Previously, we reported on the ongoing saga of Episcopal priest Daniel McClain, rector-elect of St. Paul’s, Dayton, which covers a wide array of issues, including living with another woman while still married to his wife, his abusive conduct toward parishioners and his alleged misuse of church funds, resulting in our decision to file a Title IV clergy disciplinary complaint against Dan. There also is, inextricably interwoven with these issues, divorce litigation between Dan and his wife, Kate.
Now, the Dayton courts have issued a decision in the divorce litigation, and we are not impressed with the outcome.
To be clear, Anglican Watch generally will not cover divorces, and we have no interest in these matters. But in this case, the whole stinky crock of abuse coming from Dan extends to his parishioners and his family, and we observe his relationships melting down on every front due to his manipulative, abusive conduct.
And yet, while we cannot neatly separate Dan’s conduct in his church from his behavior involving his family, the Court appears to have given scant attention to the allegations in the Title IV case. (Again, we filed the underlying Title IV complaint without prompting from Kate or any third party.)
Our specific concerns about Dan include:
- Possible narcissistic personality disorder, in which Dan lies and manipulates others to meet his perceived needs.
- Machiavellianism, including bullying and intimidation of others.
- Lack of conscience, including a desire to not just win but to crush perceived opponents.
How did we reach these conclusions?
We did so through multiple conversations with current and former St. Paul’s parishioners. Repeatedly, the themes we heard were ones of abuse, including people saying they are afraid of Dan, that he’s misusing church funds, and engaging in a smear campaign against his wife—even as he charm bombs parishioners. And let’s not forget moving in with another woman while a priest and while still married to his wife, Kate.
Of course, Title IV is an ecclesiastical matter, neither civil nor criminal in nature. As such, it enjoys immunity under the First Amendment from judicial review and operates in a world all of its own. Thus, we understand why the Court may be reluctant to parse the underlying issues, but at the same time, these issues are serious and worthy of consideration.
As to Title IV and inferred income on Dan’s part, the Court dropped the ball in ruling that it could not determine whether Dan was culpable or if his suspension was due to Kate’s allegations. The reality is the allegations in the Title IV case were raised by this publication, not Kate, and substantiated by multiple parishioners. Kate had nothing to do with it. The only issue was Dan’s affair and other misconduct, and the Diocese offered Dan multiple opportunities to resolve the matter without going to a hearing panel, the highest and most adversarial level in a Title IV case. We also note that the matter was professionally investigated by an attorney, and is among the best investigations we have seen in a Title IV case. Thus, Kate’s role in the matter is irrelevant.
Further, these allegations, which extend to Dan’s credibility and integrity, go to the very heart of his role as a parent and caregiver. Indeed, one of the issues at hand in the Title IV case are allegations that Dan misused church funds, yet the Court seems unaware of these concerns.
Moreover, the Court’s decision does not mention the testimony of the Catholic chaplain involved in the case, Melissa Weeks, about Dan’s nefarious conduct. This concerns us, as Weeks’ experiences with Dan are nothing short of appalling.
Similarly, the Court notes that Kate cannot say where the funds went from the sale of her business. Still, we believe that Kate, like many women in abusive relationships, had little information on family finances, and we are concerned that the Court may be ignoring this possibility.
Additionally, we are alarmed at the ease with which the Court brushed aside Kate’s fears for her safety. In our work with victims of abuse, we routinely see the importance, when a woman comes forward and says she’s in danger, of believing her. Cases in which this doesn’t happen almost always end badly. Relatedly, the Court’s reference to a protective order obtained by Henry McClain, who lives exclusively with Dan, is misplaced. There is no credible threat of harm when, as here, Henry and his mother have zero contact, and the Court that granted the protective order did so improperly.
So, we reiterate: Courts, law enforcement, and church officials must believe women when they come forward to say they think they are in danger.
Of course, there are Karens out there who will try to game the system. Indeed, we ran into one the other day — or, more precisely, she ran into an Anglican Watch team member’s car in a parking lot. He was sitting still; she was moving. Yet she jumped out of her car, became violent and threatening, and claimed he was speeding. Long story short, this kind of thing happens, but when dozens of people tell you that they are afraid of someone — in this case, Dan — we must conclude there is an issue with Dan.
That is not to say that Kate has not made mistakes. These mistakes include:
- Taking the kids out of state without leave of court.
- Allowing the children’s’ school to use them as pawns in an effort to prevent this publication from mentioning the school. No ethical educator acts in this manner, and parents must not permit this sort of conduct. And while we are not looking to name the school — despite our previous positive comments about it — both Kate and school officials can be certain we will not submit to their censorship if a situation arises in which we need to mention the school or the church to which it is attached. (Not to mention, that sort of reaction immediately raises our suspicions about why the school is so concerned about being referenced in the media.)
- Spending too much time on the phone socializing issues with friends and allies rather than paying attention to the children.
