Summary remarks for JCDs 1182-1189

This session was odd because it dealt with so many requests for reconsideration. Five of the eight docketed items were such requests.

The patience to go into the grounds for their decisions not to reconsider as was done in three cases is most unusual and appreciated. They even handled JCD 1189 as a decision and not as a memorandum.

In the cases involving the Philippines and Baltimore-Washington Conferences, they uncovered glaring problems with the handling of personnel. That may give them reason to look more carefully at how they may be inadvertently avoiding similar devastation in other personnel cases by relying on JCDs 799 and 1048 and not accepting jurisdiction.

The 1992-96 Council went through a similar learning curve, facing up to the unfair practices previous Councils had allowed, becoming far more careful to avoid letting conference leaders cause harm.

This group, like the earlier group, says, “It should be emphasized that both the administrative and judicial processes in the Discipline are carefully and specifically designed to protect the rights of clergy and of the church. The steps set forth must be followed carefully and explicitly or injustice results. Lack of diligence, integrity, care, or compassion in dealing with a case almost always results in irreparable harm to both the individual and the church. That has usually happened by the time a case of this nature gets to the Judicial Council.” (See JCDs 777 and 1156)

The 1992 Council began noticing the injustices by their third session (October 1993, see JCD 695). The current Council, besieged by challenges to JCD 1032 among other things, seems to have turned the corner in their fifth session.

This Council persists in sharing their homework in the analysis they do and in their concurring and dissenting opinions. They have been very good teachers of church law.