 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Impediments, forgiveness and due diligence with bishops and clergy
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
This case which I read about via www.anglicansonline.org raised questions about how clergy and bishops are reviewed for appropriateness before standing for election or appointment. Further it raised the issue of whether past conduct should bar someone from eligibility. And where the lines about this might be.
The case in the link is about an ordained person who was known at the time of search and election to have had a past charge related to intoxicants and driving, and has recently been charged with the drinking and driving death of a cyclist. I don't want to discuss the merits of this case, but rather the general issue.
What sorts of things should be barriers to appointment? Sexual assault seems obvious as a barrier, but what about other criminal charges and misconduct? Are we misled within Christian denominations to consider that someone might have worked through their issues and be 'healed' of them? by our wish to forgive and read redemption into everyone's life? Many of our clergy speak well. Do we mistake the well-spoken for the healed? Other things?
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
This sort of interleaves with the dabate about "convicted rapist" footballers... There is one aspect of the question which necessarily asks when someone is allowed by society to start again and have another chance?
With God, we're always starting again. With human affairs, there is definitely an issue of putting our money where our mouths are re forgiveness.
Interesting - I'm just thinking of people near where I live who have had jobs with more responsibility for human welfare who have also been alcoholic. As far as personal capacity to function is concerned, there is no universal rule - other than at the point of falling over.
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
There's a thing about forgiving an offense against oneself, but forgiving an offense against someone else is a different question - how much can you accept for someone else?
This sort of situation has been used by pastors to force a woman to forgive a rapist/demeaner/generally nasty person (who happens to be male and "important" in the church).
But there is also a problem with enabling the person with a problem to continue having the problem: e.g. putting an alcoholic back into the pressure-situation that affected his problem, or a pedophile back in Sunday School with kids.
Forgiving may be appropriate in order to set up a situation in which the person can try to do better, but caution (protection of oneself or others) demands that the person not be put into situations of difficulty. Indeed, it could be argued that one commits a sin/crime by enabling a further act of sin/crime by someone else.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Nobody has a right to be in the ministry. That role is a privilege and exists for the benefit of the church, not the role holder. I would tend to make the bar fairly high in the hopes of preventing damage to the church caused by known major weaknesses that are likely to recur.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
Forgiveness is interpersonal, and says nothing about a person's suitability for office.
There's a neat solution to this. As bishops in TEC are elected, simply have them declare their convictions upfront to their electorate, and make a case for their being elected regardless.
Felonies and violent misdemeanors excepted: no discretion over those for the sake of congregants' safety. Suppose you could devise a waiver system if you wanted.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
I think there's also a question here about a person's general maturity and soundness of judgement and ability to conduct themselves with the dignity appropriate to their position. ISTM that a person with recent convictions for road traffic offences- I don't mean an isolated lapse, I mean more than one, although I don't know whether that was the case when this bishop was elected- is likely to be rather lacking in these things.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
Shouldn't any man ordained to the orders be of good repute? Of course, that's not always been the case but certainly that's the ideal.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Forgiveness is interpersonal, and says nothing about a person's suitability for office.
There's a neat solution to this. As bishops in TEC are elected, simply have them declare their convictions upfront to their electorate, and make a case for their being elected regardless.
Felonies and violent misdemeanors excepted: no discretion over those for the sake of congregants' safety. Suppose you could devise a waiver system if you wanted.
That strikes me as incontrovertible. A report has said that those arranging the election knew of the person's record, but did not disclose it to the electors. That means they were inhibited from exercising their role responsibly. It also constitutes a sort of fraud on them.
One wonders whether this was motivated by someone's determination to get their candidate elected, or by a feeling that the church should exercise forgiveness, in which case that decision should have been given to the electors, not taken for them.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
If a person can show s/he has been able to maintain recovery (dealing with drugs or alcohol) for at least five years then I have no problem with him or her standing for election.
Can a convicted felon become a bishop? I would say it depends on the crime and the length of time since the conviction. Again, if it can be shown the person has definitely turned their life around, who am I to object?
As I see it, the first DUI should be a warning flag. How many times has the person driven drunk before they were caught. The reported blood alcohol content can also give a good indication of the severity of the disease. Other psycho-social markers should also be considered.
But when a second DUI happens, then there is something definitely wrong, especially if it results in the death of another party.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
We have the precedent of George Abbott, who as Archbishop of Canterbury, accidentally killed a gameskeeper while hunting. He withdrew from active leadership and was only spared de-throning and unfrocking by a royal commission, where King James cast the deciding vote.
