Hmmmmm

Judgement can follow such scandals around. There are two opposite poles of opinion in these debates, on the one hand the idea that one if liberal should not judge as much as possible, while the other pole apart urging some judgement that is severe, while in the middle somewhere civil judges do intervene and opine that any temporal crime of due gravity without legitimate excuse requires some temporal punishment as a sign to others in society of what not to employ one's time in, so that is the overall schema of these debates, ease of judgement vs severity of judgement. The midway course followed by many CoE judges if not most judges is a difficult path to tread in terms of punishment vs remedial care for the miscreant or mishapped individual caught between a rock and a hard place. Bad example though is often not far from the forefront of their minds, and many judges will seek to deter others from following such fatal courses of action. Learned bishops too must consider these roles of the judge, remedial therapy vs temporal punishment, for social sins and crimes in the public and objective order. So on the one hand a judge will try to tease out if there were any mitigating excuses or keyword factors in the offending deportment and also to determine what level of gravity was involved and whether full consent and full freedom were enjoyed in the act, in this case a negative act of not positively doing x or y or z. A curious case. We must abstain from judging this particular cause and recuse from the case, not just because it is an ecclesiastical one that the King might wish to reserve to himself, but also because ratione suspicionis, we esteem the reus and are friendly with the said bishop in question, or ratione amicitiae. Judges can at times recuse. As Lyndsay Graham has pointed out before at senatorial hearings.