I understand (almost) that the archdiocese may have initially believed that the charges were “credible.” This is similar to the idea of there being probably cause to bring a criminal charge.
But the priest denied the charges, and won in civil court, where the plaintiff must merely demonstrate that it is more likely than not that the defendant was, indeed, liable for the cited offense.
That means that the jury actually believed it was more likely that the priest was innocent than guilty.
If the archdiocese had some direct evidence that would have changed the findings of the jury, the archdiocese should have - in fact, would have been legally obligated, to bring that evidence to light.
This is similar to the Zimmerman case, where folks don't want to accept the results of the judicial system, where folks reject the decision of a jury.
Catholic dioceses are ill-equipped to investigate charges like this beyond the most basic question - is it possible this charge might be true? That's all they ask now before turning these cases over to the authorities. That's all they should have done in the past. It's quite clear that a large part of the crimes committed by Catholic bishops in the past was that they tried to handle these investigations internally, and these investigations got wrapped up in all sorts of issues not related to actually seeking the truth or falsity of the allegations.
The Church only claims competence in spiritual matters and matters of doctrine, and faith and morals. The Church has no special competence in secular investigations or prosecutions. She should generally defer to those bodies that do have special competence in these matters.
Before making absolute judgments about this case specifically, I'd want to know a lot more about it.
But on the face of it, the priest's suit is reasonable. On the face of it, it appears that the priest was largely legally vindicated. If that is what he can demonstrate in a lawsuit, then it is hard to argue that the Church should not have reinstated him and provided him with a position similar to that which he lost when he was apparently wrongfully accused.
sitetest
The Church may know he did it. He might have confessed to it.
Not admissible in court, but at that point the Church cannot give him his job back.
“Before making absolute judgments about this case specifically, I’d want to know a lot more about it.”
You’re quite right. There surely are other ways of handling the situation other than just a boot out the door.