This is true, but it’s also true in the sense that “I’m Just a Bill” from Schoolhouse Rock is a true telling of the legislative process.
The fact of the matter is that diocesan synods sometimes have little say over who is elected to Council or Assembly. I’d need to go check diocesan canons, but in my previous diocese, these elections were controlled by the nominating committee and formally presented by standing committee, and the bishop sat on both. Frequently, possibly 90% of the time, there was a single nominee. Very Soviet. You could nominate someone from the floor; but that required meeting a deadline six weeks prior to synod so the committee could vett the “from the floor nominee.”
Functionally, the bishop can veto a reform-minded nominee before they are even nominated.
I’ll be very frank: I do not trust the current crop of bishops to do this honestly, fairly, or in good faith. In a few cases, these bishops are the same ones who wrote the original set that are now unworkable.
If they have an interest in reform, they can start by withdrawing several elements of the proposed canonical changes that *increase* the bishops’ power and protection.
In the Diocese of the Southeast (REC) representatives to the Assembly and Provincial Council are chosen by the Bishop. Not exactly the most representative arrangement.
I am sympathetic, but I disagree. A healthier constitution and system of governance would tend to give us better leaders in the first place, provide them with better incentives to behave well, and make it easier to discipline them when they didn’t behave rightly.
I don’t have any knowledge of what has or has not happened regarding abuse.
All I know is that we don’t seem to have a competent or trusted mechanism to investigate and prosecute such allegations, and we can’t even get one because the constitution is flawed so that the Provincial Council cannot legislate.
The whole Title IV Presentment process is fatally flawed and open to abuse in a variety of ways. Another point in favor of significant structural reform.
This is true, but it’s also true in the sense that “I’m Just a Bill” from Schoolhouse Rock is a true telling of the legislative process.
The fact of the matter is that diocesan synods sometimes have little say over who is elected to Council or Assembly. I’d need to go check diocesan canons, but in my previous diocese, these elections were controlled by the nominating committee and formally presented by standing committee, and the bishop sat on both. Frequently, possibly 90% of the time, there was a single nominee. Very Soviet. You could nominate someone from the floor; but that required meeting a deadline six weeks prior to synod so the committee could vett the “from the floor nominee.”
Functionally, the bishop can veto a reform-minded nominee before they are even nominated.
At one point, over 50% of the approved nominees were from a single parish.
You provide another illustration of the same broad dynamic that needs to change.
As the canons are currently written, it can only be changed if the bishops consent to it. Catch-22.
We must try, at every level.
I’ll be very frank: I do not trust the current crop of bishops to do this honestly, fairly, or in good faith. In a few cases, these bishops are the same ones who wrote the original set that are now unworkable.
If they have an interest in reform, they can start by withdrawing several elements of the proposed canonical changes that *increase* the bishops’ power and protection.
In the Diocese of the Southeast (REC) representatives to the Assembly and Provincial Council are chosen by the Bishop. Not exactly the most representative arrangement.
Well, that’s a diocesan synod issue that you all should definitely take up.
I am sympathetic, but I disagree. A healthier constitution and system of governance would tend to give us better leaders in the first place, provide them with better incentives to behave well, and make it easier to discipline them when they didn’t behave rightly.
I’m trying to look beyond any individual cases (which still need to be adjudicated, btw) to the deeper issues.
Ok, thank you, Laure.
I don’t have any knowledge of what has or has not happened regarding abuse.
All I know is that we don’t seem to have a competent or trusted mechanism to investigate and prosecute such allegations, and we can’t even get one because the constitution is flawed so that the Provincial Council cannot legislate.
The whole Title IV Presentment process is fatally flawed and open to abuse in a variety of ways. Another point in favor of significant structural reform.