At that time -- convention delegates, bishops and media -- were more focused on the passage and implications of Resolutions D025, rescinding the moratorium on the consecration of gay bishops, thus paving the way for Mary Glasspool's consecration 10 months later; and C056 calling for the development of same-sex marriage liturgies. Both resolutions drew international attention.

The introductory paragraph of Resolution A185 -- which was first introduced by the Title IV Task Force II to the House of Deputies -- reads: "[Be it] Resolved, the House of Bishops concurring, That the whole of Title IV of the Constitution and Canons for the Government of The Episcopal Church be amended to read as follows: TITLE IV -- Ecclesiastical Discipline; Canon 1: Of Accountability and Ecclesiastical Discipline ..."

On July 13, 2009, the House of Deputies passed Resolution A185 virtually unchallenged. On July 14 2009 the House of Bishops rubberstamped the lower house's action. A185 was just one of more than 400 resolutions to pass through the nine-day Episcopal Church legislative process.

The resolution flew under the radar beneath a smokescreen generated by a combination of other Convention events, high profile guests, hot-button issue legislation, and the Title IV Task Force's deliberate wording, which cloaked the true intent of the Title IV canons.

The Resolution was handily passed by both Houses without a red flag being raised. As a result, the entire polity of The Episcopal Church was changed but hidden in plain sight.

Though the 26-page long Resolution was printed in its entirety in the massive 811-page 2009 Blue Book Report to the LXXVI General Convention along with the Title IV Task Force's four page interpretation of the proposed canons and a recommendation for the passage of Resolution A185 the ultimate chore of understanding what all the legalistic wording actually meant was too daunting for many to fully comprehend.

The people who might have realized the danger of the proposed sweeping changes to Title IV canons and to sound an early alarm did not do so.

There was only one question about Title IV asked in the daily news conferences. It was focused on abandonment of communion. This missed the sweeping overhaul of the Title IV canons. On July 15, 2009, a story did appear on Page 6 of The Convention Daily announcing the passage of Resolution A185. Nothing more was said.

The new Title IV canons were promulgated on March 26, 2010 and will be enforced in their entirety beginning July 1, 2011. On that date, the power and sweep of the Presiding Bishop will become even greater, leaving no one, including certain laity (vestries, wardens, trustees, and standing committees), out of her grasp.

It wasn't until after the canons started circulating among the dioceses that the various diocesan chancellors, attorneys and canonists were able to study them in depth. They discovered that the newly released Title IV is in fact a self-serving piece of legislation designed to centralize power, weaken diocesan home rule, and give credence to The Episcopal Church's insistence that it is indeed a hierarchical denomination. The newly rewritten canons will serve to bolster TEC's stance in civil court litigations against its own parishes, and lord it over its clergy with the iron fist of intimidation and fear while proclaiming to be pastoral in the process.

Canon 1, focusing on joint spiritual accountably, starts out innocuously enough, "By virtue of Baptism, all members of the Church are called to holiness of life and accountability to one another. The Church and each Diocese shall support their members in their life in Christ and seek to resolve conflicts by promoting healing, repentance, forgiveness, restitution, justice, amendment of life and reconciliation among all involved or affected. ..."

Canon 2 offers definitions used by the newly revised Title IV to weave a pattern of deception, deceit and despair in its development of a Disciplinary Board, in short, an ecclesial court of inquisition charged with trying and convicting offenders against TEC's canon law.

Item: Nowhere does the revamped Title IV refer to "inhibition" except in the case of a '"temporary inhibition" that was put into place before the enactment of the new Title IV Canons on Ecclesiastical Discipline. Instead Title IV now refers to "Administrative Leave" that "shall mean a restriction on ministry in which the exercise of the Respondent's ministry is suspended in its entirety during the period of the 'Administrative Leave' and may include suspension from any ecclesiastical and related secular office."

Item: " 'Offense' shall mean any act or omission for which a Member of the Clergy may be held accountable ..." Some of these acts may include a known or perceived violation of the Constitution and Canons of the Diocese or The Episcopal Church; failing to cooperate in a Title IV proceeding; bearing false witness in a Title IV proceeding; and the breach of the Standards of Conduct. These, in part, include the failure to conform to the Book of Common Prayer rubrics; failing to abide by a pastoral directive issued by the bishop; sexual impropriety; the holding and teaching -- even privately - of any Doctrine contrary to that held by The Episcopal Church; failing to safeguard the property and funds of the local Congregation and The Episcopal Church; moonlighting without the bishop's permission; being absent from one's canonical resident Diocese for more than two years without the bishop's consent; the neglect of ministry and public worship; and the infamous "Conduct Unbecoming a Member of the Clergy".

Item: " 'Discipline of the Church' shall be found in the Constitution, the Canons and the Rubrics and the Ordinal of the Book of Common Prayer."

