You were discussing the pros and cons of laicizing an abusive priest: if he is laicized the diocese has less financial liability, but it loses the ability to control the priest in the future. At 33:12, JD said, “I can understand why people think it’s good for a cleric not to be laicized, but I can’t understand why a bishop would think it was good or in his interest for a cleric not to be laicized.”
My first thought was to agree.
My second thought was to object. If the bishop takes the easy way out and favors laicization, then the priest is more likely to reoffend. This can result in more abuse, more scandal, and more danger to the priest’s soul. According to St Augustine, the bishop will be held to account at the Last Judgment for these things. And it’s surely in the bishop’s self-interest to avoid being condemned at the Last Judgment, right?
But JD wasn't referring to the bishop's actual self-interest, but his perceived self-interest. So my third thought is to fear JD may be right after all....
Fr. Mike Schmitz had a really great homily back in February about mercy, in the context of Jesus giving us a new commandment to turn the other cheek. He said that justice is getting what is owed to us, but mercy is receiving what we do not deserve. But he was framing that in terms of confession also and how merciful God is in wiping away our sins when we repent. (It was a really good homily, and I’m sure I’m not doing it justice.)
This French archbishop’s understanding of mercy is fundamentally flawed if he thinks that mercy means not only restoring but promoting this priest to this role. The priest has presumably already [edited: oh autocorrect, not reckoned but received] mercy from God though the sacrament of confession, and if the victim/survivor wants to extend mercy to him as well, that’s his right. But it’s not “mercy” on the part of the archbishop to appoint him to this role, it’s hubris and willful blindness.
And also, what on earth was going though the mind of whatever bishop appointed Spina to a children’s ministry upon his release from prison? That is truly insane to me. This whole episode makes me wonder yet again, how many of our bishops don’t actually believe in final judgment or in hell?
The original dispute between King Henry II and St. Thomas Becket was over a killing committed by a cleric who because of his status could only be tried by a church court. He was sentenced to a monastic prison, although not for life. The family of the deceased complained that the miscreant was still alive and asked the king to have him retried in a criminal court. Becket refused to allow it and the rest is history.
Listening to this episode, I was struck with an idea for a new format tweak to try on the Sunday School podcast (the last experiment having gone over so well and uncontroversially):
The full set of Sunday readings are—as is presently the case—read together at the start of she show…
Unfortunately, I'm not surprised by the understanding of mercy expressed by Bishop de Kerimel. It seems to crop up rather frequently. I don't even think it's uncommon to find prelates who seem to think that even PUBLICIZING crimes is somehow un-Christian. "But their good name..." etc. I honestly get annoyed by the whole discourse around things like "good name" and "causing scandal" because it seems like such an unwarranted focus on second-order concerns. How about we ensure justice first and worry about reputations second?
I hope it's obvious that I don't want to defend the bishop or priest in this situation, but zooming out, I do think there's a difficult question surrounding forgiveness and restoration for people who have committed acts of this sort. I definitely would like to see a priest guilty of this act to be laicized. And in theory I would obviously affirm that such a person could be forgiven through repentance and the ministry of the church, etc. But do I really want him, as a layman, standing next to my children in the pew or at the coffee hour after mass? There is, in fact, a kind of "social death" attached to people who have committed these crimes, and I'm not sure how you get around that.
Our diocese had a priest who was discovered by the staff and diocesan administrator (we had no bishop at the time) to be soliciting online sex videos of minors in another country. He was sentenced to 10 years in prison and a lifetime of monitoring, limited online access, and lifetime sex offender registry. He notably was also laicized. Why isn't there a universal guideline for these crimes? What our guy did was arguably "not as bad," though I hate to say that, but he recieved a far more comprehensive consequence.
Can we reserve a millstone for the archbishop, too?
JD you speak with prudence that my internal dialogue can only wish to mimic
You were discussing the pros and cons of laicizing an abusive priest: if he is laicized the diocese has less financial liability, but it loses the ability to control the priest in the future. At 33:12, JD said, “I can understand why people think it’s good for a cleric not to be laicized, but I can’t understand why a bishop would think it was good or in his interest for a cleric not to be laicized.”
