Fix "filial submission" language in project-types.md

[JohnRDOrazio]

Context

An audit of all repo documents against the CDCF bylaws and manifesto found language in project-governance/project-types.md that conflicts with the bylaws' governance structure.

Problem

project-types.md states:

The Foundation is participated and governed by Church institutions themselves — dioceses, episcopal conferences, and bodies of the Holy See — and operates in filial submission to the Church hierarchy.

The bylaws establish the CDCF as an independent 501(c)(3) with a Board of Directors that has civil governance authority, and an Ecclesial Advisory Council that provides non-binding guidance. Saying the Foundation "is participated and governed by Church institutions themselves" and "operates in filial submission to the Church hierarchy" describes hierarchical subordination that goes beyond what the bylaws define. The EAC's advice is explicitly non-binding.

This language could create expectations of hierarchical authority over Foundation decisions that the bylaws do not grant.

Suggested approach

Revise to frame the CDCF's relationship to the Church hierarchy accurately: the Foundation partners with and serves Church institutions, and seeks alignment with Church teaching through the Ecclesial Advisory Council's non-binding guidance — but it is not canonically subordinate to the hierarchy in its civil governance.

Affected files

• project-governance/project-types.md

Dependencies

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

Identified during bylaws/manifesto alignment audit.

[JohnRDOrazio]

Important clarification from project maintainer — this reframes the issue:

The "filial submission" language is not incorrect per se — it is correctly applied to the governance of Catholic data itself. Catholic data that falls under the jurisdiction of ecclesial bodies (Dioceses, Bishops' Conferences, Vatican Dicasteries) — such as liturgical calendars, canonical records, sacramental data, doctrinal content — requires filial submission to competent Church authority. The Church has jurisdiction over its own data, and the CDCF's role is to steward that data faithfully.

The issue is that the current language in project-types.md applies "filial submission" too broadly — to the Foundation's governance as a whole — rather than scoping it precisely to where it applies.

The revised framing should distinguish:

1. Catholic data governance (liturgical, canonical, scriptural, theological, historical data under ecclesial jurisdiction) → filial submission to competent Church authority is required
2. Technical and practical implementation (how software is built, what architecture is used, deployment decisions) → ecclesial guidance is advisory and non-binding
3. Civil governance of the Foundation (finances, strategy, compliance, personnel) → governed by the Board of Directors as a 501(c)(3)

So rather than removing "filial submission," the fix should scope it correctly: the Foundation operates in filial submission to Church authority with respect to the Catholic data it stewards, while maintaining independence in its technical implementation and civil governance.

[mj3b]

Response to Discussion #12: Scoping "Filial Submission" in project-types.md

Version: v3.0
Submitted by: Mark Julius Banasihan, TAC, AI Governance
In response to: Discussion #12 opened by Fr. John R. D'Orazio, April 17, 2026
Status: Ready for board and EAC review

---

Executive Summary

Fr. John's clarification reframes this discussion correctly. The problem is not that "filial submission" appears in project-types.md. The problem is that the current "Ecclesial governance" paragraph applies it too broadly -- to the Foundation's governance as a whole -- rather than scoping it to the specific domain where it belongs: Catholic data under ecclesial jurisdiction.

Having read the full text of project-types.md, the intent behind the paragraph is sound. CDCF governance is not purely democratic; it is rooted in the Church's institutional framework. The language overshoots by describing hierarchical subordination the bylaws do not establish. The fix is a replacement paragraph that preserves the intent with precise language.

One decision requires board and EAC input before a PR can be drafted. It is stated plainly in §6.

---

1. The Current Text and the Precise Problem

The problematic language appears in the "Ecclesial governance" bullet under Foundation Projects:

"The Foundation is participated and governed by Church institutions themselves — dioceses, episcopal conferences, and bodies of the Holy See — and operates in filial submission to the Church hierarchy. This means that governance is collaborative and community-engaged, while remaining firmly rooted in ecclesial authority and communion. Project Management Committees (PMCs) and the broader contributor community participate actively in the stewardship of Foundation Projects, but always within the framework of the Church's teaching authority and institutional structures, and in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity."