Item: " 'Doctrine' shall mean the basic and essential teachings of the Church and is to be found in the Canon of Holy Scripture as understood in the Apostles and Nicene Creeds and in the Sacramental rites, the Ordinal and Catechism of the Book of Common Prayer."

Item: " 'Sentence' shall mean the pronouncement of discipline of a Member of the Clergy pursuant to an Accord or Order in the form of (a) admonition [reprimanded and censured] ... (b) suspension [given 'administrative leave' with loss of faculties] ... (c) deposition [defrocked and laicized]."

The open-ended definition of "Doctrine" is changeable at any General Convention as The Episcopal Church continually changes its understanding of Scripture to more closely reflect the modern culture.

The Constitution and Canons coupled with Prayer Book rubrics would appear to be built on shifting sand as these documents are regularly changed. All this serves to make the "Discipline of the Church" more inclusive and opens up all sacraments including marriage and ordination to all those who are baptized.

One possible scenario is that if a deacon, priest or bishop -- for reasons of conscience -- declines to officiate at a Same-Gender Blessing ceremony, that such a cleric would be found in open violation of TEC's doctrine and could be brought up on charges.

Clergy will now have to be very careful in revealing personal and private thoughts that may not lineup with the "official party line" of The Episcopal Church. If a deacon, priest or bishop is overheard by another member of the clergy to be disagreeing with The Episcopal Church's latest insight into the meaning of Scripture, that cleric must now report this to the bishop, priest or deacon who uttered the offending statements. Hearsay conversation now carries weight against the accused Respondent who can then be dragged into the "pastoral" discipline process.

An entire list of new players creates a new cast of characters and strange bedfellows in the ecclesial blame game tribunal: primarily the Diocesan Bishop, the Disciplinary Board along with the Reference Panel, Conference Panel, a Hearing Panel; the Intake Officer; the Respondent; the Complainant; the Investigator; the Church Attorney; the Advisor and perhaps even a Conciliator.

The dioceses will now be forced to revamp their own canons to reflect this new reality in The Episcopal Church's attempt to be conciliatory while using a highly developed judicial attempt that is more in keeping with a secular adversarial court system. Each diocese will need to incorporate Title IV canons into its own body of canons and develop an identical discipline structure. The dioceses will now have to march in lockstep with The Episcopal Church. As a result, dioceses will lose their autonomy as The Episcopal Church is fashioned into a more rigid hierarchical denomination.

The revamped Title IV clerical disciplining structure breaks down into a seven-member Disciplinary Board or Court with the President of the Disciplinary Board acting as the judge. The Intake Officer serves as the law enforcement officer; the Church Attorney performs as an independent prosecutor representing the Church who does not report to, or take direction from anyone. Finally, the Bishop can impose a sentence acting as a dispenser of justice.

The Complainant is the "Injured Person" in the action. This "person" can be an individual -- or an entire diocese -- who becomes the Complainant in ecclesial court proceedings. The Complainant must show a substantial material loss, meaning the erroneous conduct of the Respondent, resulting in a loss that is of "clear and weighty importance to the ministry" of The Episcopal Church or the diocese.

The Respondent is any member of the clergy who has "sinned" by omission or commission in breaking a Canon Law of the Church and is brought up on charges before the ecclesial court process and sentencing stage. Under the new system of ecclesial justice, any person can bring any charge against any member of the clergy (deacon, priest, bishop) in any manner with the flimsiest of hearsay evidence or substantiation. Clergy themselves can be held accountable for not revealing a known possible offense, unless it was revealed in the confessional. The clergy are required to turn in each other or face charges.

The Advisor is a "diocese-appointed" canonical representative for either the Complainant or the Respondent. Advisors (who are basically court-appointed attorneys) and their clients are entitled to an attorney-client privileged communication status.

The Reference Panel acts as the State's Attorney determining if there is evidence enough to proceed; the Conference Panel acts as an empanelled closed-door Grand Jury where the Respondent and Church Attorney "shall" attend, but the Complainant "may" either attend or send an Advisor; the Hearing Panel acts as the trial jury, which is the sole arbiter of weight, credibility and reliability to be given to all testimony and other evidence.

Rounding out the cast of characters are: the Investigator who is supposed to have sufficient knowledge, experience and training to conduct such investigations, and who must be familiar with Title IV and its objectives and provisions, and a Conciliator who acts as a mediator to help bring about an equitable resolution between the prosecution and defense.

Dioceses will have to develop a diocesan Disciplinary Board with all its component parts and select a Church Attorney. They also must fill the vacancies on the Disciplinary Board. If they do not, it will be done for them by The Episcopal Church.

The Dioceses do have some say in the selection of the timing of the election of the Disciplinary Board president, the selections of Conference and Hearing panels, the selection of their Intake Officer, and defining the scope of "privileged communication".

