Thread by @MBurtwrites

As always, it's a good idea for ACNA ppl to read through @ArlieColes' meticulous documentation.

You may think this is a non-issue, but Title IV impacts how allegations against *bishops* will be adjudicated, so here's how I see it mattering, but I'd love to hear from others too🧵

I always encourage ppl to review their *diocesan* canons b/c that is where you are going to find info re: training your clergy receives & how concerns in your parish will be handled.

This advice still holds. Find out if your diocese cares about a trauma-informed framework.+

Same with your parish. Most ppl (speaking broadly) are going to be most impacted by things at the parish & diocesan level.

That being said, what happens at the provincial level does trickle down, esp if you have concerns about a bishop, as we have ample recent evidence. +

The canons are the check to episcopal power. It's not the Archbishop. It's not the peer bishops. It's the canons. (Correct me if I'm wrong @ArlieColes pls!)

So if the canons say nothing about trauma-informed training, then this will not be considered in disciplinary procedures +

I think this could trickle down to the actual adjudication in certain ways; for instance, if a bishop's actions were out of alignment with current best practices that are "trauma-informed," this would not be seen as relevant or credible. +

But it seems the key removal is to drop requirements for intake officers or investigators looking into into claims to be "trauma-informed."

This is significant. Why? +

This means that *you do not know what you will get* if you are a survivor trying to report abuse.

Language like "techniques that minimize possible further harm" could mean "trauma-informed," but it could mean something like "biblical counseling" or general pastoral experience.+

Whatever you think of "trauma-informed" as a concept, it creates a provincial professional standard that is anchored to something other than "as seems best to the person answering the phone." +

W/out specificity, "suitably qualified person" could mean: volunteer the bishop appointed to this role.

This is exactly how we got to the point where unqualified ppl simply did what seemed best & apologized later with "I didn't know better." +

As I read it, this last seems intended to not allow for "survivor centered care" I'm not entirely sure, because I missed the Town Hall though.

Perhaps someone who intended can clarify the concerns that were raised re: the vocab.

I am not a canon lawyer. I hope @monkofjustice can perhaps offer insight here, but it seems to me part of the goal of revising Title IV is making sure we have robust, enforceable & clear policies.

Removing clarity with fillers like "properly qualified" leaves a lot of room for error

I don't know about you, but I am super uninterested in going through all this work to discover that poorly qualified ppl can simply be like: I didn't know better. /end

@threadreaderapp please unroll