I don’t know what to think about Bishop Lennon’s apparent connection to a Boston priest who admitted raping a guy and was then allowed to resume parish ministry in Arizona. Lennon allegedly gave the canon law opinion that the law did not allow them to suspend the alleged rapist from ministry despite his admission because of the principle of double jeopardy. In other words, he was accused, investigated, exonerated, and then admitted it.
I think what disturbs me most is that a guy who admits to rape and lying about it would be allowed to continue to act in persona Christi by the Church’s own rules. What kind of ministry could that be? Here is a real application of the question “what would Jesus do?” Can you imagine any circumstance where Jesus would have allowed an apparently unrepentant, unpunished rapist to continue as an apostle? Or was he repentant? The article doesn’t say. Does it even matter?