Guilty Until Proven Innocent?

[Abyssinia]

In 2002, the U.S. bishops’ groundbreaking “zero tolerance” policy for clerical perpetrators won broad support, but the new era of aggressive accountability has made it tough for accused priests that have been cleared of abuse charges and seek to return to parish work.

Fresh allegations of abuse and curial negligence, incomplete media coverage of new and historical cases, the difficulty of establishing guilt, the drumbeat of outrage from victims’ rights groups, and ongoing financial settlements have led the public, and some Church leaders, to question whether any priest linked to a “credible allegation” — whatever the outcome of subsequent investigations — should be allowed further access to children.

ncregister.com/daily-news/guilty-until-proven-innocent/

 

[Warrenton]

In 2002, the U.S. bishops’ groundbreaking “zero tolerance” policy for clerical perpetrators won broad support, but the new era of aggressive accountability has made it tough for accused priests that have been cleared of abuse charges and seek to return to parish work.

Sadly, this is probably reality for the “near long term” as some American politicians were fond of saying.

If the law suits continue, we could come to the point where the ability of the Church to function becomes seriously impaired.

Right now, settlements are in the tens of millions of dollars. Those settlements are high, much higher than the government usually permits itself to be sued for for similar infringements against civil rights.

But, they can still be paid by contributions of the faithful in dioceses with tens of thousands of people.

If those settlements reached into the 100s of millions, as an average, or even topped a billion, we’re done. No church buildings, no schools, no chalice, no nothing. As debtors, they won’t even let us have mass on a highway median strip.

The settlements would get that high, if formerly accused priests are re-accused and prosecuted (civilly or criminally) successfully.

Something has to give, and what is going to give is fair treatment for the falsely accused.

 

[Timothy17]

A trend demonstrable in secular society as well.

For example, in Ontario, there has been a lot of new legislation that seriously impairs anyone convicted of a criminal offense from getting employment, as the record is maintained and employers can find that out before hiring, and recent legislation means the employer may have to take a person’s colleagues aside and warn them if the person is suspected of having a history of violence. While at first this appears comforting and reassuring, justifiable for safety reasons, etc., it makes you seriously wonder what is the point of convicting people of crimes, sending them away to the big house, and then returning them to society if the time served is then followed up by a period where the convicts ability to get a job is seriously impaired. We seem unwilling to actually forgive people of past offenses on one hand, and further, make it difficult for them to start a normal, healthy, law-abiding life, of which working a regular job is usually an indication of.

Imagine being pulled aside by Human Resources and told your colleague or co-worker is believed to have violent tendencies and has a risk of outbursts. Would you ever be able to look at or talk to that person the same way as before ? Would you not feel compelled to ostricize the person ? Would this not, in effect, only increase the likelihood of this person having further or even increased social problems ?

I’m not one to hug a thug ; however, even this for me seems extreme. God forbid you are actually falsely convicted of something (rare as that might be) and forced to be reminded of it for the rest of your life. I tend to think such treatment might actually cause me to become anti-social or angry, and for reasons quite just.

Pax Christi,
Tim

 

[Warrenton]

I’m not one to hug a thug ; however, even this for me seems extreme. God forbid you are actually falsely convicted of something (rare as that might be) and forced to be reminded of it for the rest of your life. I tend to think such treatment might actually cause me to become anti-social or angry, and for reasons quite just.
Pax Christi,
Tim

I agree with you. I think it was Chesterton, writing about the imposition of what we would now call probation, who said that just as the king has the right to punish the criminal, so the criminal has the right to serve his sentence. After that, in most cases, the slate should be clear between the king and the criminal.