Episcopal Press and News
General Convention Will Be Asked to Strengthen Disciplinary Canons for Bishops
Episcopal News Service. June 6, 1997 [97-1793]
David Skidmore, Communications Officer for the Diocese of Chicago
(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.
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.
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."
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."
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.
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.
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."
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."
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."