The intent is clear and correct: CDCF governance is not purely democratic; it is rooted in the Church's institutional framework. Two specific problems arise from the current language:

Problem	Effect
"Participated and governed by Church institutions themselves"	Implies dioceses, episcopal conferences, and the Holy See hold governance authority over the Foundation. The bylaws give the Board of Directors full civil governance authority (Article IV, Section 1).
"Operates in filial submission to the Church hierarchy"	Applied to the Foundation as a whole, this describes canonical subordination the bylaws do not establish. The EAC's guidance is explicitly non-binding (Article VI, Section 1).

The bylaws state the correct architecture directly. Article VI, Section 3: "Final civil authority remains with the Board; final ecclesial authority remains with the Church." The replacement language should mirror this precision.

---

2. The Term Itself: Why It Needs Scoping, Not Removal

The term "filial submission" (obsequium filiale) is drawn from Canon 212 §1 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law, which describes the Christian faithful's obligation to follow with Christian obedience what the sacred pastors declare as teachers of the faith or as those who govern the Church. This is a paraphrase of the canonical provision, not a verbatim quotation; the EAC should confirm precise canonical wording before finalization.

The term correctly describes CDCF's relationship to ecclesial authority over one specific category: Catholic data under ecclesial jurisdiction. It does not describe CDCF's civil governance, its technical implementation decisions, or its partnership relationships with Catholic institutions.

Where filial submission applies and where it does not:

Domain	Relationship to ecclesial authority	Operative term
Catholic data under ecclesial jurisdiction (liturgical, canonical, scriptural, sacramental, doctrinal data)	The Church has jurisdiction over its own data. CDCF stewards that data faithfully under terms the competent ecclesial authority grants.	Filial submission to competent Church authority
Cooperative stewardship with ecclesial partners (dioceses, Bishops' Conferences, Vatican Dicasteries contributing to or collaborating with CDCF)	Mutual service; neither party governs the other. Both serve the Church's mission under explicitly negotiated stewardship terms.	Cooperative stewardship
Technical and practical implementation (software architecture, deployment decisions, infrastructure choices)	Ecclesial guidance is advisory and non-binding. The TAC exercises technical authority under Board oversight.	Non-binding EAC advisory input
Civil governance of the Foundation (finances, strategy, compliance, personnel)	Governed exclusively by the Board of Directors. Clerical membership does not confer ecclesiastical jurisdiction.	Independent civil governance under Board authority

---

3. What the Bylaws and Manifesto Supply

The bylaws already contain the correct architecture. The replacement language should use the bylaws' own formulations rather than introduce new vocabulary.

Bylaws provision	Exact language	Governance domain it describes
Article IV, Section 1	"The Board of Directors has full authority over the civil governance of the Foundation"	Civil governance independence
Article IV, Section 2.3	"Clerical status does not confer ecclesiastical jurisdiction within the Foundation"	Limits on ecclesial authority within civil governance
Article VI, Section 1	EAC provides "non-binding ecclesial, theological, and canonical guidance"	Advisory -- not directive -- ecclesial input
Article VI, Section 3	"Final civil authority remains with the Board; final ecclesial authority remains with the Church"	The correct governance architecture in one sentence
Article I, Section 2, Purpose 2	"collaborate with the Holy See, Vatican Dicasteries, Bishops' Conferences, dioceses...in the organization, structuring, preservation, and ethical use of ecclesiastical data"	Cooperative stewardship -- neither party governs the other

The manifesto supplies the philosophical grounding through its translation of Belloc's guild principle:

"The purpose of the foundation is to support cooperation among Church institutions in maintaining a shared digital infrastructure -- preserving each institution's independent ability to use, contribute to, and govern its own data and tools -- without centralizing ownership or control beyond what is necessary for sustainability."

Gaudium et Spes §76 provides the theological grounding: the Church "is not identified with any political community nor bound to any political system." Civil entities serving the Church's mission operate without being canonically subordinate to ecclesial governance structures.

