"Personally I do not think it is right that anyone can be named on any charge before guilt has been established." mauvepink

I fully agree. Several years ago in Juneau a local priest was named by a 34-year-old man as having molested him when he was a boy. The priest denied it. The young man had a history of mental problems.

However, the story was carried on Page 1 in the local paper for several days, along with the priest's photo and his diocesan history. Ultimately, the paper said - several times - that the priest had been dismissed from the priesthood; the priest, however, said he had requested release. It never went to trial; eventually, the local Bishop wrote this:

"On behalf of the Catholic Diocese of Juneau, Alaska, I hereby certify that XXX XXX, formerly a priest of this Diocese, has never been found guilty in any ecclesiastical process to have committed any sexual assault upon XXX XXX. Mr. XXX alleged that (the priest) had committed such assaults on many occasions between 1979 and 1982, but (the priest) responded by producing documentary evidence of unquestioned authenticity and authority that directly contradicted important details of Mr. XXXX's allegations. I then determined, in accordance with canon law, and upon the advice of the Diocesan Review Board for the Protection of Children and Young People, that the truth of these allegations was insufficiently probable for me to submit them to the Holy See."


I have no idea as to the truth of it. I do know, however, that that priest's reputation has been ruined for the rest of his life. I called the editor of the paper and we had quite a long talk, I insisting that no names should be made public unless and until the person has been charged and arrested. The editor insisted that the people "had a right to know", finally conceding it was a "gray area".