I think people expect more from a long process and therefore give it more meaning than it has, regardless of the words used.
I do not understand why it would take more than a week for a bishop to determine whether an accusation is manifestly false, nor more than a month for a board to make the next determination about whether the accusation is credible (perhaps "believable" would be better language).
Getting to that stage in less than a month would be better for real victims and better for falsely accused priests, and it would make it clear to the public that the trial is just beginning.
> Initially, the bishop is only supposed to determine if the allegation is “manifestly false or frivolous” — that it doesn’t allege a person committing a crime in a place at a time that would be clearly impossible.
The two halves of this statement have opposite senses. Call the copy editor!
When a bishop jumps the gun and publishes on local and National media what he perceives as credible that priests reputation is impugned and those words cannot be taken back. When “ complaints” are given the same accusatory stance as real abuse it raises a real question of the seriousness of the “complaint”. Folks complain about everything including priests. The destruction of a God created human being lies in the proper balance.Trust me, I speak from experience. It is time this whole process is re-evaluated and the bishop should not be the sole,proprietor of the decisions nor should his hand picked review board.
I think people expect more from a long process and therefore give it more meaning than it has, regardless of the words used.
I do not understand why it would take more than a week for a bishop to determine whether an accusation is manifestly false, nor more than a month for a board to make the next determination about whether the accusation is credible (perhaps "believable" would be better language).
Getting to that stage in less than a month would be better for real victims and better for falsely accused priests, and it would make it clear to the public that the trial is just beginning.
> Initially, the bishop is only supposed to determine if the allegation is “manifestly false or frivolous” — that it doesn’t allege a person committing a crime in a place at a time that would be clearly impossible.
The two halves of this statement have opposite senses. Call the copy editor!
When a bishop jumps the gun and publishes on local and National media what he perceives as credible that priests reputation is impugned and those words cannot be taken back. When “ complaints” are given the same accusatory stance as real abuse it raises a real question of the seriousness of the “complaint”. Folks complain about everything including priests. The destruction of a God created human being lies in the proper balance.Trust me, I speak from experience. It is time this whole process is re-evaluated and the bishop should not be the sole,proprietor of the decisions nor should his hand picked review board.
I move to suspend Vos estis lux mundi and replace it with the Hobo Ethical code of 1889 forthwith and in perpetuity.