Once the ecclesiastical trail takes place and there is a determination of guilt, a sentence is imposed by the bishop. That sentence may come in the form of an "Accord" or an "Order".

An Accord is defined as a written resolution, which has been negotiated and agreed upon among the parties resulting from an agreement for discipline. An Accord is supposedly designed to "provide any terms which promote healing, repentance, forgiveness, restitution, justice, amendment of life and reconciliation among the Complainant, Respondent, affected Community and other persons," and can be issued from the Conciliation process.

An Order is defined as the written decision of a Conference Panel or a Hearing Panel and is issued with or without the Respondent's consent.

Title IV states at least four times that it seeks to "resolve conflicts by promoting healing, repentance, forgiveness, restitution, justice, amendment of life and reconciliation."

This would appear to be a long way from the truth.

Initially the Task Force reported to General Convention that it thought the 2003 version of Title IV was "overly militaristic and rigid in its application and lacked a theological foundation". It was therefore proposed that the new set of Title IV canons reflect the values, ecclesiology, and theology of the Church as well as provide a model of reconciliation. In addition, bishops are to be seen in their historic pastoral role combined with their canonical authority while respecting the roles, rights, and integrity of those clergy who are subject to the Title IV process and the injured party other side of the conflict.

The Task Force also wanted to weave into the Title IV canons a strong pastoral response to all circumstances bringing the mantra of "healing, forgiveness, repentance and reconciliation" into its Blue Book presentation.

"Flexibility has been built in to foster in all cases as far as possible healing, forgiveness, repentance and reconciliation among the affected parties," the Task Force's report to the LXXVI General Convention states. "Fundamental to our work is the need for truth-telling, honesty and acknowledgement of responsibility... Reconciliation and the other desired results are simply not possible if the accused member of the clergy can simply hide the truth."

The Task Force, however, laid down a smoke screen. "An unfortunate outgrowth of a revision such as here brought forth is an appearance that the changes are vast. Such is simply not the case here," the Task Force states in its Blue Book summation. "The large bulk of Title IV is, or will be, unchanged. Task Force II said it was not attempting to reinvent the wheel, but simply to express in new language much of what already existed."

The Canon entitled "Of Abandonment of Communion of This Church ... " has been rephrased to read, "Of Abandonment of The Episcopal Church". The word Communion is no longer used in the title.

Also under Canon 19 are General Provisions fostering the separation of church and state or in this case the distinction between the church and the secular courts: "The Episcopal Church reiterates that all proceedings under Title IV are neither civil or criminal in nature, but rather ecclesiastical. And that the various members of the clergy have voluntarily accepted their ministerial positions in 'this hierarchical church' so therefore they gave their consent to be governed by the discipline methods of The Episcopal Church and that the clergy may not claim in proceedings under this Title constitutional guarantees otherwise associated with secular court proceedings."

The denial of these US Constitutional guarantees means that clergy are expected to incriminate themselves in The Episcopal Church's quest for "truth-telling, honesty and acknowledgement of responsibility" nor are they offered any Fifth Amendment rights and that mere hearsay evidence can be given credence. This is not permitted in a secular court of law.

The General Provisions continue to explain, for the benefit of its on-going civil litigations, that "no member of the Church, whether lay or ordained, may seek to have the Constitution and Canons of the Church interpreted by a secular court, or resort to a secular court to address a dispute arising under the Constitution and Canons ..." and that "no secular court shall have authority to review, annul, reverse, restrain or otherwise delay any proceeding under this Title. No action shall be brought in any secular court to enforce the terms or provisions of any Accord or Order ..."

Conclusion

Theoretically, the new Title IV could be overturned before the LXXVII General Convention (which is slated for July 5-12, 2012) convenes in Indianapolis. If a majority of the House of Bishops makes a formal written request that a Special General Convention be convened to deal with the new Title IV canons, the Presiding Bishop must acquiesce to their demand.

Four times during the 19th Century, the Protestant Episcopal Church of the Confederate States held General Councils that were convened to deal with pressing issues raised by the Civil War. The first such meetings were held between the XXIV General Convention of 1859 and the XXVII General Convention of 1862.

All these Civil War era General Councils of the Protestant Episcopal Church of the Confederate States are listed as the first Special General Conventions of today's Episcopal Church because the Confederate dioceses were separated due to political reasons and not divided due to theological stances.

The only Special General Convention, in living memory, called by Presiding Bishop John Hines, was held at Notre Dame in South Bend, Indiana. This Special Convention took place in early September 1969 between the LXII and LXIII General Conventions.

The 1969 Special General Convention was convened to "consider the needs of the Church at this point in our history" and to consider the unique needs and concerns of women, ethnic minorities and youth. The specially called body was also "fully qualified to amend canons."

---Mary Ann Mueller is a journalist living in Texas. She is a regular contributor to VirtueOnline