BOTHELL, Wash. (UMNS) - In opening arguments during the clergy trial of the Rev. Karen Dammann, the church counsel presenting the case said the issue was simply whether or not the pastor had broken denomination law.
The Rev. James Finkbeiner told jurors the case seemed to be a clear and straightforward matter based on Dammann's own "avowal" that she was in a homosexual relationship. United Methodist Church law forbids the appointment of "self-avowed practicing homosexuals."
But was it really a simple case of someone admitting she broke church law? In the end, the case hinged not on Dammann's self-avowal, but on whether the jury of her peers believed she was guilty of the actual charge she faced: "practices declared by the United Methodist Church to be incompatible with Christian teachings."
The Rev. Robert Ward, serving as defense counsel, warned the jury against the "elevation of a few, select paragraphs" of the denomination's Book of Discipline above the law book's broader intent.
"Let the whole book be your guide," he urged jurors. He cited several other passages, such as Paragraph 162, which affirms "equal rights regardless of sexual orientation."
The jury of 13 clergy peers acquitted Dammann on March 20 by a vote of 11 not guilty and two undecided. None of the jurors returned a guilty vote. Nine votes were needed for a conviction.
The verdict spurred anger and joy, confusion and celebration across the denomination.
Some saw the verdict as a repudiation of a church position that is, in their view, discriminatory against gays. Others saw the verdict as flouting the denomination's Book of Discipline.
People on both sides were surprised at the outcome. How could a not-guilty verdict have been rendered in a case in which the pastor openly admitted being a lesbian? Understanding the decision requires a closer examination of the charge Dammann faced and the testimony that was heard.
The outcome, and the questions and controversy that followed, reflected conflicts in understanding what the trial was really about. The decades-long disagreement in the church about homosexuality has metastasized into confusion, anger and frustration as people try to sort out the implications. And with General Conference - the church's top legislative assembly - close on the horizon, the debate is bound to intensify.
Yet, even as some United Methodists are threatening to leave the church in protest of the verdict, others - including members of Dammann's parish in Ellensburg, Wash. - are celebrating and feeling, as one observer said, that "the church has turned the corner," and that "it's a new day."
Ward told reporters after the trial that the verdict's essential message was, "We approve of you (Karen) and stand with you, in a very loud voice."
Dammann, who has been on family leave since March 1, is free to resume her pastoral ministry. But others wonder if there will be a surge of more gay clergy coming out of the closet, much in the same way gay marriages have become a growing phenomenon. Will more church trials follow? Does the verdict represent a sea change in the way the church regards homosexuality? Or is it only the latest symptom of a struggle for the soul of the United Methodist Church?
The trial may have engendered more questions than answers.
One jury's decision
A key point to remember is that the trial's outcome was not the decision of the entire denomination or even of an annual conference, but of one panel of jurors based on the evidence presented.
"While the Dammann verdict is surprising and somewhat shocking, it should be pointed out that the results are confined to one clergy member in one annual conference, and does not in any way change current church law, which clearly states that 'self-avowed practicing homosexuals' are not to be assigned as pastors in the United Methodist Church," said Wesley Bailey, an attorney in Winston-Salem, N.C., and former member of the United Methodist Judicial Council - the denomination's "supreme court."
Attorney Evelynn Caterson of Absecon, N.J., saw the verdict with the perspective of a former assistant prosecutor and municipal judge. Caterson, also a former Judicial Council member, said that only the jury members know what went on in the jury room.
"In this case, for whatever reason that is only known to the jury, the church did not meet its burden of proof. And that's all (the outcome) says," she said.
"One jury panel heard a case, reviewed the evidence and made a decision on the evidence they were presented," she said.
That was reflected in the jury's statement to the court after the verdict.
"The only charge brought against the Rev. Karen T. Dammann is 'practices declared by the United Methodist Church to be incompatible with Christian teachings,' under Paragraph 2702.1b relating to the judicial complaint of Bishop Elias Galvan," the jury said.
