In representing a priest before a review board, consider the following suggestions and approach.

        1.      Express Gratitude.

        Thank the board for the opportunity to address it and/or to submit a memorandum on the priest’s behalf.  Thank the members for their careful consideration of this matter and their commitment to justice.

        2.      Remind Members of Their Duty.

Emphasize the importance of the board’s work.  Remind members that:
 

1. 1. The Ordinary is bound under canon law to decide how to proceed considering the accusation that has been made;

1. 2. He has entrusted them with the important work of evaluating the information that has been gathered and giving him a recommendation, of which he must give due consideration under canon law;

1. 3. The fate of the priest’s vocation—his service to God and to his people—is at stake;

1. 4. Everyone in this process—the Ordinary, the investigator, you, and each of them—is performing a supremely important act; one day we will be called to give an account before God, the Supreme Judge of us all, as to how we discharged our respective duties;

1. 5. As they evaluate what has been brought before them in that light, they must be focused squarely and solely on justice—not what others may say, not what the media may say, not what lawyers may say—only what God will say.  

         3.      Remind Members of Priest’s Rights.

        Remind member of the priest’s rights, especially the presumption of innocence.

4.      Remind Members of Existing Limitations.

        Remind members of the limitations of the preliminary investigation.  Emphasize the following:

a.       The limited time frame within which the investigation was performed;

b.      That the priest has no right at this stage to subpoena records, compel depositions, or otherwise undertake a robust investigation to defend his good name;

c.       The burden of proof and the limitations of the use of the word "credible;" the standard is "semblance of truth," but what would you want that to mean if you were in the defendant's position?

         Consider analogizing to the grand jury process: The investigator, like a prosecutor, is empowered to go out and collect information, including from those who have a duty of obedience to the Ordinary.  But the priest, like a defendant, has no such power. The review board, like a grand jury, safeguards against unfounded and malicious accusations of wrongdoing. Grand juries generally operate within a clearly defined legal framework; review boards generally do not.

         Remind members not to put special stock in the investigator simply because of past credentials or even expertise.  An investigator does not perform the same task as an impartial review board.  Otherwise, why bother having them?

         5.      Consider the Complainant.

         Challenging the complaint’s allegations requires great tact and diplomacy.  But members will be considering those allegations with this presumption in mind:  "Why would the accuser come forward if there were no basis in fact?"

         In response, point out the many reasons why an accusation might be false or even mistaken:

         (a)     Mistaken identity or memory;

         (b)     Jealousy;

         (c)     Fear;

         (d)     Revenge;

         (e)     Mental instability;

         (f)      Ulterior motives (such as protecting immigration status);

         (g)     Financial incentive.

         Consider drawing from good Biblical stories, such as Joseph and Potiphar's wife in of Genesis, or Susanna in Daniel, and other classic literary references, such Mayella Ewell in To Kill A Mockingbird or Rebecca Nurse in The Crucible (to name just a few).

Click here for a PDF version of the Guidelines