My understanding of the trial is that testimony was heard on both sides, with the judge ruling throughout on the admissibility of the testimony and fairness of the arguments. Wait Before doesn't note that both Mrs Reese and Luke Reese testified. The job of a jury is to evaluate the evidence and determine how trustworthy the witnesses are, based on their common sense and experience of life. In this case, having heard from both Mr and Mrs Reese, the jury acquitted Reese on some charges and convicted him on others, including a felony. There is no reason to believe the jurors did not do their job.
At this point, we're past detraction and rash judgment. Church authorities are likely to proceed based on the result, and there is no reason we can't draw some reasonable conclusions.
One question that I've already posted about is whether Reese had the opportunity to plead to a lesser charge and avoid prison. I'm told that he was given two plea deals involving three years house arrest, both of which he refused. Instead, he chose to testify on his own behalf, which is something an attorney would not normally recommend. Without a trial transcript, I don't know precisely how this turned out, but a defendant who takes the stand runs the risk of cross-examination by an experienced prosecutor. In any case, the jury heard from both Reese and his wife, and it voted unanimously, apparently after some hours of deliberation, to convict on a felony charge. A jury's whole purpose is to render judgment. It did. No need to wait any longer.
But in the perspective of the remarks by a visitor in today's first post, it sounds as though Reese felt he could somehow charm the jury into taking his side, after deciding not to accept a plea, and then deciding to go for broke and try to get full acquittal. Well, I'm a true crime fan. I don't want to throw terms like "psychopath" around too readily, but criminals who seem to think they're smarter than the cops, above the rules, better than anyone else, do in fact often think they can represent themselves or take the stand on their own behalf and get away with things.
Several people over the course of this story have told me that they encountered Reese in various contexts, both "continuing" and in the archdiocese, and came away with the impression that there was something not quite right. One individual said he felt very bad about not contacting the Archdiocese of Indianapolis when Reese was ordained in the Catholic Church, but that he didn't have any written records of wrongdoing. However, the appropriate authority would have been Bp Lopes and the OCSP, and my own experience has been that adverse information is apparently discounted there. This is reckless.
So I'm asking what kind of background check and psychological assessment Reese ever had in evaluating his suitability for the priesthood. Was attending classes as a day student at a seminary enough? In fact, it sounds to me as though Reese was something of a con artist even at Our Lady of the Holy Rosary, and some people saw through it, while others didn't. The question would be whether a priest in the course of more normal Catholic formation would have more opportunities for evaluation, and I've got to think that must certainly be the case.
Another question has been asked by other visitors in other contexts: I'm told now, but i've heard before, that Catholic deacons' wives are given more formation than Ordinariate priests' wives. In fact, I'm told that nobody at the OCSP has ever contacted Mrs Reese, and she was not interviewed at any time during Reese's formation. All the support she's received has been from the Archdiocese of Indianapolis.
My regular correspondent tells me that at least in the first wave, all that was required of the wives of prospective ordinands was a letter of support---which of course could have been simply dictated by her husband. The annual retreat, which previously included wives, now does so only every other year (despite the fact that clergy must pay for their own travel, accommodation, and meals, so this is not a cost-cutting move on the part of the OCSP).
Since more general married Catholic priesthood is lately at least not being rejected outright, it's puzzling that so little attention is being given to the issue of clergy wives by the OCSP -- clearly there's no attempt to build up a store of good and bad experience. The issue is ignored, apparently, except when bad experiences force some reactive measure.
Again, I don't think Reese is an isolated case, and as I learn more, I'm increasingly disturbed at the level of inattention and amateurishness that's being displayed in Houston. There are going to be more scandals.
