wfn.org | General Convention will be asked to

[ENS.parti@ecunet.org]

June 6, 1997
Episcopal News Service
Jim Solheim, Director
212-922-5385
ens@ecunet.org

97-1793
General Convention will be asked to strengthen disciplinary canons for
bishops

by David Skidmore
   (ENS) The Episcopal Church has leveled the playing field in a
number of areas during the past three decades: allowing women deputies
to vote at General Convention, promoting minority leaders and
ministries, and ordaining women to the priesthood and episcopate.
   Yet in disciplining its clergy and bishops, the church has been
reluctant to venture far from its hierarchical heritage. 
   Three years ago, at the last General Convention in Indianapolis, the
church's lay and clerical deputies, and its bishops, approved a major
overhaul of the Title IV ecclesiastical disciplinary canons. A wider
spectrum of people were permitted to file charges, dioceses were
required to set up permanent ecclesiastical courts, evidence standards for
conviction were eased, and the time frame for filing charges was
expanded.
   But with few exceptions, the new Title IV had little impact on
bishops.
   That may soon be remedied. The church's Standing Commission on
the Constitution and Canons (SCCC), which sponsored the 1994
revisions, is returning to General Convention in Philadelphia this July
with another library's worth of changes, but this time its focus is on the
bishops.

What's good for deacons and priests . . .
   The latest installment of Title IV revisions, assembled by the SCCC
through two years of meetings that drew on input from bishops, diocesan
chancellors, provincial synods, various committees and caucuses, and,
not least, the presiding bishop and his advisors, is aimed at bringing
bishops' disciplinary canons into line with those governing priests and
deacons. 
   Sally Johnson, at the time chancellor of the Diocese of Minnesota
and the principal architect of both the 1994 Title IV changes and the
current crop, thinks the committee hit its mark. "The committee feels
very strongly that it came up with something that improved the current
system and makes disciplinary procedures for bishops parallel to those
for clergy," she said.
   Like priests or deacons, bishops would be subject to temporary
inhibition as well as to an independent investigative body--for bishops a
new panel known as the 
Review Committee--that includes lay members as well as clergy. Bishops
would also face the prospect of charges being filed against them by
alleged victims, or the parents or spouses of victims, a significant
departure from present canons that limit filing on non-doctrinal offenses
to three bishops or ten lay adults.

True parity achieved?
   Whether the changes will create true parity remains open to question.
The National Network of Episcopal Clergy Associations (NNECA) was
one of the strongest lobbyists for reforming bishops' disciplinary canons.
Rankled by laxer standards for bishops which gave broad discretion to
the presiding bishop for non-canonical intervention, NNECA's board of
directors sought to have bishops subject to the same limits and
procedures applied to clergy, including temporary inhibition of ministry,
addition of lay people to trial courts, and greater latitude for bringing
charges on non-doctrinal offenses. 
   Johnson, who met with NNECA's board last June and has written
several articles explaining the Title IV changes for NNECA's newsletter
Leaven, believes the committee has satisfied those concerns.
   "They were very interested in having a process parallel to what we
did in 1994 for priests and deacons," she said. "Generally, I think they
will find it is quite parallel."
   The Rev. Thomas Kerr of the Diocese of Delaware, who recently
went off the board of NNECA, said the board is "basically happy" with
the SCCC's revisions. Accountability is no longer a major issue, he said.
"We are not in an adversarial position with the committee as we were in
Indianapolis."

Keep standing committees involved
   NNECA's only objection to the SCCC's latest proposals deals with
changes affecting priests, not bishops. In the 1994 Title IV revision, any
extension of a temporary inhibition of a priest or deacon had to have the
approval of the diocesan Standing Committee. That has been put in doubt
by conflicting provisions in the SCCC's current revision which assigns
sole authority to the bishop for extending inhibitions but which also gives
the Standing Committee the right to modify the terms of an inhibition if
appealed by the priest or deacon within 14 days of its issue.  
   The SCCC's action, said former NNECA president the Rev. Wayne
Wright, represents "a profound change in the structure of our church"
which for 200 years has welcomed the participation of all members, lay
and ordained, "in the decisions of our church."
   So far the NNECA resolution is the only formal dissent to the
SCCC's proposal. No one, not even the bishops, are seeking to derail the
entire proposal. In fact, Johnson, citing the extensive feedback the
committee received from a variety of constituencies, rates the chance for
passage as "very good." The SCCC's chairman, Samuel Allen,
chancellor of the Diocese of Southern Ohio, is also optimistic. "We have
tried to embody as much of the suggestions and comments that we have
received from around the country."
   If there is a snag, Johnson and Allen think it will be surface around
a constitutional amendment the committee is proposing for trial courts of
bishops. The amendment, which must pass two successive General
Conventions to take effect, authorizes General Convention to adopt
canons that allow lay people and priests to serve on trial courts for
bishops. Currently the composition of bishops' trial courts is limited
constitutionally to bishops only.
   Putting bishops under judgment of lay people and clergy for offenses
involving criminal or sexual misconduct "is going to be a hard nut to
crack," said Allen. Yet, his hope is that bishops will realize that, in the
majority of cases before a trial court, bishops "really are in the same
posture as any human being accused of misconduct."

