|
Serial: |
AC04-R07-01 |
PEP Argument Briefing Paper
|
Title: |
Resolution Unduly Restrictive |
|
|
|
|
Applicable to: |
Resolution
7: Amendment of Canon XV, Section 11 |
|
|
|
|
Author: |
Lionel
E. Deimel |
|
|
|
|
Date: |
10/25/2004 |
We
assume that this resolution does not have broad support. It seems to be a
response to a situation encountered by a single priest, although that situation
has not been explained in any public forum of which we are aware. Although the
resolution appears to be well meaning, it is unduly restrictive.
·
The apparent objective of the resolution
is to change the canon to make it not only desirable but also mandatory
that vestry members be confirmed Episcopalians and communicants of the parish
on whose vestry they serve. Whereas it is surely desirable that vestry members
be confirmed communicants—this may be required in some parish bylaws—it is not
always practical. Exceptions might need to be made for a parish that is just
organizing or a parish that has gotten into trouble and needs outside help and
guidance. In either case, it may be wise to have a vestry member from another
parish. Presumably, it is always desirable to have confirmed vestry members,
but even this may not always be possible. The change, therefore, seems unduly
restrictive.
·
If the actual intention of the proposed
change is what it seems to be, the change is badly worded. The first sentence
of the section would better be rendered: The Vestry shall consist of
confirmed members of the Episcopal Church who are communicants in the Parish.
There would seem to be no difference between communicant and actual
communicant. Moreover, a confirmed member of the Episcopal Church is
necessarily baptized and necessarily confirmed, and has been received, if
necessary.
·
There may, of course, be more going on
here than is apparent. Is the introduction of Christian intended to
imply the existence of another test for vestry membership apart from baptism
and membership? The explanation suggests that this might be the case. If so,
how is such a test to be carried out? Is there a suggestion that membership
in a parish and being a communicant of a parish are independent of one
another? If there is some chance that this resolution might pass, these
questions need to be answered. If there are exquisite distinctions being made
here, they probably need to be explicated in greater detail in the canons, as
precise definitions are not presently given for terms such as member, communicant,
and Christian. Moreover, existing parishes no doubt define member
and communicant in different ways, raising concern that this resolution,
if passed, could cause all kinds of mischief.
From page C8 of
the materials provided to deputies to the 2004 Annual Convention:
PROPOSED
RESOLUTION #7
Amendment
of Canon XV, Section II [sic]
Whereas, Currently Section 11 of Canon XV, Of Parishes, reads as follows;
Section 11. The Vestry shall consist of baptized members of the Church, and, wherever practicable, of confirmed members of the Church, and, when possible, of actual communicants in the Parish. Vestry membership shall not be restricted with regard to sex.
Therefore, be it
Resolved, that Section 11 is amended to read as follows:
Section 11 The Vestry shall consist of baptized {Christians, who
are confirmed or received in the Episcopal Church who are members and actual
communicants in the Parish.} members of the Church, and, wherever
practicable, of confirmed members of the Church, and, when possible, of actual
communicants in the Parish. Vestry membership shall not be
restricted with regard to sex.
Note: The underlined words in bracket are to be added, the words with double crossed lines are to be deleted.
Explanation for
the proposed modification
The Vestry of the church is the group of people, elected by the
Parish’s communicants in good standing, which is responsible to conduct the
secular affairs of the Parish (See Section 10). Members of the Vestry are
members of the Parish who agree to serve in leadership position and provide
support to the Rector or Spiritual Leader in-charge. Section 11, as it is
currently written, is opened to the misunderstanding that any person,
regardless of their standing in the Church, could be elected to become a member
of the Vestry. The change of words specifically clarifies that there are a
minimum of requirements a person has to fulfill in order to be considered a
candidate to become a member of the Vestry: i.e., they are Christians, they are
members of the Episcopal Church and they are communicants in good standing of
the Parish they are being elected to represent.
Proposed By
The Rev. Vicente Santiago, St. James,