On that score, I think that removing the bar of the statute of limitation and having an extremely low standard for "allegations" has created a "lawsuit industry" and is probably a due process problem.
FReepers are ordinarily against plaintiffs' lawyers ginning up doubtful litigation and suing for big bux . . . until they're not.
What if a priest is innocent, and his accuser is a nut or a fraud looking for a big payday? Where does he go to get his reputation back?
They were never arrested or charged?
And this is why? No evidence? No witnesses? No victims who have come forward to press charges?
And this is for incidents which allegedly happened decades ago, or even in a foreign country, Uganda? ?
And in a superabundance of caution, the Diocese nevertheless thought that the allegations were credible enough, that they were removed from ministry?
Which is to say, they have been sacked as priests and the Bishop is neither their employer nor their religious superior?
But now a group demands the bishop put their pictures on the Diocese website--- to what end?
If they haven't been charged with a crime, what do you say? "Without actionable evidence, we nevertheless urge the public at large to shun these men, not to allow them in your homes, schools, places of businesses, or churches?"
How do you justify publicly naming, shaming, defaming and posting pictures on the Internet individuals whose guilt has not been proven, and may never be proven??"
Did I miss something here?
That's what I want to know.