South Carolina Episcopalians
Bearing Witness to the Resurrection of Jesus Christ through the Episcopal Church
Title IV Revisions: No threat to SC
by Steve Skardon
The idea that newly implemented revisions to Title IV of the Episcopal Church's Canons are in any way targeted at Mark Lawrence, our Standing Committee, or the Diocese of South Carolina is just plain foolishness.
They have nothing to do with the current Presiding Bishop trying to illegally exercise power in the "sovereign" Diocese of South Carolina, nor is there any substance to the claim that they are "unconstitutional".
If this Title IV business is so bad, why have our delegates to previous General Conventions support it? Why, in his lengthy reporting to the Diocese after the last General Convention, did Bishop Lawrence not even mention this so-called "threat" to our "freedom"? In all the reports filed by our delegates when they returned from convention, not one word was even mentioned about the evils of Title IV. In fact, they supported it.
Proposed Revisions to Title IV predate Jefferts Schori and Lawrence.
The current revision of the Church's disciplinary code got underway long before anyone had any idea that Katharine Jefferts Schori or Mark Lawrence would ever become bishops. Its extensive history is well established in reports of the Standing Commission on Constitution and Canons published in the Blue Book of the 2000 General Conventions and in reports of the Title IV Revisions Task Force published in the Blue Books of 2003, 2006 and 2009.
Here's a nutshell version:
The current Title IV, adopted in 1994, was prepared in response to concerns that the previous canons on clergy discipline were far too general. Reports of arbitrary actions by bishops, neglect of victims of sexual misconduct, and even secret trials of accused clergy were rampant.
This 1994 model was patterned on the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It was precise, efficient (to a degree) and predictable in determining whether the accused cleric would be deposed.
However, during the ensuing years, it became clear to many that the model was flawed. Proceedings required under Title IV were too expensive and cumbersome than most dioceses could manage, and they ignored the responsibilities of the Church in caring for victims and affected congregations.
Accordingly, during the late 1990s, the Church's Standing Commission on Constitution and Canons, the Committee on Sexual Exploitation, and other groups developed resolutions to call for a new task force to study the implementation and experience of the 1994 Title IV and to make recommendations to the 2006 General Convention.
It was the nearly unanimous conclusion of these groups that Title IV, as revised in 1994, created a disciplinary system without a sound theological basis. It was a criminal justice structure that may have worked for the military, but was a wrong fit for a Church claiming the mantle of Jesus Christ.
The task force decided to propose a whole new Title IV. It went on to study the disciplinary systems of other denominations and learned professions, and to seek input from all over the Church through bishops and Provincial meetings.
An initial report of the task force was published in the Church's 2003 Blue Book.
Between 2003 and 2006, the task force developed and proposed a new framework for Title IV, and made presentations to the House of Bishops, Provincial meetings, clergy groups, chancellors conferences, and others in advance of the 2006 General Convention. The 2006 GC adopted a resolution supportive of the work of the task force, expressly endorsing the idea of a reconciliation model (vs a criminal justice model).
Between 2006 and 2009, the task force (newly enlarged by the 2006 GC) incorporated the counsel of the Convention into its work and again hit the road with its work even publishing it online to reach a broader audience for feedback.
At the 2009 General Convention the work of the task force was approved and the proposed new Article IV sent to the dioceses.
The offenses listed in the new Title IV include those in the current Title IV, plus some more explicit offenses that relate to ordination vow violations and a few that relate to protecting the viability of Title IV proceedings and the persons who might be involved in them. The standard of proof remained the same.
The revisions do remove the so-called “right against self-incrimination”, inasmuch as (1) most offenses do not include allegations of crimes, (2) one of the theological tenants of the Title is to promote truth telling and reconciliation, and (3) most other disciplinary systems studied require respondents to cooperate with the proceedings and respond to complaints or question s.
Diocese's Attacks on Title IV revisions deemed political theater.
Assertions that the new Title IV is “unconstitutional” are without merit. Those in our Diocese advancing arguments about the enlargement of the role and authority of the Presiding Bishop, make the assumption that such is circumscribed in the Church's Constitution. It isn't.
The Constitution explicitly provides that the duties of the Presiding Bishop “shall be prescribed by the Canons of the General Convention”. There is no description or limitation of such duties in the Constitution. Neither are any of the provisions of Title IV otherwise in conflict with the Constitution.
In fact, our first Bishop, Robert Smith, whom Lawrence says is a hero of his, agreed that this power rightly belonged in the national Constitution, and along with our deputies signed the Constitution with that explicit understanding.
SC Episcopalians has conferred with a number of Church legal scholars and members of the task force to confirm this understanding of the revisions.
At no time during any of this work, or in the dozens of meetings where the work was presented, was there any suggestion of an agenda for this new canon to be used to get anyone or any diocese. Without exception, those we spoke to were disgusted with the way the leadership of the Diocese of South Carolina was twisting their work for political purposes .
Check out the long history of the Revisions to Article IV:
A February 2008 story on Task Force's call for comment on the proposed revisions is a useful perspective. Click here for story.
Go straight to the source. If you go here and click on the Blue Book, you will get a very large pdf. file. Go to page iv and click on the link in the index for Task Force for Disciplinary Policies (Title IV Revisions). This gives more background right from the source.
The current proposed revisions (which evolved into the ones that came to Convention in 2009) grew out of an attempt to revised Title IV at the 2006 Convention. See stories here and here.