My first thought was to agree.
My second thought was to object. If the bishop takes the easy way out and favors laicization, then the priest is more likely to reoffend. This can result in more abuse, more scandal, and more danger to the priest’s soul. According to St Augustine, the bishop will be held to account at the Last Judgment for these things. And it’s surely in the bishop’s self-interest to avoid being condemned at the Last Judgment, right?
But JD wasn't referring to the bishop's actual self-interest, but his perceived self-interest. So my third thought is to fear JD may be right after all....
Fr. Mike Schmitz had a really great homily back in February about mercy, in the context of Jesus giving us a new commandment to turn the other cheek. He said that justice is getting what is owed to us, but mercy is receiving what we do not deserve. But he was framing that in terms of confession also and how merciful God is in wiping away our sins when we repent. (It was a really good homily, and I’m sure I’m not doing it justice.)
This French archbishop’s understanding of mercy is fundamentally flawed if he thinks that mercy means not only restoring but promoting this priest to this role. The priest has presumably already [edited: oh autocorrect, not reckoned but received] mercy from God though the sacrament of confession, and if the victim/survivor wants to extend mercy to him as well, that’s his right. But it’s not “mercy” on the part of the archbishop to appoint him to this role, it’s hubris and willful blindness.
And also, what on earth was going though the mind of whatever bishop appointed Spina to a children’s ministry upon his release from prison? That is truly insane to me. This whole episode makes me wonder yet again, how many of our bishops don’t actually believe in final judgment or in hell?
Unfortunately there is frequently a major difference between mercy and prudence, as this French case clearly demonstrates.
The original dispute between King Henry II and St. Thomas Becket was over a killing committed by a cleric who because of his status could only be tried by a church court. He was sentenced to a monastic prison, although not for life. The family of the deceased complained that the miscreant was still alive and asked the king to have him retried in a criminal court. Becket refused to allow it and the rest is history.
Listening to this episode, I was struck with an idea for a new format tweak to try on the Sunday School podcast (the last experiment having gone over so well and uncontroversially):
The full set of Sunday readings are—as is presently the case—read together at the start of she show…
…but by JD rather than Kate…
…and in French.
"The Pope is taking a week off for vacation to relax as he should" —man whose blood pressure has been audibly increasing this entire episode.
Granted, it's understandable given the stressful subject matter (the French) but still...
Christendom College Graduate School of Theology: You must purify yourselves in the waters of the Shenandoah River.
Unfortunately, I'm not surprised by the understanding of mercy expressed by Bishop de Kerimel. It seems to crop up rather frequently. I don't even think it's uncommon to find prelates who seem to think that even PUBLICIZING crimes is somehow un-Christian. "But their good name..." etc. I honestly get annoyed by the whole discourse around things like "good name" and "causing scandal" because it seems like such an unwarranted focus on second-order concerns. How about we ensure justice first and worry about reputations second?
I hope it's obvious that I don't want to defend the bishop or priest in this situation, but zooming out, I do think there's a difficult question surrounding forgiveness and restoration for people who have committed acts of this sort. I definitely would like to see a priest guilty of this act to be laicized. And in theory I would obviously affirm that such a person could be forgiven through repentance and the ministry of the church, etc. But do I really want him, as a layman, standing next to my children in the pew or at the coffee hour after mass? There is, in fact, a kind of "social death" attached to people who have committed these crimes, and I'm not sure how you get around that.
Our diocese had a priest who was discovered by the staff and diocesan administrator (we had no bishop at the time) to be soliciting online sex videos of minors in another country. He was sentenced to 10 years in prison and a lifetime of monitoring, limited online access, and lifetime sex offender registry. He notably was also laicized. Why isn't there a universal guideline for these crimes? What our guy did was arguably "not as bad," though I hate to say that, but he recieved a far more comprehensive consequence.