Among other major issues to be addressed at General Convention in Philadelphia next month is the proposed revision to Title IV of the national canons. Title IV deals with discipline of members of the clergy.

The Standing Commission on Constitution and Canons proposed wide-sweeping changes in the title at the 1994 General Convention. Those changes were themselves greatly amended at the Indianapolis convention. These further proposed revisions are based partly on completing the work begun at the last convention, and to correct certain errors made in the rush of legislation.

The overall purpose of the changes was to provide a process of enforcing discipline through ecclesiastical courts in a modern set of procedures. Most of the 1994 changes had to do with the procedures for trying deacons and priests. Most of the proposed 1997 changes deal with the trial of bishops, although some of the changes do affect other members of the clergy.

The first major change is in IV.1.1. Until now, the standing committee dealt only with charges arising from "Conduct Unbecoming a Member of the Clergy." To bring such a charge against a deacon or priest required a two-thirds vote of the standing committee. That provision has been stricken, and a new provision has been added, requiring consent of a majority of all members of the standing committee to bring any charge.

In 1994, a new provision was added to allow for a temporary inhibition against a priest or deacon prior to trial. The 1997 proposal (IV.1.5) allows for a similar action of temporary inhibition against a bishop, to be imposed by the Presiding Bishop. As a deacon or priest under temporary inhibition may raise the matter with the standing committee, so an inhibited bishop may now raise the matter with a review committee which is a new body, similar in its duties to a standing committee in this area of discipline.

Just as the 1994 Canon IV.2 provided for a voluntary submission to discipline for deacons and priests, so the 1997 amendment to Canon 2 will provide for a voluntary submission for bishops.

Canon 3, on presentments, has been greatly changed in regard to bishops charged with doctrinal violations. Currently, a bishop must be charged by at least 10 bishops of jurisdiction, the presentment must be agreed to by at least one-fourth of all bishops, and then a trial takes place. The proposed amendment would require that prior to any presentment, 10 bishops of jurisdiction must ask for a statement of disassociation from the House of Bishops. If the House of Bishops fails to vote such a statement, the matter is ended. If the house does vote to disassociate from the doctrinal stance of the bishop charged with false doctrine, and the 10 bishops feel the matter must still proceed to trial, then a presentment can be filed, but the presenters will now have to show cause why a statement of disassociation is not sufficient to dispose of the matter. Should that be accomplished, then at least one-third of all bishops must consent to a trial. Provision is also made for joining non-doctrinal matters, if they arise out of the same set of facts, but dismissal of the doctrinal matters will also act to dismiss the non-doctrinal ones.

Likewise, new provisions are made for Canon 3 for bishops which parallel the procedures enacted in 1994 for priests and deacons defining who can make charges, providing for a review committee with duties similar to a standing committee in presentment issues, and giving to the Presiding Bishop the same authority to attempt informal means of disposition without resort to trial as a diocesan bishop now has.

Canon 5 is clarified in the area of Venue for Trial of a Bishop, allowing the court some flexibility in regard to location of judges, witnesses, necessary parties, etc. Likewise, both courts for the trial of deacons and priests and the Court for the Trial of a Bishop are authorized to adopt procedural rules in addition to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure adopted in 1994. Further, failure to respond will not result in an automatic conviction, but there must be a showing of a prima facie case. Clarification is also made as to payment of expenses of trial.

It is also proposed to amend Canon 8 to provide the same procedure for renunciation by bishops as is provided for deacons and priests.

Other more minor revisions are also proposed, but not discussed here.

Concerns raised by bishops and chancellors in the overall discussion of the changes to Title IV include the following:

Several clergy organizations have expressed concern about the authority of a bishop to issue a temporary inhibition without some approval from some body such as the standing committee. A similar concern has been raised about such authority being given to the Presiding Bishop.

Likewise, concern has been raised about the provision for a mandatory presentment in cases of conviction of a crime involving immorality, or a judgment in a civil court against the cleric for immorality. Even more disturbing is the fact that while the commission has given a number of definitions (IV. 15), it has steadfastly refused to define what "immorality" is. Is corporal punishment of a child "immorality"? At least one diocese has attempted to so hold.

Inasmuch as several dioceses give their ecclesiastical courts jurisdiction over the laity, it has been suggested that at least elected, appointed or licensed lay persons should be made subject to the disciplinary canon, and therefore given access to appeal to the Provincial Court of Review. Lay persons currently have no right of appeal.

The proposed amendments to the procedure for the trial of a bishop on doctrinal issues is seen by many as making it virtually impossible to try a bishop for false doctrine. Yet a deacon or priest may easily be so tried. If the purpose of the 1997 amendments is to put bishops on the same footing as priests and deacons, then these proposals should be dropped.

Originally, a bishop could be charged for non-doctrinal offenses by priests and lay persons from either the diocese of canonical residence, or in the case of a bishop without jurisdiction, in the diocese of legal residence. A typographical error was made in Canon IV. 3. 24(a)(2), in which the word "legal" was inadvertently printed "canonical," eliminating any action in the diocese where a bishop actually lived. Rather than correct this one typo, the commission has simply stricken the entire second half of the canon, limiting all actions to the diocese of canonical residence, even if the bishop has not been there for years.

There is one mention, in Canon IV. 3. 49, of the Presiding Bishop as respondent, but nowhere is there any provision for bringing a presentment against a Presiding Bishop. Who makes the presentment? Where is venue laid? These issues should be answered, although one hopes there is never a need to bring charges against the primate.

In Canon 14, there is an attempt to limit any recourse to secular courts by members of the clergy, and a provision that what might be civil rights in a secular court shall not apply to members of the clergy in ecclesiastical courts unless granted by these canons. This is seen as grossly unfair.

The same canon, in Section 19, provides for trials in courts other than original venue for a variety of reasons, but there is no provision for the respondent asking for a change of venue if it appears that a fair trial cannot be given in the court of the diocese in which the presentment is filed. If there is to be fairness, there should be a provision for change of venue, as there is in secular courts.

While not specifically a part of Title IV, an amendment to Article IX of the Church Constitution is proposed by the Standing Commission on Constitution and Canons, which would create two Courts for the Trial of a Bishop, one for non-doctrinal matters, in which judges would include not only bishops, but priests and laity, as well; and one for doctrinal matters, consisting of bishops only. Such a proposal is opposed by a number of bishops, and by a number of those learned in the law, as well. This proposal is mentioned here, because if it passes, it will result in more amendments to Title IV.

Finally, while not included in the section of the Blue Book Report on Title IV, the Standing Commission is also proposing canonical definitions of "discipline" and "doctrine," to be added to Title IV separately. In view of the furor over the Righter decision, these definitions need to be looked at closely, as this is an attempt to legislate in an offhand way an issue that was litigated at great length. "Discipline" as a basis of a presentment, is limited to matters defined in the constitution, canons, and rubrics of the prayer book. "Doctrine" is defined as that which is contained in the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds, and those portions of the prayer book involving the sacraments, pastoral offices, and ordinal, as supported by holy scripture. Other parts of the prayer book, such as the Catechism and Articles of Religion, previously held by General Conventions as containing the doctrine of the church, have been omitted.

This is perhaps the most far-reaching change introduced into Title IV by the commission, one which has received virtually no publicity to date, and which was not shared with the House of Bishops in previous discussions.