Yes, but that is a separate issue from the allegations of abuse against Clay - Fr. Hawkins was told by Clay's (at the time, active) bishop that he was cleared.
Dear gbcdoj,
I didn't say otherwise, gbcdoj.
But I imagine that one purpose of the requirement to request faculties of the bishop is so that the bishop is aware of the priests functioning in his dioceses. And so that the bishop can check on priests who come from other dioceses. I know that this has abysmally failed in the past to prevent molestor priests, with cover from their bishops, from roaming the countryside like lions to murder and devour souls, but I think that's the way it is supposed to work.
Regardless of whether Fr. Clay had any accusations against him or not, by not giving notice to the bishop, the bishop was unable to perform his oversight function, to perform due diligence.
If Fr. Clay was or is a molestor, how would the bishop have been able to prevent Fr. Clay from doing harm in his diocese, not even having been given any notice of his presence?
I bring this up in part because in my archdiocese, at least, we laypeople have been subjected to the most harsh scrutiny by the archdiocese in the execution of the child-protection policies. Yet, here we have a priest circumventing the role of the bishop to ensure that the PRIESTS, TOO, are not molestors.
And it was molestor PRIESTS and enabling, covering-up BISHOPS at the heart of the problem, not layfolks.
sitetest