Teacher loses license for having sex with students

[Dale_M]

So? The standard dioceses are held to is the presence of a ‘credible accusation.’ If the subsequent investigation fails to produce prosecution-worthy evidence, but is less than total exonneration the diocese is held liable if that priest is ever later found guilty for abuse because they ‘transferred him.’

How is that not a double standard?

I admit that I haven’t followed the sex abuse scandal very closely. You seem to be saying that even if the police investigation turns up insufficient evidence of a crime, a diocese would later be held accountable for transferring a priest if new evidence were to become available.

That seems to be a surprising and unjust standard. Again, I haven’t been following the sex abuse scandal closely. Could you provide a couple examples of diocese which have been held accountable to such a remarkable degree?

 

[manualman]

I’m out for the day, but might get to it tomorrow. Google works 24/7. The standard set for the church where they pull a priest and ruin his name forever is “credible accusation.” You’ll find it in most any newspaper account.

In fairness, it should be noted that there were far too many cases of deliberate cover-up by rogue priests and even bishops. But cases where internal investigations found lack of significant evidence have been treated similarly as “cover-ups” since dioceses in previous eras did not wish to have mere accusations ruin priests names forever as any public police investigation WILL do. They’ve had to re-examine that policy because of too many poor calls or abusers covering for each other.