It would seem that this bishop's resignation from office and withdrawal from the episcopal ministry would be seemly. Ready submission to the civil judicial system would be an option for consideration. Then processes of healing and forgiveness could take their place.
The point has been made above that disclosure on her problem and the previous conviction should have been made so that the electoral convention could make its own decision. That this was not done reflects poorly on those who made the decision to cloak this problem, and arguably enabled the bishop not to properly work to address her addiction.
I've three friends whom I know are alcoholics and am humble before the two of them who have worked with great difficulty to deal with their addiction (the other I'm greatly worried about). Helping the bishop heal should have been the first goal of her friends, rather than allowing her to go forward into a stressful responsibility; and they should reflect with great seriousness on their participation in this situation, and on what that says about their ability to exercise leadership and influence.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Abbott gives the perfect example of how to behave in such circumstances. Perhaps the best he set in his career.
There is a range of sex offences. In NSW, consensual homosexual acts for those over 18 (now 16) were only decriminalised in the early 1980s; should someone who has a conviction for an offence before then be required to disclose it? My recollection is that spent conviction provisions may well not apply to many of these. What of a consensual sexual act between a couple 15 years old? I do understand the need to set an age below which apparent consent is no defence, but most of these offences used come to light only if the girl became pregnant.
Another line of thought. Back in the days, a gay NSW solicitor and a lot of others were arrested at a dance or party. He gave a false name when he appeared in court the next day. Should that be held against him now? My own view is that the offence should be forgiven and forgotten, but not the giving of a false name. I can understand why he did it, but it was an action against the integrity of the legal system.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
As with the Michael Bryant case in Toronto a few years ago, I would submit that when someone is killed as a result of carelessness or worse, then we have a case for excluding the perpetrator from leadership. The exact sentence is a matter for discussion, but their culpability should result in them being quietly led from the room.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
iamchristianhearmeroar
Shipmate
# 15483
|
Posted
I think the more interesting questions emerge when you consider behaviour that is not illegal, yet would be considered sinful by some/many. So, drunkenness for instance (without committing any crime), gambling, viewing (adult) pornography, consensual sex outside marriage, even adultery.
What then? What if there are some people who think repentance and forgiveness is needed for these (quite wide ranging) things, and others who don't?
--------------------
My blog: http://alastairnewman.wordpress.com/
Posts: 642 | From: London, UK | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
Forgiveness seems appropriate for wrongs that are firmly in the past - admitted and repented and restoration made (as far as possible) years ago.
Possible reasons for disqualification would be current or ongoing weakness or unresolved issues, whether in connection with sexuality, or addictive behaviours, or attitudes inconsistent with the role.
So-called "forgiveness" of matters unrepented can be just another word for "turning a blind eye".
Best wishes,
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Try
Shipmate
# 4951
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
There's a thing about forgiving an offense against oneself, but forgiving an offense against someone else is a different question - how much can you accept for someone else?
This sort of situation has been used by pastors to force a woman to forgive a rapist/demeaner/generally nasty person (who happens to be male and "important" in the church).
Because of the way that the rhetoric of forgiveness has been used to cover up ongoing abuse perpetrated by clergy, I am perhaps less willing to let bygones be bygones when it comes to the behavior of clergy than I am when it comes to the behavior of other responsible professions such as doctors, nurses, lawyers, and teachers. Be that as it may, IMHO forgiveness does not require restoring someone to the same position of that they had before their offense. Nor does it prevent temporal justice from being done. It only requires a willingness to cease hostilities and attempts at revenge.
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
I think there's also a question here about a person's general maturity and soundness of judgement and ability to conduct themselves with the dignity appropriate to their position. ISTM that a person with recent convictions for road traffic offences- I don't mean an isolated lapse, I mean more than one, although I don't know whether that was the case when this bishop was elected- is likely to be rather lacking in these things.
At the time of her election, Bishop Cook had only been convicted of DUI once. However, that offense was only four years ago, and she was very seriously impaired, with a BAC of .28. No-one, not even the bishop and comittee were told these details, just that she had "A Dui" in her past.
--------------------
“I’m so glad to be a translator in the 20th century. They only burn Bibles now, not the translators!” - the Rev. Dr. Bruce M. Metzger
Posts: 852 | From: Beautiful Ohio, in dreams again I see... | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
A tangential possibility would be that the people who arranged to leave the information out of the election process should be required to submit to a vote as to whether they are fit to continue in the role of election-organiser.
Not only did they commit a form of fraud, but they left the impression that they wanted to throw the election to a particular person, neither of which should be ignored.
