Church rules
Each church has different rules for handling charges of professional misconduct of its employees. Currently this site only includes information about the Episcopal Church but we welcome information from other religious traditions because all want to be at least as responsible as secular professions and institutions, and to respond in ways that include religious understanding of justice, mercy, and humility; amendment of life; and repentance and forgiveness.
The Episcopal Church USA is governed by rules and regulations called Canons. If you believe that you have been harmed by a priest, then you will need to consult two sets of Canons. One is national in scope and defines most parameters; the other is specific to the Diocese in which a specific parish or mission operates. The national ones can be found at http://www.episcopalarchives.org/CnC_ToC_2009.html. The Diocesan ones should be available at the website of your Diocese. In both cases, the rules are labeled something like IV.4.1 that stands for Title IV (Ecclesiastical Discipline), Canon 4 (Standards of Conduct), Section 1 (a list of Do's and Don'ts).
Professional misconduct is dealt with in Title IV that changed in July, 2011 to make it even less punitive, and to give even more power to local bishops. The case summarized on this web site was under the older canons, so we do not have personal experience with the new rules. However, they seem to make it even harder for individual voices to be heard.
Each Diocese is responsible to publicize what to do when you experience misconduct, but it will take significant time and effort to figure it out. If you think that your priest’s behavior is more than just annoying and might be unethical, then the key question is whether the behavior actually violates church rules. Actionable offenses are spelled out in IV.4.1.
If the leadership of your local church does nothing about the offenses, then contact the Diocesan office and ask for the church discipline “intake officer”. Timing may be important. There are time limits (statutes of limitation). We had to produce records of our baptism, and our church attendance and financial contributions in the year prior to notifying the Diocese. The intake officer, who is appointed by the bishop, now can decide that your complaint is inconsequential and toss it out. In our case, under the old rules, our complaint went directly to an elected review committee that took it seriously even though the bishop had told one of the victims that her case, even if true, was not consequential enough for a presentment.
There is a national office for clergy and bishop conduct called the Office of Pastoral Development. It is in New Bern, North Carolina: http://www.episcopalchurch.org/pastoral.htm. In our case, it first responded cordially with apparent understanding, but then did nothing more. It seems to be mostly concerned about sex, money, schism, and status quo.
There is a lawyer to the national church for matters of church discipline. Currently it is David Booth Beers atdbeers@goodwinprocter.com. He knew of our case before we contacted him, but answered only general questions while it was active.
There is a national archive that in principle keeps official records of trials and perhaps other disciplinary actions. It can be reached at research@episcopalarchives.org.
Here are some other things that we learned, or at least were told as fact:
• The neutrality and integrity of the church attorney is critical but out of your control. S/he is chosen and paid for by the Diocese, and does not represent the victims. S/he may do the work pro bono or at a discounted rate. Attorney/client privilege does not apply to the victims which limits their interactions with the church attorney. Although paid for by parishioners through Diocesan assessments, the church attorney’s investigations can be ignored or treated as just another opinion by the bishop. Victims can hire their own legal counsel; we did that only for filing the original charges, in order to be taken seriously. However, at one stage the Diocesan lawyer (Chancellor) refused to answer our questions unless they came from a private attorney.
• Members of the Trial Court who are conflicted in a particular case are supposed to recuse themselves but cannot be forced to step aside by anyone else. For example, in our case, one member (Rev. Rick Matters from Carmel) had been a character reference for the accused when he applied for the job at Calvary, and was a member of his ordination party, but did not recuse himself.
• Nothing requires the sentence to be public. Parts of the first pastoral direction in this case were read to the vestry to emphasize the bishop’s support for him, but otherwise were unknown to the parish. Although the canons seem to say that the sentence in a voluntary submission must be sent to all priests and vestries in the Diocese, that did not happen in our case. The final sentence was not distributed to the parish, and is available on this web site only because we asked for it when we were "heard" by the bishop.
• All deadlines are flexible and at the sole discretion of the bishop.
• The national Episcopal Church says that it has no central records of disciplining its clergy. It says that it does not know how many charges, presentments, trials, or voluntary submissions there are, or for what.
• A bishop can inhibit a priest even if the majority of a parish vestry wants to cover up the harm done. A priest in our area was even removed by a bishop in the 1960s despite a split vestry.
• Priests have “instant tenure”: employment for life without a trial period. They can be removed if there is near-unanimous agreement in the vestry but the bishop can then require the parish to “buy out” the priest. In a recent case it cost the parish one year’s compensation after only two years of employment. Priests also can nullify indictment and avoid trial at any time by negotiating a sentence with their bishop. Therefore, all the canons governing charges, review, investigation, indictment, and trial mean nothing unless a bishop honors the spirit of the rules and sets a high standard of behavior for the Diocese.