- Conflating love with a refusal to discipline the children. Loving a child means being willing to make hard decisions, including insisting on accountability.
Relatedly, the Court notes that Kate laughed at inappropriate points in the testimony. However, this is a common reaction of people in trauma, and we are confident that the Court has dealt with enough such issues to look with empathy toward persons in this situation.
Thus, these mistakes are understandable and forgivable when one considers the abusive environment Dan creates for those around him. They in no way negate the fact that Kate is a good parent, or that there are profound issues with Dan, including a lack of integrity.
Additionally, we note that the Court deftly sidesteps what we will generously term Dan’s mistakes, including his efforts at parental alienation, his withholding the children at various times, his bringing their son to court, and more.
Indeed, the one issue the Court does raise, which is Dan’s efforts to sneak enroll the kids at the school where he teaches, results in nothing more than a mild warning by the Court versus adverse action. Yet if the Court is willing to treat Kate’s removal of the children from Ohio to create adverse inferences, it must do the same when Dan tries to undercut the Court.
We also give no credence to the testimony of Kate Furmanski, which the Court references in its decision. Furmanski spends a curious amount of time with Dan, given that both Furmanski and Dan are married. (We won’t even try to parse the issue of Dan’s live-in girlfriend.) Furmanski and Dan also appear to have an odd relationship, with Dan seeming to use the Furmanskis as his pipeline back into the inner workings of St. Paul’s.
Additionally, we remain concerned about Dan’s possible substance abuse. While the Court stated that Kate brought forward no evidence to support this claim, we have seen far too many times where Dan had a glazed look in his eyes, and he slurred his speech. We’ve also received multiple allegations from disinterested third parties alleging these issues, which serves to amplify our concerns.
Our hope had been, for the sake of all involved, that the Court would address these issues via substance abuse screening and testing.
So, in a nutshell, the Court dropped the ball big time in this case, and it appears that the Court fell for Dan’s Machiavellian tactics in this matter.
Effect on Title IV
We hope that the Title IV case with the Diocese of Southern Ohio is far enough along not to be influenced by the Court’s misplaced decision. Specifically, knowing Dan, he has made a beeline for the Diocese to argue that the Court’s decision in the divorce supports his position that he’s done nothing wrong. After all, his live-in girlfriend, as he is quick to point out in his pleadings, is “special.”
We also are wary of Dan’s narcissistic efforts at impression management. Both at the school where he teaches and within the Diocese, Dan likely will try to depict himself as the victim of a vast, divorce-case-based conspiracy. But we have seen more than enough evidence to be confident that Dan is a bad actor, regardless of the circumstances, and we hope the Diocese will defrock him as soon as possible.
Anglican Watch is also confident that Dan eventually will resurface in a faith community. He has a propensity for patriarchal systems, like the PCA and the Roman church, in which he can swagger around displaying the quasi-MAGA nonsense reflected in his postcard to St. Paul’s parish. (Gotta love those so-called “family values,” even as McClain moves in with his adulterous girlfriend.)
Thus, we caution both school systems and faith communities to look before they leap. We believe Dan McClain is bad news, no matter the setting or context.
We also continue to support Kate McClain, the McClain children, and St. Paul’s in this matter. All involved have had very negative experiences thanks to Dan, and the divorce is just one of many related and intertwined such situations.
Finally, we reiterate our previous comment, which reflects our hope that the Diocese will move quickly to remove Dan from the ministry. Adulterers with live-in girlfriends — no matter how “special” the latter may be — have per se violated their ordination oaths.
A copy of the Court’s decision is posted below without the referenced exhibits.
I have followed these posts with some interests, as I knew both Kate and Dan in the past. It has been many years since I spoke with either, and I have no outside knowledge of any of the events discussed in your posts. I direct these comments solely to your posts on the divorce and child custody situation. Throughout the posts, you have taken the position that the truth needs to be made public, and that your posts are an effort to spread the truth about the situation. When you have posted pleadings from Kate’s lawyer, I have noticed that your posts always closely match the tone and content of the pleadings from Kate’s lawyer. When the court’s responses are posted, you’ve disagreed with almost all of them.
The lawyer in the American legal system zealously advocates for her client. In doing so, the lawyer may not present falsehoods, but effective advocacy requires that the lawyer present the facts in the best possible light with regard to her client. The goal of the advocacy is not to establish truth, but to convince the court that it should adopt the litigant’s position and the litigant’s view of events. While the lawyer must advocate in this way, the lawyer also acknowledges to herself that version of events presented in advocacy diverges from what an impartial witness would observe of the situation. This is true even if the lawyer’s client fervently believes the version of events that he or she provided to the lawyer.
