I have some thoughts on this, if I can jump in here. One of my problems with Title IV is that is a catch-all for everything. We don't send misdemeanors and felonies to the same courts, nor civil or criminal. (It's not a perfect metaphor but it's what I've got). Now, someone with an axe to grind against you (and there are those folks) files a Title IV. It's dismissed at the appropriate point, but later, you interview for a job and are asked "did you ever have a Title IV filed against you?" They don't mean "did someone falsely accuse you" or "did you have an antagonist in the church." They want to know if you've done something really wrong. Because for many folks in the church, that's what Title IV is. I'd really like to have something set up that intakes the serious accusations and separates that from the minor stuff. I'm not a specialist so I don't have an answer. But people aren't going to be comfortable with Title IV processes if it's always assumed by anyone who hears the words "Title IV" and assumes the complaint is about sex or money or similar. So I think CTOs and others in authority might be tempted to make things go away when they shouldn't.
PS I think 815 owes Eastern and Western Michigan years of episcopal salary for what was done to them, twice, just to be clear. I am definitely on the side of those who have been abused.
Thanks so much for this -- these are really helpful thoughts/questions.
I do wonder: if dioceses actually actually followed the canons as written, there would presumably be an increase in allegations that would at least make it to a Reference Panel. It seems like this could lead to a diminished sense that being subject to a Title IV charge *necessarily* meant that you did (or were strongly suspected of doing) something very seriously wrong -- and thus that disclosures of Title IV history would be responded to by "oh, this is something that I need more information about," not "oh, this candidate is for sure disqualified." I tend to think that this is how it *should* operate, anyway. Though I do take the point that this is not the culture of much of our church right now and that changing it would take time.
The suggestion of a 'two-track' disciplinary system, with one track for very serious allegations and another for less serious ones, is an interesting one for sure, and I could imagine advantages to it. The question of course would be what counts as a 'serious' vs 'less serious' allegation, and who decides. But if the church at GC were to decide that this was a path worth exploring, I wouldn't be opposed (not that my support or opposition really matters for what GC does, ofc). I'm definitely not committed to the position that Title IV is perfect and needs no adjustment! I just don't think that bishops, to say nothing of intake officers, are empowered in our polity to make informal, unofficial fixes to them when those fixes violate the canons.
I absolutely agree with you on the canonical violation, and of course those canons are violated for the serious offenses as well as ones perceived to be less serious, which is frustrating.
The deeper issue with the disciplinary process – at all levels – is that it is inherently unfair: in the name of empowering alleged victim(s), Title IV presumes the guilt of the accused. The end result is that a cleric’s life and career are ruined even if the cleric is innocent. While we obviously cannot go the old “Father knows best” route of sweeping things under the rug, we are in an era when some people have no qualms about weaponizing the Title IV process to silence a cleric over personal or theological disagreements that do not rise to the level of actual misconduct. This is not just a perversion of justice – it is potentially crippling for the future of the ordained ministry.
Can you say more about what you mean by Title IV presuming the guilt of the accused? Because - at least at the level of the canons - it does not. They are quite clear that presumption that the allegations are true *only* applies at the level of the intake officer, deciding whether or not the allegations if true would rise to the level of a canonical offense.
I agree that Title IV can be misused, absolutely. I can think of a few examples off the top of my head. I would be glad to see ways to strengthen safeguards against abuse of the disciplinary process. But I have to say that in my personal experience, I have seen offending priests let off lightly or not even brought before formal disciplinary processes at all for clear canonical offenses MUCH more often than I have seen over-punitive sentences.
A helpful and comprehensive explanation. I especially appreciate the reminder that good doctrine is good pastoral care. Conversely, bad doctrine is bad pastoral care.
I would add - without going into the specifics of these case, of which I know little - is that there are two problems at play here.
1. We live in a very judicious and litigious society. The US has victim impact statements - which many lawyers will tell you are very problematic for a number of reasons. And this culture is sipping into church culture, and so some push back against it in a way, that only makes the problem worse.
2. The PEC needs to ask itself what is "church discipline" for? And for whom? And then based on the Gospel (which at times may run counter to point 1) provide solutions. And while procedure is important, we should not hide behind it.
