tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post111343302254394399..comments2023-12-17T16:13:06.670-05:00Comments on In a Godward direction: Connecticut Yankees in Ecclesiastical Court — Or Not!Tobias Stanislas Haller BSGhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08047429477181560685noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-1114150243373923742005-04-22T01:10:00.000-05:002005-04-22T01:10:00.000-05:00"If sex is going to be parsed so fine, surely "com..."If sex is going to be parsed so fine, surely "communion" could at least be defined!"<BR/><BR/>LOL! (Some ribald comparison suggests itself---fortunately for y'all's sake, it just doesn't come to *me* at present *g*)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-1113486289122673832005-04-14T08:44:00.000-05:002005-04-14T08:44:00.000-05:00My concern is that the wording of the canon absent...My concern is that the wording of the canon absent a procedure that guarantees due process puts too much power into the hands of the Bishop and SC. As I note, this part of the problem is corrected in the proposed revision; but I would still welcome a definition of "communion" "abandonment" and "renunciation" in the glossary of terms the canon provides, since these form the basis for action. This is why we have (in the proposed revision of Title IV) carefully distinct definitions of "sexual abuse" "behavior" "exploitation" "harassment" and "misconduct." If sex is going to be parsed so fine, surely "communion" could at least be defined!Tobias Stanislas Haller BSGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08047429477181560685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-1113457215051356982005-04-14T00:40:00.000-05:002005-04-14T00:40:00.000-05:00Seems to me that the current canon deputes this qu...Seems to me that the current canon deputes this question to the Bishop and the Standing Committee. If they say, "hey, being in the NARB is formal admission to a religious body", then it is. You can always simply leave and then that would end the matter. What this could mean in extrema is that the bishop and standing committee have the right to order you not to join particular religious bodies simply on their say-so. But I'm not sure that's such a bad thing; being part of a religious body that the bishop thinks is inimical to one's office is a bad thing, isn't it?<BR/><BR/>I'm no fan of the current canon, as is perhaps well known. I think these cases should be handled by the ecclesiastical court. If we want a summary process for cases which are unchallenged, I'm all for it, of course. But this doesn't really change the question <I>you're</I> asking; it just puts the question on to the ecclesiastical court. Right now the court already has discretion to decide what constitutes "Immorality" or "Conduct Unbecoming" or whether a particular crime is malum in se or not.<BR/><BR/>But still, the basic procedure of the current canon is very clear, if open to abuse. (And if it's <I>clear</I>, then that ends the matter, as a legal question.) If the standing committee and the bishop say you've violated it, then you have; but you can always end that determination, by simply retracting whatever it is they say you did.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com