He still comes off as a rat who's after money. "In manera laici."
It appears that his bishop abandoned him. Although the accusation made was judged “credible,” he wasn't held liable in a civil trial, where the standard of proof is merely a preponderance of the evidence.
This means that the jury actually found that it was more likely that he was actually innocent of the offense than guilty.
I understand “protecting our children” at all, but does that include throwing priests who are probably INNOCENT to the wolves? If it does, then the bishops deserve no filial loyalty as they prove once again that they are not true shepherds but rather are hired hands who will throw their sheep to the wolves at first approach of said wolves.
Shouldn't the policy of the Church be to more or less automatically reinstate a priest to the clerical state, and provide former levels of support, upon an actual legal finding of likely INNOCENCE?
The entire “protect our children” policy process has only one goal - protect the bishops at the expense of the laity and the lower clergy.
As well, as I posted above, $450,000 won't go very far if what he's suing for is his loss of livelihood caused by the rodentish actions of his bishop.
sitetest