---

4. Proposed Replacement for the "Ecclesial Governance" Bullet

The replacement must fit the existing bullet point structure of project-types.md -- it replaces one bullet, not the whole document section.

Current bullet (in Foundation Projects, Key characteristics):

Ecclesial governance. The Foundation is participated and governed by Church institutions themselves — dioceses, episcopal conferences, and bodies of the Holy See — and operates in filial submission to the Church hierarchy. This means that governance is collaborative and community-engaged, while remaining firmly rooted in ecclesial authority and communion. Project Management Committees (PMCs) and the broader contributor community participate actively in the stewardship of Foundation Projects, but always within the framework of the Church's teaching authority and institutional structures, and in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity.

Proposed replacement:

Ecclesial governance. The Foundation's relationship to ecclesial authority is defined by domain, not by uniform subordination. For Catholic data under ecclesial jurisdiction — liturgical, canonical, scriptural, sacramental, and doctrinal content — the Foundation operates in filial submission to the competent Church authority, stewarding that data under terms the competent ecclesial body grants. For collaborative partnerships with Vatican Dicasteries, Bishops' Conferences, and dioceses, the Foundation operates as a cooperative steward: neither party governs the other; both serve the Church's mission under explicitly negotiated terms. For technical implementation and civil governance, the Foundation operates independently under the Board of Directors, informed by non-binding guidance from the Ecclesial Advisory Council. Final civil authority rests with the Board. Final ecclesial authority rests with the Church. Project Management Committees and the broader contributor community participate actively in the stewardship of Foundation Projects, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity and within the framework of the Church's teaching authority.

---

5. Note on the IP Transfer Paragraph

The project-types.md document also states: "Upon acceptance as an active (graduated) project, the intellectual property of a Foundation Project belongs to the CDCF itself."

This is the subject of Discussion #15. It is noted here because the four-domain framework proposed above resolves both discussions with a single mechanism. Under "cooperative stewardship," CDCF holds stewardship authority and audit rights; contributing institutions retain IP ownership. The Apache and Linux Foundation models -- contributor licensing without IP transfer -- operate precisely in this domain. The IP transfer language in the current document conflicts with the cooperative stewardship framing and should be revised in the same PR as the ecclesial governance bullet.

---

6. One Decision Required

Decision	Question	Options	TAC recommendation	Input needed
D1: Fourth domain	Does the board adopt "cooperative stewardship with ecclesial partners" as a named governance domain, distinct from both filial submission and civil independence?	(a) Three-domain structure as Fr. John proposed; (b) Four-domain structure as proposed above; (c) EAC advises on whether "cooperative stewardship" is theologically and canonically adequate to describe the relationship	TAC recommends (b). Bylaws Purpose 2 establishes this relational category explicitly. Without naming it, the cooperative partnership model collapses into either submission or independence, both of which mischaracterize it.	EAC input required before PR. See §7 for specific reviewers.

---

7. Who Should Weigh In

From the EAC -- primary reviewers:

Member	Why this discussion is in their lane
Fr. Charbel Bteich (CCEE Vice General Secretary)	His professional role is managing civil-ecclesial governance relationships between the Council of European Bishops' Conferences and its member conferences. He navigates this exact boundary -- where civil governance ends and ecclesial authority begins -- as a core responsibility. He is the most important reviewer for this discussion.
Fr. Patrick Carter, O.S.B. (General Procurator, Benedictine Confederation)	The Benedictine Confederation is itself a civil-canonical hybrid governance structure. He holds both a civil governance role (General Procurator) and a canonical position (Secretary of the Abbot Primate). His Thomistic ethics background means he will engage the canonical precision argument and the four-domain framework on its merits.

From the EAC -- secondary review:

Member	Contribution
Fr. Michael Baggot, L.C.	Best positioned to review whether the four-domain framework is theologically coherent, not on canonical precision specifically. His bioethics and AI ethics background is more directly relevant to other discussions (#13, #16).
Fr. Corwin Low, O.P. and Fr. Josh McCarty	Technology practitioners; this discussion is primarily canonical and civil-legal. Should be informed but are not the primary voices here.

