AW issues further warning to the flying monkeys of St. Paul’s, Dayton

This seems like an appropriate time to issue a reminder to the flying monkeys of St. Paul’s, Dayton. Specifically, gaslighting is a form of abuse, and we do not tolerate it.

Before our winged friends shrug their shoulders and say, “What are they talking about?,” we’re talking about the myriad emails and comments that are getting blackholed. A cursory glance at this trash (which automatically goes straight to the garbage) reveals people justifying their statements because they have “different experiences and conclusions” than we do.

Spare us. We’re not falling for the gaslighting.

This whole line of argument is predicated on the notion that facts are subjective. They are not.

When we see lies and inappropriate topics of conversation — including claims that Kate McClain had a significant mental health incident while in Ohio, a claim that likely is defamatory — those are not cases of differing conclusions. 

Rather, they are statements of fact and thus provable or disprovable. If they are proven false, those involved can be successfully sued for defamation. 

Nor is the fact someone is spreading a fabrication told to them by Daniel McClain a defense under the law.

Disagree? Hire an attorney and ask her.

Additionally, we have news for folks at St. Paul’s Dayton:

1. Someone else’s mental health is not an appropriate topic of conversation for you. It’s gossip, and it is wrong.
2. Discussions of the mental health of family members is spectacularly inappropriate for Daniel McClain.
3. Were such claims valid, they would be even more reason to act with kindness and compassion. Or does that part not factor into your notions of Christianity?

So, if you want to explore these issues, let’s start with one issue that is within your purview. That issue is why St. Paul’s elected someone as rector when he allegedly is having an affair. 

How do you think McClain’s children will respond when they learn about that situation? What sort of example does that set for others?

As we stated in previous comments, don’t be pigs. There is zero excuse for having an affair. If McClain needs a divorce, so be it, but he needs to act with dignity while he’s in the marriage, including adhering to his marriage vows. And he needs to treat his wife and children respectfully—which does NOT include looking for excuses to reduce paying support.

Apropos Daniel McClain’s discussion of his family, the appropriate response if he pulls that stunt is a blank look, followed by the question, “Why are you telling me this?”

As for the allegations against Daniel McClain, what part of “allegations of domestic violence” do you not get?

Regarding Daniel McClain’s future with the church, the parish would be well-advised to cut him loose. Yes, we get that “Fr. Chill” can turn on the narcissistic charm-bombing when he wants. But if parishioners take a step back, look at issues like McClain’s inappropriate comments about his family, and multiple people saying they are afraid of him, they will see that the parish is being badly served.

Friendly is not the same as faithful. And we can look at Daniel McClain’s actions and readily determine whether he is motivated by faith or something else.

We also note that claiming that perceived enemies are mentally ill, domestic terrorists, possibly violent, and all that nonsense is straight out of narcissism 101. 

Those tactics aren’t even very clever and hinge on discredited, ugly 1950s vintage tropes. They’re also often projections of what’s happening in the narcissist’s head.

So broham, while Daniel McClain tries to impress us with how hip he is, what a great academic he is, and how friendly he is, we’re calling BS on his efforts.

Our take on Daniel McClain is he’s a toxic little weasel, a liar, a master manipulator, and several other attributes unsuitable for publication. Even his facial expressions are creepy.

As for people who fear McClain but don’t want to say anything on the record, we get you. 

But resisting injustice and oppression is difficult when we can’t call a spade a spade. And that is why Anglican Watch does what it does–we go places other people are afraid to go. We got chutzpah, and if Daniel McClain wants to go after someone, he can start with us. But it helps when others aren’t afraid to speak truth to power, or in this case, to a weasel.

We also get that folks at St. Paul’s have learned some remarkably unhealthy ways to relate to their priest, each other, and the world around them.

But if St. Paul’s is going to survive, folks there need to back up, take a hard look at the situation, and ask tough questions. We’re not convinced what’s left of the parish has the integrity or introspection to do it, but it needs to happen.

As for gaslighting, it’s unhealthy, unacceptable, and a red flag indicating a toxic parish. Until folks at St. Paul’s muck out those stalls, we will continue to warn possible newcomers away from this church.

Finally, we warn St. Paul’s members: you need to stop spreading claims that likely are defamatory. You already have major credibility issues due to your fabrications about the requirements of Title IV, so we advise making sure what you say is accurate. Getting successfully sued for defamation is not going to help your case.

Instead, you need to focus on care and concern for each other and all those involved in this situation — not just Daniel McClain. And we’d be very interested in knowing where you came up with the fabrications about Title IV. Something tells us you didn’t fall down, smack your little heads on the sidewalk, and dream that one up on your own.

As someone said of Grace Episcopal Church in Alexandria, VA: “This group of parishioners is circling the wagons and while they seem sane to themselves, they seem immature and hateful to outsiders who are looking at their behavior.”