Proposed Changes in Disciplinary Canons for Bishops Draws Mixed Response
Episcopal News Service. September 26, 1996 [96-1562]
David Skidmore, Communications Officer for the Diocese of Chicago
(ENS) A proposed revision of the disciplinary canons governing bishops has drawn a vote of no confidence from the presiding bishop's chancellor, or legal advisor.
In a three-page fax sent to the Standing Commission on the Constitution and Canons (SCCC) meeting in Portland, Oregon, August 22, David Beers, chancellor to Presiding Bishop Edmond Browning, took issue with proposals that bring the disciplinary canons on bishops more into line with those governing priests and deacons.
Responding to a 61-page draft of changes to Title IV canons sent to all bishops and diocesan chancellors last July, Beers wrote that found that the commission's changes to be unnecessary and in some situations a hindrance to the presiding bishop's ministry.
A new provision giving the presiding bishop authority to temporarily inhibit bishops charged with an offense was the chief target of Beer's criticism.
"In 1994," wrote Beers, "the presiding bishop was asked by the commission whether the canons should be changed to give him inhibitory authority over bishops, and he, after consultation with his advisors, replied that would not aid, but would indeed likely hinder, his ability to deal with disciplinary matters. Nothing has happened in the intervening time to change that view."
The formation earlier this year of a three-member bishops panel to advise the presiding bishop on pastoral and disciplinary issues, and the canonical change at the last General Convention limiting a bishop's ability to cross diocesan lines to conduct episcopal ministry, provide sufficient means for dealing with bishops' misconduct or jurisdictional disputes, argued Beers.
Recent cases, he noted, have shown the value of a pastoral approach "in which the presiding bishop takes the lead in working out disciplinary problems with the bishop and leaders of the diocese."
Also drawing objections from Beers were the SCCC's proposals for easing the requirements for filing complaints against bishops, and extending the conditions for filing presentments. Under existing Title IV disciplinary canons, at least three bishops or 10 adult communicants -- two of whom must be priests -- must be signatories to a complaint against a bishop. The SCCC is proposing to reduce that requirement to one bishop and three adult communicants, only one of whom must be a priest.
Noting the "considerable disruption" created when a charge is filed against a bishop, Beers said any change should be approached with caution. If complainants run into problems, then they can turn to the new advisory panel. "I know of no basis for thinking that the procedure for filing charges should be changed to facilitate this process for complainants," he said. "I know of no one whose complaint has been hindered by the current requirements."
Beers also had reservations about the addition of a prerequisite to filing presentments against bishops accused of doctrinal violations. Presently 10 bishops with jurisdiction in the church can file a presentment against another bishop. The commission is proposing that a request for a statement of disassociation precede the presentment action against a bishop charged with violating church doctrine.
As proposed by the commission, the canons would require that 10 bishops file a request for a statement of disassociation along with a proposed text for the statement with the presiding bishop and that within 15 months of the request the House of Bishops decide whether to issue the statement. A majority of all bishops eligible to vote would be necessary for the disassociation statement to take effect. Only then can a presentment on doctrinal grounds proceed. Within six months of the statement, the presenting bishops must file a written presentment accompanied by an explanation on why the disassociation statement was insufficient.
This additional step, said Beers, "seems unduly cumbersome and time consuming," and "inappropriately disruptive" by extending the period in which a bishop lives under a cloud of suspicion. He also questioned the two-thirds voting margin the commission was proposing for the House of Bishops to consent to a presentment.
Requiring such a high threshold of approval "seems unfairly stringent and impossible to achieve," he said. In the presentment against Bishop Walter Righter this past year, the House of Bishops barely met the much lower standard of 25 percent stipulated in the present canons.
Other changes to bishop's disciplinary canons proposed by the commission include creating separate trial courts for doctrinal and non-doctrinal offenses; including lay people and priests on non-doctrinal trial courts, allowing victims and the spouses or adult children of victims to file charges; and replacing the present Board of Inquiry for investigating charges with a permanent Review Committee that includes lay people and priests. As for canons dealing with priests and deacons, the most substantive change is a provision permitting individuals or dioceses to reimburse the legal costs incurred by accused clergy.