Holding bishops accountable
   Accountability also has been a fleeting concept in the investigation
phase of charges against bishops. Under the present canons, a bishop can
continue to function as the ecclesiastical authority in a diocese, even if
charges are pending against him or her. A priest or deacon, on the other
hand, who is accused of misconduct or violating church law and doctrine,
can be placed under temporary inhibition by the diocesan bishop. That
was a significant feature of the 1994 Title IV revisions, and one that
NNECA has highlighted as evidence of a double standard in church
canons. 
   That discrepancy, as well as other procedural differences, were the
primary factors behind the SCCC's latest effort at reform. In its 66-page
Blue Book report to General Convention, the committee notes there is no
person or official body with the authority to temporarily restrict a bishop
from carrying out his or her ministry during the investigation of a
complaint. Unless a bishop voluntarily suspends his or her ministry,
nothing much can be done. 
   "Traditionally, the presiding bishop has not been in a disciplinary
role," though he may step in pastorally, said Johnson. But the SCCC is
hoping to change that with amendments giving the presiding bishop
authority to temporarily inhibit bishops and permitting the presiding
bishop to initiate charges against bishops. That, said Johnson, is a major
change and a controversial one as it rocks the assumption of the presiding
bishop being "the first among equals," and questions whether the House
of Bishops should operate as an independent confederation, "or whether
it can be held accountable."
   As a check and balance to the presiding bishop as the inhibiting
authority, the SCCC has provided for an appeal process through the
Review Committee, a permanent investigative body composed of five
bishops, two priests and two lay people appointed by the presiding bishop
and president of the House of Deputies. The Review Committee, as
proposed by the SCCC, replaces the bishops panel and board of inquiry
which have been temporary bodies appointed to investigate charges as
they are filed.  

Concerns about presiding bishop's role
   Its initial recommendation for making the presiding bishop a major
player in disciplinary actions did not pass muster with the presiding
bishop's chancellor, David Beers, who argued that giving inhibitory
powers to the presiding bishop would hinder his ability to intervene
pastorally in disputes and complaints involving bishops. Beers also
objected to the other changes for bishops being proposed by the
committee, including reducing the number of complainants necessary for
filing charges to one bishop or three adult communicants--presently three
bishops or 10 adult communicants are required--and the requirement that
a statement of disassociation signed by 10 bishops precede a presentment
for doctrinal offenses. 
   After a meeting last December between representatives of the SCCC
and Presiding Bishop Edmond Browning, the presiding bishop's pastoral
development officer, Bishop Harold Hopkins, and Beers, the SCCC
revised its earlier work to give more options for pastoral intervention by
the presiding bishop. Instead of charges against bishops going directly to
the Review Committee, as originally proposed by the SCCC, they now
must be filed first with the presiding bishop who has 90 days to resolve
the matter, after which he must forward the charge to the Review
Committee unless both the complainant and respondent agree to have the
presiding bishop continue his review. 

