A rare victory for fraternal correction

By Phil Lawler ( bio - articles - email ) | Aug 18, 2025

News flash: Fraternal correction works!

More than a month ago, Archbishop Guy de Kerimel of Toulouse made the appalling decision to appoint a convicted rapist as chancellor of his archdiocese. He explained that he had “taken the side of mercy,” since after serving his prison term for the felony, Father Dominique Spina remained ineligible for any ordinary pastoral ministry.

The appointment caused anger and astonishment. Was it really possible that after years of outrage over clerical abuse, an archbishop could show such sympathy for the abuser, while ignoring the impact that his decision would have on those who had been abused? While it is indeed an act of mercy to help a sinner along the path of redemption, giving a disgraced priest a prominent public role—a promotion—showed a pastoral insensitivity that beggars belief.

In a healthy Church, how would such a flagrant mistake be addressed? A bishop has unquestioned authority to make his own appointments. The Vatican is (and should be) reluctant to interfere in diocesan affairs. Angry editorials and protests from the laity have little effect—especially if the offending bishop is impervious to public opinion.

But a bishop is a member of a college—the college of bishops—and while is not subject to the authority of an episcopal conference, he is subject to moral suasion, to fraternal correction.

Presumably there were some French bishops (and maybe bishops from other countries) who quietly contacted Archbishop de Kerimel and warned him about the damage he was doing to their credibility. Two weeks after the appointment, Bishop Hervé Giraud of Viviers went public with his criticism, saying that he was “appalled” by the Spina appointment.

Then last week, in a public statement for which I can find no precedent, the president and vice-presidents of the French episcopal conference strongly urged Archbishop de Kerimel to reconsider the appointment, saying: “Such an appointment to such an important position, both canonically and symbolically, can only reopen wounds, reawaken suspicions, and disconcert the People of God.”

That statement did the trick! At the end of that same week, Archbishop de Kerimel announced that Father Spina had resigned his new post and a new chancellor had been appointed.

How many times, in the past quarter-century, have loyal Catholic pleaded with their bishops to call a wayward colleague to account? How many times might the Church have been spared from scandal if bishops had rebuked colleagues before their misdeeds hit the headlines? How many times could the faithful have been spared from confusion if bishops had been willing to challenge their colleagues for making inaccurate statements about Church teaching?

Perhaps more to the point, how often have bishops refrained from public criticism of their colleagues for fear of offending the unity within that episcopal college. The unity among the apostles and their successors is founded upon a unity of faith, and when that faith is endangered, a clear defense of the truth is the best service of unity.

Fraternal correction: Give it a try.