"While sustaining the specification that Rev. Karen Dammann is a self-avowed practicing homosexual, we, the trial court, do not find the evidence presented by church counsel to be clear and convincing that Karen Dammann has engaged in any 'practices declared by the United Methodist Church to be incompatible with Christian teachings,'" the jury said. "We cannot sustain the charge."
In their opening statements, both Finkbeiner and Ward focused on a key piece of evidence, Dammann's 2001 letter to Galvan. In the letter, the pastor stated that she felt she could "no longer live the life of a closeted lesbian clergyperson." The letter continued, "I am living in a partnered, covenanted, homosexual relationship." Therefore, both litigators acknowledged, there could be no doubt that she was a "self-avowed" homosexual.
However, the official charge was that Dammann was guilty of "practices declared by the United Methodist Church to be incompatible with Christian teaching," under Paragraph 2702.1b of the Book of Discipline. Here, the case became less clear cut.
The book's statute of "chargeable offenses" includes a range of items, some more clearly defined than others. A partial list includes "immorality," "child abuse," "sexual misconduct," "racial harassment," "sexual abuse," "crime" and "practices declared by the United Methodist church to be incompatible with Christian teaching."
In Paragraph 2702.1b, the phrase "declared by the ... church to be incompatible with Christian teaching" is generally understood as relating to homosexuality and refers to language in the Social Principles.
The Social Principles, contained in both the Book of Discipline and the denomination's Book of Resolutions, address a wide range of social concerns, such as capital punishment, gambling as a form of economic development, war and pollution.
The statement, "Homosexual practice is incompatible with Christian teaching," first appears in the Social Principles.
Bishop Jack Tuell testified that the Social Principles are intended to be "instructive," and that they make no mention of chargeable offenses.
Pivotal testimony
During the three-day trial, Tuell's testimony had a profound effect on jurors. The retired bishop had been a practicing attorney before entering the ministry and is widely considered an expert on United Methodist law.
In more than three hours of testimony and cross-examination, Tuell outlined the history of the church's Social Principles.
"These principles are not law," Tuell explained. Although they express the vote of the General Conference, they are to be seen as "instructive," he said, and a basis for discussion as the church seeks to discern God's will regarding various social issues. He then read an opening statement to that effect as it currently appears at the beginning of the Statement of Social Principles.
"The United Methodist Church has never declared homosexual practice to be incompatible with Christian teaching," Tuell emphasized on two occasions during his testimony. "Declared" is the operative word, he insisted. Homosexuality is not a chargeable offense, because it has not been declared so in church law.
The jury also made that distinction. "We searched the Discipline and did not find a declaration that 'the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching,'" the jurors said in their statement after the verdict.
Bishop William Boyd Grove, who presided over the trial, offered additional insight in a March 23 interview with UMNS. He said the jury found Dammann not guilty based on testimony about Paragraph 304.3 in the Book of Discipline, where the phrase, "since the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching," is found. "They received testimony that caused them to doubt whether the paragraph has force given the fact that the word 'since' refers back to the Social Principles," Grove said.
On cross-examination, Finkbeiner asked Tuell if he would have pressed charges against Dammann if he had been her bishop. Tuell answered by saying he believed the Judicial Council made "a grievous error" when it requested that Galvan file the complaint against her. Galvan was the only witness for the prosecution during the three-day trial.
Lindsay Thompson, the Seattle attorney who had served pro bono as assistant counsel for the defense, answered reporters' questions after the trial. As a layman, Thompson was prohibited by church law from speaking out during the trial. However, after the trial, he told reporters that he felt the verdict was correct because the pertinent church law was "flawed and unenforceable" as written.
Finkbeiner told the same group of reporters that he did not find the not-guilty verdict surprising and that he believed the trial had been fair. "We've just moved into brand-new ground" with this verdict, he said. "How it will affect the church remains to be seen."
*DeMichele is a freelance writer living in the Seattle area. She served for 13 years as communications director for the United Methodist Church's Indiana Area. News media can contact Tim Tanton at (615) 742-5470 or newsdesk@umcom.org.
Korean News
