Honestly, justice is always arbitrary. One man's justice is another's injustice. Perhaps we lack a better word here for what we're talking about. "Justice", like "good" and "fair", always requires qualification. The essay implies that in this case it must contain much more "transparency" than has been shown by the judges-cum-executioners. So why use "justice" at all, if we mean "transparency"? My guess is that we're using it to evoke some modicum of outrage.
Hi brother. To be honest, I strongly disagree with your argument here. A “just” outcome in a criminal process does not necessarily mean the “correct“ verdict has been rendered. It means both the prosecution and defense had a fair shake based on the agreed upon rules. (Each is given what they are owed). The system can always be improved to get a better rate of when the just and correct verdicts are the same. Granted. But this side of heaven, that’s where we are. Your argument that “one man’s justice is another’s injustice” doesn’t mean justice is arbitrary, it means one of your two men is wrong.
Justice is arbitrary in these cases specifically because the agreed upon process is not being followed. IF the Church had a sterling reputation for handling these issues, that might not be a problem. But given that it has the opposite, transparency becomes important not because it is synonymous with justice but because after failing so brutally for so long they have promised they are better without offering a shred of proof.
I disagree with you both, I think. To the Church, something is just when it correlates to what is true -- justice is the virtue of giving thigns their due, treating them in accord with what they are. From my view, that's not arbitrary but objective.
Stephen, you're describing a procedurally just outcome in an adversarial legal system. But I think most people would say that something can be procedurally just, but materially unjust, if the outcome doesn't align with reality, the dignity of the human person, and the truth.
Thank you JD for 1) the reply and 2) the use of precise language which my post was clearly lacking.
I was just trying to point out that the delta/difference between procedural justice and material justice in human legal systems is not a result of arbitrariness (as a rule) but rather is usually an attempt to balance the demands of justice with personal liberty and the state’s use of investigative power.
I meant to look up the context of "Let justice descend, you heavens, like dew from above,
like gentle rain let the clouds drop it down" which we hear so much in Advent (Is 45:8) but through fatfingering the numbers when typing it, I ended up at Isaiah 48 instead which is a spicy meatball.
Current Catholic theology prioritises the sinner OVER the victim and Mercy over Justice. (There’s a lot of nuance here that we have to skip over because this is a combox discussion). The victims pain and loss is secondary to the redemption of the sinner and that is why their concerns are of secondary priority.
The problem lays in a change in the Church’s understanding of the nature of Christian love (Modern Kenotic theology) and is less of an issue of poor decision making or “cover ups”.
Yep, Justice isn’t high up on the list of priorities in this modern schema.
A classic tension of authority, where the rulers right to have his decisions be above legal appeal (a position undeniable) does not automatically translate into that authority being trustworthy or accepted in practice.
Francis may wish it were otherwise, but his legitimacy is limited and not self authenticating
Nope. This isn’t about Authority it’s about theology. This is a systematic problem affecting the whole Church. This rubbish was going on when JPII was in charge as well.
I don’t think conditions are different it’s just that it’s all been exposed. What I’m saying is that seeing this as an issue of Personality, authority or “power” misdiagnoses the issue.
An important distinction is between immoral and imprudent. We assume these are acts of governance.
If his actions were both imprudent and immoral, then the restrictions nake sense. If the actions were sumply imprudent (but not immoral) acts of governance, he should be restricted from governance but not from ministry.
My guess is that there were some personal moral issues that were presented but due to lack of evidence, they couldn't declare him guilty.
I am actually praying for the second coming of Christ which I think would be SUPER FUN (I suppose Bayesian statistics says that the odds are against it, but I, undeterred, was raised by a classical statistician.)
Maybe a fifth consequence or related to the fourth, but the church has nearly lost all credibility in matters of morality.
// Justice is arbitrary in the Church today. //
Honestly, justice is always arbitrary. One man's justice is another's injustice. Perhaps we lack a better word here for what we're talking about. "Justice", like "good" and "fair", always requires qualification. The essay implies that in this case it must contain much more "transparency" than has been shown by the judges-cum-executioners. So why use "justice" at all, if we mean "transparency"? My guess is that we're using it to evoke some modicum of outrage.
