BishopAccountability.org
	Question for Discussion: Should a Bishop Defend a Priest Convicted of Crime? By Phil Lawler Catholic Culture August 6, 2010 http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otn.cfm?id=685 Baltimore’s Archbishop Edwin O’Brien has voiced his objection to a deal that could allow a convicted child-rapist to leave prison, having served a 15-year term. The convict, John Merzbacher—who had been a teacher in a Catholic school—was originally sentenced to four life terms. An appeals court has ruled that he should have been offered a chance to accept a lesser sentence. Don’t get me wrong; I’m 100% with Archbishop O’Brien on this question. When I see the words “child rape,” I don’t want to see the words “lesser sentence” anywhere in the vicinity. But here’s a mental experiment. If the convict were a priest who had served in a Baltimore Catholic parish, rather than a layman who had worked in a parochial school, would the archbishop make the same argument for tough sentencing? Should he? This is not intended as an invitation to criticize Archbishop O’Brien. I don’t know what he would have done in this hypothetical situation and I don’t intend to speculate. Rather I mean to ask a question: What are the responsibilities of a diocesan bishop toward a priest who has been duly convicted for a serious crime? Does the common good require the bishop to seek lenient treatment for the corrupt priest—as a loving father might beg the court’s mercy for his son, without denying the son's guilt? Or does the bishop’s responsibility to the faithful require him to seek even harsher punishment, in order to set an example and bolster public trust? I’m asking the question. I don’t think the answer is obvious. Discuss.
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.