To Speak or Not to Speak...

that is the question.

This coming Friday and Saturday, I will be attending the Diocesan Synod.  The question before me is to whether or not I should speak on the Title IV revisions.

For those who may not know, at General Convention 2009 a new set of Disciplinary Canons (Title IV) was passed with only 15 minutes of debate, and we are voting on bringing our Diocesan Canons into line with these changes.

In some quarters there are concerns about the constitutionality of these canons that revolve around whether or not a sitting Presiding Bishop has metropolitical authority over the Bishops of the Church.  Metropolitical authority means that a Presiding Bishop has the same power as a bishop diocesan in matters pertaining to Title IV violations.  It is the authority that is wielded by the Roman Catholic Hierarchy and the Eastern Orthodox Hierarchy.  Lest you think that these concerns are only due to the current occupant of the Office, ask whether you would agree to these changes if a member of the “other party” were to hold that Office.   While a lot of digital ink has been spilled in the debate over the constitutionality of these canons, I am less concerned with that on a Diocesan level. 

My concern revolves around the application of the new canons.  Will all the possible infractions be enforced equally?  Will any breach of the standards of conduct be treated with equal gravity as stipulated by the canons?  Will such breaches as failure to, “conform to the Rubrics of the Book of Common Prayer;” or “holding and teaching publicly or privately, and advisedly, any Doctrine contrary to that held by the Church”, or “knowingly violating or attempting to violate, directly or through the acts of another person, the Constitution or Canons of the Church or of any Diocese”, be prosecuted with equal fervor as are violations of professional ethics and/or crimes?

One other major change makes a cleric accountable for not reporting an offense (either self-reporting or reporting on others).  In other words, if a priest observes a colleague doing anything that could land them in trouble, and does not report it, the first cleric is just as liable as the offender.  I am guessing that the civil legal idea is “accessory after the fact.”  Do we really like the sound of that, regardless of our respective church “wings”?  In addition, will this be enforced across the board, or will some rule violations be more actionable than others?

So, does anyone know of a cleric that openly espouses, or practices, Communion without Baptism?  Denying the Resurrection? Not using, or using a creed different from, the Nicene at the Eucharist?  Changing the Baptismal Liturgy? Using different prefaces, even if published by Church Publishing? Adding to, or changing, the Eucharistic Prayers?  Using alternative texts at the principal Sunday Eucharist?  Saying “Alleluia!” during Lent?  Having a different lesson than those appointed at a marriage?  It is easy to move from the sublime to the ridiculous, but all these are violations.  Anyone else wish to play informants, or is this designed to keep folk quiet lest dust is found in their houses?

One more question, since Communion without Baptism (it is against the Canons) is practiced openly, or at least is an open secret, in some places, where are the charges for those who allow it?  Alternatively, where are the charges for those who know it happens, but have not reported?  Or, does that answer my questions above?