Accusation, says the archdiocese, is “credible, meaning it has a ‘semblance of truth.'” A mere semblance? Do most people understand “credible” that way?
Then this, #14 on list of 20 requirements, per Pope Francis?
The right to defense: the principle of natural and canon law of presumption of innocence must also be safeguarded until the guilt of the accused is proven.
Therefore, it is necessary to prevent the lists of the accused being published, even by the dioceses, before the preliminary investigation and the definitive condemnation.
He man is 70, has been a thorn in the side of authorities (as a seminarian decades ago), takes a stand that post-Vatican 2 people often find annoying in the extreme.
I am reminded of the Chicago case of a year or so ago, in which Cardinal Cupich peremptorily removed a highly successful traditionalist priest before a judgment had been made by a panel convened in accord with Cupich’s wishes and banished him from the archdiocese after the panel found no cause to punish or penalize the priest.
Sloppy, to say the least, coming from a prelate who exudes efficiency from every pore. The priest was Fr. Frank Phillips, of course, pastor of St. John Cantius parish.
Fulton Sheen’s cardinal in New York, Francis Spellman, persecuted him (and Sheen never complained). Archbishops do that sometimes, do they not?