Beers' communique, arriving on the first day of a three-day meeting, caught commission members by surprise and prompted an hour-long executive session. In a discussion following the session, commission members debated how they should respond to Beers.
Agreeing with Beers and 25 others who responded to the proposals for changes, that the two-thirds vote for presentments was impractical, the commission reduced the threshold to one-third. But on Beers' other points, the commission held to its original proposals.
The most adamant argument against altering the revisions came from Sally Johnson, chancellor of the Diocese of Minnesota and the principal author of the Title IV revisions approved at the 1994 General Convention and the draft of the latest revisions. Stating she was unwilling to sideline the changes solely because of opposition by the presiding bishop and his chancellor, Johnson pointed out that both the bishops and deputies of General Convention and the National Network of Episcopal Clergy Associations had requested the SCCC to propose additional changes to Title IV.
In an interview after the meeting, Johnson said that the changes have been prompted by input from a number of sources, including Bishop Harold Hopkins, director of the Office of Pastoral Development, and the Committee on Sexual Exploitation which met with the SCCC at the October 1995 interim bodies meeting in Minneapolis.
"One thing particularly that clergy are telling us is that the structure for bishops should be as much as possible like the structure for priests and deacons," said Johnson. "Another concern being raised is how much of this should be out in the open and how much should be behind closed doors. I think many are asking for more openness."
Beers' argument that the three-bishop panel can adequately address many complaints against bishops doesn't entirely wash with Johnson. A permanent review committee, made up of three bishops, three priests and three lay people, as proposed by the SCCC, would have greater impartiality, she said. "Once a complaint has been made it is easy for people on the outside of that process to question whether it is a fair process if that panel is picked after the complaint was made."
Opportunities for the presiding bishop to intervene pastorally would not be affected by the SCCC's proposed changes to Title IV, said Johnson. The commission's concern is in the canonical arena, she said. If all parties are satisfied by a pastoral approach to a complaint, "that's great," said Johnson. "Someday there may be a situation where that might not be the case. I think everyone is in agreement that there be a fair and equitable process for disciplining bishops."
Samuel Allen, chair of the SCCC, agrees. "It doesn't mean the presiding bishop cannot -- and probably very effectively -- handle disciplinary matters and do it very quietly," he said. "What we're concerned with is what happens if that effort fails." Allen also has reservations about the authority of the bishops' panel in disciplinary matters. "I feel what is going on is extracanonical and I think we can do better than that," he said.
Not everyone on the commission is convinced the changes are in the best interest of the church. The most outspoken critic, Bishop John Buchanan of the Diocese of West Missouri, sympathizes with the presiding bishop's concern that the authority to inhibit other bishops inappropriately interferes in the relationship between a bishop and his or her diocese. The present options available to the presiding bishop, he said, has been more than adequate. "I don't know of a case where we haven't been served well. There have been instances where the presiding bishop and a diocese have had to work out some very complicated matters."
Buchanan also takes issue with the commission's recommendation to include lay communicants and priests on a trial court for non-doctrinal offenses. "I have reservations about that," he said. "It goes back to trying to lay upon the national church structure the structure of a diocese without having a standing committee. There is no check and balance in this."
Like Beers, Buchanan also is reluctant to support changing the court's composition since it would require a change in the church's constitution, which presently stipulates that only bishops may serve on Court for the Trial of a Bishop. Unlike canonical changes which can be passed on a first reading, a constitutional change would require two votes at succeeding General Conventions.
"Philosophically, I don't know if we in the Episcopal Church want to make radical change like that in our policy," said Buchanan.
Bishop Robert Tharp of East Tennessee and a member of the commission said that having both laity and clergy on a court "might open things up a bit."
While the provision for a statement of disassociation could help clarify the issues behind a doctrinal dispute, Buchanan is concerned about the additional step becoming a roadblock to presentments. "I don't see anything wrong with the present system," he said. "People with a grievance against a bishop can charge him."
Allen admits that the issue of the chancellor's concerns has to be settled before the commission meets in November to prepare the final report to General Convention. "I think it's quite clear that the presiding bishop's office feels that the commission is going off on a lark of its own, and we need to get that squared away because we don't want to be," said Allen. "It's very troublesome."