Archbishop of Toulouse issues statement on withdrawal of his appointment of convicted rapist apologising to him! Links the "mercy" of the original appointment to abandonment of the death penalty!

Press Release – Regarding the Appointment of the Chancellor

Mgr de Kerimel

To avoid causing division among bishops, and to avoid remaining at a standoff between those for and against, I decided to reverse my decision; this has now been done, with the appointment of a new Chancellor.

My decision was interpreted by many as a snub to the victims of sexual abuse; I apologize to the victims. This was obviously not my intention. Others finally saw it as a sign of hope for the perpetrators of abuse who had served their time and are experiencing a very trying social death. In this context, I must apologize to the one I appointed and in whom I trust, for not having been able to find the rightful place to which he is entitled.

How can we find the right attitude that does not require us to take one side to the detriment of the other? How can we maintain primary attention to the victims without forever rejecting the perpetrators?

Today, we speak of "restorative justice": it seeks to establish a meeting, always free, between the perpetrator and the victim, to acknowledge the harm committed and with the desire not to be trapped in it.

The perpetrator must repair the harm committed, or at least, through the punishment inflicted by the justice system, contribute to the repair of the harm committed. When it comes to a crime, the harm always has an irreparable dimension. What should be done in this case? Practice revenge? That would be to lock oneself into a destructive logic and ultimately into the ultimate victory of evil.

France has renounced the death penalty; the justice system believes in the possibility of change for criminals and works towards their reintegration. It cannot give free rein to revenge; that would be to the detriment of the perpetrator, of course, but also of the victim and of society as a whole. In the name of such justice, we would descend into the worst injustices. Justice does not repay the perpetrator for the harm he or she has done to the victim: "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth." It places a limit on the exclusion of the guilty party, except in extreme cases involving dangerous individuals.

In the Gospel, Jesus went very far in the rehabilitation of sinful and guilty people. He called to positions of responsibility men like Matthew the tax collector, Peter the renegade, Paul the criminal, Mary Magdalene the prostitute, and so many others. Paul had made victims, perhaps also Saint Matthew in another order. However, Jesus forgave their sins, they changed their lives, and they exercised, in the name of Christ, an authority that endures to this day. This evangelical logic goes even beyond rehabilitation, which only affects one's place in society: it is called conversion, because it changes the human heart.

We, whose mission is to bear witness to the Gospel, cannot ignore the mercy that Jesus always showed, even on the cross, by forgiving the wrongdoer who turned to Him. We believe that justice is not opposed to mercy, mercy is not opposed to justice.

We believe in forgiveness, in redemption, without ever condoning injustice, even if, sadly, we sometimes practice it, for we are no better than Jesus' first disciples. The path of conversion is never complete on this earth.

How can we balance justice and mercy? I would like us to continue to reflect on this important subject, so as not to be limited to emotions, which rarely lead to true justice, but so that, as Christians, we may adopt the most just attitude possible, in accordance with the Gospel.

Please be assured of my devotion.

+ Guy de Kerimel

Archbishop of Toulouse

August 16, 2025

Source

Basically, he would do it all again if he thought he could get away with it.  Background and also the whole sorry saga as related by this blog