I think it best that, when there is an allegation of grave misconduct against a cleric or high church official in general, there should be a public trial. Lower level issues can be dealt with confidentially. But when truly serious ones arise, the public not only has a right to know the evidence, but also has a role in evaluating the evid…
I think it best that, when there is an allegation of grave misconduct against a cleric or high church official in general, there should be a public trial. Lower level issues can be dealt with confidentially. But when truly serious ones arise, the public not only has a right to know the evidence, but also has a role in evaluating the evidence. Along there lines, I would also propose that, in such cases, a jury be drawn from a pool of faithful and intelligent Catholics to give a decision and proposed result. A judge or appeals court of church authorities could reverse the sentence of a jury if it is unreasonable, as we have in other courts. But in general, I would trust the judgement of the faithful, practicing Catholics in open court much more than the secretive process we have now. It may seem radical to move Church disciplinary proceedings to the realm of juries. But, as is the case in other criminal trials, while the technicalities of law may be the province of experts, the common sense and experience of the people at large is likely a better way of judging the guilt or innocence of the accused. As G.K. Chesterton pointed out over a century ago, experts in law are overly accustomed to handing out judgements as a matter of course and often do not recognize the overwhelming responsibility of weighing guilt or innocence. As he put, it the experts "do not see the prisoner in dock; all they see is the usual man in the usual place. They do not see the awful court of judgment; they only see their own workshop. Therefore the instinct of Christian civilization has most wisely declared that into their judgment there shall upon every occasion be infused fresh blood and fresh thoughts from the street." Juries, even of faithful and intelligent people, are certainly imperfect. But, given the failures of the old, and even current, methods the Church uses, I would like to give them a chance.
I kinda like this idea. I may be wrong on details here, but I believe S. Korea recently instituted a system by which the accused could request a jury trial, and the jury's opinion on guilt or innocence will generally be respected, but in extreme cases can be overruled by the judge (or panel of judges maybe). I think the jury can also make sentencing recommendations. When I heard about it I thought it was an interesting system. Apparently they'd never had jury trials before.
But, I think there's good reason to have the approximate rank of the person determine the approximate rank of the jurors, e.g., lay for a layman, priests for a priest, bishops for a bishop. That still leaves room for collecting jurors for Curial officials, for example, from diocesan bishops, while maintaining a rather old tradition regarding who judges whom. You don't want a good 'ol boys network, and you also don't want to risk deference for clerics overriding respect for justice.
And assuming a public trial, the court of public opinion can try the jurors afterwards.
I think it best that, when there is an allegation of grave misconduct against a cleric or high church official in general, there should be a public trial. Lower level issues can be dealt with confidentially. But when truly serious ones arise, the public not only has a right to know the evidence, but also has a role in evaluating the evidence. Along there lines, I would also propose that, in such cases, a jury be drawn from a pool of faithful and intelligent Catholics to give a decision and proposed result. A judge or appeals court of church authorities could reverse the sentence of a jury if it is unreasonable, as we have in other courts. But in general, I would trust the judgement of the faithful, practicing Catholics in open court much more than the secretive process we have now. It may seem radical to move Church disciplinary proceedings to the realm of juries. But, as is the case in other criminal trials, while the technicalities of law may be the province of experts, the common sense and experience of the people at large is likely a better way of judging the guilt or innocence of the accused. As G.K. Chesterton pointed out over a century ago, experts in law are overly accustomed to handing out judgements as a matter of course and often do not recognize the overwhelming responsibility of weighing guilt or innocence. As he put, it the experts "do not see the prisoner in dock; all they see is the usual man in the usual place. They do not see the awful court of judgment; they only see their own workshop. Therefore the instinct of Christian civilization has most wisely declared that into their judgment there shall upon every occasion be infused fresh blood and fresh thoughts from the street." Juries, even of faithful and intelligent people, are certainly imperfect. But, given the failures of the old, and even current, methods the Church uses, I would like to give them a chance.
I kinda like this idea. I may be wrong on details here, but I believe S. Korea recently instituted a system by which the accused could request a jury trial, and the jury's opinion on guilt or innocence will generally be respected, but in extreme cases can be overruled by the judge (or panel of judges maybe). I think the jury can also make sentencing recommendations. When I heard about it I thought it was an interesting system. Apparently they'd never had jury trials before.
I agree on the public trial.
But, I think there's good reason to have the approximate rank of the person determine the approximate rank of the jurors, e.g., lay for a layman, priests for a priest, bishops for a bishop. That still leaves room for collecting jurors for Curial officials, for example, from diocesan bishops, while maintaining a rather old tradition regarding who judges whom. You don't want a good 'ol boys network, and you also don't want to risk deference for clerics overriding respect for justice.
And assuming a public trial, the court of public opinion can try the jurors afterwards.