Reader's View: Why don't priests get due process?
Is there a tendency on the part of the Catholic Diocese of Duluth to be swayed by lawsuits against it to make up for past mistakes? Did the list of priests credibly accused of abusing minors, released by Bishop Paul Sirba in 2013 (with many of th...
Is there a tendency on the part of the Catholic Diocese of Duluth to be swayed by lawsuits against it to make up for past mistakes? Did the list of priests credibly accused of abusing minors, released by Bishop Paul Sirba in 2013 (with many of the listed priests deceased and unable to defend themselves) contribute to the recent decision of the Duluth diocese to find Frs. William Graham and Roland Antus also "credibly accused?" Why did it seem take the impending trial against the accuser by Fr. Graham, for the diocese to step forward and render its opinion on him and Antus?
The secrecy of the church continues and affects those making accusations as well as the accused, who are not given the benefit of due process through our court systems (" Diocese names two Duluth priests as 'credibly accused' ," Aug. 6).
After 40 years of service to the church and its people, why is Fr. Graham not given the benefit of a trial where he can face the accuser and the charges? Why does Fr. Graham have to, in fact, defend himself and bring a suit against the single accuser to get what ordinary citizens get through our judicial system?
These are questions that come to mind. The church, in its apparent zeal to correct its past mistakes, is perpetuating secrecy within the church that only will continue to weaken the institution and do disservice to its followers.
Innocent until proven guilty. Why does that not seem to apply to priests?