A significant problem attending the zero-tolerance policy is that most accused priests have not actually been found “guilty” of abuse—even though that is the word usually invoked. Most often, a priest is found only to have had a “credible accusation” lodged against him. But “credibility” has no clear and distinct definition.

Sexual abuse perpetrated by Roman Catholic priests has been headline news for years. But even with so much press attention, there are many commonly accepted myths about this issue...Remarkably, quality evidence-based research and facts about the problem doesn't always receive attention.

The crimes of sexual abuse offend Our Lord, cause physical, psychological and spiritual damage to the victims and harm the community of the faithful. In order that these phenomena, in all their forms, never happen again, a continuous and profound conversion of hearts is needed, attested by concrete and effective actions that involve everyone in the Church...

Father Graf’s story illustrates the challenges facing priests who are falsely accused at a time when hundreds of true stories of horrific abuse dominate the news.

In the 20 years from 1960 to 1980, the previously normative standards regarding sexuality collapsed entirely...I aim to point out the effects of this situation on the formation of priests and on the lives of priests.

"On the basis of reading the report ... on the basis of examining other court documents and speaking with ... the attorney general’s office, my conclusion is that this second charge is in fact grossly misleading, irresponsible, inaccurate, and unjust."

Pat Svacina, a spokesman for the Fort Worth diocese: “Each bishop can define what’s credible is in his own terms. I think the definitions will be similar but they may differ in some ways.”

Credible simply means “not impossible”—that is, an incident could have possibly occurred. And many of the accusations ... are from decades ago ... no evidence can be brought forward one way or another because none exists either to verify or falsify an allegation.

American bishops, intimidated by the media and by advocacy groups—and under the advice of lawyers and PR flacks—have refused to convene a commission of theologians and canonists to review and revise their document . . . priests know bishops are not committed to protecting either their ministry or their good names.

. . . the Church’s current difficulties offer a God-given opportunity for the Charter to be finally junked and for a thoughtful new policy—creative, just and theologically-informed—to emerge which covers all clergy.

Why do cases proceed so slowly? Because with decades-old accusations, most often no evidence can come forward, to prove either the priest’s innocence or his guilt. The easy (but unconscionable) solution has been to leave the priest in limbo, hoping he will just go away.

Solid arguments can be advanced that a bishop’s publication of names of individuals, who are presumed innocent as a matter of law, is both extreme and outrageous, especially as it conflicts with every known employment practice in the United States.

One of the most significant problems facing priests today is that the standard for removing an accused priest from ministry is not “clear and convincing evidence,” or even a “preponderance of evidence,” but merely that an accusation is “credible”—the least reliable standard of assessment.

Some bishops have abandoned accused priests altogether and forced them to fund their defense on their own. Unless a priest has access to substantial funds (or a kindly pro bono attorney), he will be unrepresented by counsel and left to twist in the wind.

When the accusation is questionable and involves supposed boundary violation, grooming behavior, or consensual sexual behavior with an adult, the removal from ministry harms the good name of the priest. A more just approach is that given to other professionals who continue in their work while accusations are being evaluated.

Today, many priests who ardently insist on their innocence are removed from ministry because an allegation against them has been deemed “credible.” These priests have not been judged guilty by demonstrable or even by probable evidence.

“I’m not recommending every priest become an alcoholic,” Lundholm-Eades says. “But when someone goes to the bottom and works his way up again, my experience is he’s an extraordinary priest when he does. He gains compassion. He understands people and the human condition in a whole different way.” 

"Many popes and bishops throughout Church history have led less than exemplary lives. However, all of these less than shining episodes with their sordid perpetrators, sad and sinful as they were, have always led to purification."

A great sign of success for a priest is to be invited to join the Diocesan Curia, the bishop’s circle of collaborators in the administration of the diocese. In this elite environment there are few priests who are willing to oppose the bishop’s wishes for fear of falling out of favor.

“. . . a sworn declaration to the Los Angeles County Superior Court . . . attorney Donald Steier claimed, ‘One retired F.B.I. agent who worked with me to investigate many claims in the Clergy Cases told me, in his opinion, about ONE-Half of the claims made in the Clergy Cases were either entirely false [or] greatly exaggerated.’”