From the TAC -- specific input worth requesting:

Member	Why their input matters for #12
Chris Treadaway (COO, St. Theresa Catholic Church & School)	Operates inside a Catholic institution daily. Has direct practical experience with how the civil-ecclesial governance boundary works operationally. Can validate whether the four-domain framework matches institutional reality at the parish and school level.
Randy Danielson (Principal Software Engineer, Microsoft; Byzantine Bible project author)	Building projects that will travel the Foundation Project pathway. Has a direct stake in what the governance framework means for builders. Can flag whether the replacement language creates friction or ambiguity for developers submitting projects.

---

8. Relationship to Other Open Discussions

Discussion	Connection to #12
#15: IP transfer vs. commons ethos	The "cooperative stewardship" domain resolves #15 directly. CDCF holds audit rights and stewardship authority; contributing institutions retain IP ownership. The Apache/Linux Foundation licensing model operates in this domain. The IP transfer paragraph in project-types.md should be revised in the same PR as the ecclesial governance bullet.
#13: Open-source requirement	The AIBOM audit rights licensing model operates under "cooperative stewardship," not "filial submission." The four-domain architecture provides the governance vocabulary for that mechanism.
#17: Builder-commons reframing	The formation pathway language proposed in #17 operates in the "cooperative stewardship" domain. CDCF accompanies projects; it does not govern them. The four-domain architecture provides the relational vocabulary the #17 framing needs.
#11: EAC in governance documents	The four-domain architecture clarifies exactly where the EAC's authority applies (advisory input on Domain 1 and non-binding guidance on Domain 3) and where it does not (Domain 2 stewardship terms and Domain 4 civil governance). #11 should reference this framework when placing the EAC in the governance architecture.

---

9. Canonical Notes for EAC Review

The following canonical characterizations are presented as paraphrases drawn from the 1983 Code of Canon Law, not verbatim quotations. The EAC should confirm precise canonical wording and applicability before the PR is finalized.

Canon	Paraphrase used in this analysis	Qualification
Canon 212 §1	Describes the faithful's obligation to follow with Christian obedience what the sacred pastors declare as teachers of the faith or as those who govern the Church	This canon governs the baptized faithful's relationship to pastoral authority, not the governance structure of a civil corporation. CDCF directors are not acting as "Christian faithful under pastoral governance" when exercising civil governance authority.
Canon 299 §3	No private association of the Christian faithful is recognized in the Church unless its statutes are reviewed by competent authority	CDCF is a civil foundation, not a private association of the faithful in the canonical sense. It is not seeking canonical recognition as an association of the faithful and is not subject to this canon's requirements. Naming this distinction explicitly in project-types.md prevents ambiguity about CDCF's canonical status.

---

Mark Julius Banasihan
TAC, AI Governance, Catholic Digital Commons Foundation
May 2026

---

References

Source	Publication	Relevance
project-governance/project-types.md (current text)	CDCF repo, v0.2	Source of the problematic language; full paragraph context confirmed
CDCF Bylaws, Article IV Section 1	February 2026	"The Board of Directors has full authority over the civil governance of the Foundation"
CDCF Bylaws, Article IV Section 2.3	February 2026	"Clerical status does not confer ecclesiastical jurisdiction within the Foundation"
CDCF Bylaws, Article VI Sections 1 and 3	February 2026	EAC provides non-binding guidance; final civil authority with Board, final ecclesial authority with Church
CDCF Bylaws, Article I Section 2 Purpose 2	February 2026	Establishes cooperative stewardship with ecclesial partners as a named relational category
CDCF Manifesto, Belloc translation	2026	Foundation preserves each institution's independent ability to govern its own data and tools
Code of Canon Law, Canon 212 §1	1983 (paraphrase)	Defines obsequium filiale as the faithful's relationship to pastoral authority; not applicable to a civil corporation's governance structure
Code of Canon Law, Canon 299 §3	1983 (paraphrase)	Private associations of the faithful require ecclesial review; CDCF is a civil entity, not a canonical association
Gaudium et Spes §76	Second Vatican Council, 1965	Distinguishes Church's spiritual mission from civil governance structures