This editorial assumes – as the law does – that Fr Luke Seguna is innocent until proven otherwise. Therefore, it goes without saying that he has a right to be heard by the court and respond to the charges against him.
However, his case – in which he is charged with fraud, misappropriation and money laundering amounting to several hundred thousand euros – is very serious and uncovered issues that warrant discussion.
Firstly, the trial has exposed the level of trust – or lack thereof – in Church authorities. Fr Seguna held a position of authority in his local community. His parishioners said they trusted him implicitly. The donations were given to him in good faith to continue ministering to his flock.
The outcome of the trial will reveal whether this trust was misplaced. If this turns out to be the case, the Church would undoubtedly have a lot of bridge-building to do, even if the church authorities have so far acted correctly in their reaction to this potential serious case of abuse.
In a sermon, Archbishop Scicluna said: “We give ourselves to the people through God’s providence and in obedience, to be servants – not to be served, or worse, to abuse of the trust placed in us.”
Sadly, the popular level of trust in the Church is also, indirectly, being placed on trial. Several parishioners said they gave money directly to the priest because they did not trust the Church authorities. While the Church should always come under scrutiny, it is unfair to tarnish everyone with the same paintbrush. The Church still carries out sterling work among the most vulnerable.
Secondly, this case highlights the role of charismatic persons in the Church – particularly within traditional parishes. Fr Seguna’s parishioners were personally devoted to him. Moreover, during the trial it has become increasingly evident that he has also done considerable works of charity with a number of parishioners.
Far removed from the corridors of curial powers, these priests are the “foot soldiers” of the Church. They often have to deal with the trials of village festa politics and must carry the burden of those who knock on their door. Many priests do so at considerable personal cost.
They may have few intimate friends to speak of and are always ‘on duty’. While purposeful and satisfying, pastoral care can be a thankless, lonely, tiring and under-appreciated task.
It often requires the parish priests to wear multiple hats: counsellor, psychologist, doctor, therapist, financial adviser, lawyer and friend. This kind of authority also gives the holder a certain leverage over individuals and the community. Unchecked, charismatic authority – and the expectations people have of such persons – can be problematic.
This raises a third and perhaps untapped issue in this trial – that of mental health. Fr Seguna was evidently under considerable strain, not least because of personal health issues and the mental pressure this placed on him. Once again, this is an issue many priests face. Their job is becoming increasingly lonely as vocations decline and the number of priests assisting in a parish are either elderly or engaged in other work in the diocese.
In some cases, parish priests are on their own in their mission.
One hopes the trial brings about two outcomes. The first is justice and truth; this is the prerequisite for healing in any community.
The second is more compassion and understanding for one of the loneliest jobs in our communities – that of the parish priest.