I have some thoughts on this, if I can jump in here. One of my problems with Title IV is that is a catch-all for everything. We don't send misdemeanors and felonies to the same courts, nor civil or criminal. (It's not a perfect metaphor but it's what I've got). Now, someone with an axe to grind against you (and there are those folks) files a Title IV. It's dismissed at the appropriate point, but later, you interview for a job and are asked "did you ever have a Title IV filed against you?" They don't mean "did someone falsely accuse you" or "did you have an antagonist in the church." They want to know if you've done something really wrong. Because for many folks in the church, that's what Title IV is. I'd really like to have something set up that intakes the serious accusations and separates that from the minor stuff. I'm not a specialist so I don't have an answer. But people aren't going to be comfortable with Title IV processes if it's always assumed by anyone who hears the words "Title IV" and assumes the complaint is about sex or money or similar. So I think CTOs and others in authority might be tempted to make things go away when they shouldn't.
PS I think 815 owes Eastern and Western Michigan years of episcopal salary for what was done to them, twice, just to be clear. I am definitely on the side of those who have been abused.
Absolutely. The actions of Bishop Ousley had a direct and detrimental effect upon them!
Thanks so much for this -- these are really helpful thoughts/questions.
I do wonder: if dioceses actually actually followed the canons as written, there would presumably be an increase in allegations that would at least make it to a Reference Panel. It seems like this could lead to a diminished sense that being subject to a Title IV charge *necessarily* meant that you did (or were strongly suspected of doing) something very seriously wrong -- and thus that disclosures of Title IV history would be responded to by "oh, this is something that I need more information about," not "oh, this candidate is for sure disqualified." I tend to think that this is how it *should* operate, anyway. Though I do take the point that this is not the culture of much of our church right now and that changing it would take time.
The suggestion of a 'two-track' disciplinary system, with one track for very serious allegations and another for less serious ones, is an interesting one for sure, and I could imagine advantages to it. The question of course would be what counts as a 'serious' vs 'less serious' allegation, and who decides. But if the church at GC were to decide that this was a path worth exploring, I wouldn't be opposed (not that my support or opposition really matters for what GC does, ofc). I'm definitely not committed to the position that Title IV is perfect and needs no adjustment! I just don't think that bishops, to say nothing of intake officers, are empowered in our polity to make informal, unofficial fixes to them when those fixes violate the canons.
I absolutely agree with you on the canonical violation, and of course those canons are violated for the serious offenses as well as ones perceived to be less serious, which is frustrating.
The deeper issue with the disciplinary process – at all levels – is that it is inherently unfair: in the name of empowering alleged victim(s), Title IV presumes the guilt of the accused. The end result is that a cleric’s life and career are ruined even if the cleric is innocent. While we obviously cannot go the old “Father knows best” route of sweeping things under the rug, we are in an era when some people have no qualms about weaponizing the Title IV process to silence a cleric over personal or theological disagreements that do not rise to the level of actual misconduct. This is not just a perversion of justice – it is potentially crippling for the future of the ordained ministry.
Can you say more about what you mean by Title IV presuming the guilt of the accused? Because - at least at the level of the canons - it does not. They are quite clear that presumption that the allegations are true *only* applies at the level of the intake officer, deciding whether or not the allegations if true would rise to the level of a canonical offense.
I agree that Title IV can be misused, absolutely. I can think of a few examples off the top of my head. I would be glad to see ways to strengthen safeguards against abuse of the disciplinary process. But I have to say that in my personal experience, I have seen offending priests let off lightly or not even brought before formal disciplinary processes at all for clear canonical offenses MUCH more often than I have seen over-punitive sentences.
A helpful and comprehensive explanation. I especially appreciate the reminder that good doctrine is good pastoral care. Conversely, bad doctrine is bad pastoral care.
I would add - without going into the specifics of these case, of which I know little - is that there are two problems at play here.
1. We live in a very judicious and litigious society. The US has victim impact statements - which many lawyers will tell you are very problematic for a number of reasons. And this culture is sipping into church culture, and so some push back against it in a way, that only makes the problem worse.
2. The PEC needs to ask itself what is "church discipline" for? And for whom? And then based on the Gospel (which at times may run counter to point 1) provide solutions. And while procedure is important, we should not hide behind it.