[markomalley]

If a priest is accused, he’s guilty. No need for a trial, just lynch him and get it done with.

If a priest isn’t accused, he hasn’t gotten caught yet. But that doesn’t mean he’s any less guilty.

(Sadly, that is the way it is perceived by many)

[Salvation]

**If a priest is accused, he’s guilty.**

That is exactly what happened in one of the three cases I know of.

Three attorneys attended the trial in Portland — and there were dates to verify when this priest worked for a state institution.

On one — he wasn’t even there yet.

On another — he had already gotten another assignment

On the third accuser — it was another priest who took the youth to view a site when his sister had supposedly drowned.

One of the jurors talked with the attorneys afterward, and the juror’s words from what was spoken in the deliberation room: “He’s a Catholic priest; now let’s prove that he’s guilty.”

[boatbums]

Then why doesn't the Catholic Church do a better job of defending innocent priests against false claims? It seems like they just gave up and settled rather than go through a long trial where serious dirt could get publicized. That quickness to settle is one of the MAIN reasons why fraudulent claims get filed - it looks like an easy way to get money. Don't just give up so quickly - it only shows weakness and admits guilt.