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.
Leave a Reply