Framers defend constitutionality of disciplinary canon revisions
Episcopal News Service. February 22, 2011 [022211-03]
Mary Frances Schjonberg
Saying they are aiming to answer claims that a revised set of Episcopal Church disciplinary canons set to go into effect July 1 are unconstitutional, several of framers of the changes to Title IV have issued a paper which they assert "conclusively establishes the constitutionality of the amendments."
The statement, posted here, was written by Duncan Bayne, Diocese of Olympia vice chancellor; Stephen Hutchinson, Diocese of Utah chancellor and Joseph Delafield, Diocese of Maine chancellor. Delafield, the spokesperson, said that all three were "active participants in the nine-year process of development and adoption of the amendments."
The three have also posted at the same site a series of flow charts and notes detailing the new clergy disciplinary process.
The current Title IV canons are here and the revised version is here.
Delafield said in his short statement that the three wrote the paper in response to questions that have been raised by the leadership of the Diocese of South Carolina and others as to whether the revision conforms to the church's constitution.
The nine-page paper also says that it comes in response to a paper entitled "Title IV Revisions Unmasked," written for the Anglican Communion Institute by C. Alan Runyan, a South Carolina lawyer, and Mark McCall, a member of the New York bar. The ACI has no official tie with the Anglican Communion Office.
The writers defending the Title IV revisions say that the church's constitution authorizes the canons to spell out the presiding bishop's duties while the opponents say that the presiding bishop's duties and authority are limited by the constitution.
In addition, the opponents say that constitutional language prohibiting a bishop from exercising his or her authority outside of the diocese which elected him or her applies to the presiding bishop. The paper defending the revisions argues that the original intent of that prohibition pertains to diocesan bishops acting in another's diocese without permission. Since the first constitutional provision establishing the office of presiding bishop came in 1901 (the first version of the church's constitution dates to 1789), they wrote that to seek to apply the restriction to the presiding bishop "not only stretches it beyond the contemplation of the original drafters, but contravenes common sense as well."
Some opponents to the Title IV revisions also object to provisions in the sections pertaining to discipline of bishops that give the presiding bishop the ability to give pastoral direction to other bishops and the ability to temporarily inhibit a bishop without the consent of the Standing Committee of the diocese in which he or she has jurisdiction.
During its Feb. 18-19 220th annual convention, the Diocese of South Carolina "passed again" two of the "protective resolutions" that a re-convened diocesan convention had approved in October.
The first resolution removed the accession clause to the Canons of the Episcopal Church, and the second enabled the convention to meet more frequently than annually, if needed, according to a report on the diocesan website.
"These resolutions seek to protect the diocese from any attempt at un-constitutional intrusions in our corporate life in South Carolina and were in response to the revisions to the Title IV Canons of the Episcopal Church," the report explained.
Bishop Mark Lawrence summarized for the convention during his address the actions that he has taken in recent months concerning his stand on the revisions. Those included talking to his fellow provincial bishops and hearing their concerns, and speaking to the clergy conference in the Diocese of Central Pennsylvania, he said.
"Certainly there remain, however, significant differences for many of us with the direction of the Episcopal Church," Lawrence told the convention before the vote on the resolutions. "So I believe we need to finish what we set out to do at our convention in 2010, upholding the heritage and constitution of our church. I believe we have done a service to everyone in the Episcopal Church by pointing out the problems inherent in the Title IV revisions."
The Diocese of Central Florida recently said its canons would comply with those of the Episcopal Church as long as they did not violate the church's constitution in a vote related to the Title IV revisions. After tabling a vote on the revisions during their October convention, Dallas Episcopalians are due to consider the revisions during a special convention this year. The Diocese of Western Louisiana said during its last convention that the General Convention of the Episcopal Church ought to change the Title IV revisions to limit the authority give to the presiding bishop.
Questions about the paper may be addressed to Delafield at jdelafie@maine.rr.com.
Early in the process that led to the revision of Title IV by the 2009 General Convention, Hutchinson, chair of group that drafted the changes, briefed the Executive Council on the proposal. He said the task force's challenge is "to seek a fair balance" from the comments received during the first attempt to revise Title IV during the 75th General Convention in June 2006 and those made on the current proposed draft. He said the then-proposed revision was rooted in the Baptismal Covenant and the need for accountability and responsibility, as well as healing and reconciliation.