Click the learn more about what you could do.
The Episcopal Church USA is governed by rules and regulations called Canons. If you believe that you have been harmed by a priest, then you will need to consult two sets of Canons. One is national in scope and defines most parameters; the other is specific to the Diocese in which a specific parish or mission operates. The national ones can be found at http://www.episcopalarchives.org/CnC_ToC_2009.html. The Diocesan ones should be available at the website of your Diocese. In both cases, the rules are labeled something like IV.4.1 that stands for Title IV (Ecclesiastical Discipline), Canon 4 (Standards of Conduct), Section 1 (a list of Do's and Don'ts).
Professional misconduct is dealt with in Title IV that changed in July, 2011 to make it even less punitive, and to give even more power to local bishops. The case summarized on this web site was under the older canons, so we do not have personal experience with the new rules. However, they seem to make it even harder for individual voices to be heard.
Each Diocese is responsible to publicize what to do when you experience misconduct, but it will take significant time and effort to figure it out. If you think that your priest’s behavior is more than just annoying and might be unethical, then the key question is whether the behavior actually violates church rules. Actionable offenses are spelled out in IV.4.1.
If the leadership of your local church does nothing about the offenses, then contact the Diocesan office and ask for the church discipline “intake officer”. Timing may be important. There are time limits (statutes of limitation). We had to produce records of our baptism, and our church attendance and financial contributions in the year prior to notifying the Diocese. The intake officer, who is appointed by the bishop, now can decide that your complaint is inconsequential and toss it out. In our case, under the old rules, our complaint went directly to an elected review committee that took it seriously even though the bishop had told one of the victims that her case, even if true, was not consequential enough for a presentment.
There is a national office for clergy and bishop conduct called the Office of Pastoral Development. It is in New Bern, North Carolina: http://www.episcopalchurch.org/pastoral.htm. In our case, it first responded cordially with apparent understanding, but then did nothing more. It seems to be mostly concerned about sex, money, schism, and status quo.
There is a lawyer to the national church for matters of church discipline. Currently it is David Booth Beers atdbeers@goodwinprocter.com. He knew of our case before we contacted him, but answered only general questions while it was active.
There is a national archive that in principle keeps official records of trials and perhaps other disciplinary actions. It can be reached at research@episcopalarchives.org.
Here are some other things that we learned, or at least were told as fact:
• The neutrality and integrity of the church attorney is critical but out of your control. S/he is chosen and paid for by the Diocese, and does not represent the victims. S/he may do the work pro bono or at a discounted rate. Attorney/client privilege does not apply to the victims which limits their interactions with the church attorney. Although paid for by parishioners through Diocesan assessments, the church attorney’s investigations can be ignored or treated as just another opinion by the bishop. Victims can hire their own legal counsel; we did that only for filing the original charges, in order to be taken seriously. However, at one stage the Diocesan lawyer (Chancellor) refused to answer our questions unless they came from a private attorney.
• Members of the Trial Court who are conflicted in a particular case are supposed to recuse themselves but cannot be forced to step aside by anyone else. For example, in our case, one member (Rev. Rick Matters from Carmel) had been a character reference for the accused when he applied for the job at Calvary, and was a member of his ordination party, but did not recuse himself.
• Nothing requires the sentence to be public. Parts of the first pastoral direction in this case were read to the vestry to emphasize the bishop’s support for him, but otherwise were unknown to the parish. Although the canons seem to say that the sentence in a voluntary submission must be sent to all priests and vestries in the Diocese, that did not happen in our case. The final sentence was not distributed to the parish, and is available on this web site only because we asked for it when we were "heard" by the bishop.
• All deadlines are flexible and at the sole discretion of the bishop.
• The national Episcopal Church says that it has no central records of disciplining its clergy. It says that it does not know how many charges, presentments, trials, or voluntary submissions there are, or for what.
• A bishop can inhibit a priest even if the majority of a parish vestry wants to cover up the harm done. A priest in our area was even removed by a bishop in the 1960s despite a split vestry.
• Priests have “instant tenure”: employment for life without a trial period. They can be removed if there is near-unanimous agreement in the vestry but the bishop can then require the parish to “buy out” the priest. In a recent case it cost the parish one year’s compensation after only two years of employment. Priests also can nullify indictment and avoid trial at any time by negotiating a sentence with their bishop. Therefore, all the canons governing charges, review, investigation, indictment, and trial mean nothing unless a bishop honors the spirit of the rules and sets a high standard of behavior for the Diocese.
Click the learn more about what you could do.