More bishops on review committee
   The SCCC also compromised on two other provisions, one being the
Review Committee whose composition was changed from equal
representation of bishops, priests and laity, to a majority of bishops, and
from an elected body by both houses of convention, to an appointed
body. 
   The SCCC's other compromise, said Johnson, was on its proposal
for temporary inhibition of bishops. The committee agreed to have the
presiding bishop obtain consent from a diocesan standing committee
before proceeding with an inhibition. 
   But on expanding the roster of complainants, the SCCC stood its
ground. Though Browning and his advisors argued against allowing
victims to bring charges, the committee kept to its original proposal,
permitting adult victims, or the parent, spouse, or adult child of a victim,
to file charges in non-doctrinal cases, those involving crime, immorality
or conduct unbecoming a member of the clergy. 
   Bishop Hopkins, while supporting parity "wherever possible," sees
the compromises as a prudent balance of the church's current polity on
the role of the presiding bishop, and the need for accountability at all
levels.
   "The difficulty is that the church does not look at bishops in the
same way as it does for priests and deacons," said Hopkins. "Any
changes need to take into careful consideration our polity."
   That line of reasoning fed the SCCC's work on another controversial
provision, a requirement that a statement of disassociation signed by 10
bishops must precede any presentment action on a doctrinal charge
against a bishop. 
   Though originally a point of contention for Beers, who in his August
statement termed it "unduly cumbersome and time-consuming," the
disassociation provision didn't cause concern at the December meeting of
the SCCC and presiding bishop.
   But there are those outside that close circle who harbor reservations
as well. One is Bishop William Wantland of Eau Claire, one of the 10
bishops who initiated 
presentment proceedings against retired Bishop Walter Righter of Iowa
for ordaining a non-celibate gay candidate to the diaconate in 1990. The
hearings, the first proceeding in 72 years on a doctrinal charge, ended
with the court finding Righter had not violated church doctrine. 
   Wantland, still smarting from that decision, calls the disassociation
provision "a ridiculous idea," and one that sets up a double standard for
bishops. No such provision exists in the current canons for priests or
deacons, he noted, who can be charged with doctrinal violations "at the
drop of a hat."
   The motive, as he sees it, is not about episcopal polity but rather
about politics. "I think it's a deliberate attempt to make sure that no
bishop will be charged with teaching false doctrine," he said.
   He also has trouble with the SCCC's proposal for raising the voting
threshold for presentments for doctrinal violations from a quarter of the
House of Bishops to one-third. If the overall intent of the Title IV
revisions is to even the disciplinary process, then why, he asks, does the
SCCC make it tougher to file presentments? 
   Having been through a presentment process that Wantland helped
engineer, Righter thinks the threshold is set too low. He would prefer
seeing it at two-
thirds. "When you make it one-third you are politicizing the whole
thing," he said. A stiffer test is needed for doctrinal offenses, he claims.
"You don't gamble with heresy. You don't gamble with that just for your
own power's sake, and you don't scapegoat 10 million [gay] people."

Defining doctrine
   Both Righter and Wantland also take issue with the definition of
doctrine the SCCC is proposing as a separate resolution amending Title
IV. As with the presentment issue, it comes down to wanting more or
less. Wantland considers the SCCC's definition, which singles out the
Nicene and Apostles creeds, the sacraments, the pastoral offices and the
ordinal in the Book of Common Prayer as doctrinal sources, as
considerably wanting. "Why exclude the Catechism and the Articles of
Religion?" he asked. The answer, he said, is that the SCCC is
uncomfortable with the moral decrees of those documents. Again, he
charges, it comes down to politics. "I think we're talking about
`backdooring' doctrine based on the Righter court decision."
   As for Righter, he would have preferred if the SCCC had left the
matter alone. The trial court that weighed his destiny last year did a
"wonderful" job by identifying the church's "core" doctrine as limited to
the creeds and the salvation event reported in the Gospels. "They kept it
straight; they kept it clear."

Opposition to mediation proposal
   One matter that could muddy the waters is a resolution from
Executive Council allowing for mediation in Title IV disputes. The
measure, drafted by council member John McCann of Lexington and
approved by the Executive Council last January, calls for any dispute
other than sentencing to be submitted to mediation if requested by any
party. That proposal has few backers among the players in the Title IV
process.
   Allen sees is as a loophole for avoiding the cost and publicity of a
trial in misconduct cases, and an invitation to seek monetary settlements
in lieu of disciplinary action. 
   "Throwing mediation on any one party presupposes there is going to
be a financial charge, and I just don't think that the church is set for it,"
he said. "It ought to be done before the priest or vicar and the alleged
victim enter formal proceedings. It ought not to be done by dioceses
unless the diocese is guilty of some nefarious action around misconduct."
   Mediation also poses a danger to the adjudication of sexual
misconduct cases, according to the Rev. Gay Jennings, canon to the
ordinary for the Diocese of Ohio. "It could be damaging to a respondent
and very damaging to a complainant," she said. "What happens if a party
violates the terms of the mediation? Is it enforceable? What's the
sanction? What's the process? I just think it creates more problems than
it's worth."
   Ultimately the fate of the SCCC's Title IV revisions will depend on
whether bishops and deputies see the church better served with all its
clergy weighed by the same judicial scales.
   After five meetings, three drafts, and some trying compromises,
Johnson said she's satisfied. "This is a compromise document, a result of
a political process," she said. "Basically I think it's a real strong
document, and on the whole I think it's accomplishing what I hoped
would be done."

--David Skidmore is communications officer for the Diocese of Chicago
and will cover General Convention for the Episcopal News Service press
team.