So it is that the Church has become mired in legalism then, that keeps pederasts and apostates and the like in high positions?
Not at all. Church law is based on sound theology, tradition and exegesis. There are some realities that can’t be dismissed or undone.
The law does not create the sin. The sin is there due to our own choices. The law cannot change, even when there is sin, because the law stands for truth. You cannot modify truth to solve a problem.
You have to work with the problem within the parameters that are provided for you by truth.
You mentioned pederasts, which really have nothing to do with Fr. Jenkins; but, let’s use that example. First, there is no litmus test for peodophilia. Second, a priest who is a peodophile is a priest forever. The Sacrament of Holy Orders cannot be undone. Third, the role and rights of a bishop have limits that come from sacred tradition and scripture. Fourth, the role and rights of religious and their superiors also have parameters that come from scripture and sacred tradition.
None of what I have mentioned in the above paragraph can be changed to resolve the problem of peodophilia. The problem has to be dealt with, yes. The rules have to be followed as well.
In the case of Fr. Jenkins, the issue has to be dealt with; but the rules have to be followed as they have been handed down to us through the centuries. We cannot undo the rules that are based on the faith of the Church to save the Church. That makes no sense.
That is one of many reasons why people like Fr. Jenkins and others should think very carefully about their choices. Their poor choices have a serious impact on the Church, not just them. Sometimes, these choices can back us into a dead end. This is very sad when this happens, because someone is going to be hurt.
The fault does not rest with the rules, but with those who make wrong choices. There is nothing wrong with the canons, the rules of religious life, or the teachings on the priesthood and religious life that govern people like Fr. Jenkins. The failure is in the individual or the individuals, because there were more people involved in this. Fr. Jenkins did not act alone.
In addition, the Church law says that the Church has to be fair to the Congregation of the Holy Cross. You cannot punish an entire congregation for something that one member did or even several members. ND was founded by the Congregation of the Holy Cross. Their intent was never to defy the Church or teach against the Church. Fr. Jenkins has betrayed the intent of his brothers. Should his brothers be penalized?
My order had an interesting case in its early history. This may or may not help understand the way the rules work. Years after our holy father Francis left the office of Superior General, another Superior General was elected, Brother Elias of Cortona. Br. Elias was a very well educated priest. He was a scholar.
He began a process of change in the order. Despite the Rule of St. Francis, he made some changes that were inconsistent with the mind of Father Francis. Eventually, Br. Elias was excommunicated for not obeying Fr. Francis. This was part of the rule. If you disobeyed Fr. Francis you would be excommunicated.
Even though Br. Elias was excommunicated, the changes that he made remained in place. The Pope and Francis agreed that Br. Elias was the canonical successor to the founder. They agreed that even though the changes that he made were in disobedience to Francis, the rest of the brothers had to obey them because they were not in and of themselves sinful. They could lead to sin, but not sinful.
The conclusion was that sin was not in the changes that Br. Elias made, but sin was in the choices that the brothers made. They could follow Br. Elias’ changes and avoid sin or they could follow them to the extreme and fall into sin. In any event, if they fell into sin, it was not the fault of Br. Elias. It was their choice. Br. Elias created a situation that left some latitude for sin. But he did not mandate sin or preach sin. Also, he was the canonical superior. Therefore, he had to be obeyed.
He was still excommunicated, because he had to obey the founder. His excommunication was due to his disobedience of the founder, not to the latitudes that he gave the friars.
This is a wonderful example of how truth plays out in Church law. The truths here were:
- Br. Elias is the superior and must be obeyed.
- Br. Elias is not asking anyone to sin.
- Fr. Francis is the founder and must be obeyed.
- Br. Elias disobeyed the founder.
- Therefore, Br. Elias is excommunicated for disobeying the founder, not because the changes were sinful.
Church law always bases itself on truth. Truth is handed down to us first by Sacred Tradition, second by the scriptures, and third by the Magisterium.
Hope this helps.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
what did he actually say?
So, please forgive me for chosing to divide this response in two, rather then erase some of the content.
