Thread by @ArlieColes

ACNA Constitutional Crisis, a 7th 🧵.

At today's Afternoon Session, the Provincial Council approved a proposed canonical amendment concerning whether the Provincial Tribunal can involve itself at the beginning rather than the end of a disciplinary process.

Some highlights:

https://twitter.com/ArlieColes/status/1671971225159999497

Here's the full text of the amendment (pic stolen from @condorhanson). It decides that in disciplinary trials, the Tribunal only has appellate jurisdiction (a convicted cleric can appeal to it), not original jurisdiction (accused clerics cannot get it to challenge presentments).

This essentially clarifies Foley's (and probably most people's) understanding of presentments - allowing the Tribunal to intervene between 1) and 2), which Bp Ruch attempted to call the Tribunal to do, gums up the works contra the intention of the law.

https://twitter.com/ArlieColes/status/1666833711197986816

Procedurally, though both the College of Bishops and the Provincial Council approve of the amendment, it stays "proposed" until the Governance Task Force and the Provincial Assembly look at & tweak all approved "proposed" amendments in 2024. This gives a year to work out issues.

Abp. Bob Duncan, Foley's predecessor, presented the amendment. Foley and the bishops asked for his help because of his role in shaping the original ACNA canons and familiarity with the process. Bob urged the Council to adopt the amendment to get the ball rolling for next year.

Bob's points include:
- This amendment keeps "mischief from happening in the disciplinary process", since otherwise the Tribunal would be "endlessly occupied by anyone who wanted to stop the processes that would bring disciplinary action"

- It preserves all parties' authority to check and balance, and won't keep the process of dealing with an accusation from going forward
- It ensures things will proceed in a timely manner. "We say we promise a speedy trial, don't we? But this has actually gotten in the way".

Bp Ryan Reed of Ft Worth reiterated that procedurally speaking, this is equivalent to forwarding to the Governance Task Force for final opinions next year, not enforcing it immediately, so contrary opinions should not a hinderance to passing. He serves on that Task Force.

Reed took Bob's point about speedy trials to take up for Bp Ruch: "to acknowledge my brother Stewart, you know, this has been [any]thing but speedy for him. And I ask... that we pray for Bp Ruch and the Diocese of the Upper Midwest."

Recall that Reed signed off on Ruch's original rumor investigation request to Foley, which surely pertained to circulating talk about the situation in his Diocese of the Upper Midwest:

https://twitter.com/ArlieColes/status/1666878294401089548

Charlie Philbrick, Ruch's chancellor, spoke in objection. Some of his points:
- The process is moving too fast: "have you ever seen this before? I haven't."
- If the Council approves it's "without any opportunity to consider, evaluate, discuss."

- The provincial government has three branches that check and balance each other like the US constitution. These three branches reflect the "tripart Godhead", which is "intended", "not a coincidence."
- The amendment limits the judicial branch's authority to check the executive,

implying a break of the "Trinitarian worldview" and "put[ting] a finger" on the balances.
- The amendment causes priests, bishops, and deacons to give up rights and "is not in [their] interest."

Bp Bill Atwood, International Diocese, offered pushback, saying he did not think any rights are being given up and that this is simply closing a canonical problem not envisioned by the "young church" and that the evil one has used to "disrupt an orthodox voice in this nation".

Atwood states that the "most important work" of the Tribunal is "for a person who is convicted to be able to appeal... if the Tribunal is involved in the disciplinary process at the beginning, then their role is compromised later on."

Several delegates spoke in support, saying this would indeed get the ball rolling to solve this once and for all. Bp Eric Manees (San Joaquin) asked for clarification on how this affects bishop inhibitions (who usually appeal to the Tribunal); Canon Phil Ashey answered.

Carl Eyberg (Archdeacon in ADLW) asked the question of the hour: "what has been done about the current issue?"

Bob clarified that the bishops who irregularly swore to Ruch's presentment confirmed their intentions with the College of Bishops: "it's now been correctly filed."

"The presentment that came forward is now without question... the [Tribunal] will have to take actions consistent with the motion we're putting forward so that they step back from it... the court's got to meet, but I believe the court is lining up to [meet]."

Canon Phil Ashey says it's a feature, not a bug, that under this amendment the Tribunal can act only at the end, saying it puts "good godly pressure" on everyone to do things right the first time, lest a conviction be overturned only at the end on a technicality.

Bp Steve Breedlove also spoke in favor, saying it "remove[s] a potential log jam" for bishops ordinary "such that any disciplinary process [they] might bring would immediately go to the Tribunal and their pile of decisions would grow and grow and grow."

Others spoke and made several interesting points worthy of analysis, but the above is a top-level survey. You can watch the proceedings for yourself here, which I encourage, since I didn't get to everything here - there is plenty of digestion to do: vimeo.com/838754235