Now, you have posted the Decision of the court. Domestic court judges handle hundreds of contested divorces and child custody cases per year. In so many of these cases, the judge is required to wade through bitter, accusatory, and self-serving testimony, and the advocacy of the parties, to try to determine what actually occurred, from the viewpoint of an impartial witness. Experienced domestic court judges therefore develop significant experience in determining what actually occurred, not what each party wants the judge to believe occurred. Tools like guardians ad litem, court-ordered exams, corroboration of testimony with documentary evidence, and in-person testimony help the judge make these assessments. The Decision carefully documents the repeated failing of both parents in their Christian duties to each other and to their kids. In your posts, one parent is almost always right and the other is always wrong. Given that you have posted Kate’s pleadings and provided a version of events nearly identical to those pleadings, one has to assume that your information came from her, her attorney, or someone close to them. Again, the court is interested in impartiality in this situation, and the judge, not the author of this website, saw the testimony firsthand. You can, of course, conclude that the court was wrong, as you have done in your latest post. But before you do that, I think you have to ask yourself, as someone who wishes to spread the truth: am I really in a better position than the judge to assess what actually occurred, or am I just mirroring the advocacy-driven narrative that I’ve been provided by my source(s), all of which match Kate’s pleadings? Am I willing to consider that my source(s) might have been wrong, or that I might have been wrong in my interpretation?
We appreciate your thoughtful comments.
We agree that there is some degree of fault on both sides, which comports with our understanding of human nature.
That said, one of the key aspects in this case is not the divorce itself, which ordinarily we would not cover. Instead, it’s the juxtaposition of the divorce with the literally dozens of complaints we have received from past and present parishioners of St. Paul’s. Indeed, even the Catholic chaplain who previously served at a nearby base was and is afraid of Dan.
The threads that run through the complaints from within the parish are consistent and involve what typically is considered indicia of a predatory personality on Dan’s part, and comprise:
– Superficial charm.
– Manipulation.
– Consistent deception.
– In the words of one senior clergyperson, “A desire not just to win at all costs, but to crush the perceived opposition.”
– An absence of an ethical reference point, as displayed, among other things, by Dan’s misogynistic “Make St. Paul’s Great Again” postcard, which somehow miraculously went to the entire parish mailing list. Not to mention the myriad allegations from within the parish that Dan misused church funds.
We’d also note that our focus is not on the litigation, although that topic is inextricably intertwined with the larger issue, which is the abuse of Dana’s role as a priest. In that regard, our exclusive sources of information are parishioners and other clergy—we have zero information from Kate.
In that context, it is wrong for any church member to fear their priest, pastor, or clergyperson without exception. We should never hear that from a parishioner—and certainly not from literally dozens of members.
We also note that all involved concur that Dan is in an adulterous relationship and lives with a single woman, even while still married to Kate.
Further, recall that we are none too pleased with Kate.
While we understand the reasons for some of the zaniness, and we continue to support her and the kids, we were not amused when she tried to pull us into the middle of the nonsense with the school and the kids. Kids should not be pawns in adult power games, and we’ve made nothing but positive comments about the school despite holding to a very different worldview.
So her efforts to impose censorship empowered bad behavior by the school, ignored/misapprehended the best interests of the kids, and undercut an important part of our efforts, which is that we deliberately firewall ourselves from either side in situations like this. Doing so not only allows us to call them like we see them but protects those we cover, as we’re not beholden to either side in a conflict like this. Not to mention, we have to question the integrity of any school that tries to influence First Amendment rights or use kids as pawns in impression management games; we are not looking to cover the church or school willy-nilly, but the impression management games are, themselves, abusive.
We’d also add that our editor practiced law for more than 20 years and did a lot of domestic relations (DR) work. In his experience, DR courts are often less about justice and more about power and control. Sadly, when DR courts get it wrong, the victims are usually the wife and kids. And there is a disturbing tendency towards clericalism in the courts.
It’s also useful to recall that the Title IV clergy disciplinary case against Dan was deemed credible and is moving forward. More than a dozen people provided evidence against Dan, and the case continues to meander along, as with most issues in the Episcopal Church.
Meanwhile, one of the things that impresses us about Dan’s Title IV responsive pleadings is that he never takes responsibility for his actions.
Whether it’s the weird-o-rama exorcism in the church basement, his allegations that his adulterous girlfriend is “special,” or his denial of issues at his previous parish—which we investigated thoroughly—we see zero accountability. Meanwhile, he’s bloviating about “family values” on his zany postcard, even as he scares parishioners and has an affair.
Perhaps the most telling aspect of this is the mad scramble for the doors at St. Paul’s. Since Dan came on board as priest-in-charge, the place has imploded and now stands with one foot on a banana peel and the other foot in the grave. We are not convinced the situation is salvageable, although we hope it is.
So, we stand by our assessment of the situation, which includes the conclusion that Dan is abusive and unsuited to ministry. Indeed, his refusal to acknowledge that his affair is unethical/violates church canons is, itself, evidence that he should not be a priest.