If that causes some grief among the persons involved and their (presumed) cronies in the hierarchy, this would be an excellent thing for curbing cynicism among the rest of the people in the dio.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
Those following this unfortunate case might be interested in learning that the Diocese of Maryland has asked her to resign.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Try
Shipmate
# 4951
|
Posted
Unfortnately, while the Diocese of Maryland has every incentive to want Bishop Cook to resign, she has no incentive to do so. As long as she remains suspended as a Suffragen Bishop she continues to draw full pay and benifits without doing any work. And IIRC as an elected suffragen she has tenure and can only be fired by sentance of an ecclesiastical court. Since she is almost certainly going to be laicized as well as fired by the Discipinary Board for Bishops, and this case has recieved so much publicity she has no reason to cooperate with the diocese in order to avoid burning bridges and obtain a decent reference.
--------------------
“I’m so glad to be a translator in the 20th century. They only burn Bibles now, not the translators!” - the Rev. Dr. Bruce M. Metzger
Posts: 852 | From: Beautiful Ohio, in dreams again I see... | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
That's a bit harsh. I don't know her, but is there reason to believe that she is the kind of person who is lazy and obstructive?
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
It's not laziness. It's just business now as noted re pay etc. Resignations in such situations demand a settlement AFAIK. The lawyer equations are along these lines: employability+years of service+conduct+avoid court. Because the employer knew she was troubled, they will share the blame in some proportion for her conduct I expect. They never release the details. Though 1 or 2 year's salary wouldn't be surprising. Which takes me back to due diligence. I wonder what the sentencing will be. Here it'd be probably 10 years jail and lifetime driving ban.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
A TEC bishop required to resign on grounds of rather blatant adultery had lawyers who took over a month to negotiate the terms of his departure. When I commented to a US clerical friend (with a legal background) that he should have been disciplined, I was told that it was probably much cheaper for the diocese to settle and pay him off than to proceed with ecclesiastical discipline.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Well, she hasn't resigned yet! Anyone decent would have, honestly.
Exactly. Just confirms that she's a wrong'un.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Something else that's fairly curious about this case is that when she stood for election, she declared herself to be in some sort of a relationship (? romantic or not?) with a clergyman who had been deposed for disagreeing with his bishop. Unless that really isn't a romantic relationship, wouldn't it be a bar to being made a bishop?
Also, reading even further between the lines, if clergy can be deposed relatively easily for disagreeing with their bishop, surely it can't be that difficult to depose a suffragen for something much more serious. The link made It look as though deposing someone is fairly easy, something done all the time. Or is disagreeing with one's bishop worse than killing a cyclist?
Or have I misunderstood all the articles?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
A TEC bishop required to resign on grounds of rather blatant adultery had lawyers who took over a month to negotiate the terms of his departure. When I commented to a US clerical friend (with a legal background) that he should have been disciplined, I was told that it was probably much cheaper for the diocese to settle and pay him off than to proceed with ecclesiastical discipline.
I realise that clergy have to live in the "real world". But shouldn't the Church behave - and be seen to behave - in a radically different way to the society around it? Doesn't 1 Corinthians 6:1 still apply?
[ 03. February 2015, 15:30: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
To be at least slightly fair to this woman, assuming she is not a psychopath, she may not have resigned yet because she was first in jail and then in a detox facility - and is in pieces psychologically cos she just killed someone. She may not be thinking coherently about anything much at the moment let alone her employment status.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Something else that's fairly curious about this case is that when she stood for election, she declared herself to be in some sort of a relationship (? romantic or not?) with a clergyman who had been deposed for disagreeing with his bishop. Unless that really isn't a romantic relationship, wouldn't it be a bar to being made a bishop?
Also, reading even further between the lines, if clergy can be deposed relatively easily for disagreeing with their bishop, surely it can't be that difficult to depose a suffragen for something much more serious. The link made It look as though deposing someone is fairly easy, something done all the time. Or is disagreeing with one's bishop worse than killing a cyclist?
Or have I misunderstood all the articles?
No you haven't misunderstood anything at all. Some things are taken very seriously in churches these days, and some things aren't.
And Baptist Fan is IMHO correct. There is a real problem with how procedure in the church/canon law is approached in both TEC and the ACoC-- this is a place where we have much to learn from the RCC, however problematic their structures can be at time.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
To be at least slightly fair to this woman, assuming she is not a psychopath, she may not have resigned yet because she was first in jail and then in a detox facility - and is in pieces psychologically cos she just killed someone. She may not be thinking coherently about anything much at the moment let alone her employment status.
Good, and very fair point. ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0
|
|
|
|
|
| |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
