[sinkspur]

After reading the stories and responses presented here, it seems that Fr. Clay has been accused, investigated, was not found guilty of anything, and was restored to full clerical privileges.

But, nothing official was ever forwarded to the chancellor or bishop of the diocese where Clay was serving.

Had this been pursued through the proper channels, and if Clay is truly innocent, there would be no embarrassment of Clay, or Hawkins, or disruption of St. Mary's parish.

Hawkins was clearly out of line.

[SoothingDave]

Are you saying all unproven allegations, which result in no punishment, should follow a priest around forever?

SD

[RonF]

All apparently true enough (I say apparently because I am not familiar with RCC procedures regarding movements and assignments of priests). But I was tasking the person I was responding to about their calling this priest "criminal". The civil authorities apparently investigated Fr. Clay and didn't charge him, so describing Fr. Clay as "criminal" is inaccurate and borders on deliberately deceptive.

[johnb2004]

Very true. Why did Hawkins not get permission from his bishop, first? That seems strange. Is it not necessary to get the bishop's approval before any diocesan priest can start providing sacraments in a given diocese?