Add Ecclesial Advisory Council to governance documents

[JohnRDOrazio]

Updated 2026-05-02: PR #9 has merged. File paths below have been updated to reflect the post-merge repo structure — the former ai-governance/ai-vetting-criteria.md content is now part of project-governance/project-vetting-criteria.md as "AI domain extension" subsections, and the ai-governance/ research memos have moved to research/ with broadened (non-AI-specific) scope.

---

Context

An audit of all repo documents against the CDCF bylaws and manifesto revealed that the Ecclesial Advisory Council (EAC) — a bylaws-established governance body providing non-binding theological/canonical guidance — is not mentioned in any document in this repo.

Problem

The bylaws establish a dual governance structure: a Board of Directors (civil governance) and an Ecclesial Advisory Council (non-binding theological/canonical guidance). The repo defines four governance tiers (Board, TCSC, PMC, Community) in project-governance/committees.md but never mentions the EAC. An "Advisors" category exists under "The CDCF Community" but is not identified as a formal body.

Affected files

• project-governance/committees.md — needs EAC as a formal governance body
• project-governance/definitions.md — needs EAC definition
• project-governance/lifecycle.md — needs EAC role at lifecycle stages (especially Proposal and Incubation)
• project-governance/project-vetting-criteria.md — needs EAC role in evaluation, especially for Criterion 1 (Mission Alignment and Canonical Scope); the AI domain extension subsections (formerly ai-governance/ai-vetting-criteria.md) mention "ecclesial advisors" once in passing and need formal EAC role
• research/governance-as-code-catholic-technology.md (formerly ai-governance/governance-as-code-catholic-ai.md) — discusses canonical authority extensively but never acknowledges EAC
• standards/overview.md — no EAC mention
• README.md — governance summary omits EAC

Suggested approach

Define the EAC as a formal body in committees.md and definitions.md, then integrate its advisory role into the lifecycle, vetting criteria, and AI governance documents. The EAC's role should be non-binding (per bylaws) but clearly situated at decision points where theological/canonical guidance is relevant.

Dependencies

Should be implemented after #8 / PR #9 is merged. ✅ PR #9 merged 2026-04-19.

Identified during bylaws/manifesto alignment audit.

[JohnRDOrazio]

Additional context: The TCSC (Technical and Canonical Standards Committee) may have been intended to encompass both the technical advisory and ecclesial/canonical advisory functions described in the bylaws. The "Canonical" in TCSC could map to the Ecclesial Advisory Council's role.

However, this creates ambiguity:

1. "Canonical" is overloaded — it could mean canon law expertise (the EAC's domain) or "canonical" in the software/standards sense (reference/authoritative baseline). The TCSC name doesn't disambiguate.

2. The bylaws establish the EAC as a distinct body, not as a subfunction of a combined technical-canonical committee. Merging the two advisory roles into a single committee may dilute the EAC's identity and its specifically theological/canonical mandate.

3. Different advisory modes — technical standards review and theological/canonical guidance operate differently. Technical review evaluates implementation quality; canonical guidance evaluates alignment with Church teaching and law. Combining them in a single committee may blur those distinct competencies.

The resolution here may not be to simply add the EAC as a new body, but rather to clarify whether the TCSC is intended to fulfill the EAC's role, and if so, whether that merger is consistent with the bylaws' intent — or whether the TCSC should be narrowed to the technical advisory function with the EAC restored as a separate body as the bylaws describe.

[JohnRDOrazio]

The TCSC (Technical and Canonical Standards Committee) may have been intended to encompass both the technical advisory and ecclesial/canonical advisory functions described in the bylaws. The "Canonical" in TCSC could map to the Ecclesial Advisory Council's role.

@mj3b I believe you commented on this somewhere (perhaps via email?). I believe this comment clarifies where the ambiguity lies.

[JohnRDOrazio]

Important clarification from project maintainer:

The EAC's "non-binding" role in the bylaws applies specifically to questions of technological and practical implementation — i.e., how things are built. It is not non-binding as regards:

• The quality and consistency of Catholic data (liturgical, canonical, scriptural, theological, historical)
• Serving Catholic data that falls under the jurisdiction of local or universal ecclesial bodies (Dioceses, Bishops' Conferences, Vatican Dicasteries)

In the case of governance of Catholic data itself, filial submission to competent Church authority is required. The Church has jurisdiction over its own data — liturgical calendars, canonical records, sacramental data, doctrinal content, etc. The CDCF's role is to steward that data faithfully, not to exercise independent judgment over its substance.

This means the EAC (or whatever body fulfills its function) has a dual mode:

1. Advisory/non-binding on technical implementation decisions
2. Authoritative on the substance, quality, and governance of Catholic data under ecclesial jurisdiction

This distinction should be clearly articulated when defining the EAC's role in the governance documents. It also affects the framing in discussion #12 ("filial submission" language).