Title IV was last revised in 1994. Click here for story
Return to Home Page
Contact us at scepiscopalians@aol.com
The idea that newly implemented revisions to Title IV of the Episcopal Church's Canons are in any way targeted at Mark Lawrence, our Standing Committee, or the Diocese of South Carolina is just plain foolishness.
They have nothing to do with the current Presiding Bishop trying to illegally exercise power in the "sovereign" Diocese of South Carolina, nor is there any substance to the claim that they are "unconstitutional".
If this Title IV business is so bad, why have our delegates to previous General Conventions support it? Why, in his lengthy reporting to the Diocese after the last General Convention, did Bishop Lawrence not even mention this so-called "threat" to our "freedom"? In all the reports filed by our delegates when they returned from convention, not one word was even mentioned about the evils of Title IV. In fact, they supported it.
Proposed Revisions to Title IV predate Jefferts Schori and Lawrence.
The current revision of the Church's disciplinary code got underway long before anyone had any idea that Katharine Jefferts Schori or Mark Lawrence would ever become bishops. Its extensive history is well established in reports of the Standing Commission on Constitution and Canons published in the Blue Book of the 2000 General Conventions and in reports of the Title IV Revisions Task Force published in the Blue Books of 2003, 2006 and 2009.
Here's a nutshell version:
The current Title IV, adopted in 1994, was prepared in response to concerns that the previous canons on clergy discipline were far too general. Reports of arbitrary actions by bishops, neglect of victims of sexual misconduct, and even secret trials of accused clergy were rampant.
This 1994 model was patterned on the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It was precise, efficient (to a degree) and predictable in determining whether the accused cleric would be deposed.
However, during the ensuing years, it became clear to many that the model was flawed. Proceedings required under Title IV were too expensive and cumbersome than most dioceses could manage, and they ignored the responsibilities of the Church in caring for victims and affected congregations.
Accordingly, during the late 1990s, the Church's Standing Commission on Constitution and Canons, the Committee on Sexual Exploitation, and other groups developed resolutions to call for a new task force to study the implementation and experience of the 1994 Title IV and to make recommendations to the 2006 General Convention.
It was the nearly unanimous conclusion of these groups that Title IV, as revised in 1994, created a disciplinary system without a sound theological basis. It was a criminal justice structure that may have worked for the military, but was a wrong fit for a Church claiming the mantle of Jesus Christ.
The task force decided to propose a whole new Title IV. It went on to study the disciplinary systems of other denominations and learned professions, and to seek input from all over the Church through bishops and Provincial meetings.
An initial report of the task force was published in the Church's 2003 Blue Book.
Between 2003 and 2006, the task force developed and proposed a new framework for Title IV, and made presentations to the House of Bishops, Provincial meetings, clergy groups, chancellors conferences, and others in advance of the 2006 General Convention. The 2006 GC adopted a resolution supportive of the work of the task force, expressly endorsing the idea of a reconciliation model (vs a criminal justice model).
Between 2006 and 2009, the task force (newly enlarged by the 2006 GC) incorporated the counsel of the Convention into its work and again hit the road with its work even publishing it online to reach a broader audience for feedback.
At the 2009 General Convention the work of the task force was approved and the proposed new Article IV sent to the dioceses.
The offenses listed in the new Title IV include those in the current Title IV, plus some more explicit offenses that relate to ordination vow violations and a few that relate to protecting the viability of Title IV proceedings and the persons who might be involved in them. The standard of proof remained the same.
The revisions do remove the so-called “right against self-incrimination”, inasmuch as (1) most offenses do not include allegations of crimes, (2) one of the theological tenants of the Title is to promote truth telling and reconciliation, and (3) most other disciplinary systems studied require respondents to cooperate with the proceedings and respond to complaints or question s.
Diocese's Attacks on Title IV revisions deemed political theater.
Assertions that the new Title IV is “unconstitutional” are without merit. Those in our Diocese advancing arguments about the enlargement of the role and authority of the Presiding Bishop, make the assumption that such is circumscribed in the Church's Constitution. It isn't.
The Constitution explicitly provides that the duties of the Presiding Bishop “shall be prescribed by the Canons of the General Convention”. There is no description or limitation of such duties in the Constitution. Neither are any of the provisions of Title IV otherwise in conflict with the Constitution.
In fact, our first Bishop, Robert Smith, whom Lawrence says is a hero of his, agreed that this power rightly belonged in the national Constitution, and along with our deputies signed the Constitution with that explicit understanding.
SC Episcopalians has conferred with a number of Church legal scholars and members of the task force to confirm this understanding of the revisions.
At no time during any of this work, or in the dozens of meetings where the work was presented, was there any suggestion of an agenda for this new canon to be used to get anyone or any diocese. Without exception, those we spoke to were disgusted with the way the leadership of the Diocese of South Carolina was twisting their work for political purposes .
Check out the long history of the Revisions to Article IV:
A February 2008 story on Task Force's call for comment on the proposed revisions is a useful perspective. Click here for story. Go straight to the source. If you go here and click on the Blue Book, you will get a very large pdf. file. Go to page iv and click on the link in the index for Task Force for Disciplinary Policies (Title IV Revisions). This gives more background right from the source. The current proposed revisions (which evolved into the ones that came to Convention in 2009) grew out of an attempt to revised Title IV at the 2006 Convention. See stories here and here. Title IV was last revised in 1994. Click here for story Return to Home Page
Contact us at scepiscopalians@aol.com
