Update: Title IV case against Dan McClain

We have an update in the ongoing saga of the Title IV clergy misconduct case against Episcopal priest Dan McClain, who is canonically resident in the Diocese of Southern Ohio. Specifically, McClain’s manipulation and lack of accountability continue unabated.

In a Motion for Summary Judgment filed with the church hearing panel dated February 2025 (reprinted below) McClain raises a number of misleading claims in an effort to side-step adjudication of the Title IV claims against him.

McClain’s adulterous affair

Tellingly, at no point in his pleadings does McClain accept responsibility for his conduct or repent of his adulterous, live-in relationship with Erin O’Rourke, which began well prior to his divorce from his previous wife, Kate McClain. Indeed, to the contrary, he contends that he’s been punished enough by being suspended from mininstry, all while conveniently overlooking several key points:

1. For an extended period of time, McClain was suspended while being paid his almost six-figure salary. In other words, we don’t exactly feel bad for him.
2. To our knowledge, McClain continues to live with O’Rourke.
3. Nowhere do we see any concern in the pleadings McClain’s children. Being a young person today is difficult enough without having to try to work through a situation involving three de facto parents.
4. Most priests who have an ongoing affair are defrocked, full-stop.
5. McClain’s claims that O’Rourke is “special” to him, and that he was forthcoming about his adulterous relationship with her, are pretty rich. “Yes, officer, I robbed the bank. But I held the door for a little old lady on my way out.”
6. Despite the church’s recognition of same-sex marriage, and committed relationships that may not be formally recognized by the rite of marriage, the key point is that these relationships are marked by mutual care, respect, concern, and commitment. We hate to break it to McClain, but having an affair — and continuing to have an affair — warrants his removal from the priesthood.

In other words, one of the key aspects of the church’s complaint against McClain, which is that he disregards normative Christian behavior and then attempts to evade accountability, is in no way diminished by his pleadings.

To the contrary, we see Duplicitous Dan in all his glory, portraying himself as a victim, even as he spends all sorts of money for legal fees in an effort to evade accountability.

Indeed, there would be no Title IV case were McClain to have the integrity to take responsibility for his actions. As in saying, “Yes, I am having an affair, and no I don’t want to end the affair, so I will resign holy orders and save all involved the time and trouble.”

Other issues

McClain’s pleadings are too lengthy to warrant a recitation of all the myriad issues about his behavior. That said, we see several threads that run throughout his pleadings:

• His mendacious claim that he has been denied a conference panel. To be clear, there is no requirement that a case go to conference panel. Instead, the reference panel can refer the case in any manner it believes would be most likely to result in resolution. Moreover, the record indicates that McClain has previously rejected a proposed non-judicial outcome in the case, so what did he expect? And while McClain bemoans the length of the proceedings, his implicit request for a conference panel would extend the duration of the proceedings, not shorten it. Thus, McClain talks out both sides of his mouth.
• His purported concern about evidentiary gaps. These alleged gaps include failing to include Anglican Watch editor Eric Bonetti, who was the Title IV complainant in the this matter, as a witness in the case. Additionally, McClain asserts that there is no evidence that he misused parish funds. To these claims, our response is simple: Watch what you ask for; you might just get it. Specifcally, we have long advocated for a forensic audit of the parish, and we are confident that one would reveal that McClain treated the place as his personal piggy bank, including using parish accounts for his personal benefit. And, of course, that is the best reason to have a public hearing, so that this sort of information can be publicly explored.
• His alleged concern that the Diocese has damaged his reputation. To be clear, the Diocese has been consistently circumspect in all of this, as has been Kate McClain. Thus, McClain’s argument is a red herring, especially since the smoking gun in this matter is, as previously discussed, McClain’s adultery. By McClain’s own admission, as set forth in his pleadings, he is an adulterer, and we need not parse any issues beyond that to conclude that he needs to be defrocked. And to be clear: We consistently form our own conclusions in situations such as this. In that regard, all of the evidence we have obtained suggests material violations of Title IV on Dan’s part. None of the evidence points to a different conclusion.
• His disingenuous arguments about Kate McClain’s credibility. On the one hand, Duplicitous Dan relies heavily on the divorce proceedings to try to discredit his former wife. On the other hard, as he himself states, the Title IV case is not predicated on allegations of abuse in his marriage. So, which is it? And while we’re on that topic, there is a point conspicuously missing from Dan’s pleadings, which is his violation of the court protective order and his fabrications about his conduct at the Boonshoft. As we have stated, our own investigation revealed that a) Dan had actual knowledge of the court terms and conditions of the court protective order against him b) Dan made a knowing attempt to violate the protective order, including by calling the Boonshoft to verify the location of his son c) Dan used law enforcement in his effort to sidestep the court. Subsequently, Dan attempted to portray his efforts as a guileless effort to check on his son, which is not at all consistent with Dan’s conduct.
• His efforts to recharacterize the Title IV case as predicated on now-discredited allegations of domestic violence. To be clear, none of the persons who contacted Anglican Watch to say that they are afraid of Dan McClain ever alleged that this was based on allegations of domestic violence. Instead, they all stated that they perceived him to be manipulative, dishonest, abusive, Machiavellian, and focused on winning at all costs—which is consistent with our own research into Dan McClain’s misconduct. (Consider Dan’s post card about making St. Paul’s patriarchal again. What kind of whackadoodle thought even for a moment that was a good idea? And how do “traditional family values” align with adultery? And did he really think anyone would conclude he was not the sender, either directly or indirectly?)

  

  Indeed, by his own admission in prior pleadings, Dan engaged in witness tampering, contacting persons from his previous parish to ask if they had stated that were aware of previous problems with his behavior.

  And while he claims that his dealings have been above-board, we need to remind McClain: Rectors don’t get to replace vestry members or choose conservative versus liberal. Vestry members are elected by the congregation. Yet Duplicitous Dan’s own postcard expressly states that he has inappropriately tampered with the church vestry — and if he wants to try to tell us this was sent without his knowledge, we’d more than welcome his evidence to support that claim.

In short, we’re glad that the Diocese is taking this matter seriously, when far too many dioceses treat non-sexual clergy misconduct as irrelevant under Title IV.

We also are glad that the Diocese recognizes that some of the most toxic behavior out there is consistent with Dan’s behavior. Specifically, abusive personalities often engage in behavior that consists of a series of micro-agressions. These behaviors, when taken individually, may appear innocuous, but taken as part of a larger pattern are rightly seen as highly abusive. That said, part of the game that people like Dan play is to goad people until they blow blow up, then claim that their target is “over-reacting.” It’s a well-worn strategy, and one commonly deployed by narcissistic clergy — of whom, the Episcopal Church has far too many.

As an aside, we also reiterate our caution to Erin O’Rourke: What begins in adultery rarely ends well. Do you really think that, having moved in with you while still married to another woman, Dan McClain is going to prove a suitable partner? If so, you need your head examined, and you’re welcome to quote this publication on that score.

We look forward to the day when Duplicitous Dan is free to darken the patriarchal doorstep of the Presbyterian Church in America or some other misogynistic hellhole.

Below is McClain’s Motion for Summary Judgment: