Heidi Shott, a diocese spokeswoman, said the disciplinary action against Fles is one of the first since the General Convention of the Episcopal Church in 2009 revised the canons known as Title lV “to make clergy discipline first and foremost a process of discernment, mediation and pastoral response rather than one that is legalistic and judicial.”
“It’s fairly safe to say, since the process was just approved in July, that this is one of the first,” Shott said Monday. “The way it’s changed is that the former clergy discipline was based on military discipline, so it was definitely more on the judgmental side. The new process is to be more like a board of review a lawyer or a doctor might have. It’s looking for a more reconciling process than in the past, and it’s just now being tested.”
An intake report was presented on Sept. 22, 2011, to the church’s Reference Panel of the Disciplinary Board. The panel requested additional investigation, so an investigator was hired and interviewed 18 people over the course of eight weeks.
The result is that Fles has signed an accord, which satisfies the requirements of the church’s disciplinary rules.
Bull. The Military Code is more humane because its primary intent is to keep soldiers in uniform and functioning as soldiers for as long as humanly possible. Kicking them out or throwing them into military prison is the last thing the code wants because it takes a lot of time and money to train soldiers.
When you have to give three different ways of promoting the new process – old way was ‘military discipline’ and ‘judgemental’ (nice to see that a concern with normal justice, as opposed to social justice is ‘judgemental’); it’s like the thing we do for *really* respectable professions – like doctors and lawyers; it’s more reconciling – then you’re overcooking the egg.
The reality is that those implementing the process now have a much freer hand to get any outcome they want, and the person in the process has much less scope for protection. If those in charge want to be nice to the person, yes, it’ll all be about ‘reconciliation’. If they don’t then expect it to be ‘zero tolerance’. This process doesn’t guarantee reconciliation, all it does is give a freer hand to the judges, and less protections to the defendant.
I predict, based on TEC’s pattern to date, that misbehavior by clergy of a sexual or theological nature (as long as the theological misbehavior is more compatible with revisionism) will be treated with great concern for reconciliation. Conflict with powerful people or misbehavior in being too close to other Anglican bodies in the U.S.A. or being too generous to departing congregations will receive something more down the ‘zero tolerance’ end.
Archer, I think it’s more a point that you have to break out your decoder ring when you read these things. “Military.” Scary word; bad.
I agree, Mark. From the spin given by the diocese spokeswoman one has to wonder what it would take under Title IV to do something irreconcilable as a clergyman. The way this was handled was interesting. Perhaps the diocese wants to take a caring position with someone who is as ill as the priest appears to be.
I also wonder how this will play out in the pews. We obviously don’t have the details of this case, but while no “crime” was committed, the article suggests that something occured between priest and parishioner. In my experience, when inappropriate things happen, either the opportunity for them ever happening again goes away or the parishioners do. Trust is hard to regain once lost.
May the Holy Spirit heal all involved.
Jack Fles is a friend whom I respect a lot. For most of the last 18 years he has had a valuable ministry at Christ Church. I don’t know any more about the “facts” other than what this article reports.
But, Blue Ontario, I don’t think the diocesan spokeswoman was trying to “spin” anything, if that means an effort to tamper with the truth about Fr. Fles. Nor was there any Henry II in the picture saying, “Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?”
If you’re saying the new Title IV stinks, I agree, as this “precedent” shows. No rumor is too trivial to be included in the story about the investigation, even after it has been credited.
There is a problem with the way this story is reported. “Sexual misconduct” by a priest sells newspapers, but “inappropriate language” falls short of where the mind usually goes when we hear “sexual misconduct.”
Nevertheless, there was a problem at Christ Church. Until I know different, I’m going to assume that the Bishop and the investigators worked within the Canons to bring about the most humane outcome for Fr. Fles and the parish.
Pax Christi!
Chuck Bradshaw
Hulls Cove, Maine
Historical Note: Christ Church, Gardiner, is one of the 2 Episcopal parishes that existed in Maine in 1820, when Maine got its independence from Massachusetts and became a state, and the Diocese of Maine was formed. The other parish no longer exists, though through moves and mergers, etc., it might have morphed into what is now St. Luke’s Cathedral in Portland.
Ack!!!
I meant to say “discredited” in the third paragraph above.
The story lacks specifics making it difficult to say if the new disciplinary canons resulted in a different outcome than what would be expected from the old ones.
The spin I refer to is the comparison of the treatment of the accused priest between the kindler, gentler new Title IV and the judgemental old version. As was stated by Undergroundpewster, at this stage it’s hard to tell whether that’s true.
I also should take this opportunity to praise the diocese for their investigation. I’ve seen less attention and due diligence paid to what are possibly worse situations.