response reflected a consistent pattern of humility, accountability, and willingness to learn.
Safeguarding Practices and Expert Testimony
A central allegation in the Presentments concerned safeguarding failures. The Court rejected this claim based on extensive expert testimony. The Province’s own expert, attorney Teresa Sidebotham, testified that she found no leadership culpability on Bishop Ruch’s part, not even under a civil preponderance of the evidence standard, much less the clear and convincing standard required in canonical proceedings.
Ms. Sidebotham explained that safeguarding practices in American churches developed unevenly over time and that rapidly growing ministries often lag in systematization without being negligent. The Court accepted this testimony and concluded that the Diocese’s movement toward more standardized safeguarding reflected ordinary institutional development rather than habitual neglect or disobedience.
Investigations and Procedural Breakdown
In 2021, the Diocese voluntarily commissioned an external investigation by Grand River Solutions. The Court found that Bishop Ruch initiated this investigation in good faith, recused himself from the selection of the firm to preserve independence, and sought transparency rather than self-protection.
After the Province assumed control of the investigative process, however, the Court found that investigations proliferated without coordination. Multiple entities, including Grand River Solutions, Husch Blackwell, Telios Law, internal task forces, and a Provincial Investigative Team, pursued overlapping inquiries with unclear authority and shifting objectives.
Critically, none of these investigations found canonical wrongdoing by Bishop Ruch. The Court expressed particular concern that the canonically required Board of Inquiry did not appear to function in any meaningful way. Instead, the Court claimed that the provincial investigative team did most of what should have been the work of a Board of Inquiry and that this investigative team was a body not described in the Canons, effectively displacing the Board’s role while at the same time being instructed not to conduct independent fact-finding. The Court concluded that this procedural failure materially undermined the reliability of the Presentments.
Rumor, Advocacy Pressure, and Narrative Distortion
The Court identified the growing influence of social media and advocacy-driven narratives as a significant factor shaping perceptions and institutional decisions. While the Court did not fault advocacy itself, it found that unverified narratives increasingly displaced firsthand evidence and contributed to what it described as narrative capture.
Multiple witnesses, including bishops and members of the provincial investigative team, testified that advocacy pressure influenced institutional behavior, discouraged witness participation, and distorted conclusions. A confidential Telios report explicitly warned that many allegations against Bishop Ruch were rooted in misinformation, theological disagreement, or frustration rather than evidence. The Court concluded that rumor and impression were repeatedly treated as evidence, contrary to canonical standards.
The Presentments and Their Deficiencies
The first Presentment, signed by three bishops in December 2022, alleged conduct giving scandal and habitual neglect of duty. The Court found that the signers lacked firsthand knowledge, relied on incomplete information, and were not provided exculpatory material prior to signing. An accompanying addendum expressed doubt about the sufficiency of the allegations.
The second Presentment, filed by clergy and laity in 2023, suffered from similar defects. Signers relied primarily on public commentary and secondary sources, lacked personal knowledge, and failed to specify acts with reasonable certainty of time, place, and circumstance. In both cases, the Court concluded that the Presentments rested on assumption and narrative pressure rather than proof.
Trial Proceedings and Final Judgment
The trial spanned ten days and included more than seventy five hours of proceedings. The Court reviewed over seven thousand pages of exhibits and heard testimony from thirty seven witnesses. Bishop Ruch testified extensively and submitted fully to examination.
After weighing all evidence, the Court concluded that the Province failed to establish by clean and convincing evidence any violation of ordination vows, any conduct giving just cause for scandal, any willful disobedience to the Canons, or any habitual neglect of episcopal duties. Again, all four charges were dismissed.
Conclusion and the Need for Reform
The Court’s Final Order concludes that while grievous harm occurred to the victims of abuse, the prosecution of Bishop Stewart Ruch was unsupported by evidence and was compromised by significant procedural failures. At the same time, the Court’s opinion makes clear that this case exposed serious weaknesses within the Church’s disciplinary and investigative framework. Those weaknesses did not arise from malice or bad faith, but from a system that has not kept pace with the complexity, gravity, and public visibility of contemporary safeguarding and disciplinary matters. The Court repeatedly noted that Title IV processes were strained by unclear lines of authority, inconsistent investigatory mechanisms, the absence of a functioning Board of Inquiry, and a lack of standardized safeguarding expectations at the provincial level.
In several respects, the proceedings revealed that Title IV was asked to bear weight it was not designed to carry in its current form. Mechanisms intended to resolve rumor and innuendo were not used. Canonical bodies required to conduct investigation did not function as expected. Extra canonical structures filled the vacuum, creating confusion about accountability, evidentiary standards, and procedural fairness. In such an environment, neither complainants nor respondents could be well served, and the Church itself was left vulnerable to prolonged conflict, mistrust, and scandal.
The Court’s findings therefore underscore the importance of a careful and comprehensive revision of Title IV. Clearer procedures are needed to ensure that allegations are addressed promptly, transparently, and pastorally, while also safeguarding the fundamental principles of due process. Investigative authority must be unambiguous. Evidentiary standards must be consistently applied. Accused clergy and bishops must receive timely notice and meaningful opportunity to respond. At the same time, complainants and survivors must be assured that their reports will be taken seriously, handled competently, and not lost within overlapping or improvised processes. A reformed Title IV is about ensuring that the Church responds to allegations of misconduct with integrity, clarity, and justice. When disciplinary systems are opaque or improvised, trust erodes on all sides. When processes are clear, consistent, and credible, the Church is better equipped both to protect the vulnerable and to speak truthfully about wrongdoing without resorting to assumption or pressure driven conclusions.
The Court’s decision, read carefully, is not merely about one bishop’s conduct. It is also a cautionary account of what can occur when canonical structures lag behind pastoral and institutional realities. For that reason, ongoing efforts to revise and strengthen Title IV are not second to the Church’s mission, but essential to it. A transparent, fair, and well-ordered disciplinary system, the development of which is currently being led in part by the American Anglican Council, is a necessary expression of the Church’s commitment to holiness, justice, and care for all its members. In this light, the work of clarifying and reforming Title IV should be received not as a response to controversy alone, but as a constructive step toward a healthier future. The lessons of this case invite the Church to pursue reforms that will better serve victims, protect the integrity of ecclesial leadership, and preserve confidence in the Church’s ability to govern itself faithfully in times of crisis.
Read the Court’s Decision Below:
Find the document on the ACNA website here: https://anglicanchurch.net/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/FINAL-ORDER_12-16-25_Signed_Redacted-1.pdf