At Homiletic and Pastoral Review (yes, it still exists), find the second part of important work by civil and canon lawyer Michael Mazza (whom I’ve known for a zillion years). He now works as a canonist especially in defense of priests. HERE
The Importance of the Value of Reputation, Part II
People who are accused of crimes have a right to proper process and to their good name (bona fama). Both of those often go out the door in the case of priests who are falsely accused and/or cancelled. In this offering, Mazza starts with some Patristic references to bona fama and then traces papal comments in the more modern Magisterium.
A sample:
We note in conclusion that such evidence stands for the proposition that the good of bona fama has been valued, in a variety of contexts and time periods, as a fundamental human good. This article has also referenced several well-known artistic works, emanating from diverse cultures and at various points in history, that also testify to enduring truths concerning the good of bona fama. The extent of all this evidence suggests that there would be something profoundly inhuman, and therefore deeply disturbing, about any community that neglects to care for the right to reputation of its members. Such attentiveness for reputation is particularly important when the prevailing cultural zeitgeist militates against the right to bona fama by demanding quick guilty verdicts so as to quench the popular thirst for vengeance.
Owing to the power of speech itself, along with the close link between a person’s name and his very identity, we saw how the witness of Sacred Scripture, the early Church, and centuries of theological tradition have established the foundations on which the current juridical framework protecting a cleric’s right to bona fama rests. Authentic developments in magisterial teaching on the issue of reputation support the conclusion that respect for bona fama is not only an essential element of any human community, but that it is particularly important in the life of the Church, especially for its clergy. In light of such evidence, it is incomprehensible for an ecclesial community professing fidelity to the incarnate Word of God to ignore or downplay a right so fundamental as the right to reputation. We have seen how our bona fama is linked to our physical, mental, social, and spiritual health; we have also examined how closely connected is a person’s name to his very life. In this light, then, we can more easily see the fundamental hypocrisy at work if one professes caritas but permits calumnia.
Loading ...
Thank you for this post. Very sobering. My reputation was marred by my in-laws because my wife and I attend the traditional Mass. We were cast out of the “family” for not holding their views on issues of life and morality. It has been a sad journey for my wife and I as we have lost connection with many off of the lies of my wife’s parents.
I can only imagine the destruction caused by ruining a Priest reputation being how public of people they are.
I yearn for the last Judgement. In fact, I can’t wait to see the scales of Justice!
Pingback: FRIDAY EDITION – Big Pulpit
Look at the poor Mother Superior in the wheelchair whose Bishop questioned Her after an operation and under anesthesia about sexting with a Priest. He says she confessed. If that was the case, why wasn’t she given absolution and penance? Why wasn’t her confession held private? Instead a Public scandal.
The right to one’s reputation or “good name” is an important right, and (sadly) one that is gravely damaged by false accusations against good priests, and by bishops (and others) who act as if an accusation is the same thing as a proven fact. These acts injure the common good severely.
At the same time, the concept of “a right to your good name” is being used (by bishops, no less) in the reverse way, going to the opposite extreme, also damaging the common good. For example, my former bishop (now deceased) had 3 priests who were accused of serious wrongdoings: (1) embezzlement; (2) a deep-seated habit of pornography; and (3) siring a child with a married woman, inducing her to leave her husband and children and going off with him (to a different state) to get married (to the priest). The bishop did in fact investigate the events. In the first 2, the priests were removed and required to undergo corrective treatment. In the 3rd, he described the priest as on leave of absence. In all three, he attempted to minimize “damage to the diocese” by refusing to confirm or deny any thesis at all about whether the priest did in fact do what he was accused of doing. In all 3, he backed up this refusal by “a person has a right to his good name”. Apparently, the bishop thought “good name” meant you preserved your good reputation unless you committed your sins right out in public view for all to see, otherwise it was “private sins” and therefore of no consideration against reputation. I don’t think St. Augustine would have a kindly word for this bishop.
Secondly, bishops have been hiding behind the idea of a right to your good name to not raise concerns regarding circumstantial evidence that maybe someone isn’t all pure as the driven snow. Although the (2002 and following) scandals about pedophilia priests forced the bishops to announce rules that require them to investigate direct accusations of sexual wrongdoing, (a principle that SHOULD have been common sense), they continue to operate as if they are not only not REQUIRED to act before they get a formal complaint of an actual victim, but they seem to act as if they MUST NOT act on any evidence short of a formal complaint by a victim of full-fledged abuse. They make ordinary folk feel stupid and crazy for bringing anything to the bishop’s attention that is short of such a full and direct victimization: mere circumstantial evidence is, effectively, not evidence. Moreover, when the DO run into direct, incontrovertible evidence of serious wrongdoing, they often (a) shoot the messenger, and (b) decline to follow the (obvious) trail toward OTHER priests who were almost certainly involved as enablers. How many bishops had, in hand, clear and convincing evidence of wrongdoing by McCarrick’s cadre of enablers and hangers-on? How many came forward with the evidence? Zero.
Lastly: PROOF is a level we require for judicial action, and judicial penalties. And well we should, this is an important safeguard. But that’s NOT the level of evidence we use in 98% of our social decisions and interactions. We frequently estimate trustworthiness or reliability (on a continuum from little to great) based on incomplete information. We have to do that, because we can never see inside a person’s mind. It is perfectly OK, outside of judicial proceedings, to rely on a preponderance of the evidence. Canon 1742(3) assumes that this is the case:
Canon 1741. The reasons for which a parish priest can lawfully be removed from his parish are principally:
1° a manner of acting which causes grave harm or disturbance to ecclesiastical communion;
2° ineptitude or permanent illness of mind or body, which makes the parish priest unequal to the task of fulfilling his duties satisfactorily;
3° the loss of the parish priest’s good name among upright and serious-minded parishioners, or aversion to him, when it can be foreseen that these factors will not quickly come to an end.
The qualifier in (3) of “upright and serious-minded” to the parishioners establishes that they are not given to rash judgment. But if they had actual proof of serious wrongdoing, then (1) would intervene to be an adequate cause for removal, and we would have no need of (3). But even short of being removed from a parish, a pastor can have a bad reputation by just being, all around, far from the behavior of a good priest: constantly overeating and overdrinking, never being seen in prayer except when obliged by public liturgy, constantly rude and cantankerous, changing parish customary practices out of whim or personal preference alone, belittling ordinary people for normal behavior, and a 100 other ways of being a bad priest but short of grave acts of wrongdoing.
And the implicit context of (3) is that the behavior that induces this bad reputation has been talked about by the parishioners. You don’t get a case where each person, ALONE and INDEPENDENTLY, takes all the instances of bad behavior, and concludes “this priest deserves to no longer have my regard”. They do, and should talk about it with each other. And, together, notice extenuating circumstances, explanations, and so on. And, as a result, when they (as a multitude) arrive at that conclusion, it is not RASH but just and reasonable, based on sober deliberation with evidence from many sources. Which means hearing (and weighing) many accounts of events from many individuals. Which means thatdiscussing all this is not “detraction” and “calumny” but…proper social evaluation. It’s how all communities work below the level of court cases.
Jesus…….the first cancelled priest.
We read about all the insulting, vicious, and slanderous things said to and about him by his opponents.
“Ipse liberabit te de laqueo venantium et a verbo maligno.”
(Psalm 91 (90):3)