No. He ought to be reefed out of the church altogether. Tolerance of these offenders is not just bad PR, it’s a scandal.
Out of thousands upon thousands of living bishops…
The majority of people don’t live to be even 90. Either way, a 100 year-old McCarrick is not going to be a threat to anyone.
I’m not defending how things have been handled up till now, I’m just trying to think about these things rationally.
This is purely anecdotal, but it feels like priests / bishops live longer than the average man… they definitely work much longer (active full-time ministry into mid to late 70s usually).
I’m not sure exactly how that would work. One can neither de-Catholic nor un-ordain someone.
So, from a practical standpoint, what do you suggest we do with him? He’s not charged with a crime, at least not to my knowledge. Unless he ends up being laicized, the best thing the Church can do is exile him to a life of penance and keep him under supervision, which is hopefully what sending him to this friary will do.
And then what? What will have loosed on the world? No, provided that he is willing, it is better to keep him essentially under house arrest in a monastery of adult men who know to keep an eye on him.
Provided he is not in any public ministry–that is, does not present himself as a bishop or as a priest at any liturgies at the monastery–and there is no secular prison to which a court has assigned him, it is in the public interest to keep him in a situation where he is denied the opportunity to offend again. He was not forced on the monastery; they took him in voluntarily. It is unlikely that most of those in the monastery will have much contact with him, and besides it is in the life of one who is actively pursuing sainthood to be willing to extend human contact to convicts of every kind.
As for returning him to the lay state, the Vatican is investigating the matter and will handle it according to canon law. The Church has an ancient rule of law; she does not form lynch mobs and heaven forbid that this change.
Let us remember that he is not literally a devil and not beyond redemption and that Our Lord died to save sinners of every kind. If Our Lord thirsts for a soul, who are we to disdain the thought or even the work of that soul’s redemption? If Our Lord will have us, who are we to reject someone else? If we hope for mercy ourselves it ought to be our hope that this man and even those who are worse might be provided with salutary repentance and be amended into the saint that God intends every human being to be.
It’s not disgusting. It’s what Jesus would’ve done with him. What you are suggesting is disgusting and unchristian.
When Our Lord said it would be better for one who lead an innocent to be lead astray to have had a millstone placed around their necks and cast into the sea, he was not saying there are people who are such sinners that he has no use for them. For Our Lord also said this:
Amen, I say to you, all sins and all blasphemies that people utter will be forgiven them. But whoever blasphemes against the holy Spirit will never have forgiveness, but is guilty of an everlasting sin. For they had said, “He has an unclean spirit.” Mark 3:28-30
We must never ever dismiss the work of God as the work of the evil one. The redemption of even the worst sinner is the work of God. It was Our Lord’s enemies, and not Our Lord, who dismissed other sinners as too far below the possibility of redemption for them to seek them out or to break bread with them.
Your last paragraph is spot on!
People will never learn.
"It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that even pagans do not tolerate: A man is sleeping with his father’s wife. And you are proud! Shouldn’t you rather have gone into mourning and have put out of your fellowship the man who has been doing this? For my part, even though I am not physically present, I am with you in spirit. As one who is present with you in this way, I have already passed judgment in the name of our Lord Jesus on the one who has been doing this. So when you are assembled and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh,
Your boasting is not good. Don’t you know that a little yeast leavens the whole batch of dough? Get rid of the old yeast, so that you may be a new unleavened batch—as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. 8 Therefore let us keep the Festival, not with the old bread leavened with malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth."
You left out the rest of the sentence:
“so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord.”
Who is boasting? Note St. Paul did not say, “a man who HAS SLEPT with his father’s wife” but rather “a man who IS SLEEPING with his father’s wife.” He was talking about tolerating an on-going situation, not tolerating someone who has been a sinner.
A Pharisee invited him to dine with him, and he entered the Pharisee’s house and reclined at table. Now there was a sinful woman in the city who learned that he was at table in the house of the Pharisee. Bringing an alabaster flask of ointment, she stood behind him at his feet weeping and began to bathe his feet with her tears. Then she wiped them with her hair, kissed them, and anointed them with the ointment.
When the Pharisee who had invited him saw this he said to himself, “If this man were a prophet, he would know who and what sort of woman this is who is touching him, that she is a sinner.”
Jesus said to him in reply, “Simon, I have something to say to you.”
“Tell me, teacher,” he said.
“Two people were in debt to a certain creditor; one owed five hundred days’ wages and the other owed fifty. Since they were unable to repay the debt, he forgave it for both. Which of them will love him more?”
_Simon said in reply, “The one, I suppose, whose larger debt was forgiven.” _
He said to him, “You have judged rightly.”
Then he turned to the woman and said to Simon, “Do you see this woman? When I entered your house, you did not give me water for my feet, but she has bathed them with her tears and wiped them with her hair. You did not give me a kiss, but she has not ceased kissing my feet since the time I entered. You did not anoint my head with oil, but she anointed my feet with ointment. So I tell you, her many sins have been forgiven; hence, she has shown great love. But the one to whom little is forgiven, loves little.”
He said to her, “Your sins are forgiven.”
The others at table said to themselves, “Who is this who even forgives sins?”
But he said to the woman, “Your faith has saved you; go in peace.”
It was right to remove the bishop from his place and to deny him the opportunity to represent himself in public as a priest or a bishop. It is also right, however, to put him in a position where he might be brought to salutary repentance.
If he were asking to be given a housing allowance but would not agree to live in a place where his doings and whereabouts where being constantly monitored, then I would agree that the Church would have no choice but to put him out. Provided he is willing to submit to a life of nothing but repentance, penance and prayer, however, then it is right to give him every opportunity to live that life and perhaps be redeemed. If nothing else, it keeps the community he would otherwise have been (and moving in freely and anonymously) that much safer.
I’m sorry, but I do not see housing him and his living under the umbrella of the hierarchy and keeping him among the ranks of our priests and bishops in any capacity as necessary for this man to live out his days in repentance for his crimes. He can do that on his own time and on his own dime.
Spare me these presumptions of princely privilege.
It seems to me there exists a sort of clericalism in the Church which is akin to the gang mentality or “blue wall” found in Law Enforcement.
There needs to be major changes to bring about self criticism and accountability to the priesthood.
Eh, for some, his head on a pike in St. Peter’s square wouldn’t be enough.
I do not see how stripping him of all possibility of any place in public liturgies anywhere amounts to “princely privilege,” but whatever the case he is entitled to canonical and criminal due process just like anyone else. I’m sorry if that upsets you, but it is the way it is.
As for “his own dime,” if he has any money to his name it ought to all go to the coffers of the monastery that is hosting him. Every dime of it…
True, but Heaven spare each of us from what we truly deserve, no?
I think you would benefit by reading up on “Divine Mercy.” Especially the part about praying the Chaplet for really hardened sinners.
Furthermore, I find it to be very charitable of my Bishop who agreed to house him here. (Along with the leader of the Friary.) I do live in the “Heartland,” so it seems also fitting for the accused McCarrick to be housed here. Because afterall, that is what he needs to have changed, his heart.
BTW, what good would it do to be protesting in front of what is basically a retirement/nursing home for the ageing friars? You would disturb their peace even more!
I could envision some good people gathering without pomp or publicity for a quiet Rosary on the lawn or under a shade tree. Aging friars welcome!