Hi brother. To be honest, I strongly disagree with your argument here. A “just” outcome in a criminal process does not necessarily mean the “correct“ verdict has been rendered. It means both the prosecution and defense had a fair shake based on the agreed upon rules. (Each is given what they are owed). The system can always be improved to get a better rate of when the just and correct verdicts are the same. Granted. But this side of heaven, that’s where we are. Your argument that “one man’s justice is another’s injustice” doesn’t mean justice is arbitrary, it means one of your two men is wrong.
Justice is arbitrary in these cases specifically because the agreed upon process is not being followed. IF the Church had a sterling reputation for handling these issues, that might not be a problem. But given that it has the opposite, transparency becomes important not because it is synonymous with justice but because after failing so brutally for so long they have promised they are better without offering a shred of proof.
Hi Stephen and David,
I disagree with you both, I think. To the Church, something is just when it correlates to what is true -- justice is the virtue of giving thigns their due, treating them in accord with what they are. From my view, that's not arbitrary but objective.
Stephen, you're describing a procedurally just outcome in an adversarial legal system. But I think most people would say that something can be procedurally just, but materially unjust, if the outcome doesn't align with reality, the dignity of the human person, and the truth.
anyway, just my thoughts.
The church doesn't which?
Sorry, that was a stray bit of comment which got stuck in there.
:o)
Thank you JD for 1) the reply and 2) the use of precise language which my post was clearly lacking.
I was just trying to point out that the delta/difference between procedural justice and material justice in human legal systems is not a result of arbitrariness (as a rule) but rather is usually an attempt to balance the demands of justice with personal liberty and the state’s use of investigative power.
> Has justice been done?
I meant to look up the context of "Let justice descend, you heavens, like dew from above,
like gentle rain let the clouds drop it down" which we hear so much in Advent (Is 45:8) but through fatfingering the numbers when typing it, I ended up at Isaiah 48 instead which is a spicy meatball.
Current Catholic theology prioritises the sinner OVER the victim and Mercy over Justice. (There’s a lot of nuance here that we have to skip over because this is a combox discussion). The victims pain and loss is secondary to the redemption of the sinner and that is why their concerns are of secondary priority.
The problem lays in a change in the Church’s understanding of the nature of Christian love (Modern Kenotic theology) and is less of an issue of poor decision making or “cover ups”.
Yep, Justice isn’t high up on the list of priorities in this modern schema.
A classic tension of authority, where the rulers right to have his decisions be above legal appeal (a position undeniable) does not automatically translate into that authority being trustworthy or accepted in practice.
Francis may wish it were otherwise, but his legitimacy is limited and not self authenticating
Nope. This isn’t about Authority it’s about theology. This is a systematic problem affecting the whole Church. This rubbish was going on when JPII was in charge as well.
Never said it wasn't. But conditions are different than they were back in JPII's day, for better and worse.
I don’t think conditions are different it’s just that it’s all been exposed. What I’m saying is that seeing this as an issue of Personality, authority or “power” misdiagnoses the issue.
No matter how many times I see it I am still amazed at how incompetent the old men in Rome are when it comes to sex abuse.
An important distinction is between immoral and imprudent. We assume these are acts of governance.
If his actions were both imprudent and immoral, then the restrictions nake sense. If the actions were sumply imprudent (but not immoral) acts of governance, he should be restricted from governance but not from ministry.
My guess is that there were some personal moral issues that were presented but due to lack of evidence, they couldn't declare him guilty.
I imagine that we are all waiting impatiently for this unfortunate papacy to come to a merciful end.
I am actually praying for the second coming of Christ which I think would be SUPER FUN (I suppose Bayesian statistics says that the odds are against it, but I, undeterred, was raised by a classical statistician.)
Ah, but I regress.
I'm wondering where in the lexicon of ecclesiastical doublespeak the word 'imprudent' is defined. Please let me know if you ever find that definition.