"The law is [that] all are presumed innocent until proven guilty. The practical situation, though, is that when someone brings forward an allegation and they appear credible, the effective presumption changes to, 'Why would the person lie?' So the priest is almost in a situation in which he has to prove his innocence, which is difficult." Flummerfelt said.

There must be a willingness to exclude anyone who does not fulfill objective criteria of maturity, self-possession, self-control, self-discipline and goodwill toward all others; A "pastoral heart" full of good intentions is not enough; there must be a demonstrated capacity to behave in every circumstance as a good pastor and to function as a mature, psychosexually healthy person.

A Catholic archbishop has seemingly proposed laicizing priests whose guilt has not been decisively established. The archbishop may be motivated by economic interests. Priests who have been removed from ministry remain, canonically, the responsibility of their dioceses. Every priest already knows he can be removed from ministry on the basis of a mere phone call claiming that some incident occurred decades ago.

The diocese’s decision to add him to the credibly accused list was based on a flawed process that invited fraud as former St. Michael’s boys filed claims of abuse with the [diocesan] compensation program, Kelly said. “I was not given the opportunity to defend myself, and no adequate investigation of these claims was made." The only claims against him, he said, have come from former court-assigned boys who were committed to St. Michael’s.

“Despite inconsistencies and lack of investigation, the (diocese) claimed that the witness’s statements were credible,” according to the suit. The suit, filed by attorney Elizabeth Bernard, alleges the statements were published “with reckless disregard of whether they were false or not.”

Never settle any case out of court for a variety of reasons, not least that while a pastoral plea demands a pastoral response, a legal challenge demands a legal response. Moreover, when a financial settlement is made, that more than suggests guilt, thus damaging irreparably an innocent priest’s reputation. Regrettably, most bishops listened, instead, to diocesan attorneys and insurance companies.

The legislature of the Australian state of Queensland on Tuesday passed a law requiring priests to violate the seal of confession to report known or suspected child sex abuse. Failure to do so will be punished with three years in prison.

“When the archdiocese placed his name on a list of priests who were credibly accused of sexual criminal misconduct, they in effect convicted him without the benefit of a trial, without the benefit of him being able to present evidence, without him being able to confront and cross-examine witnesses against him, and in effect, he’s been convicted without a trial,” Father's lawyer said.

A priest has filed a defamation suit against a chancery Monsignor, charging that the Monsignor knowingly filed a false sex-abuse claim. The suspended priest has already won a defamation suit against a police officer who made the same charge.

It is not surprising that this test case involves the due process rights of priests. They have been under attack for years. Unfairly maligned in the courts, and the court of public opinion (often manipulated by a hostile media), priests everywhere are being subjected to criticism that exceeds the bounds of rationality.

“This is a wake-up call for the county and Archdiocese,” the defamed priest's attorney said. “You had an independent, neutral body reviewing all of the evidence.”

“We have reached a new level of creative jurisprudence when a court can invoke a jury decision as the new clock determining when the limitations period starts to run. At issue here is the separation of powers between the legislature and the judiciary, not exactly a small issue.”

"We are all sinners. Priests who suffer from crises, who do not know what to do, who are in the dark ... Today all of you, brother priests, are with me on the altar ... Do not be afraid to forgive. Sometimes there are doubts ... Look at Christ [look at the Crucifix]. There is everyone's forgiveness."

When he walked out of court a free man, he was asked by the media how he felt. He famously quipped, “Which office do I go to get my reputation back?” The same question is being asked by falsely accused priests.

“I really consider every single person, including our priests who may have abused people, as part of our family that I'm responsible to take care of in some way ... As far as that man on the cross, there's not a person that I know that he didn't die for.” Bishop Scharfenberger

Fact: The Catholic Church is the only institution on the planet where if you are an employee merely accused of wrongdoing from decades ago, your name may end up on a diocesan web site somewhere for the entire world to see as if you were a convicted child molester. Think about that.

Clergy are required to report abuse heard in confession or face up to three years in prison. Laws requiring clergy in Victoria [Australia] to report child abuse to authorities – even if it is revealed under the seal of confession – will come into effect today.

As late as last year, bishops had to admit that the definition of “credible” was, in fact, not precisely defined at all; it might mean simply that “something could have happened.” In the wake of such a “credible” accusation, in swift succession, the priest must leave his residence immediately, is prohibited from wearing clerical garb, and is barred from public ministry.

"When civil law establishes an obligation to report on the part of someone informed about the facts," Dalla Torre said, "the reduction of the pontifical secret and the detail on the limits of the ‘office secret’ permit a ready fulfillment of the requirements of the law, thereby favoring full collaboration with civil authorities and preventing illegitimate incursions of the civil authority into the canonical sphere."

“The abusive clergy were in many ways adolescents themselves, and most of their offenses consisted of fumbling efforts at intimacy” . . . provided of course that the privacy of victims is protected . . . If we allow disgust to keep us from hearing such stories, we are protecting no one but ourselves.