Stephen Casey (Central Pennsylvania) reports on the Constitutions and Canons Committee

From here:

The Standing Committee on Constitution and Canons reviews proposed amendments to the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church and places them in proper form before passing them on to the General Convention for action. In addition they carry out a continual review of current Canons of the Church. At its first meeting of the Convention the Legislative Committee discussed at length the revision to Title IV, which is a major review of the Disciplinary Canons of the Church. The Disciplinary Canons as they now stand were originally set down in 1994. The prevailing attitude to clergy misconduct in those days was to consider it in the same terms as criminal law, in a punitive way. The current revision to go before the house approaches the Disciplinary Canons in a more pastoral and theological manner, moving them towards a reconciliation model for all appropriate circumstances. Later in the day the Committee discussed amendments to the Constitution and Canons that refer to the keeping of archival materials of the church, specifically how these are now garnered from dioceses and provinces of the church in an increasingly electronic age. They also considered amendments to the Canons which refer to the manner in which Diocesan Standing Committees transmit consents for Episcopal Elections.

print
Posted in * Anglican - Episcopal, Episcopal Church (TEC), General Convention, TEC Polity & Canons

2 comments on “Stephen Casey (Central Pennsylvania) reports on the Constitutions and Canons Committee

  1. Bart Hall (Kansas, USA) says:

    Hmmm. Haven’t seen much interest in theology, pastoral care, or reconciliation when it comes to reasserting clergy and bishops. [i]Au contraire[/i], the pattern remains one of outright vindictiveness.

  2. Milton says:

    Wonder if they’ll get through the provision to have clergy declared mentally incompetent to perform their ministry, subject to an expensive psychological evaluation at the clergy’s personal expense, ruled on by the same people who declared said clergy mentally incompetent?